Jeffrey Salkin just can't seem to help himself. Everyone and anything he likes even a little bit he magically converts to Judaism. His latest installment of delusional wishful projection is "Thanksgiving is a Jewish Holiday." The premise, like previous Salkin "conversions", is incredibly flimsy. According to the tippler of Martini Judaism:
"Franklin wanted the Great Seal of the United States to feature a scene of Moses standing at the shores of the Red Sea, and the waters preparing to devour Pharaoh and his armies."
An immediate red flag is that he offers no citation what so ever. Having a background in history I am aware of a wide range of arguments our founding fathers had but never came across this one. I assume he either made this one up or got it from an equally credulous fool. Even if the story had merit it still doesn't make the idea "Jewish." All his arguments stem from this type of nonsense. He conflates specific Jewish rites and rituals with a variety of rather universal concepts. He also never seems to note that there is plenty of reason to believe that a wide variety of the stories and pracices of early Judaism were borrowed from the religions that preceded it or were contemporaneous to it. Is Salkin really really Assyro-Babylonian, Egyptian, Zoroastrian, Scythian....?
Basically, by Salkin's very feeble standards everything is _______ (fill in your favored bias). You can make any claim you want about anything since the only real measure is your own preferences and ability to shovel bullshit.
Showing posts with label Projection. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Projection. Show all posts
Sunday, November 27, 2016
Sunday, June 26, 2016
Hypocrite be thy name
And the hits just keep coming from Pope Francis. A June 20th Religious News Service post titled "Pope Francis to Catholics: 'Who are you to judge others?'" is a classic case of projection as any I've come across to date. Just three days before he was quoted passing judgement on a huge chunk of the world's population. Among other media outlets NBC news ran a piece on his public pronouncement about modern marriages. "Most modern marriages are invalid, Pope says in off-the-cuff remarks" makes it pretty clear that he was not just referring to Catholic marriages. He was making judgments about all marriages.
So, not only is this pompous self righteous prick being a hypocrite he is claiming knowledge about matters he has no real experience or understanding. What the fuck would this dumb ass actually know about intimate romantic relationships? And, he seems to think its okay to meddle in the lives of those who have not chosen to join his bullshit infused criminally complicit club. I genuinely do not understand how Cathiolics can continue to accept this asshole as an authority on anything. Non-Catholics affording him any respect is really confusing. He has yet to earn any of the good will and accolades that continue to be gifted to him.
So, not only is this pompous self righteous prick being a hypocrite he is claiming knowledge about matters he has no real experience or understanding. What the fuck would this dumb ass actually know about intimate romantic relationships? And, he seems to think its okay to meddle in the lives of those who have not chosen to join his bullshit infused criminally complicit club. I genuinely do not understand how Cathiolics can continue to accept this asshole as an authority on anything. Non-Catholics affording him any respect is really confusing. He has yet to earn any of the good will and accolades that continue to be gifted to him.
Sunday, August 31, 2014
Duh, of course
The title question of one of Jonathan Merritt's most recent posts is so blatantly stupid I wasn't sure wether to bother commenting on it. In the end it was too ripe for ridicule to resist. "Have Americans made God in their image?" is yet another example of how willfully ignorant Merritt continues to be. Even the theists in fields like sociology, anthropology, and psychology have long since conceded that to some degree the cultural traits of a given society shape that society's views of God(s). Even when they are unwilling to admit that God is entirely a construction the admit that a great deal of projection goes into the concept. it also isn't a recently reached consensus. This understanding was establish before Merritt was even born.
I do understand that for Merritt the topic came up largely due to his interest in interviewing Matt Turner about his latest book that has this aspect of God as it's subject. He still selected Turner. He also does little to probe the author in any meaningful way. The interview doesn't come close to any new or even vaguely interesting insights. It seems designed more to make both men feel good about themselves. It is mostly unearned self-adulation. This topic has been written about repeatedly and in many instances with far greater depth.
If anyone is interested in the "American God" Froese and Bader's America's Four Gods is a much better choice. It is well researched and researched. It provides more insight and depth into this area theological study.
I do understand that for Merritt the topic came up largely due to his interest in interviewing Matt Turner about his latest book that has this aspect of God as it's subject. He still selected Turner. He also does little to probe the author in any meaningful way. The interview doesn't come close to any new or even vaguely interesting insights. It seems designed more to make both men feel good about themselves. It is mostly unearned self-adulation. This topic has been written about repeatedly and in many instances with far greater depth.
If anyone is interested in the "American God" Froese and Bader's America's Four Gods is a much better choice. It is well researched and researched. It provides more insight and depth into this area theological study.
Friday, December 21, 2012
Grim Momentary Fantasy
I would never actually wish such a thing to happen but I still can't resist briefly daydreaming about putting assholes like Bryan Fisher in the middle of shooting range and then challenging them to pray away the bullets.
