Questionable Motives

November 17, 2018

The Snowball Effect: How does demographic data fuel identity politics?

Filed under: Uncategorized — tildeb @ 3:44 pm

Demographic data is the means by which groups can be created and quantified.Image result for census data This data is then used to grant us the means to compare and contrast different groups. By doing so, we (not surprisingly) find differences. These differences are then presented with what appears to be an independent and objective hierarchy based on the selected criterion: higher and lower groups in the hierarchy. Membership is automatic: an individual who shares the criterion is member, as is one’s placement in the (obviously) unequal group hierarchy, which in turn defines the selected group disparity shared by all its members. Group disparity is then used as the evidence for group inequity and is the foundation for justifying political activism to address the group disparity. This is the core feature of identity politics in action… individuals acting on behalf of the group with which one has membership (or sympathy) and attempting to address the disparity using politics and legislation (or various immediate bullying tactics if impatient for systemic change) as the means.

Why is this a problem that is snowballing?

(more…)

Advertisements

November 9, 2018

What have so many of today’s liberals managed to forget?

Filed under: Uncategorized — tildeb @ 11:41 am

Quite simple, liberalism

What does liberalism mean? (more…)

November 3, 2018

What is a group and why does it matter?

Filed under: Uncategorized — tildeb @ 5:20 pm

Almost seems like a silly question. group identity.jpg

A group (for my purposes here) is defined by the OED as “A number of people or things that are located, gathered, or classed together; Put into categories; classify.”

In this sense, classifying people into groups is an action undertaken not by the people classified but from those wishing to create a group by means of classification. Classifying people into groups is called a construct (meaning “an idea or theory containing various conceptual elements, typically one considered to be subjective and not based on empirical evidence” OED). In other words, a construct is constructed using elements selected by the classifier.

So what?

(more…)

October 28, 2018

Is the future of politics popular or liberal?

Filed under: Uncategorized — tildeb @ 10:48 am

If you find this question of any interest to publicly debate, then who might you get to present the populist side? How about Steve Bannon who organized the rise of Trump? Does that give him bona fides? 

There is a semi-annual event held in Toronto discussing public policy issues to “provide leading thinkers with a global forum to discuss the major issues facing the world and Canada.” These debates are called the Munk Debates after the person who funded a charitable foundation to organize them.

Concerning this particular question up for debate, arguing on the other side is David Frum.

Well, according to the Bannon-Frum Welcoming Committee organizing an online petition and call-in tactic (with written script available and below), we need to dis-invite Bannon because he is described by this ‘liberal’ organization as “a leading figure for the racist White ethno-nationalist movement.” That’s really bad, you see, and we are told this is why the New Yorker Magazine cancelled a high profile event featuring Bannon, and Scotland’s First Minister pulled out of an event which included Bannon calling him a fascist.

Fascist?

Fascist definition (OED): extreme authoritarian, oppressive, or intolerant views or practices

Who is being oppressive and intolerant here? Someone willing to publicly debate controversial ideas about the rise of populism in today’s political culture or those who want to stick their fingers in your ears and stop you from being able to listen?

Look at the charges being leveled here by these ‘committee’ members and the claims being made:

PHONE SCRIPT

Hello my name is _______________

I’m calling your office today because, as a Torontonian, I am disgusted at the platform you are giving one of the most notorious, contemporary white supremacist, racists of our time, Steve Bannon.

Hate and warmongers like Bannon increase violent hate crimes in cities across the US and Canada. We are facing violence, danger, and division in our communities. I am outraged that you are actively choosing to make our city less safe, for all of us.

I’m calling to demand that you condemn the actions of white supremacists and the politics of hate in our city by canceling this Munk Debate!

I’ll be watching closely to see what actions you take.

