Conflation. That's why

Simon Davis asks "Why do many ‘nones’ believe in life after death?" In his July 15th Religious News Service blog post. He makes it clear from the start that not only does he not have any sense of who the "none" label encompass or how to apply critical thinking or fact checking. The "nones" actually do include believers. The label is short hand for all those who do not have a specific affiliation with organized religion. It does not mean that the individual(s) in question are actually atheist. Davis also doesn't seem to understand that even though many religious concepts and beliefs relate to one another they are separate ideas. It is possible for a theist to accept one supernatural belief while rejecting another. In fact, theists are quite good at doing just that. He also seems to be stuck on the idea that the "God" concept is completely universal and self-contained. There are multiple versions of God. Not everyone is talking about the same thing when they use that term. It is not unusual to find someone claiming they do not believe in God when in fact they do. They don't accept a specific version of God and insist their preferred version is really something else altogether. Buddhists are a good example. Orthodox Buddhism does not believe in a personal God but if you examine Buddhist doctrines, especially those related to Nirvana and Karma, you can easily argue that they accept a more abstract version of divinity.

Basically, Davis' piece is just a rambling of myths, stereotypes, willful ignorance and all manner of logical fallacies cobbled together. It is interesting to read since he does pull some factual tidbits. It's also fascinating to see how one person can produce such a short piece that is so disjointed. At times he does seem to realize some of the problems with his own thinking.

Huh? Wish for what?

Yup, atheists can lack critical thinking skills just like everyone else. Martin Hughes does a pretty good job demonstrating this in his post "Atheist Confessions: I wish there was a Heaven." It is so chock full of sloppy thinking and idiotic crap that I had to reread it a few times to make sure I didn't miss some sign that he meant it as a spoof. Nope. It really is just melodramatic drivel. He starts off with a rather ignorant premise; "Heaven" has a universally accepted definition/description. After that it gets much worse. It is such a jumbled mess of conflations, wishful thinking, myths and stereotypes, that is hard to unravel into individual points.

Full of himself and full of shit

I'll start by stating up front I know nothing about William Giraldi beyond what he has written about himself in his July/August (2015) New Republic piece "Confessions of a Catholic Novelist." With that said I have to say my impression of him is rather low. He seems to be very self-obsessed and very ignorant of a topic you would assume he at least knows a little bit about.

He starts off from the very first line being hyperbolic and arrogant.
"It’s not altogether easy being a Catholic, and it’s immeasurably harder being a novelist, so you might imagine the myriad conundrums of being both." I can't say I was all that interested in imagining what he wants since the very first thing to pop into my head was a fairly basic question: in comparison to what? What makes being a Catholic any more difficult than abiding by other belief systems? What makes being a writer an especially difficult profession? Giraldi never successfully answers either of these. What he does succeed in doing is exposing his poor understanding of literary criticism and study.

Virtually every example he gives fails completely. Almost every author he writes about either went out of their way to make more of their Catholicism than any one else every did or they are authors who have been so thoroughly studied that no aspect of their life and times has not been examined. Their religion being just one more piece of that review. If this was the only flaw in his piece it wouldn't be worth bothering with but he goes even further in various places. He creates a false impression and then tries passing it off as factual.

Another line that irked me quite a bit was his patently false statement:
"More to the point, you won’t find a novel by Malamud or Roth or Bellow subtitled “The Adventures of a Bad Jew,” and even if you did, you wouldn’t have to prep yourself to be preached at (revisit Roth’s story “The Conversion of the Jews” to see for yourself)."
Bullshit. You can find literary pieces with that type of title. For instance after roughly a minute to two minutes perusing Google I found a review of a contemporary play entitled "Bad Jews." As for content, Catholics are not the only ones to produce either self-deprecatory works or preachy screeds. Just knowing an author's religious preferences doesn't immediately lead me to assume anything about their writing. That it clearly does bias Giraldi is no reason for him to project that onto anyone else. Yet, he does without a second thought.

There isn't anything in Giraldi's piece that can't be easily refuted and attributed to a lack of intellectual honesty. There's nothing automatically wrong with having strong opinions or even slipping into a woe-is-me self important stance but if that's all you've got why bother?

