Can you remember a single instance where a theist or group of theists said something inaccurate or misleading about atheists and then apologized for it? I can't. Yet, there have been numerous examples where atheists have admitted to exaggerating or misrepresenting something theists said and apologized for it. Just such an incident recently occurred. American Atheists apologized for misquoting Sarah Palin on one of their billboards. I am pleased that they corrected their minor error. I find it rather telling. It seems to me to be further evidence that atheists are generally more concerned with accuracy, intellectual integrity, and ethics than their theistic counterparts.
I think it is also worth noting that the error they made in the quotation did not actually change the meaning or intent of Sarah Palin. American Atheists quoted Palin as stating, "We should create law based on the God of the Bible", when in fact she claimed that our founding fathers believed such a thing. Basically, she was making shit up. In some ways it makes her look worse since it is clear that that is what she wants to believe and she is willing to lie about. The idea that the US was created as a "Christian nation" has been debunked over and over again. Accuracy is important so it was right of American Atheists to make the correction and apologize for their slip-up.
It would be nice if the religious right cared at all about accuracy, honesty, and personal ethics. I'm not counting on that happening any time soon.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Decent post, horrible title
For once DiDonato has a half way intelligent post that does not completely defy the name of his blog. Unfortunately, the title, "Does God accept the real you?", is chock-full of stupid. Even though it is about how diverse views/perceptions of the God concept can be I have never come across a version that did not have God as the creator and source of existence. Accept you? If God created us how can it be otherwise. Everything we are would be due to God; good, bad, or indifferent. Wouldn't that be like Gepetto get pissed off at Pinochio for being made of wood?
Otherwise, the post actually references and talks about some interesting research on people's perceptions and beliefs.
Otherwise, the post actually references and talks about some interesting research on people's perceptions and beliefs.
Sunday, March 3, 2013
A New Twist to an Old Stereotype
Marcelo Cicconet's February 26 nyunews.com piece is as odd as it is short. In "New Atheism offers better philosophy, faith than religion" he seems to be able to see through a handful of myths and stereotypes about atheists/atheism and yet he still seems intent on promoting a new one.
"However, despite recent attempts such as Dawkins’ 'The Magic of Reality' and Harris’ 'Free Will,' the New Atheists don’t have the same level of success they used to with laying the foundations of a fulfilling atheist life.
As it turns out, the pursuit of happiness is a journey far more complex than understanding the way the brain works..."
These two sentences are packed full of implied misconceptions and apparent projections. Is Cicconet trying to claim that atheists don't lead fulfilling lives? What would such a conclusion be based on? He makes no reference to any sort of survey or study. The false claim that atheists are miserable is not actually new. The idea that somehow an atheist's writing, activism, or engagement with other atheists (or theists, for that matter) leads to being unhappy is somewhat of a new twist. I have yet to come across any atheist who claims that simply being an atheist leads to fulfillment and happiness. I was also unaware that a better understanding of the brain is suppose to automatically lead to happiness. I've certainly never come across an atheist making such a claim.
It may be that Cicconet is looking for fulfillment and happiness in all the wrong places but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with atheists or atheism. In any case, I fail to see how he can justify making proclamations about any group of people being happy/unhappy without even the slightest hint of doing any type of research. Since he names a handful of specific individuals he could have started by arranging to interview them.
"However, despite recent attempts such as Dawkins’ 'The Magic of Reality' and Harris’ 'Free Will,' the New Atheists don’t have the same level of success they used to with laying the foundations of a fulfilling atheist life.
As it turns out, the pursuit of happiness is a journey far more complex than understanding the way the brain works..."
These two sentences are packed full of implied misconceptions and apparent projections. Is Cicconet trying to claim that atheists don't lead fulfilling lives? What would such a conclusion be based on? He makes no reference to any sort of survey or study. The false claim that atheists are miserable is not actually new. The idea that somehow an atheist's writing, activism, or engagement with other atheists (or theists, for that matter) leads to being unhappy is somewhat of a new twist. I have yet to come across any atheist who claims that simply being an atheist leads to fulfillment and happiness. I was also unaware that a better understanding of the brain is suppose to automatically lead to happiness. I've certainly never come across an atheist making such a claim.
It may be that Cicconet is looking for fulfillment and happiness in all the wrong places but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with atheists or atheism. In any case, I fail to see how he can justify making proclamations about any group of people being happy/unhappy without even the slightest hint of doing any type of research. Since he names a handful of specific individuals he could have started by arranging to interview them.
The Bible: A Love Story told in Blood
I have to admit I am rather uncertain about whether I will bother watching an upcoming drama miniseries on the History Channel. I have seen ads for "The Bible" that make it look pretty good. The production values seem to be better than average. I will probably end up watching the first episode but with rather low expectations.