My question – politically incorrect, I’ll grant you – is how do we allow Bannon to publicly respond if we are to close our ears to what he has to say by doing our part to shut down any and all public means for him to do so? Or should we just go along to get along with these illiberal liberals on the Committee and pretend the accusations they make are sufficient in themselves to allow them to decide for each and every one of us who we may and may not hear in the public square? Is that call to dis-invite Bannon not fascist by definition?

October 26, 2018

What are ‘Western’ values?

Filed under: Uncategorized — tildeb @ 10:22 am

Image result for pondering a question

 

There is much confusion between what constitutes ‘Western’ values versus ‘Western’ culture. I see these ideas conflated all the time, which indicates to me that there is widespread confusion. And this confusion matters. Greatly.

So let’s take a moment and check out what the Oxford English dictionary tells us about these two terms.

What is a value? A value is the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something; principles or standards of behaviour; one’s judgement of what is important in life.

What is culture? The arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively; the ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or society; the attitudes and behaviour characteristic of a particular social group.

To assign descriptive values to a civilization like ‘The West’ means these assigned values must be of central importance to defining the civilization itself. In our borrowed definition, which parts do this job? The regard, importance, worth, and usefulness of the values have to be fundamental to the principles of that civilization itself (without which the civilization is no longer defined). That is what we’re trying to define here: what are these values that define Western civilization?

My answer is that they are Enlightenment values.

Enlightenment values are concerned primarily with cultivating the conditions for human freedom. That freedom to be realized has to be demonstrated on the individual level. That’s very much a Western principle about placing authority with the individual and not authority derived from some other source. This source of authority – the individual – was the revolutionary aspect of Enlightenment thinkers (which is why implementing this revolutionary value required revolutions…) and one not shared by other civilizations built on communal principles and exterior authority. So governments that legitimize this individual authority in law are considered ‘Western’ no matter where on the globe they may be found. Respect for individual autonomy in law is the cornerstone value of all secular liberal democracies meaning that without this central legal position demonstrated in law, a country cannot be said to be Western.

Enlightenment thinkers expanded other values from this central one, values like rationalism, human rights shared by all, the search for truth using disinterested methods, the separation of church and state, trade, freedom of conscience and expression and assembly, the rule of law, equality before the law; these are the hallmarks established in law of a ‘Western’ liberal democracy. The exercise of law upholding this idea of trying to maximize human freedom for the individual is an ongoing attempt to try to achieve these common values in common behaviour, which necessarily involves tension between the core value of individual autonomy and the public authority to impose it! That’s why liberal democracies are always a work in progress, always require diligence of its citizens to constrain authority whether it comes from an individual over the State or from the State over the individual. The measurement to adjudicate relies on the fundamental core value, which is cultivating human freedom for the individual to whatever maximum extent it can achieve without mitigating the same cultivation for every individual.  That’s the ongoing work. And it involves all citizens who wish to improve rather than subvert ‘Western’ liberal democracies.

This core value of cultivating human freedom for the individual within nation states whose populace identifies as ‘Western’ is what we use to evaluate the effects of any and all cultural expressions as a ‘Western’ value. Does the cultural expression, the ideas, customs, attitudes, and social behaviour of a particular people or self-defined society, improve or subvert the central value of ‘Western’ civilization? This is the question that every individual who values individual autonomy in law must ask of him- or herself when it comes to evaluating one’s individual behaviour under the banner of ‘culture’ because we can’t have it both ways: we can’t rely on widespread respect for our individual legal autonomy while advocating and acting for its destruction in the name of some other core ‘Western’ value. That’s lying. That’s what we call hypocrisy in action and this the element – hypocrisy – that is fast becoming the core value – an anti-‘Western’ value – infecting those who claim to be ‘correcting’ ‘Western’ liberal democracies towards antithetical communal values in the name of Identity Politics, in the name of Post Modernism, in the name of Social Justice. When measured against the core ‘Western’ value of individual autonomy in law, it becomes obvious that these social movements demanding our submission to them – just like authoritarian religions that demand submission of the individual to their communal authority – are deeply anti-Western and a direct threat to maintaining our defining core values.