"Do You Believe"

I believe that there is a subset of Christians who should be grateful they can even manage to walk and talk at the same time. Christian films do tend to be incredibly ridiculous. Even though I have not yet seen the movie Do You Believe I have come across a number of reviews that leads me to assume it will be no better than some of the Christian themed films I've seen in the past. For instance, one of the reviews that was relatively sympathetic to the film reveals some rather blatant propagandistic falsehoods innate to the script.

According to Newsday's Rafer Guzman:

"It develops when an EMT, Bobby (Liam Matthews), tends to a man half-crushed in a worksite accident. Bobby checks the man's religious affiliation -- "I don't know," he answers -- then presses a wooden crucifix into his hand and encourages him to accept Jesus as his savior (he does, before dying). Not surprisingly, this lands Bobby in hot water, and soon he feels pressured to apologize for his faith.
It's a dilemma meaty enough to sustain an entire film -- but not this one, which isn't interested in digging deeply into issues. Instead, Bobby becomes the victim of rampant secularism."

Did you catch that? The EMT comes across a severely wounded man and the first thing he does is try to convert him. Calling this guy out for being incompetent and lacking any semblance of professional ethics gets distorted into his being persecuted. Last I knew his first and only job would be to do whatever he could to save the guys life not act like a preacher. From what I can tell before getting around to seeing it myself, the film is essentially just a series of logical fallacies and emotional ploys strung together.

For a more entertaining review of the film I'd recommend the Scathing Atheists' take on it.
http://scathingatheist.libsyn.com/scathingatheist-110-do-you-believe-edition

Psalmist Lecrae

I won't pretend to know much about Lecrae's music but I don't really need to. Claudia May's Patheos piece "Lecrae: A Modern-Day Psalmist Voices the Messiness of Humanity Through Hip-Hop" is as much about him as an individual as it is about his music. I have seen interviews with Lecrae and based on his own presentation of himself I can say I am not impressed. I am pretty sure that by "psalmist" May does not mean self-righteous deceitful hypocritical asshole. If she did I'd have to completely agree with her since he is a self-deluded pompous ass. I have previously pointed out why I have such a low opinion of Lecrae.

My prior critique can be found here:
"Lecrae: neither humble nor honest" (October 19, 2014)

"Angry Atheist" Debunked

The myth of the angry atheist has been pretty thoroughly dismantle on numerous occasions by a variety of other so this shouldn't come as much of a surprise. However, I thought it worth posting since "The Myth of the Angry Atheist" is one of the first studies of its kind to be published. Brian P. Meier (Gettysburg College), Adam Fetterman (North Dakota State University), Michael D. Robinson
(North Dakota State University,Main Campus), and Courtney M. Lappas (Lebanon Valley College) do an excellent job systematically taking apart this ridiculous bigoted stereotype.

Torching another strawman

Louise Ridley's "Does Religion Really Cause War - And Do Atheists Have Something To Answer For?" is yet another example of how theists find the need to distort a common atheist criticism in order to attack it. Ridley seems to think that claiming religion is the primary or sole cause of war is "the most common comeback from atheists to people of faith." Given that I am an atheist and I frequently read the works of other atheists as well as listen to/and or watch podcasts, interviews, documentaries, etc., that are about or by atheists you might think I'd have come across this "common comeback" quite often. I haven't. That is in fact not the argument/point that gets made. Religion is very often a cause of war or used as a justification for war. It also is frequently used to promote or rally support for a war already underway. Those are the points I'm familiar with and they are well founded.

Ridley never seems to notice that one of the quotes she uses to try to tar and feather Richard Dawkins with this bogus claim actually refutes her premise. She points out that he has stated that in the absence of religion's influence there would be "a much better chance of no more war." Notice it is not the definitive statement the strawman requires. Claiming there is a "better chance" is not that same as stating that religion is absolutely the one and only cause of all wars. It is far from the same thing.

Ridley also tries to make it sound like she has ample evidence to disprove the connection between religion and war. She draws nearly all her information from a single report, "Five Key Questions Answered on the Link between Peace and Religion?", of the Institute for Economics and Peace. The report is loaded with bias and methodological issues. One problem is that the report itself assumes a number of myths and stereotypes about atheists and about the perceived connection between religion and war. Even upon an initial reading it is hard to miss the authors favorable bias toward religion. They want to find a way to claim that religion is not only not violent but that it is essential to promoting peace. Even if all the finding were sound, which they are not, it still does not provide the type of evidence Ridley thinks it does. At best it would refute the claim she thinks atheists commonly make about religion's role in war. But, as I've already pointed out, that is a false argument.

