quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]Progressives should go where the people are and not only where we wish them to be.[/b]
I agree, but that doesn't mean they should be defending the indefensible.
Atheists: the most distrusted minority in USA - II
Sun, 2007-03-11 13:54
#52
M. Spector
Sun, 2007-03-11 15:52
#53
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
I don't know what your point is. I do know that there is obviously a woman's foot on the person who last went through that door.
I'm not exactly sure what babblerwannabe's point is either. But playing the "I'm [i]more[/i] oppressed" card, is tacky at best.
Sun, 2007-03-11 17:38
#54
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by Geneva:
[b]- 2. "science has advanced, theology has not";
the former excellent, the second again unproven and/or irrelevant;[/b]
a) this statement ("science has advanced, theology has not"} is based in some pretty insular modernitst conceptions of the world. For instance "progress" is a term entirely reified in the empircist modernist framework, and so naturally, science when judged by its own standards, winc out over theology, since "progress" is no a notion of theological interest.
b) It is clearly evident that theology has changed substantially over the last 400 years. For instance, no one in the Catholic church seems that interested in arguing that the sun revolves around earth. But that is just an obvious example, there are for more subtle shifts in the paradigm, for instance the theology of athiesm has made an appearance.
For instance this argumentfor "faith-based" athiesm;
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]But apparently people who do [b]not[/b] believe in holy ghosts need to demonstrate a thorough knowledge of "theology" in order to justify their non-belief.[/b]
comes nearest to asserting the non-existance of god, through a theological device: faith.
[ 11 March 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Sun, 2007-03-11 18:48
#55
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
[b]But playing the "I'm [i]more[/i] oppressed" card, is tacky at best.[/b]
Nobody's doing that. It's the "I'm more distrusted" card, and we've got the statistics to prove it. That's in fact what this thread and its predecessor thread were supposed to be all about.
Sun, 2007-03-11 18:59
#56
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]It is clearly evident that theology has changed substantially over the last 400 years. For instance, no one in the Catholic church seems that interested in arguing that the sun revolves around earth.[/b]
Oh yes, that was a big advance in "theology". [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
In fact, it was a total capitulation to science. Were it not for empirical scientific proof that the "theology" was wrong, the Catholic church and everybody else would to this day believe that the sun revolves around the earth once a day.
And if some upstart came along in the 21st century and tried to present empirical evidence against the church's position, they would be attacked by so-called progressives for not having a complete understanding of "theology".
Sun, 2007-03-11 19:06
#57
N.Beltov
One good turn deserves another... [response to above remarks by Cueball]
quote:
Michael Shermer: It turns out that the number-one reason people give for why they believe in God is a variation on the classic cosmological or design argument: The good design, natural beauty, perfection, and complexity of the world or universe compels us to think that it could not have come about without an intelligent designer. In other words, people say they believe in God because the evidence of their senses tells them so. [b]Thus, comtrary to what most religions preach about the need and importance of faith, most people believe because of reason.[/b]
The quote is from Shermer's groundbreaking book, [i]How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science[/i], p. xiv, 2000, W.H. Freeman & Co., NY. Shermer substantiates his claim with evidence from his large survey in his book. It is a most remarkable conclusion.
[ 11 March 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
Sun, 2007-03-11 19:19
#58
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b][quoting Shermer]Thus, contrary to what most religions preach about the need and importance of faith, most people believe because of reason.[/b]
Shermer's assertion is easily disproved when you consider how religious belief is in most cases impervious to reason.
Intelligent design has been shown many times over to be a fallacious conclusion from observable facts, yet many people still cling to it even when presented with the truth.
In fact, there are millions of religious people who have been convinced, on a rational basis, by the arguments against ID, and who have as a result accepted the Darwinian explanations of natural selection, complexity, and design in nature, and yet still insist on clinging to their religious beliefs.
People who believe thunder is caused by angels bowling are relying on a form of "rational" belief, but if they persist in that belief even after having the real cause of thunder explained to them, then their belief is based on faith alone.
Sun, 2007-03-11 19:37
#59
N.Beltov
quote:
M. Spector:Shermer's assertion is easily disproved when you consider how religious belief is in most cases impervious to reason.
