Why Was That Published?!!

There is very little difference between a New Atheist activist and a Social Justice activist.  Consider atheist activist Jerry Coyne.   He is such a snowflake that it won’t be long before he starts demanding trigger warnings when certain topics come up, namely, any published article that is either a) critical of atheism or b) supportive of religion.  Consider just the latest example – a pro-religion article appeared on the Aeon website and this clearly offended Snowflake Jerry:

I believe I’m back on solid ground again with this post about the Templeton Foundation (in this case, the Templeton Religion Trust) and their incursion into Aeon magazine, a secular site devoted to “ideas and culture.” What we have here is an article by Manini Sheker whose work apparently wasn’t underwritten by Templeton—which would mean that Sheker was supported by the organization—but where the magazine itself apparently got money from Templeton to publish a dire piece touting the benefits of Catholicism.

Oh, oh.  If there is one thing that triggers militant snowflake atheists it is the mealy-mouthed Templeton Foundation.   I don’t have the time to go through Coyne’s standard talking points, but I’d like to highlight his conclusion:

And how did Templeton get its sticky fingers in here? Who were they paying to get this article published? We don’t know. Shame on Aeon for publishing such tripe!

My.  “Shame on Aeon for publishing such tripe!”  That one sentence gives us great insight into the real Jerry Coyne – he is a closet member of the Regressive Left.  For those words were spoken like a true social justice warrior.  In other words, the author should have been deplatformed.  Her words should not have been published.

Anyone who truly values free speech would not be pounding the table like that.

Anyway, given Coyne’s leanings toward the Regressive Left, it should not surprise anyone that he is so approving of Karl Marx:

spreading religiosity is a way, as Marx realized, to get people to accept a problematic status quo: religion, as he said, is an “opium of the people”.

For the record, I have never in my life argued that some anti-Christian or anti-religious article “should not have been published.”  And I don’t consider Marx to be any type of expert or authority on the topic of religion and culture.

Posted in Jerry Coyne, New Atheism, social justice atheism, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 12 Comments

How Social Justice Activists Think

Nora Berenstain,  an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Tennesse,  is also a hardcore advocate of social justice ideology.  Let’s have a look at her FB posting from last year that berated Rebecca Tuvel, an assistant professor of philosophy at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee.   Since I see no reason to think that Berenstain’s thinking is atypical among her social justice colleagues (in and out of academia), it will provide us an opportunity to analyze how social justice advocates think.

As I read through Berenstain’s essay, various themes emerged.

First, there is tribalism.  Berenstain not only demonstrates tribalistic thinking, but seems to revel in it:

A lot of folks are currently discussing Rebecca Tuvel’s recent article in Hypatia, “In Defense of Transracialism.” The article contains egregious levels of liberal white ignorance and discursive transmisogynistic violence. Unfortunately, many white philosophers have centered their responses to the public discussion of the article around concerns that the anger and criticism directed at Tuvel will have a negative impact on her career, suggesting that this would be bad given that she is a junior woman in philosophy. White feminist philosophers have a tendency to rally around other white women when we enact harm.

Here, she is hyper-focused on Tuvel’s race.

 levels of liberal white ignorance….. many white philosophers….. Whitefeminist philosophers

This is very significant to her because Tuvel’s tribe is set against various other tribes:

Tuvel doesn’t cite a single woman of color philosopher, nor does she substantively engage with any work by Black women, nor does she cite or engage with the work of any Black trans women who have written on this topic…… epistemic violence against trans people, against people of color, against women of color, against Black women, against trans women of color, against Black trans women.

All of this makes sense given that postmodern ideology (expressed as “social justice”) is rooted in pure subjectivity.  The subjective essence of this ideology thus works to elevate and enshrine tribalism, as each tribe is, of course, the expert on the subjective reality of that particular tribe.  Thus, it looks like postmodern, social justice philosophy is largely about determining the pecking order of various tribes where feelings of oppression are the metric for such a hierarchy.

And that gets us to the second theme – feelings.

Continue reading

Posted in activism, post-modernism, Social Justice, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

Looks Like the Latest School Shooter was an Atheist and Satanist

There’s been another school shooting that has killed 10 people in Texas.

According to this ABC report about the shooter:

On Facebook, Pagourtzis lists himself as an atheist under religious views

Also, his Facebook account appears to indicate an interest in Satanism.

The same link also shows a picture of his black trench coat with a Baphomet pin on it.  If you’ll recall, the Satanic Temple is always trying to put up statues of Baphomet with support from atheist activists.


Posted in Culture, Uncategorized | Tagged | 5 Comments

UC Berkeley Morphing Into a Clown College?

From here:

A University of California, Berkeley report on free speech questions the motives of controversial speakers who sparked violent campus clashes last year, saying they were part of a “coordinated campaign” to make college campuses appear intolerant of conservative views.

Ah, one of the symptoms of intellectual inbreeding is the reliance on conspiracy theories.  Trying to spin things as if UC Berkeley is some victim of a conspiracy is not only pathetic, but underscores the intellectual decay that typically comes from intellectual inbreeding.

Further evidence of intellectual decay:

“Contrary to a currently popular narrative, Berkeley remains a tolerant campus,” the report contends, pointing to a survey of incoming freshman last fall. It found three-quarters of them agree that “the University has the responsibility to provide equal access to safe and secure venues for guest speakers of all viewpoints — even if the ideas are found offensive by some or conflict with the values held by the UC Berkeley community.”