Later in the piece she does at least get a few things correct. She does concede that the Communist leaders who committed various atrocities, though atheists, did not do so in the name of atheism. I will give her credit for not falling pray to that all too common fallacy that many theists seem to enjoy throwing around. Overall the piece was interesting but a bit irritating.

....not unless you are very ignorant

"These converts challenge everything you know about religion" is the opening title of a piece that is incredibly ignorant and stupid. It plays into the basest fears and misconceptions that so many use to harass and denigrate others. The authors, or at least the re-posters, seem to realize this since the title you see once you click on the story changes. The actual title, though an improvement, "Where Do The Converted Find Their Fervour? The Different 'Selling Points' Of Faiths", is only slightly better. The contents are as skewed as the the banner found on the main page of Huffington Post's Religion section.

The very first paragraph sets the tone and never wavers from massive doses of idiocy and bigotry.
"Picture a typical religious convert and you are likely to conjure up a zealous American-style preacher, or the ginger-bearded jihadi fronting recruitment videos for Islamic State in Syria. The phrase 'the fervour of the converted' is common parlance, giving the impression that converts are attracted to extreme aspects of faith."

I have known many individuals from acquaintances to family and friends who have converted from one faith to another, sometimes more than once, and none of them have ever turned out to be zealots or jihadis. It never would have occurred to me to automatically connect "convert" with extremists of any stripe. Why would I? Why would anyone?

It's funny how many theists insists that atheists are bigoted and ignorant when they come up with nonsensical shit like this with such regularity.

Lecrae: neither humble nor honest

The Blaze's "The Simple Question This Famed Christian Rapper Has for Atheists Like Richard Dawkins" is a rather laughable attempt to pass off a blatantly propagandist puff piece as an actual news story. Both the author of the written part and the interviewer in the embedded video all but stick their tongues up Lecrae Moore's self-righteous ass. And, he is quite self-righteous.

The pretense that he is sincere, humble, and honest is ludicrous. He constantly contradicts his own supposed message/points. He doesn't actually want to ask questions or interact with atheists at all. He wants to insist on his own views while denigrating and belittling others. In fact, he does look down on atheists and does view the world in an us-vs-them mentality despite claiming the opposite. Throughout the video he speaks in a manner that is dismissive and confrontational. His claim to having been an atheist is just as disingenuous as the rest of his act. Lacking interest in religion and having a lack of morals is not part of the basic definition of an atheist.

Any one with a functioning brain should be able to see through this pathetic charade.

Yoffie Vs The Strawmen

Over the years I have gotten the impression that Rabbi Yoffie is a nice guy who means well but really has no grasp on anything resembling critical thinking skills. He also comes across as somewhat complacent and lazy when it comes to many of the topics he chooses to write about for Huffington Post. His recent piece, "The Three Mistakes Atheists Make", is another example of his shoddy bias laden tripe. His "three mistakes" are a mixture of logical fallacies with little to no substance.

According to Yoffie these three are:
"1. They dismiss, often with contempt, the religious experience of other people.
2. They assert that since there are no valid religions but that religions do good things, the task of smart people is to create a religion without God -- or, in other words, a religion without religion.
3. They see the world of belief in black and white, either/or terms."

Even setting aside the vast sweeping generalizations that can be compared to equally stupid stereotypes like; "greedy jews" and "violent/criminal black", his three don't stand up to even the slightest examination. Even if every atheist automatically dismissed, contemptuously or not, so what? He destroys his own point without ever realizing it. For instance according to him, "Such arguments are legitimate, but they tell us nothing about the way that much of humankind experiences God...." Why does he single out this type of experience? People take hallucinogens and then claim all sorts of profound "insights". Are those automatically legitimate? Can't those be viewed as worthwhile "experiences". Most atheists I'm familiar with are unconcerned with such personal experiences so long as they are not used to influence public policies that will then effect everyone.

