"Trust a witness in all matters in which neither his self-interest, his passions, his prejudices, nor the love of the marvelous is strongly concerned. When they are involved, require corroborative evidence in exact proportion to the contravention of probability by the thing testified."
Thomas Henry Huxley
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Myth + Myth = History on HuffPo
Despite the bullshit title, "Synagogue In Mary Magdalene's Hometown Offers Clues About Judeo-Christian Worship", roughly half of the this HuuffPo piece is legitimate. It talks about an archeological site that could reveal some interesting and insightful finds related to 1st Century CE. The other half is basically pandering drivel. Not only is there no evidence at this site that can be associated with either the Jesus figure or the Mary Magdalene figure there is no such evidence anywhere else. They talk about them as if they are well established historical figures. It is also a bit irritating that they throw in a bunch of links pretending that it gives the piece more authority. If they actually went to something of substance that might help their case but links like the one attached to "an exact death date of April 3, 33 A.D." simply go to other HuffPo produced nonsense.
Had Bennett-Smith stuck to the actual details of the dig the piece would have been pretty interesting and worth reading. Throwing in so much speculation about figures that only exist in scripture transfer what could have been a piece about history into a campy childish tale on religious myth and fantasy.
Had Bennett-Smith stuck to the actual details of the dig the piece would have been pretty interesting and worth reading. Throwing in so much speculation about figures that only exist in scripture transfer what could have been a piece about history into a campy childish tale on religious myth and fantasy.
"Racism" as a Convenient Gag
The original Guardian post by Nasrine Malik was bad enough but when Alternet chose to re-post it they made it slightly dumber and more bigoted. And, yes, Malik's "Message to Richard Dawkins: 'Islam is not a race' is a cop out" is very prejudiced. Despite her attempt to project her own biases onto Dawkins and other atheists the fault lies at her own feet.
From the very first paragraph she rather lamely tries to conflate criticisms of Islam with racism.
"Of late, a new variation of the old chestnut 'I'm not racist but …' has emerged. It goes: 'I've got nothing against Muslims, it's Islam I hate'. Otherwise known as the 'Islam is not a race' argument."
Right away she makes a number of common mistakes prevalent among theists. Even if she cannot distinguish the individual believers from the the religion they follow does not mean that Dawkins and the rest of us can't see the difference.
She quickly follows this up with a definition of racism that does not support her main premise. Malik makes a feeble attempt at rationalizing how this definition should be reinterpreted. There are a variety of problem with her line of thinking but I will focus on one very telling one. Her standards of reasoning are so low that by accepting her preferred interpretation of "racism" there can be no legitimate criticism of Islam so long as there is even the slightest bit of ethnic diversity among individual Muslims. In effect, she is arguing for an "old chestnut" of her own. It goes: Religion must be respected and revered by all simply for being religion. Bullshit!
The HuffPo title for the re-post, "Why the New Atheists Need to Stop Slamming Islam", is worse than Malik's own title yet it is slightly more honest. It comes closer to what seems to be the real purpose for its writing. They want to be able to tell atheists to shut-up while holding the moral high ground. None of the lame excuses for claiming that criticizing Islam is racist actually apply to atheists alone. Just the opposite is the case. Even if you can find non-atheist critics that Malik's caricature of racism applies (sadly there are quite a few) it still has nothing to with with atheists. Virtually all the arguments/criticism Dawkins has made can still be made if every Muslim on the planet magically turned into white upper middle class men (like Dawkins). I can't think of a single criticism made by myself or other atheists that use race let alone rely on it. So, where's this "racism" she wants to smear us with?
Makes me wonder if a prominent black atheist came to Malik's attention would she make the same argument? Maybe she should seek out an interview with someone like Jamila Bey. It seems to me that in this instance it Malik who has the preoblem with prejudice and bigotry.
From the very first paragraph she rather lamely tries to conflate criticisms of Islam with racism.
"Of late, a new variation of the old chestnut 'I'm not racist but …' has emerged. It goes: 'I've got nothing against Muslims, it's Islam I hate'. Otherwise known as the 'Islam is not a race' argument."
Right away she makes a number of common mistakes prevalent among theists. Even if she cannot distinguish the individual believers from the the religion they follow does not mean that Dawkins and the rest of us can't see the difference.
