"...the religiously stranded..."

I will admit that the article containing the phrase in the title above isn't quite as stupid as it first seems.  "Finding a home for the religiously stranded: Marmur" does contain a few decent points. None are new or particularly insightful but worth reviewing on occasion. However,  they do not come any where near compensating for the boat load of stupid that is in the piece. There are far too many logical falicies and general lapses in reason to cover. I will, instead, point out some of the foolish implications of the title that are carried through the body of the article.

As I have pointed out in previous posts over the years I have come to believe two things about most theists. 1. Most theists do not ever bother to think through wher their professed beliefs lead logically; and/or 2. Most theists don't truly believe most of what they claime to (other behaviors and beliefs are too contradictory). The phrase "religiously stranded" seems to be just another example of this. How can you possibly be "stranded" from a belief or set of beliefs? It makes no sense on the surface of it. After think more about the type of beliefs being talked about it becomes even more absurd. Most of the individuals alluded to not only believe in God they seem to believe in the more abstract version of the God concept. If God truly is the perfect and all powerful divine entity they claim how is it even remotely possible to be separated. God would literally be the source of everything and simultaneously present in all things. Even considering being "stranded" would be a contradictions of terms.

Silly nonsensical crap is laced throughout the implications and applications of this phrasing. There is no logical or reasonable way to use "religiously stranded" without revealing numerous philosophical and intellectual shortcomings of any and all religious concepts associated with it.

Ending the year with more faux-atheism

So in the past few weeks there have been more tales of "atheists" converting to Christianity. Like in the overwhelming majority of such instances, they are full of shit. The brief Christianity Today piece on Charlie Mackesy is so loaded with red flags its amazing that anyone would fall for such tripe. I'll stick with the two of the more blatant bits of nonsense. Mackesy talks about two separate and quite distinct incidences that he claims "turned away from atheism and embraced Christ." Given that he only converted from atheism to Christianity once how can both stories be the turning point that brought him to Jesus? Yet, that is how he tells both stories. This is, of course, without even looking at how foolish the details of each story happen to be. The other problem with his loss of "atheism" stem from his lack of understanding of either atheism or theism. He seems to confuse his misunderstanding with what religion is in general versus specific organized religions with an actual lack of religious beliefs. He talks about why he didn't want to be Christian prior to his supposed conversion. There's not only no reason to believe he lacked any religious belief, there are plenty of reasons to assume he held a variety of them that he simply didn't want labeled in any way. Basically, he fell for, in part, the false dichotomy of religious versus spiritual. He assumed he was an "atheist" since he didn't identify with a specific organized faith.

Then there's the professional bullshitter, Mark Bauerlein. Given his role at First Things and that rags track record of highly misleading and/or outright fabrications there is no reason to trust anything the man claims. It is also notable that though prior to his supposed conversion there is plenty of writing by which he could have been labeled either liberal or libertarian there is absolutely nothing to indicate he was an atheist. The only sources that can be found on this conversion is Mark himself. And, again, given his inclination to push various ideologically driven narratives with little support it is far safer to assume he has made it up. Unlike Mackesy, he does not seem to be confused about the terminology involved or the underlying meaning(s) of each term. He is just a deceitful prick looking to push a story that advances his own current interests. 

"...don't have enough faith to..."

There's a "statement" that a certain subset of theists seem to adore and you've probably heard it from a few notable pundits as well. "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" is such an idiotic thing to say or write. I've never fully understand what this is even suppose to accomplish beyond making it's proponent look like a complete moron. It never seems to cross their mind that the expression is a blatant contradiction. If you have even a little faith then by definition you can't be an atheist. I have heard a few dumb-asses try to justify this drivel by claiming that those who use this mean faith in the sense of trust. Of course, these inane apologists never bother looking at the statement in the context it was expressed. I have yet to come across an example where the individual(s) did not clearly use "faith" in a religious sense.

Basically, if you see or hear this sentence from someone it is safe to assume they are idiots. They don't have a clue what atheism actually is or what the fuck they are talking about. Just to make sure there can be no confusion about this conclusion:

"A" is the Latin prefix for none or without
"Theism" is a religious belief system
"A" + "Theism" = atheism or a lack of any religious based beliefs

Not only is there no faith required, it is required that there be no faith to meet the definition.

Salkin does it again

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. 

Did Francis just denounce the Catholic Church?

I find it rather interesting that Religious News Service ran thes two pieces simultaneously: "Pope Francis denounces growing 'demonization of enemies and outsiders'" and "Because of the U.S. bishops’ voters guide, I may leave the church." The latter being just another of many instances where the Catholic Church does smear and lie about any individuals or groups it doesn't like. Though, it has been years since I routinely attended church I have been to plenty of masses and religious based gatherings, Catholic or otherwise, over the years. And, yes as an atheist I have attended a variety religious rites, rituals, ceremonies.... I have often heard phrases like "faithless", "unfaithful", "without faith", and so forth. It was clear that the priests meant atheists and in some instances non-Christian or even non-Catholic. In every instance, what followed those words and phrases was derogatory and degrading. They went out of their way to use their pulpit to demonize.

So, until Francis actually backs up his rhetoric with something of substance I have to assume he is either very deceitful or incredibly self-deluded. If he isn't just using another PR ploy he needs to wake the fuck up and deal with the fact that his Church is involved in the demonization that he claims to oppose.