His second point is even more debatable and is far more nuanced than he allows. We don't all agree that religion in and of itself does good things. As I have commented on previously, most of the positive elements and effects are not innate to religion. Rather, the benefits are a side-effect of close social interaction. We certainly don't agree on approaches to dealing with religion when they encroach on social or political aspects of our society. I can only think of a few who seem interested in recreating religion without God. Idiots like Alain deBotton have been soundly refuted by numerous other atheists for just such an approach.

In point of fact, it is Eric Yoffie who sees things in black and white. There are very few atheists that use only a single argument let alone a single variation/approach to just one argument. This insistence is more of a reflection on theists like Yoffie then on atheists. Yoffie and others like him routinely fail to actually pay attention to the arguments and counter-arguments that are used by atheists. He seems to misunderstand and/or misrepresent what we say and write then turns around using such ignorance-laced crap to try to criticize us. These "three mistakes" are in fact not ours but his and his fellow travelers.

And, the answer is...Superficial

That's right the answer to the (sort of ) question "What the Pope’s popularity says about American culture" is the superficial nature of many Americans' understanding of theology. As I have commented before, the only real difference between the current Pope and the past few is a matter of style not of substance. Fawning over the current Pope doesn't really seem to be the main point of this recent post by Jonathan Merritt.

Like many of Merritt's post the piece is really just another opportunity to spread all sorts of deceitful and malicious bullshit. He repeats and promotes a variety of myths, stereotypes, and smears about nonbelievers.
Merritt's disingenuous post includes some of the most common misconceptions and misrepresentations. He provides a platform for such whoppers as the "anti-Christian bias in American news media" and that "Hollywood is rabidly anti-Christian." Conveniently he uses what others have said on such things as a cover for his own endorsement for these two idiotic tropes. Since it is still safe to outright attack atheists he doesn't bother to veil his hostility when directly commenting on us.

An excellent example comes towards the end of the post.
"Some secularists and atheists, of course, despise Christians just for being Christians. But the Richard Dawkins brand of adversary is the outlier and the exception."
Umm, no. Dawkins has family and friends who happen to be Christian. Dawkins, like many of us, has repeatedly pointed out that it is Christianity not Christians that is the topic of debate and criticism. Respecting individuals does not mean the ideas those individuals hold deserve to be respected. Ideas are not people. It is sad that intellectually dishonest twerps like Merritt so often get away with this type of sleight-of-hand trickery.

Ryan Bell has a long way to go

Though I still applaud Ryan Bell's interest in learning more about atheists, he really does have a long way to go to rid himself of a wide array of myths and stereotypes. His June 10th post, "Atheists’ favorite Bible verses", makes that pretty clear. Among others, he seems to have fallen for the straw-man criticism that all atheists insist that religion is 100% evil and that nothing positive can be found in scripture. That is completely wrong and a gross mischaracterization. I am very critical of scripture. Even casually skimming through the archive of this blog should make that clear but if you actually read and pay attention it should also be clear that I have not said it isn't possible to draw positive conclusions from a limited number of passages. I happen to think there is far more heinous crap in scripture (the Bible especially) than there is positive. That still is not the same thing. I have also written rather positive pieces about the Tao Te Ching and a few theologically inspired literary works (like The Conference of the Birds).

As a side note, I still really wish he would change the name of his blog. "Year Without God" is so blatantly false that it does diminish his credibility a little. He is not an atheist. He is not going a year without god anymore than he is going a year without oxygen. He is a believer who has decided to spend a year learning more about atheism.

And, though I do not have any "favorites" there are Biblical passages I do like. For instance one of the passages frequently used in Christian wedding ceremonies, 1 Corinthians 13:4-8, is quite beautiful in its wording and meaning. I'd point out that nothing is pure anything. Scripture is not 100% evil. Perhaps 90%.

Sometimes Advice Columnists Fabricate

I occasionally read the Religious News Service based Christian advice columnist Martin Elfert. He has always come across as a friendly well intentioned, if rather ignorant, guy. A recent column made me question his sincerity for the first time. The title of his Father Knows Best best post, "Can I regain my faith after becoming an atheist?", seemed a little odd but not completely dubious. It is not unheard for individuals to mistakenly identify themselves as atheist when the are in fact believers who don't have a specific religious affiliation (the bogus Spiritual vs Religious). However, the content itself implied that this instance went beyond such common misunderstandings.

The opening call for advice reads:

"Hey Rev!