She quickly follows this up with a definition of racism that does not support her main premise. Malik makes a feeble attempt at rationalizing how this definition should be reinterpreted. There are a variety of problem with her line of thinking but I will focus on one very telling one. Her standards of reasoning are so low that by accepting her preferred interpretation of "racism" there can be no legitimate criticism of Islam so long as there is even the slightest bit of ethnic diversity among individual Muslims. In effect, she is arguing for an "old chestnut" of her own. It goes: Religion must be respected and revered by all simply for being religion. Bullshit!
The HuffPo title for the re-post, "Why the New Atheists Need to Stop Slamming Islam", is worse than Malik's own title yet it is slightly more honest. It comes closer to what seems to be the real purpose for its writing. They want to be able to tell atheists to shut-up while holding the moral high ground. None of the lame excuses for claiming that criticizing Islam is racist actually apply to atheists alone. Just the opposite is the case. Even if you can find non-atheist critics that Malik's caricature of racism applies (sadly there are quite a few) it still has nothing to with with atheists. Virtually all the arguments/criticism Dawkins has made can still be made if every Muslim on the planet magically turned into white upper middle class men (like Dawkins). I can't think of a single criticism made by myself or other atheists that use race let alone rely on it. So, where's this "racism" she wants to smear us with?
Makes me wonder if a prominent black atheist came to Malik's attention would she make the same argument? Maybe she should seek out an interview with someone like Jamila Bey. It seems to me that in this instance it Malik who has the preoblem with prejudice and bigotry.
Sunday, September 22, 2013
Qoutation
"That's all religion is -some principle you believe in... man has accomplished far more miracles than the God he invented. What a tragedy it is to invent a God and then suffer to keep him king."
Rod Steiger
Rod Steiger
An Idiot's Deal
Rachel Held Evans does seem to be a nice enough person but she has proven on more than one occasion that she is equally clueless and rather willfully ignorant. Here recent piece, "Hey atheists, let’s make a deal", is so loaded with false equivalencies, double standards, and outright bullshit it's hard to decide where to start. To make it simple I just start at the beginning.
Her very first paragraph states, "Famed atheist Richard Dawkins has been rightfully criticized this week for saying the 'mild pedophilia' he and other English children experienced in the 1950s 'didn’t cause any lasting harm.'" Notice she doesn't bother to mention who has been criticizing him. She never bothers to mention that some the earliest and most vocal critics have been atheists. I have myself read some rather scathing takes on Dawkins latest stupid comments by among other P.Z. Myers, Greta Christina, and Ophelia Benson. She can't mention that since a huge chunk of her narrative relies on falsely implying that we atheists don't go after are own when they act like assholes. We do.
She quickly follows this nonsense up with,
"Dawkins is known for pushing his provocative rhetorical style too far, providing ample ammunition for his critics, and already I’ve seen my fellow Christians seize the opportunity to rail against the evils of atheism.
As tempting as it is to classify Dawkins’ views as representative of all atheists, I can’t bring myself to do it."
Here we get a twofer; a false equivalence combined with a myth. Later she brings in Pat Robertson as a sort of Christian counterbalance. But there is no equivalence. Dawkins never sites atheism as a reason or justification for his comments. What does his atheism have to do with it? How can any decent rational human being even consider tarring all atheists with the comments of one individual who just happens to be an atheist? Robertson has not only said far worse but always justifies it with Christianity. He even quotes scripture (you know, that stuff all Christians claim to be sacred to them). As for Evens not bringing herself to tar atheists, ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING?! That's pretty much the whole point of the piece. That's what the "deal" in question is about.
After proposing her deal not to throw Dawkins in our face if we don't throw Robertson in Christian's faces she comments, "Believe me. There are plenty of Christians who raise hell every time Robertson says something homophobic or a celebrity pastor somewhere says something misogynistic." Who? I have heard some, usually liberal leaning theists, offer rather mild criticism but "raise hell"? I can't think of a single critic of Robertson who did try playing the "True Scotsman" gambit at some point during their milk-toast criticism of him. They always try to distance themselves by implying if not outright claiming Robertson isn't a "true Christian." Of all the atheists I've read that berated Dawkins, not one even suggested he isn't actually an atheist.
She continues her string of false equivalences and double standards two paragraphs later with,
"What if, instead of engaging the ideas of the most extreme and irrational Christians and atheists, we engaged the ideas of the most reasonable, the most charitable, the most respectful and respected?"