 

October 23, 2018

Why do we need New Atheists more than ever?

Filed under: Uncategorized — tildeb @ 5:46 pm

Image result for Images for the Regressive Left

Because the New Religion is not the woo laden superstitious nonsense of old but the New and Improved version: the GroupThink of Identity Politics and its faithful followers the Social Justice Warrior, the Storm Troopers who form the legions of the Regressive/ctrl Left.

This religious social movement – and all its sectarian branches, from Black Lives Matter and the #MeToo bandwagon to transactivism and the McCarthy-esque motives of the Southern Poverty Law Center lists – is in desperate need of loud, sustained skepticism  and legitimate criticism. We need New Atheists of this New Religion.

This New Religion is a pernicious ideology that is attacking and dismantling the core uniting tenets of our Western liberal democratic civilization by vilifying classical liberal values (like freedom of expression, due process, the presumption of innocence, individual autonomy and equality in law and so on) and now are attacking studies of inconvenient science. It is a destructive political ideology based on believing groups of people are real and concrete things, real units that are divided cleanly and neatly into oppressors and the oppressed, victimizers and the victims, the morally virtuous and morally bankrupt, that not only seeks to silence its legitimate critics through violence and interruption but uses the bludgeon of social and professional shunning, by campaigning for deplatforming, disinviting, censoring those who do not support the GroupThink, by using accusation as the launchpad for vicious and untrue personal attacks carried out by offence archaeologists on social media. It is led by people who believe most fervently that they are the ones of the people, by the people, for the people who alone can determine what true social justice looks like in action even if it relies on personal injustice. The belief is that we are all an omelette, you see, and so the breaking of a few eggs – each individual that constitutes any social group – is an acceptable and reasonable cost.

This is the Big Lie.

The New Religion is recognizable by its promotion of a mirror language, a verbal means to hide its ideological injustices and shortcuts and perniciousness and fascism upon which it stands, a inverted language that means the opposite of the term. We see it ina action when free speech is banned in the name of protecting free speech, intolerance implemented to justify tolerance, supporting diversity by implementing equity of outcomes, and so on. The clerics of the Ctrl Left rewards those invertebrates who stay silent when the duplicitous actions are carried out against real people in real life, who congratulate those who self censor, stay silent, say nothing, who go along with whatever these fascist wannabes claim is the necessary personal cost and injustice of some to obtain its Utopian social end point of justice for all… except those real world victims who don’t deserve it because they don’t support the GroupThink ideology, you see.

Truth, as the saying goes, is its first victim and I will be posting regularly on just how prevalent and obscene is this movement’s actions here and now and how cowardly has been the public and professional response to its illiberal intrusion into the public domain.

We need to wake the fuck up and start challenging this toxic GroupThink ideology on principle before we are all silenced by its institutionalized corrupting power. It’s already happening. We need to return to and uphold respect for classical liberal values of individual autonomy in law, with individual rights and freedoms and responsibilities,  and never, ever, let anyone or any organization take it from us in the name of something else. We need to stop foolishly and naively believing in this New Religion of Identity Politics and the political correctness it demands from its adherents and collaborators. We need to be its outspoken New Atheists more than ever and we need to tear away the facade that hides its totalitarian mechanisms and reveal its illiberal tenets. If we don’t, no one else will be able.

August 2, 2016

What motivates ISIS?

Filed under: Uncategorized — tildeb @ 4:24 pm

In a word, Islamism.

In response to all those who refuse to name the core principle that motivates those who commit violence in the name of ISIS – religion – comes a very clear and succinct article from the propaganda arm of ISIS. The primary motivation for this organization to front is hatred of non belief towards establishing Islamism that will not and cannot be moderated or mitigated by liberal appeasement of the One True Faith in all areas of human concern (Islamism) nor denied by some magical number of bombs and bullets aimed at those who represent the Caliphate.