I have been practicing science for a very long time and over the years have become an incorrigible atheist. I simply cannot let go of my deep-seated need for evidence, and to employ the best logic and reasoning skills I can muster, regardless of the circumstance. Certainly, I understand that I do not, or cannot, know or understand everything but that never keeps me from trying. Do you think I could ever regain faith and, if so, how?"

There were a number of red flags that went up as I read this initial part. I'm not sure why an atheist would refer to themselves as incorrigible. It implies bad behavior rather than doubts about your own beliefs. Most atheists I've come across are very familiar with the old bullshit view that atheists can't be ethical or moral just because they are atheists. This one term seems to be a gentler way to inject that bit of prejudice. It also seems odd to me that someone so concerned with evidence and critical thinking would worry about faith at all. Why would someone "practicing science" seek the advice of a theologian rather than another scholar with evidence based knowledge of religion, like a subset of psychology, anthropology, or sociology?

I find this person's claim to be an atheist very suspicious and way to convenient. Elfert's advice is also not that great. He never even bothers to ask about why the "atheist" is so concerned or how he came to be an atheist. His advice is just as likely to cause further confusion as resolve any doubts. Of course, this assumes that doubts are a bad thing from the start. That's highly debatable. Then the premise of his advice about regaining faith,"practice", can be interpreted by "the best logic and reasoning skills" as being a matter of self deceit and delusion. Is that really a solution?

Is that "hope" I just stepped in?

Call me crazy but I don't find the whiny petty ramblings of an ignorant self-righteous asshole to be a good example of hope. Reverend Richard L. Shaw could let an atheist express their views on personal beliefs without going on the offensive. It doesn't matter that all his assertions are completely unsupported. Not once does he actually explain how "Christianity promises hope; atheism has empty message" is any thing other than a pathetic rehashed bout of mudslinging. It really is just a series of schoolyard style taunts.

Just because an atheist had the nerve to write in a newspaper that they find positive messages/purpose within their own beliefs the good reverend found the need to pen such ridiculous complaints as; "Thinking it a virtue that atheists don’t leave copies of Madalyn Murray O’Hair’s book in hotel and motel rooms, and that atheists don’t proselytize door to door, actually underscores the emptiness of that position. Of course they don’t!"
Or, maybe we don't find the need to peddle our views door-to-door or otherwise hound people when they want to be left alone. Not finding the need to get in peoples faces when it isn't necessary does not say anything about a persons beliefs/belief system. Oh, wait, it does. It says we are not the rude arrogant assholes that some theists like to project.

Shaw keeps going in the same direction with other little gems including;
"Whoever was saved from a contemplated suicide by reading O’Hair’s book, or was freed from a life of addiction, or whose marriage was rescued from failure, or at last found a life of meaning and purpose after wandering in ennui for years?"
and
"It’s not surprising that atheists don’t proselytize — or leave empty books for others to read. That itself speaks volumes for an inane philosophy, compared to the irrefutable proof for Christianity."

Umm, I wasn't aware that implied anecdotes were so easily converted into proof? This dipshit can't even take the time to jot down a few specific anecdotes. Perhaps deep down he realizes that he is full of crap. he certainly wouldn't be able to explain why suicide rates are far higher among theists than non-theists or why it is that atheists and the "nones" have the lowest rates of domestic abuse and divorce. I haven't met any atheists who lack meaning or purpose. Not yet anyway. As for Christianity being irrefutable, I pretty sure there are little over 5 billion people who would dispute that claim. You know, all those non-Christians currently drawing breath all over the world.

All of this spewed nonsense because an atheist wanted to share their views the same way countless theists do on a regular basis. What a fucking dick.

3 for 3, Superficially

Geoffrey Mitelman's huffpo piece "3 Major Stumbling Blocks in the Science and Religion Debate" does identify some legitimate points. He just does it in a half-assed manner. The three stumbling blocks are definitely issues but not to the degree or reasons he seems to think.

His three are; 1. We create a false dichotomy, 2. Offense makes people play defense, and 3. Strawman arguments.