I can't resist the urge to suggest that you take your own advice [in regard to Dawkins] and have a look at Shermer's book. Appendix II lays out the survey, how it was collected, some of the mathematics of it, etc.
quote:
Shermer: ... we believe that the instrument we used to collect the data provides an accurate reflection of what Americans believe about God, some of the most important influencing variables on their belief, and [b]why[/b] they believe.
Collecting data about religious beliefs has been very difficult. Dennett goes into this in his book. In the case of the Druze in Lebanon, for example, many of their most important religious beliefs [i]are secret[/i]. Hard to collect data in that case.
That a majority of believers would choose to substantiate their belief in the way Shermer has shown is quite different from a primitive "I believe and that's that" approach.
[ 11 March 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
Sun, 2007-03-11 20:26
#60
M. Spector
I did actually read Shermer's book several years ago. It appeared to me to have been a case of parlaying an opinion poll into a book.
One possible interpretation of the poll is commonplace: that people will resort to rationalization when asked to justify beliefs that they hold on faith (and by faith I mean that they hold them because they [i]want[/i] them to be true).
Or as [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shermer/id-works-in-mysterious-wa_... says:
quote:
...Sulloway and I discovered that the number one reason people give for their belief in God is the good [!? - M.S.]design of the world. When asked why they think other people believe in God, however, the number one reason offered was emotional need and comfort, with the good design of the world dropping to sixth place. Further, we found that educated men who already believed in God were far more likely to give rational reasons for their belief than were educated women and uneducated believers.... One explanation for these results is that although in general education leads to a decrease in religious faith, for those people who are educated and still believe in God there appears to be a need to justify their beliefs with rational arguments.
Educated people, in other words, recognize that justifying a belief on the basis of faith alone is intellectually untenable. In order to avoid looking stupid, therefore, they invent rationalizations for their own belief, while at the same time being far more candid about the motivations of others for holding the very same beliefs.
It's interesting, but what does it prove? That atheists get nowhere by using rational arguments?
Sun, 2007-03-11 22:03
#61
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b] Intelligent design has been shown many times over to be a fallacious conclusion from observable facts, yet many people still cling to it even when presented with the truth.In fact, there are millions of religious people who have been convinced, on a rational basis, by the arguments against ID, and who have as a result accepted the Darwinian explanations of natural selection, complexity, and design in nature, and yet still insist on clinging to their religious beliefs.[/b]
But of course none of that impacts Islamic theology because it does not hold itself accountable to a strict creation theory. The Qu'ran for example, [i]includes[/i] examples of advancing understandings of medical science, within its text. For many Muslims, proving Darwinian theory, or hypothesizing about the big bang, or atomic theory is completely irrelevant, as these are just further examples of gods genius at dealing out the cards.
I was told not to long ago by an emphatically devout Muslim that the Big Bang proved the existance of god. You will often see this stuff in their proslethyzing literature.
But you are saying that theology has made no advances, even in the face of the creation and popularization of a theologically world view, completely capable of absorbing any scientific develoment as an article of its canon?
Anyway. Anon.
[ 11 March 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Sun, 2007-03-18 15:02
#62
M. Spector
quote:
Pete Stark, a California Democrat, appears to be the first congressman in U.S. history to acknowledge that he doesn't believe in God. In a country in which 83% of the population thinks that the Bible is the literal or "inspired" word of the creator of the universe, this took political courage.
....
Let us hope that Stark's candor inspires others in our government to admit their doubts about God. Indeed, it is time we broke this spell en masse. Every one of the world's "great" religions utterly trivializes the immensity and beauty of the cosmos. Books like the Bible and the Koran get almost every significant fact about us and our world wrong. Every scientific domain - from cosmology to psychology to economics - has superseded and surpassed the wisdom of Scripture.
[url=http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-harris15mar15,0,671...
Tue, 2007-03-20 06:04
#63
current NY Times Sunday magazine has several letters about their cover feature from 1-2 weeks ago on "Belief .. in age of Darwin" or something like that ... Big Think feature on God issue:
[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/18/magazine/18letters.t-1.html]http://www...
I could not access that old magazine; anybody help w. link ??