"Bryan Fischer: God Did Not Protect Connecticut Shooting Victims Because Prayer Banned In Schools"
Shit like this really pisses me off. I find it hard to believe it is a coincidence that the overwhelming majority of psychos who go on killing sprees are NOT atheists. Religion not only does not prevent violence and/or murder, it is frequently used to justify, condone, or encourage it.
"Bryan Fischer: God Did Not Protect Connecticut Shooting Victims Because Prayer Banned In Schools"
Shit like this really pisses me off. I find it hard to believe it is a coincidence that the overwhelming majority of psychos who go on killing sprees are NOT atheists. Religion not only does not prevent violence and/or murder, it is frequently used to justify, condone, or encourage it.
Friday, June 29, 2012
Atheists Don't Lack Humility, Imagination, or Curiosity
Even though I agree with Rabbi Yoffie that the likelihood of religion disappearing completely is highly unlikely most of his criticism of Nigel Barber's recent HuffPo piece range from disingenuous to outright moronic. His short but ignorant laden attempt at rebutting Barber does more to demonstrate his own short coming than the author in question. The title of Yoffie's piece kicks off a cascade of double standards and dubious accusations. "What Atheism Lacks: Humility, Imagination, Curiosity" would be more honestly titled if he replaced the three words after the colon with "Silence." I did not find anything that would indicate Yoffie actually paid attention to Barber's piece as a whole. I seriously doubt it would have made the slightest difference if Barber supplied limitless pieces of evidence. He does, by the way, support his assertions. Yoffie, not do much.
One of the rabbi's objections, "Mr. Barber professes to offer proof for his thesis, most of it drawn from his own writings..." This would be legitimate if those writings were not themselves supported. Apparently, he does not realize that when you are among the few conducting original research in a specific area of social science you, by nature, end up being a primary source of citations. Barber does not cite himself alone. If he read through Yoffie might have noticed that Barber does cite others in his short HuffPo piece, which is rather rare among the regular writers on the site (Yoffie certainly doesn't). This is also a bit of a double standard. Where does Yoffie get his authority as a Rabbi? Studying scripture, perhaps. What is that based on? What research have religious authorities conducted on the "truth" of their faith? Religion is self referencing and its original sources are based on quite literally nothing.
Yoffie goes on to demonstrate his own lack of humility and imagination when he asks, "how do these atheism-obsessed individuals measure holiness? How do they distinguish the holy in life from the ordinary and the profane" I'm not sure how he reaches the conclusion that atheists are automatically obsessed for thinking about religion while theists are not. Even setting that aside, his questions are bogus. The terms he uses are expressly religious. It doesn't take much effort to see that an atheist is not likely to think in those terms. Holiness is meaningless. If he is asking what amazes us or fills us with wonder that would be a legitimate question. The fact that he intentionally words it the way he does without ever considering it is inherently biased seems to indicate a level of arrogance and/or a failure of imagination on his own part.
He then has the nerve to "marvel at how limited Mr. Barber's intellectual horizons are." Are you kidding!? Yoffie never indicates that he has made any effort to read or fact check Barber's writing. Skimming through the brief HuffPo piece, which is meant to bring attention to externally published works, does not count. He also never mentions having looked into the few other researchers working in the same area. Barber cites Phil Zuckerman among a few others. Yoffie would do well to read Zuckerman's works since they are not only well researched but also written with the average person in mind. I doubt he'll bother. Where's the rabbi's intellectual curiosity?
As he approaches the end of his critique the level of hypocritical self-deluded bullshit increases. The last few paragraphs are loaded with the likes of, "even if the language of faith is not our language, it may be the language of others. Thoughtful liberals are almost always curious; knowing that different people recognize different truths....there are still substantial pockets of otherwise distinguished scholars who fail to understand religion and, more importantly, fail to acknowledge their own lack of understanding." I fail to see any examples of Yoffie recognizing an atheist point of view being legitimate in any way. His use of expressly religious terms and ideas actually is in direct contradiction of this point. He also provides no examples or proof of these scholars misunderstanding religion. I think it is more likely that he wants to believe, has to believe, such scholars are mistaken. The thought that a group of highly intelligent people who are skilled researchers reaching negative (from Yoffie's perspective) conclusions about religion seems to be too much for the rabbi to accept.
As I implied at the beginning, I doubt it is the way Barber writers or even the details that really bother Yoffie and like-minded critics. That an atheist speaks or writes at all is what they object to. Simply projecting their own shortcoming onto us does not excuse their own blatant flaws. It certainly does not loan andy credence to their baseless accusations and criticisms. Being human, we atheist are flawed and fallible, but thiests never seem to be able to mount any legitimate critiques. Maybe if they actually paid attention to what we write and say they'd pick up a few. We certainly don't pull punches when criticizing each other.