On 1, it is true that the debate between science and religion is a false dichotomy but not because individuals can reconcile them in their own minds. I've commented on this aspect before. It is a false dichotomy for two reasons. People are usually talking about different things when they argue with each other about science and/or religion. Until those arguing come to a common set of definitions there can be no discussion or debate at all. The notion of a "dichotomy" is irrelevant until those involved can actually talk about the topics at hand. The other problem is the implication that the two are somehow on equal footing. They are not. Even if theists think religion is more important than science their own behaviors and manner of argument belie such a stance. Try going about your day to day life without the benefit of science. Strip away all the technological advances we rely on and never even think about making use of any medical treatment/remedies. You can't do it! You can, however, easily go about your life without any aspect of religion. Despite what people claim, they do rely on, for example, gravity working. Do they rely on prayer?

His second point is warped in some rather telling ways. Mitelman focuses on how atheists offend theists. It never seems to occur to him that this is a blatant double standard. He also fails to account for the highly subjective nature of "offense." It should also be pointed out that whether the intention is to offend another is an important element. Not to Mitelman. His own primary example makes it clear that he is not as interested in open honest discussion as he says he is. It presents the "Reason Rally" in a rather negative way. He disregards that it was for a specific set of individuals and groups. The "quote" he uses is not attributed and is actually a phrase ("mock [you], ridicule [you], in public, with contempt.") not a complete sentence. Who said it? To whom? What is the subject? What was the context? There is nothing in it but what Mitelman himself implies about it. I agree that intentionally going out of your way to offend others is pointless and stupid. That does not mean we should be concerned that others are offend as a result of legitimate criticism, discussion, or debate.

Mitelman's last point is probably the best but once again he doesn't apply what he states to his own thinking. For instance, "On the other side, religion is much more varied and nuanced than 'follow the rules handed down by an invisible Father Figure in the sky.'" This is a strawman. He seems to think that the atheists who mock believers with the silly notion of a sky daddy actually believe that all theist think of God solely in that manner. They don't. Notice he again leaves out any attribution. I am certain that if he named an individual or group I could find ample evidence that they have criticized religion in a variety of ways that go beyond that one quip. 

Despite bringing up some legitimate points the piece fails miserably. I got the distinct impression that it was written more to justify his own self-righteousness than for any other purpose.

Stedman almost gets it

"Does Louis C.K. understand atheism?" No, he clearly does not. Chris Stedman, for a change, has some valid points in this piece. Too bad he presents them in a rather wishy-washy half-assed manner. According to Stedman "...Louis C.K. holds some messy and complicated views—as evidenced by some of his statements about atheism." If by that he means that "Louie" is self-deluded and full of shit I'd have to agree whole heartedly.

Stedman offers only mild critiques of such blatant garbage as:
"Something I’ve learned over the years is that when you talk about religion, you want to talk to religious people. Even if you’re talking about something that’s contrary religiously or provocative, a religious audience is a better audience for that. If you talk to a bunch of cool atheists in leather and suede, you know, sucking on their vape sticks or whatever they’re doing, they’re not going to get it because they don’t even think about God. It’s not even on their radar, you know? But if you tell religious people, 'I don’t know if there’s a God, I don’t think there’s a heaven, where’s God’s ex-wife,' these things, they have a connection to it that means something."

Wow! So loaded with the steamy stuff that you'd think this assholes brain was literally made of excrement. I have met in person or otherwise interacted with a decent number of atheists and I can't think of any I could describes as "a bunch of cool atheists in leather and suede, you know, sucking on their vape stick." Hs he actually met any other atheists? Does he think cartoon characters are real? I also have to wonder how he knows what others are thinking? This jack-ass doesn't seem to get that unbelief does not automatically translate into disinterest.

If belief were a prerequisite for interest "Louie" wouldn't have a career. For that matter, there would be no fictional stories at all. Try to imagine the state of the arts if this were actually the way things worked. I find that rather disturbing. It is also odd that he takes this approach since it somewhat contradicts his own statements. He is an atheist. However, he doesn't think he is since he is not certain about God's existence or nonexistence. First, certainty has little to do with whether you are an atheist or not. If you don't believe that you are an atheist. Also, why is he commenting on it at all. By his own standards he should keep quiet.

Stedman seems to give far too much credit when he mischaracterizes some of these comments by writing "I appreciate C.K.’s call for intellectual humility." Umm, no. Promoting fallacies and stereotypes is not an example of "intellectual humility." It is a clear indication of an individual's ignorance and/or bias.