Now I freely accept that Dawkins in the past few years has made some rather stupid comments but I fail to see how they rise to the level of "most extreme." They certainly are nowhere near as heinous as the things Robertson and any number of other Christian leaders have spewed. And what exactly is it about Robertson's views that any "Christian" can really refute? He has on numerous occasions quoted verbatim from the Bible. But, no we can't engage in a way that might actually question the very underpinning of Christianity without being label all sorts of ugly things. Scripture is the foundation of Christianity whether Christians want to face it or not.
Towards the end she rambles on about Dawkins not being representative of atheists and throws out the names of some atheists she seems to like. It's a nice little sop but does nothing to diminish that fact that the whole tone and outlook of the piece is built on and perpetuates a variety of myths and stereotypes. It is also rather pathetic that her main points depend on double standards, logical fallacies, ignorance that borders on delusional.
What deal? Does she really think others won't continue to tar and feather atheists on the flimsiest of excuses. She can't even acknowledge that she herself is guilty of doing the very thing she's asking others not to do. Then again, our criticism actually have a basis and we don't have a problem policing ourselves. We will continue to behave rationally and ethically whether or not theists choose to follow our example.
Her very first paragraph states, "Famed atheist Richard Dawkins has been rightfully criticized this week for saying the 'mild pedophilia' he and other English children experienced in the 1950s 'didn’t cause any lasting harm.'" Notice she doesn't bother to mention who has been criticizing him. She never bothers to mention that some the earliest and most vocal critics have been atheists. I have myself read some rather scathing takes on Dawkins latest stupid comments by among other P.Z. Myers, Greta Christina, and Ophelia Benson. She can't mention that since a huge chunk of her narrative relies on falsely implying that we atheists don't go after are own when they act like assholes. We do.
She quickly follows this nonsense up with,
"Dawkins is known for pushing his provocative rhetorical style too far, providing ample ammunition for his critics, and already I’ve seen my fellow Christians seize the opportunity to rail against the evils of atheism.
As tempting as it is to classify Dawkins’ views as representative of all atheists, I can’t bring myself to do it."
Here we get a twofer; a false equivalence combined with a myth. Later she brings in Pat Robertson as a sort of Christian counterbalance. But there is no equivalence. Dawkins never sites atheism as a reason or justification for his comments. What does his atheism have to do with it? How can any decent rational human being even consider tarring all atheists with the comments of one individual who just happens to be an atheist? Robertson has not only said far worse but always justifies it with Christianity. He even quotes scripture (you know, that stuff all Christians claim to be sacred to them). As for Evens not bringing herself to tar atheists, ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING?! That's pretty much the whole point of the piece. That's what the "deal" in question is about.
After proposing her deal not to throw Dawkins in our face if we don't throw Robertson in Christian's faces she comments, "Believe me. There are plenty of Christians who raise hell every time Robertson says something homophobic or a celebrity pastor somewhere says something misogynistic." Who? I have heard some, usually liberal leaning theists, offer rather mild criticism but "raise hell"? I can't think of a single critic of Robertson who did try playing the "True Scotsman" gambit at some point during their milk-toast criticism of him. They always try to distance themselves by implying if not outright claiming Robertson isn't a "true Christian." Of all the atheists I've read that berated Dawkins, not one even suggested he isn't actually an atheist.
She continues her string of false equivalences and double standards two paragraphs later with,
"What if, instead of engaging the ideas of the most extreme and irrational Christians and atheists, we engaged the ideas of the most reasonable, the most charitable, the most respectful and respected?"
Now I freely accept that Dawkins in the past few years has made some rather stupid comments but I fail to see how they rise to the level of "most extreme." They certainly are nowhere near as heinous as the things Robertson and any number of other Christian leaders have spewed. And what exactly is it about Robertson's views that any "Christian" can really refute? He has on numerous occasions quoted verbatim from the Bible. But, no we can't engage in a way that might actually question the very underpinning of Christianity without being label all sorts of ugly things. Scripture is the foundation of Christianity whether Christians want to face it or not.
Towards the end she rambles on about Dawkins not being representative of atheists and throws out the names of some atheists she seems to like. It's a nice little sop but does nothing to diminish that fact that the whole tone and outlook of the piece is built on and perpetuates a variety of myths and stereotypes. It is also rather pathetic that her main points depend on double standards, logical fallacies, ignorance that borders on delusional.
What deal? Does she really think others won't continue to tar and feather atheists on the flimsiest of excuses. She can't even acknowledge that she herself is guilty of doing the very thing she's asking others not to do. Then again, our criticism actually have a basis and we don't have a problem policing ourselves. We will continue to behave rationally and ethically whether or not theists choose to follow our example.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)