Listen for yourself:

 

What does correctly identifying the motivation for ISIS mean in practical terms?

It means altering our policies – foreign and domestic – to align with a real and not imagined solution: policies and procedures against Islamism.

Now that we actually know what the battleground is, namely, the attempt to make Islam supreme in all areas of human concern through Islamism, we have to consider how best to neutralize it. Short of a species wide revelation that all faith-based belief including the religious kind is inherently pernicious and divisive and should be rejected outright by all reasonable and sane people (if only), I think the next best solution is to liberalize and reform Islam by supporting change from within rather than continuing this failed attempt to impose a violent suppression from without.

What does that look like?

If Islam is to survive as a socially acceptable religious branch within the family of competing human belief systems, then its adherents have to come to terms with the superiority in the public domain of fundamental Enlightenment values. These values – individual legal autonomy, legal equality, dignity of personhood, shared rights and freedoms – must supersede religious values in the public square. That means Islam itself must undergo a public reformation… a reformation that must be championed and not undermined by Western liberal secular democracies.

The adversaries of ISIS – and ISIS’ unwavering, intolerant, unforgiving, brutal promotion of Islamism by whatever means necessary must be first and foremost be disowned by its most likely victims: reasonable Muslims. It falls to reasonable Muslims to be the front line defense against Islamism, reasonable Muslims who must demonstrate a  compatibility between and allegiance to a private version of Islam – an anti-Islamism – within a secular public arena.

Western policies must be targeted at promoting private domain Islam, publicly supporting liberal Muslims, reformist Muslims, who agree to this role, who advocate for supporting those Muslims who support Enlightenment values over and above all other considerations including Islam.

Private polices to help bring this about belongs to all of us. It falls to all of us to go after – meaning with loud and sustained reasonable criticism – Islamist apologists (they are legion and often led by the likes of a Reza Aslan, a Glenn Greenwald, a Karen Armstrong)  who blame everyone and everything except Islam itself for producing Islamism. This includes criticizing anyone who calls for the appeasement of criticism of public domain tolerance for Islamist goals like sharia courts and religious schooling, criticism of those who tolerate and excuse and even champion anti-Enlightenment Islamist practices… including Muslims (duh)! This means criticizing those people who like to sling the term ‘Islamaphobe’ at anyone who criticizes Islamism in the public domain. These apologosts, these enablers, of Islamism Creep are many, and they currently enjoy much very stupid and shortsighted support among Western leaders, academics, media personalities and journalists, and misguided voters who falsely equate criticism of Islamism with intolerance, who falsely equate support for liberal Muslims who wish to reform Islam as undermining respect for Islam. Fighting against this necessary reformation and aiding the spread of Islamism even by tacit silence is undermining the very foundation of the ability to do so. Offering respect and tolerance for Islamists who wish to establish the organs of the Caliphate in every part of the public domain everywhere and over everyone is an attack against all of us.

We need to wake up.

April 27, 2016

What is today’s clash of culture between science and management?

Filed under: Uncategorized — tildeb @ 10:05 am

Perhaps the question is best answered by a little story, which is too apt not to repost from Open Parachute:

A man in a hot air balloon realized he was lost.

He reduced altitude and spotted a woman below. He descended a bit more and shouted,”Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don’t know where I am.”

The woman below replied, “You’re in a hot air balloon hovering approximately 30 feet above the ground. You’re between 55 and 56 degrees north latitude and between 3 and 4 degrees west longitude.”

“You must be a scientist,” said the balloonist.

“I am,” replied the woman, “How did you know?”

“Well,” answered the balloonist. “everything you told me is, technically correct, but I’ve no idea what to make of your information, and the fact is I’m still lost. Frankly, you’ve not been much help at all. If anything, you’ve delayed my trip.”

The woman below responded. “You must be in Management.”

“I am,” replied the balloonist, “but how did you know?”