I appreciate C.K.’s call for intellectual humility - See more at: http://chrisstedman.religionnews.com/2014/05/20/louis-c-k-understand-atheism/#sthash.6Exolq8P.dpuf

I appreciate C.K.’s call for intellectual humility - See more at: http://chrisstedman.religionnews.com/2014/05/20/louis-c-k-understand-atheism/#sthash.6Exolq8P.dpuf

I appreciate C.K.’s call for intellectual humility

Not so "Ballsy"

Prior to reading CNN Belief blog's "The next chapter in faith films: comedy" I had seen a handful of ads for "Mom's Night Out." It looked pretty lame and a bit annoying. As far as I can tell it relied entirely on outdated stereotypes and slapstick. In other words, there was nothing notable about it. Now that I know it is a "Christian" comedy I am slightly, only slightly, more curious. I still assume it will be mediocre at best but I am interested in seeing what those involved in the project seem to think makes it different from other comedies of its type. I doubt very much. Sean Astin's comment that it's "ballsy" for aiming at "middle-class Christian families" as a demographic is revealing. That demographic is basically the average American. It isn't ballsy so much as it is common practice. The majority of Americans are Christian. The majority of movies are aimed at them and will be so long as the average American still pays to see films.

In this type of context labeling anything "Christian" seems rather silly and self-righteous. Why bother? You can't get enough people to take your bullshit seriously in its proper setting so you have to resort to various ploys? That's certainly what it seems like to me.

Note: I probably won't bother seeing this in the theatre. I doubt it's worth the admission. I haven't decided if the curiosity factor outweighs my initial impressions. I also can't stand Patricia Heaton. I have seen a number of interviews with her and she isn't a particularly good actress. The "characters" I've seen her play aren't that far removed from who she really seems to be: a whiny self-absorbed sanctimonious arrogant bitch.

"Experience" Certainly is Subjective

"My long experience with many student atheists -- faculty atheists too -- has taught me that the roots of atheism are often found in primitive, narrow views of the Divine picked up in preteen years." That is how Stafford Betty opens the third paragraph of his "A God for Atheists" February 28thth piece on Huffington Post. It is possible that he has met and interacted with more atheists than I have but I have little reason to doubt that his "experience" is very superficial. My own experience as an atheist and with other atheists clearly indicates that Mr. Betty is either really bad at paying attention, prone to gross exaggerations, or is completely full of shit.

I have come across very few atheists who don't understand that when people talk about God they are not all necessarily talk about quite the same thing. The God concept is not nearly as monolithic as theists often think it is. I admit I have met many non-theists who's initial objections/skepticism is focused on the scripture based version of the God concept. However, very few get stuck on that one narrow view. It is also interesting to note that even those theists who claim to believe in a more sophisticated abstract version of God frequently mix in traits from the "primitive" version.

Basically, Mr. Betty hasn't got a clue what he's talking about. All he really seems to be doing is maintaining yet another myth/stereotype about atheists.  Whether this is out of simple ignorance or something more intentional I cannot tell from the piece. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume his intentions are meant to be positive but am unwilling to let such blatant bullshit go without the criticism it deserves.

More "Spiritual" not "Religious" BS

I have pointed out previously that "spiritual" and "religious" are not necessarily synonyms but that they are inter-related to the point that they can be used in very similar ways. In effect if you are one then you are the other as well. Usually what is actually meant by those who say they are "spiritual but not religious" is that they do not belong to and/or identify with a specific organized religion. Generally, I am in favor of theists going the "spiritual" route if they find religion necessary. I do not, however, accept it as an excuse to further promote myths and stereotypes.

A recent post by Linda Mercadante on CNN's Belief Blog repeats a number willfully ignorant views. Unfortunately, her ignorance around two terms in particular are rather common. She has no clue what she is talking about when she refers to "scientism" or "secularism."  Scientism is a rather bogus term that is analogous to "social Darwinism." Like social social Darwinism, scientism has no real connection to the term it is supposedly predicated on. Scientism is a refutation of science not an off-shoot of it. Science is in essence a tool and a self-correcting process. Scientism is a rigid ideology held by those who lack even a basic understanding of science. Mercadante may be right in insisting that the "SBNRs" oppose "scientism." but that doesn't necessarily mean much since they have no clue what they are talking about. In many instances, scientism has been used by a sub-set of theists to attack science. It is the straw man fallacy writ large; convenient bullshit.