One of the rabbi's objections, "Mr. Barber professes to offer proof for his thesis, most of it drawn from his own writings..." This would be legitimate if those writings were not themselves supported. Apparently, he does not realize that when you are among the few conducting original research in a specific area of social science you, by nature, end up being a primary source of citations. Barber does not cite himself alone. If he read through Yoffie might have noticed that Barber does cite others in his short HuffPo piece, which is rather rare among the regular writers on the site (Yoffie certainly doesn't). This is also a bit of a double standard. Where does Yoffie get his authority as a Rabbi? Studying scripture, perhaps. What is that based on? What research have religious authorities conducted on the "truth" of their faith? Religion is self referencing and its original sources are based on quite literally nothing.
Yoffie goes on to demonstrate his own lack of humility and imagination when he asks, "how do these atheism-obsessed individuals measure holiness? How do they distinguish the holy in life from the ordinary and the profane" I'm not sure how he reaches the conclusion that atheists are automatically obsessed for thinking about religion while theists are not. Even setting that aside, his questions are bogus. The terms he uses are expressly religious. It doesn't take much effort to see that an atheist is not likely to think in those terms. Holiness is meaningless. If he is asking what amazes us or fills us with wonder that would be a legitimate question. The fact that he intentionally words it the way he does without ever considering it is inherently biased seems to indicate a level of arrogance and/or a failure of imagination on his own part.
He then has the nerve to "marvel at how limited Mr. Barber's intellectual horizons are." Are you kidding!? Yoffie never indicates that he has made any effort to read or fact check Barber's writing. Skimming through the brief HuffPo piece, which is meant to bring attention to externally published works, does not count. He also never mentions having looked into the few other researchers working in the same area. Barber cites Phil Zuckerman among a few others. Yoffie would do well to read Zuckerman's works since they are not only well researched but also written with the average person in mind. I doubt he'll bother. Where's the rabbi's intellectual curiosity?
As he approaches the end of his critique the level of hypocritical self-deluded bullshit increases. The last few paragraphs are loaded with the likes of, "even if the language of faith is not our language, it may be the language of others. Thoughtful liberals are almost always curious; knowing that different people recognize different truths....there are still substantial pockets of otherwise distinguished scholars who fail to understand religion and, more importantly, fail to acknowledge their own lack of understanding." I fail to see any examples of Yoffie recognizing an atheist point of view being legitimate in any way. His use of expressly religious terms and ideas actually is in direct contradiction of this point. He also provides no examples or proof of these scholars misunderstanding religion. I think it is more likely that he wants to believe, has to believe, such scholars are mistaken. The thought that a group of highly intelligent people who are skilled researchers reaching negative (from Yoffie's perspective) conclusions about religion seems to be too much for the rabbi to accept.
As I implied at the beginning, I doubt it is the way Barber writers or even the details that really bother Yoffie and like-minded critics. That an atheist speaks or writes at all is what they object to. Simply projecting their own shortcoming onto us does not excuse their own blatant flaws. It certainly does not loan andy credence to their baseless accusations and criticisms. Being human, we atheist are flawed and fallible, but thiests never seem to be able to mount any legitimate critiques. Maybe if they actually paid attention to what we write and say they'd pick up a few. We certainly don't pull punches when criticizing each other.
Saturday, June 9, 2012
What "God" Wants
It never ceases to amaze me how often theists talk about what God wants or doesn't want. This is both amusing and useful. For me it demonstrates how truly ignorant theists tend to be about their own beliefs. If you accept the basic definition of God as, "The supreme being, perfect and all-powerful," then the whole notion of God wanting anything is preposterous. Think about it. If you want something, anything, what does that really mean. There are only two options. Either you lack something or you do not have enough of something. Otherwise you would not want it. If God is everything and the source of everything what can God possibly lack? Nothing! Quite literally, God cannot "want" anything.
Basically when people like J.E. Dyer* write pieces along the lines of "Does God Want America to Fail?" what they are really writing about is what they believe, or think they believe. Stop hiding behind your imaginary friend and just say what you think. Make your decisions and have the courage and decency to admit that it is your decision. And, please, stop and think before you start spouting off about "what God wants." Even if it were remotely possible for the "Supreme being" to want, which it isn't, how the fuck would a finite being have a clue what that is?
"God wants" is simply an expression of the innate contradictions and fallacies contained in the God concept itself along with the self-serving projections of the theists who use the phrase.
*Dyer's piece on Patheos is just a current relevant example. I do not intend to single him out. There are far too many who have written similar pieces to list or note.
Basically when people like J.E. Dyer* write pieces along the lines of "Does God Want America to Fail?" what they are really writing about is what they believe, or think they believe. Stop hiding behind your imaginary friend and just say what you think. Make your decisions and have the courage and decency to admit that it is your decision. And, please, stop and think before you start spouting off about "what God wants." Even if it were remotely possible for the "Supreme being" to want, which it isn't, how the fuck would a finite being have a clue what that is?
"God wants" is simply an expression of the innate contradictions and fallacies contained in the God concept itself along with the self-serving projections of the theists who use the phrase.
*Dyer's piece on Patheos is just a current relevant example. I do not intend to single him out. There are far too many who have written similar pieces to list or note.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)