“Well,” said the woman, “you don’t know where you are or where you’re going. You have risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air.  You made a promise which you’ve no idea how to keep, and you expect people beneath you to solve your problems.

The fact is you are in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but now, somehow, it’s my fault.”

April 11, 2016

Why do convertees seem to need to vilify atheism?

Filed under: Uncategorized — tildeb @ 11:18 am

(What’s this? A post from Tildeb? Does this indicate the End of Days? Possibly, but my reasons for not posting is because I’ve said much of what I wanted to get out there in the public domain and found that new posts were too often merely the same criticisms pointed at different objects. I found I preferred to comment directly on different sites. But this post is for a new topic and one that I think is worth reading and considering.)

I don’t know. But it’s ubiquitous in all kinds of faith communities. And it pisses me off not just because it’s so dishonest but because my ability to legitimately criticize this lying one-on-one with the guilty party is then moderated out of existence and removed from where it actually needs to be read.

Take Eva’s conversion story for example.

This once reasonable and admittedly agnostic person gives us the Cole’s Notes version of her supposed transition to becoming a Christian but, of course, she can’t do that on its own merits or take responsibility for chucking reasonable skepticism out the window before diving into the faith pool (usually done, in my limited experience, for meeting some emotional need). What is necessary, apparently, is to create a fiction of the depraved former state of non belief and this is usually done by ‘witnessing’ some highly negative and derogatory references to the previous and deplorable state of being an atheist, of making up lies to describe the atheism one has left behind.

This is what Eva has done:

See, I was an atheist. And not a nice, breezy atheist who doesn’t believe in God but it completely happy for those who do, like my husband. I was an angry opinionated atheist, and I really didn’t like religion. Especially Christians. The God Delusion was my bible, and I was about as intolerant and fundamentalist as you can get. This started early; in Grade 3 my best friend and I staged a revolt and refused to attend Scripture, where a nice elderly volunteer woman got us to colour in pictures of Jesus every week. We sat outside and felt superior and enlightened. And I’m sorry to say that that is a pattern that continued for the next 30 or so years.

 

Having followed her writings for years, I am aware of no such intolerant and fundamentalist ‘pattern’. Quite the opposite, in fact. She was almost always polite and considerate to believers and non believers alike. Of course, from her blog title am quite aware of the agnosticism she admittedly had. So, when I wrote a comment to the above conversion story directly criticizing her for doing this seemingly mandatory smearing of atheism, she then did what so many religious bloggers do: exercised knee-jerk censorship and removed my ‘offending’ comment (plus ban me from any further commenting apparently).

That, in a nutshell, is what religious belief does: the method is to impose a belief on reality and pretend it’s descriptive of it rather than dare to allow reality itself to arbitrate beliefs about it.

The thing is, I don’t mind being banned by those dimwitted lightweights and intellectually dishonest and intolerant bloggers who can’t handle legitimate criticism or legitimate differences of opinion. They are not worth my time.

What I don’t get is how a once reasonable person open to receiving contrary comments and even criticism falls so quickly, so effortlessly, so righteously, into using lies, self-loathing PRATT, and a form of fiction to knowingly and falsely describe his or her  previous atheist life and then turn to the bludgeon of banning of any contrary commentary to make themselves appear reborn in meekness and humbleness wrapped in their newfound faith. Of course, the religious allies come out of the woodwork to ‘welcome’ their ‘rescued’ brother or sister but nary a one actually questions the truth value of the fictional anti-atheist narrative.

Not one. Ever… and I read this kind of conversion story many times (usually but not always related to some non believing person having to become a person of faith in order to gain sexual access with a partner who is a believer).  Vilifying atheism seems to be just the ticket to acceptance without any added concern for what’s true. In fact, I read it so often that I am beginning to think it’s like a requirement.

It’s not just tedious: it needs to come with an associated cost.