In what possible way can the views of incoming freshmen tell us anything about tolerance on the campus?  Incoming freshmen are the one group who have not yet been indoctrinated by UC Berkeley.  But it does raise a great idea – simply repeat the same survey question with outgoing seniors.  I would predict that less that 75% of such seniors agree with that statement.

And then there is this:

The report continues: “Many Commission members are skeptical of these speakers’ commitment to anything other than the pursuit of wealth and fame through the instigation of anger, fear, and vengefulness in their hard-right constituency. Speech of this kind is hard to defend, especially in light of the acute distress it caused (and was intended to cause) to staff and students, many of whom felt threatened and targeted by the speakers and by the outside groups financing their appearances.”

The commission was made up of Berkeley faculty, students and staff and was chaired by Prudence Carter, dean of Berkeley’s Graduate School of Education, and R. Jay Wallace, a professor of philosophy.

I think we’re supposed to buy into this notion that the commission was diverse and objective because it was made up of faculty, students, and staff.  But I would like to see the political affiliations of the commission members.  For example, if the commission was composed of 90% Leftists, a commitment to critical thinking would cause us to deeply suspect the commission as not credible.  And that would explain the irrational conspiracy theories and citation of incoming freshmen views as evidence.

Posted in academia, Uncategorized | Tagged | 6 Comments

Extreme Bias Among College Professors

You should take the time to read this analysis:

In this article I offer new evidence about something readers of Academic Questions already know: The political registration of full-time, Ph.D.-holding professors in top-tier liberal arts colleges is overwhelmingly Democratic. Indeed, faculty political affiliations at 39 percent of the colleges in my sample are Republican free—having zero Republicans. The political registration in most of the remaining 61 percent, with a few important exceptions, is slightly more than zero percent but nevertheless absurdly skewed against Republican affiliation and in favor of Democratic affiliation. Thus, 78.2 percent of the academic departments in my sample have either zero Republicans, or so few as to make no difference.

Interestingly enough, the Extreme Bias is found in fields outside of the hard sciences:

Some STEM fields come close to the baseline national average of 1.6:1; potentially ideologically linked fields, especially the interdisciplinary studies fields, do not. Thus, the D:R ratio for engineering is 1.6:1 while for the interdisciplinary studies fields it is 108:0.

This bias outside of the STEM fields is so extreme that the default assumption concerning these non-STEM fields should be skepticism.  That is, unless I have good, independent reason to think otherwise, my working assumptions about social scientists and other PhD’s from the humanities is that they are not true scholars; they are highly skilled ideologues, trained through intellectual inbreeding where peer review becomes more akin to the encouragement of ideological purity rather than truth.

There is more to flesh out from the Extreme Bias in academia when I get the time.

Posted in academia, confirmation bias, Culture, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

God of the Gaps Atheism

The militant atheist movement is built on the belief that there is no evidence for God. Of course, such atheists are entitled to their opinions on this matter, but because of their militancy, and the way it serves their agenda, they will not acknowledge their opinion is an opinion. Instead, they posture as if they have discovered some objective truth – There is no evidence for the existence of God. We’re all supposed to agree.

Yet if we are supposed to agree with this claim, we’d like to know exactly what it is we are supposed to agree with. So we ask the New Atheists what would actually count as evidence for the existence of God. Typically, the New Atheists will tap dance around that question, insisting there is no evidence without telling us what such evidence would look like. This is their Hide The Goalposts tactic.

However, if pressed, some New Atheists will spell it out, especially when they are trying to make themselves look open-minded about the issue. One example is atheist activist Jerry Coyne who, in a blog post entitled, “What evidence would convince you that a god exists?, wrote:
Continue reading

Posted in atheism, New Atheism, Uncategorized | Tagged , | 97 Comments

How to Predict the Next Fallen Atheist Leader

If you check this page, you will see a list of those who received the Richard Dawkins Award.

In 2016, it was awarded to Lawrence Krauss.

In 2017, it was awarded to David Silverman.

Warning to Michael Shermer – since they are running out of people to give the award to, if they try to give you the award in 2018, deny it and run away!  😉


Posted in New Atheism, Uncategorized | Tagged | 1 Comment

New Atheism’s Most Feared Super-Villian

hqdefaultSome atheists have begun to liken PZ Myers to a super-villain in a Batman story because of the damage he has done to the New Atheist movement.  And I can see why.  If you think about it, PZ’s destructive influence has been substantial.

It all began in 2011 when Richard Dawkins turned a small dispute about women at an atheist convention into a large scale controversy that consumed the atheist movement – Elevatorgate.  And where did Dawkins set the movement on fire?  On PZ Myer’s blog.  And when Dawkins got himself in trouble on Myer’s blog, Myers simply stepped back and let Dawkins deep himself into a deeper hole.

Because of this incident, and its after effects, the A+ movement was eventually born in 2012 and began to target New Atheists leaders.  Myers was an early supporter of A+ atheism.  Furthermore, during the same year, Myers was among the first of the New Atheists to begin attacking Sam Harris for his position on racial profiling.  Myers would continue to attack Harris over the years, just recently accusing Harris of being a racist who supports racial science.

Continue reading

Posted in atheist wars, New Atheism, Uncategorized | Tagged , | 66 Comments

Suicide of the West

Here is an interesting article. 

Posted in Culture, Uncategorized | Tagged | 3 Comments

Atheist Activist Scorecard


Image | Posted on by | Tagged , | 5 Comments