Ignorance and Bigotry love Company

It never ceases to amaze me how truly ignorant people are when it comes to atheists/atheism. Unfortunately, many of these clueless individuals find the need to write/talk incessantly about atheists. Two recent, but by no means unique, examples annoyed me quite a bit. Both the Allergic Pagan's (Patheos) "Being an atheist just ain’t what it used to be" and HuffPo John Carlson's "Remembering Albert Camus and Longing for the Old Atheism" are chock-full of bullshit and bigotry.

John Halstead of Allergic Pagan is the more disturbing since the piece is largely about his own son coming out as an atheist and that he himself comments on sometimes identifying as an atheist. He clearly does not get it. Being an atheist is not like picking which outfit you want to wear that day. You believe or you don't. You are an atheist or you are not. Though, that is a minor point in comparison with some of the other ridiculous things he comes up with. Halstead is disturbed that his son will accept "...materialism that bleeds the world of beauty and meaning and everything that makes life an interesting adventure." Does this dipshit not ever pay attention to the news? Didn't we just go through this bullshit with that bitch Oprah? Big hint, moron, there is NO beauty or wonder without materialism. What are you marveling at if you can't sense it in any way. All those feelings and emotions are produced by the brain. The brain is a physical/material organ. His piece is loaded with all sorts of similarly ill-informed biased myths and stereotypes as well as a multitude of logical fallacies.

Carlson was not quite as annoying since the title made it pretty clear what I was in for. It is yet another piece that has picked up on a fairly recent tactic being used by critics of atheists/atheism. They want to seem reasonable and civil by "praising" or "respecting" the "Old Atheism" while denigrating or dismissing the "New Atheism." It is a crock of shit from start to finish. First it creates a blatantly false dichotomy. The ideas and arguments of atheists haven't really changed that much. The only verifiable distinction between the "old" and "new" has to do with media. The mainstream media, though still rather biased, is willing to talk/write about atheists more than they ever have in the past. It is also now possible for atheist to get published by large publishing houses. Not that long ago only small niche publishers would touch the works of an atheist. That is the only noticeable difference, assuming you actually pay attention to what atheist say and write rather than pretending you do. I have a sneaking suspicion that many who claim to have read the works of this or that atheist have not actually done so.

The second major problem with this contemporary canard of theists is that it is often grossly inaccurate. To be honest, I'm not that familiar with Camus so I do not know whether Carlson is misrepresenting him or not. I do know that other critics have used long-dead atheists to similar ends. One I am familiar with is Nietzche. Numerous critics have presented very opinionated and flimsy interpretations of Nietzche's work for the sole purpose of attacking contemporary atheists by contrast. It's an odd tactic but seems to be growing in popularity among certain circles. It is not an example of sound literary criticism or any intellectual endeavor. It is simply bigotry dressed up.

Why these assholes find the need to go on about things they clearly do not understand or have any interest in understanding is both confusing and annoying. If you want to engage in discussion and debate or just learn about an unfamiliar demographic that would be one thing. Doing that involves real inquiry not making up shit based on what you prefer to believe.

A Group of Clergy Deserving Praise

I do not have any problems with the average theist. It is religion as an institution that I tend to distrust and despise. My criticisms are generally aimed either at a specific set of theists or else at the doctrines, policies, and hierarchies of specific religions (or the sects/denominations within a religion). However, I do believe in giving credit where it is due. The 50 clergy noted in the Philadelpia Inquirer's "Methodist ministers defy church at same-sex union" certainly deserve to be commended. It is not merely that they have risked their positions within the church, and therefore their livelihoods. A considerable part of individual clergy's identity is wrapped up in their religious affiliation. Being stripped of their position as clergy and potentially being expelled from the faith itself could be very traumatic. These individuals have shown a great deal of courage and resolve in standing up for both civil rights and for basic human decency. So long as religion continues to exist I am grateful that at least some clergy will put the well being of people above that of religious dogma.

Quotation

"The kind of fraud which consists in daring to proclaim the truth while mixing it with a large share of lies that falsify it, is more widespread than is generally thought"
Marcel Proust

Catholic Idolatry

I find it very amusing that many Christian denominations have always looked down on pagans and various non-Christians for things like idolatry. This is amusing in part because it is so blatantly hypocritical. A fairly recent Catholic Herald article on the Pope is a really good demonstration of how self-deluded and full of shit the Catholic Church is, at least on this point.

How any Catholic can square the contents of the CH article "In front of Fatima statue, Pope Francis entrusts the world to Mary" with the basic idea of idolatry is beyond me.

Just for clarification the Chambers 21st Dictionary defines idolatry as follows:
"idolatry
noun (idolatries)
1. the worship of idols.
2. excessive, love, honour, admiration or devotion.
Derivatives
idolatrous adjective.
idolatrously adverb.
[13c: from Latin idololatria, from Greek eidolon idol + latreuein to worship.]"

Religion really does warp people's ability to reason and think critically, especially about their own beliefs.

Not Ideological?

Why do people give Pope Francis so much credit? He has yet to match anything he says with positive actions. In fact, he frequently acts in opposing ways. All the talk about being friendlier to women and homosexuals seems to have been pretty well negated by his actions. He has stated definitively that the Vatican will not even consider ordaining women (In the Catholic church only the clergy have power). He has excommunicated a priest who advocated for homosexuals.

With those examples in mind, head lines like "Pope Francis describes 'ideological Christians' as a 'serious illness'" come across as outright farcical. How the fuck is the Catholic Church itself not ideological? It isn't as if the church bases its doctrines and policies on objective criteria. Only a completely clueless and delusional ass could make such a blatantly hypocritical statement. By his own words in combination with a basic understanding of the term "ideological" there can be only one conclusion. The Pope is very ill!