[ 20 March 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]
Tue, 2007-03-20 13:41
#64
M. Spector
The article is [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04evolution.t.html?ei=5090&en... and it's excellent.
Wed, 2007-03-21 03:48
#65
thanks
[i]Which is the better biological explanation for a belief in God — evolutionary adaptation or neurological accident? Is there something about the cognitive functioning of humans that makes us receptive to belief in a supernatural deity?
And if scientists are able to explain God, what then? Is explaining religion the same thing as explaining it away? Are the nonbelievers right, and is religion at its core an empty undertaking, a misdirection, a vestigial artifact of a primitive mind?
Or are the believers right, and does the fact that we have the mental capacities for discerning God suggest that it was God who put them there?
In short, are we hard-wired to believe in God? And if we are, how and why did that happen?[/i]
[ 21 March 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]
Wed, 2007-03-21 09:01
#66
M. Spector
Interesting stats in a sidebar in the Globe and Mail today:
quote:
Christianity is Toronto's dominant religion, according to the 2001 census. The survey of religious affiliation did not ask whether respondents are active worshippers.
Here's the breakdown for Toronto from the 2001 census:
Roman Catholic 755,460
[b]No religion 453,985[/b]
Anglican 150,215
United Church 131,825
other Christian 96,340
Greek Orthodox 54,165
Baptist 50,615
other Orthodox 45,530
other Protestant 39,360
Presbyterian 35,525
Pentecostal 30,610
Lutheran 24,665
Ukrainian Catholic 13,700
Adventist 13,515
Jehovah's Witnesses 10,400
Serbian Orthodox 5,170
Methodist 5,080
Salvation Army 4,320
Evangelical Missionary Church 3,080
Ukrainian Orthodox 2,925
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) 2,720
Christian and Missionary Alliance 2,255
Non-denominational 1,250
Mennonite 1,240
Christian Reformed Church 1,120
Brethren in Christ 615
Hutterite 40
[i]All Christian 1,481,740[/i]
Muslim 165,130
Hindu 118,765
Jewish 103,500
Buddhist 66,510
Sikh 22,565
Pagan 1,740
Aboriginal spirituality 650
********
For every three Christians, there's one "no religion".
The "Nones" outnumber the Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and Buddhists combined.
Wed, 2007-03-21 09:45
#67
there was a similar national result in France , a country with 200-plus years of state secularism:
roughly 60+ per cent of the population claims Catholicism as their religion, and about 26 per cent "no religion"
(Muslims 3-4 per cent, Jewish 1 percent)
here it is from Le Monde, not on the site anymore:
[b]Si le catholicisme reste la religion la mieux йtablie dans l'Hexagone, 27,6 % des Franзais se dйclarent athйes[/b]
Article publiй le 03 Mars 2007
Par Stйphanie Le Bars
Source : LE MONDE
Taille de l'article : 295 mots
[i]Extrait : L'HEBDOMADAIRE La Vie dresse, dans son numйro du jeudi 1er mars, une cartographie dйpartementale des croyances dans l'Hexagone. Sans surprise, le catholicisme demeure la seule religion а caractиre national : 64 % des Franзais se dйclarent catholiques.
Avec seulement 47 % de catholiques, le Val-de-Marne est le dйpartement le plus dйchristianisй, tandis que la Moselle (81 %) reste le plus marquй par la religion dominante.
Selon les sondages йtudiйs par l'Ifop, les « sans religion » se rйpartissent aussi sur tout le territoire, avec une exception notable dans les dйpartements de l'Est, notamment en Alsace-Lorraine, ainsi que dans le Tarn-et-Garonne et les Alpes de Haute-Provence.[/i]
.............................
I have to disagree with some of the interpretation above:
"sans religion" does not mean "athйe", and more than secular means atheist; not the same thing at all
[ 21 March 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]
Wed, 2007-03-21 13:16
#68
M. Spector
That French story is still avilable [url=http://www.webzinemaker.com/admi/m14/page.php3?num_web=41913&rubr=4&id=3... and elsewhere.