I am suspicious of its actual merits in part because it is being put on by History Channel. Despite its name they rarely offer anything of a scholarly nature. A huge chunk of their scheduling is consumed by paranormal crap (Ancient Aliens, MonsterQuest, Countdown to Apocalypse, UFO Hunters....) and "reality" shows (Pawn Stars, Big Rig Bounty Hunters, Swamp People, Ultimate Soldier Challenge....). Even when they offer a documentary or even a series that covers historical events or themes they end up being incredibly shoddy.
My skepticism was fueled further by a short review I read shortly after seeing a few of the ads. Religious News Service's Megan Sweas seems to think it's worth seeing. Her piece, "For Hollywood couple, 'The Bible' miniseries is a ‘labor of love’", reveals a little more about the upcoming series but none of it is as flattering as she seems to think. I don't necessarily have anything against either Roma Downey or Mark Burnett but I also am not impressed that they are the couple behind the production. I certainly don't think of them as "Hollywood heavyweights." In some ways it could be seen as a negative for the series in term of it being taken seriously (as a drama, anyway) since they clearly have an agenda. It doesn't help that Roma's biggest claim to fame is "Touched By an Angel." I found that show to be somewhat cute and entertaining for most of the first season. After that it was just incredibly predictable, overly melodramatic, and just plain boring. Burnett's only claim is to the horribly misnamed genre, "reality tv."
The content itself is also potentially problematic. Viewed strictly in terms of entertainment it may be quite good. If the few ads I've seen are an accurate indication of the acting and cinematography then it should be worth watching. However, if the message that the couple seem to want to convey gets too blatant and heavy handed it could easily turn to crap. There are a handful of hints in the review that make me think that the latter is far more likely.
"The project has received rave early reviews from evangelicals, who are a key part of the film’s marketing plan. Starting with Noah telling the story of creation aboard his ark, the film weaves through biblical epics and the life of Christ and the early apostles....
While they describe 'The Bible' as a 'love story' between God and mankind, the project is also rooted in their own love story."
Yikes! Only the most delusional of evangelicals/fundamentalists could fail to see such a contradiction. A "love story" demonstrated by a creator who refuses to own up to it's own errors but instead resorts to genocide to fix those errors is a pretty fucking twisted commentary. My curiosity will probably win out. I doubt I will watch it when it originally airs since it is set for Sunday nights and would interfere with The Walking Dead (a slightly more believable drama) but they will most certainly re-run it numerous times.
I am suspicious of its actual merits in part because it is being put on by History Channel. Despite its name they rarely offer anything of a scholarly nature. A huge chunk of their scheduling is consumed by paranormal crap (Ancient Aliens, MonsterQuest, Countdown to Apocalypse, UFO Hunters....) and "reality" shows (Pawn Stars, Big Rig Bounty Hunters, Swamp People, Ultimate Soldier Challenge....). Even when they offer a documentary or even a series that covers historical events or themes they end up being incredibly shoddy.
My skepticism was fueled further by a short review I read shortly after seeing a few of the ads. Religious News Service's Megan Sweas seems to think it's worth seeing. Her piece, "For Hollywood couple, 'The Bible' miniseries is a ‘labor of love’", reveals a little more about the upcoming series but none of it is as flattering as she seems to think. I don't necessarily have anything against either Roma Downey or Mark Burnett but I also am not impressed that they are the couple behind the production. I certainly don't think of them as "Hollywood heavyweights." In some ways it could be seen as a negative for the series in term of it being taken seriously (as a drama, anyway) since they clearly have an agenda. It doesn't help that Roma's biggest claim to fame is "Touched By an Angel." I found that show to be somewhat cute and entertaining for most of the first season. After that it was just incredibly predictable, overly melodramatic, and just plain boring. Burnett's only claim is to the horribly misnamed genre, "reality tv."
The content itself is also potentially problematic. Viewed strictly in terms of entertainment it may be quite good. If the few ads I've seen are an accurate indication of the acting and cinematography then it should be worth watching. However, if the message that the couple seem to want to convey gets too blatant and heavy handed it could easily turn to crap. There are a handful of hints in the review that make me think that the latter is far more likely.
"The project has received rave early reviews from evangelicals, who are a key part of the film’s marketing plan. Starting with Noah telling the story of creation aboard his ark, the film weaves through biblical epics and the life of Christ and the early apostles....
While they describe 'The Bible' as a 'love story' between God and mankind, the project is also rooted in their own love story."
Yikes! Only the most delusional of evangelicals/fundamentalists could fail to see such a contradiction. A "love story" demonstrated by a creator who refuses to own up to it's own errors but instead resorts to genocide to fix those errors is a pretty fucking twisted commentary. My curiosity will probably win out. I doubt I will watch it when it originally airs since it is set for Sunday nights and would interfere with The Walking Dead (a slightly more believable drama) but they will most certainly re-run it numerous times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)