Vilifying atheists and atheism by these convertees speaks to the inherent dishonesty that seems to accompany a mental transition to become a religious believer later in life and in some weird way grants a level of ‘street cred’ to these recent convertees. Over and over again, I see their fictional narratives recycled and used by other religious people to support the ongoing, pernicious, and intentionally dishonest vilification of atheists.

Hence, the need for this post. This kind of religious deceit needs to if not stop then at least be challenged and loudly criticized.

A little dose of Truth to Power.

Sure, convertees can ban people like me and think their secret maliciousness is safe from being exposed, from being criticized for the lying it is. But I am not going to go quietly into this good night of religious moderation but use such banning as the prime reason, my motivation, for exposing it to a wider audience and link it directly to the person responsible. Avoid being responsible and honest on your blog all you want but don’t expect me to go along with this charade and stay quiet.

The offending author will receive a pingback from this site and so will know that this is what will happen when you choose to stop allowing me to comment truthfully on your site: I will introduce your deceit and dishonesty to a wider audience because vilifying atheists and atheism for your own selfish gain and shutting us down on a site where you do this shouldn’t be a benefit, shouldn’t be something only you can control. Exercising such dishonesty should earn just the opposite: wider exposure of what it is you’re willing to forego – your intellectual honesty –  to further yourself at the expense of others.

If nothing else, such wider exposure should should cost the person in reputation… cost the person who is so willing and even eager to harm the reputation of others on the basis of some fictionalized version of atheism.

Put another way, one should reap what one sows.

 

 

December 26, 2014

How can we tell the difference between a ‘mentally unbalanced individual’ and a True Believer?

Filed under: Uncategorized — tildeb @ 3:42 pm

We can’t. There is no means to differentiate… if the True Believer honestly thinks scriptural authority is justified as moral.

Sure, media can (and often does) point out the connection between an individual claiming to act on behalf of some religious motivation and the act itself… like the claimed motivation for the assassination of two police officers in New York, the claimed motivation for the shooting at a synagogue in Paris, the claimed motivation for attacking police officers at a station in Joue-les-Tours, the claimed motivation for stabbing police officers in Melbourne, the claimed motivation for a hatchet attack against the officers of a NYPD sub station, the claimed motivation for running cars into crowds in France over the past few weeks, the claimed motivation for the Sydney cafe hostage taking, the claimed motivation for the killing of soldiers in Ottawa and St-Jean-sur-Richilieu, and so on… but how often do we hear senior police and government officials address that direct connection?

What I keep hearing from almost all of these these public officials commenting on these deadly acts is some ‘lone wolf’ excuse, some deranged person, some a mentally unbalanced individual… often presented as if th indiviudal in question were the inevitable product from a failure of some social service, a failure of mental health, a failure of whatever intervention the public should have provided in a timely manner… but almost never do these same officials connect these horrific acts with the motivation stated by the perpetrators… namely, Islam.

Now consider the definition of ‘delusion’ offered by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV:

Delusion. A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person’s culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith). When a false belief involves a value judgment, it is regarded as a delusion only when the judgment is so extreme as to defy credibility.

With this special exemption, now consider the difficulty establishing a means to differentiate actions that, by themselves and in isolation from any religion, would indicate judgement so extreme as to defy credibility (the claims used by these public officials to absolve religion’s direct role in promoting what otherwise would be ‘delusional’) but, when tied to religious belief suddenly and magically become rational by fiat.

How convenient.

Thought of another way, imagine the outcry from faitheists if humanist and secular societies distributed a global membership book that stated as if true:

“Muslims are the vilest of animals…”

“Show mercy to one another, but be ruthless to Muslims”

“How perverse are Muslims!”

“Strike off the heads of Muslims, as well as their fingertips”

“Fight those Muslims who are near to you”

“Muslim mischief makers should be murdered or crucified”

Is it just me, or does that sound suspiciously like it would be viewed as bigotry in action, a kind of hate speech directed at Muslims as a group and not only towards those few ‘extremists’, those ‘few bad apples’, those few who have been  ‘radicalized’, those ‘lone wolves’ we keep hearing about, and those ‘mentally unbalanced individuals’ who carry out these appalling acts?