The author also seem to misunderstand/misrepresent secularism. For instance she states:
"They are tired of being confined by systems and structures. They are tired of having their unique identities reduced to bureaucratic codes. They are tired of having their spiritual natures squelched or denied."
What?! That's what secularism is designed to prevent. Secularism allows individuals and groups to freely believe whatever they want without others interfering with those beliefs. Secularism seeks to keep government and religion apart so that there is no coercion or infringement on people's beliefs. If the "SBNRs" are opposing secularism then they are defeating themselves. It is the absence of secularism that allows larger and/or more powerful religious groups to harass and coerce others. It is also the lack of secularism that allows government or other non-religious affiliated groups to dictate to theists what they can or cannot believe.

From start to finish "Good news about the ‘spiritual but not religious’" is laced with all sorts of ridiculous nonsense. Most of Mercadante's bullshit seem to stem from her complete lack of understanding. It is almost as if she took a slew of terms and their defintion along with various myths and stereotypes and threw them into a spin-art. Reading it was both amusing and painful.

Deceitful Self-Righteous Assholes on Facebook

Anyone with a functional brain should have long ago figured out that Facebook is not well suited for anything resembling in-depth conversations. It is good for quick simple exchanges. Hopefully, when serious topics are introduced such exchanges can lead to further discussion and thought elsewhere. Some individuals not only don't seem to understand that they seem to thrive on it for the purposes of harassment and disinformation.

A "letter to the editor" piece in Harlingen,Texas' Valley Morning Star seems to illustrate this type of use pretty well. An asshole named Matthew Schoonover made some rather biased ignorant comments and then got all pissy when others called him out on it. I honestly don't care that much about what he said. You can throw around whatever malicious lies you want. What irritates me is when dip-shits like Schoonover get ridiculed for their stupidity then turn around and whine about it.

Apparently he posted that old canard, "If God doesn’t exist, then everything is OK and there is no such thing as evil." After getting criticised for it he then wrote "Clarifying a Facebook comment" for the Valley Morning Star. It is nothing but a series of half-assed excuses, bullshit, and, interestingly, further attacks on atheists.

In his short screed the most revealing paragraph is probably the third one.
"What surprised me was that atheists seemed to take offense at this. They were outraged that I’d say they don’t know right from wrong (I didn’t), or that they weren’t moral (I hadn’t — yet). It was here I pointed out the difference between morals and ethics. Morals deal with God and sin; ethics deal with society and taboos. For them to claim morals would be stealing from the religious camp. The two terms are not synonymous. Things can be legal and still be immoral, and vice versa — think Rosa Parks in the front of the bus. It didn’t seem to help."

Though it is true he did not directly accuse atheist of being immoral he certainly implies it rather strongly. Of course, a moron like Schoonover wouldn't register the importance of such a distinction. He is self-deluded and self-righteous to the point that even the most basic definition of terms cease to exist. Notice how he defines moral? I, out of curiosity, tried to find a basic definition for moral that included God or religion. I couldn't find one. There were no such references in the Penguin English Dictionary, Webster's, Oxford's, or Chambers 21st Century.

The Chambers 21st Century Dictionary was probably the most comprehensive and a good summary of the other three as well.
"Moral
adjective
1. belonging or relating to the principles of good and evil, or right and wrong.
2. conforming to what is considered by society to be good, right or proper; ethical.
3. adhering to or based on conscience or a knowledge of what is right a moral obligation.
4. having a psychological rather than a practical effect moral support.
5. considered in terms of psychological effect, rather than outward appearance a moral victory.
6. said of a person: capable of distinguishing between right and wrong.
7. supported by reason or probability, though not provable a moral certainty.
noun
1. a principle or practical lesson that can be learned from a story or event.
2. (morals) a sense of right and wrong, or a standard of behaviour based on this, especially in relation to sexual conduct loose morals.
Derivative
morally adverb.
[14c: from Latin moralis, from mores, plural of mos a custom.]"

Basically, he got called out for being a dumb-ass piece of shit and couldn't handle it. If you can't deal with criticism you shouldn't start messing with others.