Let’s turn it around, shall we, and see what bigotry against non believers as a group the Koran actually does say:

Non Believers:

Eat like beasts 47:12
Are apes 7:166, 5:60, 2:65
Are swines 5:60
Are asses 74:50
The vilest of animals in Allah’s sight 8:55
Losers 2:27, 2:121, 3:85
Have a disease in their hearts 2:10, 5:52, 24:50
Are hard-hearted 39:22, 57:16
Impure of hearts 5:41
Are deaf 2:171, 6:25
Are blind 2:171, 6:25
Are dumb 2:171, 6:35, 11:29
Are niggardly 4:37, 70:21
Works shall be rendered ineffective 2:217, 47:1, 47:8
Are impure 8:37
Are scum 13:17
Are inordinate 5:68, 78:22
Are transgressors 2:26, 9:8, 46:20
Are unjust 29:49
Make mischief 16:88
Are the worst of men 98:6
Are in a state of confusion 50:5
Are the lowest of the low 95:5
Focus only on outward appearance 19:73-74
Are guilty 30:12, 77:46
Sinful liar 45:7
Follow falsehood 47:3
Deeds are like the mirage in a desert 24:39
also…
Allah does not love them 3:32, 22:38
Allah forsakes them 32:14, 45:34
Allah brought down destruction upon them 47:10
Allah has cursed them 2:88, 48:6
Allah despises them 17:18
Allah abases them 22:18

Hear that deafening silence? That’s the sound of Islamic outrage expressed by Muslims towards this bigotry.

Of course, this list of grievances against the non believer isn’t delusional belief in action if it’s religious because, well, it’s all rather mainstream and so it’s cannot be delusional if acted upon because… well, because it’s religious (and therefore exempt from being defined as delusional according to our psychiatric and psychological medical practitioners)!

And before Christians think their hateful bigotry is any less revolting against non believers, recall:

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 2 Corinthians 6:14

The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, [there is] none that doeth good. Psalms 14:1

Let’s not forget the myriad droppings of wisdom about the deplorable state of the non believer usually expressed throughout the bible in terms of opposites between believer/non believer: those in the light/those in the darkness, those with eternal life/those with eternal death, those who have peace with God/those who are at war with Him, those who believe the truth/those who believe the lies, those on the narrow path to salvation/those on the broad road to destruction, and many, many more. Let’s look to the gems we find in Proverbs about befirending non believers:

“The righteous should choose his friends carefully, for the way of the wicked leads them astray” (12:26). We should stay away from foolish people (13:20, 14:7), from people who lose their temper easily (22:24), and from the rebellious (24:21). All these things represent those who have not been saved. “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?” (2 Corinthians 6:14). First Corinthians 15:33 tells us that bad company corrupts good character. Unbelievers are slaves to sin (John 8:34), and Christians are slaves to God (1 Corinthians 7:22).

Can you non believers feel the love? Not so much, eh?

What we non believers – especially us New Atheists – can feel (and with a very great deal of smug satisfaction for not being listened to by otherwise intelligent people) is that we’ve been trying to point out this problem for a very long time, that because there is no means to differentiate delusion from faith-based claims, we alone seem to be unsurprised at the confusion in politically correct circles and communities of religiously tolerant people who find themselves unable to describe the difference between what these individuals have done and the motivation they share with the general religious populations who agree that these motivations are indeed religiously justified and righteous. They are so because they are scriptural, the very words of of God after all! And right there is the disconnect faitheists of all stripes (believers and non believers and fence-sitting agnostics) must suffer when they try so desperately to convince themselves that there is no fundamental and irrevocable incompatibility between respecting religion and respecting reality’s arbitration of its motivations in action.

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.