Wed, 2007-03-21 14:02
#69
Well that NYTimes article is pretty good. I find myself wanting to investigate anyone slammed by Dawkins unless it requires me to join a cult. David Sloan Wilson in particular is probably worth a look, if only because group selection seems to rile the whole notion of individual survival and adaptation.
The whole notion of the cooperative, rather than competitive element of groups seems to be ignored by the Darwinian Science community, since they probably feel they can prove - ha ha – the effects on, and the various contributions of, the individual member of the group when it comes to measurable criteria. Acts of selflessness that benefit the other within the group, or even the entire group are surely as worthy of study as the more sexy acts of aggression, violence, and so on. This seems like a pretty big deal to me. Then again, I am not a member of the Walmart Nation, so maybe the selfish gene that Dawkins proposes is more real than I should like to admit.
The human race seems to have been able to avoid self destruction all this time – that’s a whole 6,000 years give or take. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Surely cooperation is the key to this success. I’m not denying the incredible harm and destruction done in religion’s name, I am a Northern Irish protestant (lapsed) and I loathe the games played by the church and political players. But taking responsibility and trying out trust in various ways can lead to all sorts of unexpected benefits.
The various religious communities throughout human history may indeed have been deluding themselves, as uber-Athiests contend, but given the possibility that we are indeed – as the article hits on - hard-wired to believe in God or at least the supernatural, then Dawkins’ proposal that we divest ourselves of our harmful beliefs is pretty ludicrous. I might as well tell my pc to ignore its own operating system and listen only to my Godlike voice in order to fulfil its true machine potential.
Wed, 2007-03-21 14:06
#70
Hey, Statscan fiddled those numbers!
I know three people at least who listed their religion as "Jedi" on the census forms.
Wed, 2007-03-21 14:14
#71
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]Gimme that ol' time religion... it's good enough for me![ 11 March 2007: Message edited by: M. Spector ][/b]
For one of them "free inquiry" zealots, you do a hell of a job fighting arguments that others haven't made.
All I've done is point out the obvious problem with the fool's errand you and Dawkins are on. Does that mean I "believe"? Far from it, however, it doesn't change the fact that there can be no conclusive evidence for the question. The inability to deal with unanswerable questions coupled with the need to proselytize ones lack of conclusions is a fault all its own in my book.
Good luck with that.
Wed, 2007-03-21 17:43
#72
N.Beltov
quote:
Lumpyprole: Well that NYTimes article is pretty good.
Here are a few remarks about it.
quote:
Robin Marantz Henig: Today, the effort has gained momentum, as scientists search for an evolutionary explanation for why belief in God exists - not whether God exists, which is a matter for philosophers and theologians, but why the belief does.
A number of those that believe in some sort of monotheistic deity make use of the trick that they don't necessarily believe in God ... just that they believe in belief. They don't have to deal with the issues that atheists like Richard Dawkins raise. It's too much like work. So they shift the debate to "belief in belief". It's a sign that they're losing the battle, in my view. However, it's worth adding that what I have previously called Dawkins' "shotgun" approach has to be widened and deepened in the manner that researchers like Dennett have done ... in these shifting circunstances.
Henig outlines another debate among researchers:
quote:
These scholars tend to agree on one point: that religious belief is an outgrowth of brain architecture that evolved during early human history. What they disagree about is why a tendency to believe evolved, whether it was because belief itself was adaptive or because it was just an evolutionary byproduct, a mere consequence of some other adaptation in the evolution of the human brain.
He also regurgitates that misleading intellectual surrender, uttered even by someone who should know better like Stephen J. Gould, that science and religion have separate "magisteria" or mutually exclusive domains of investigation. However, I'm glad to report that the author also quotes Dennett:
quote:
Dennett: Even if Gould was right that there were two domains, what religion does and what science does, that doesn’t mean science can’t study what religion does. It just means science can’t do what religion does.
Says Henig: "The idea that religion can be studied as a natural phenomenon [this is the subtitle of Dennett's most recent work - N.Beltov] might seem to require an atheistic philosophy as a starting point. Not necessarily. Even some neo-atheists aren’t entirely opposed to religion. Sam Harris practices Buddhist-inspired meditation. Daniel Dennett holds an annual Christmas sing-along, complete with hymns and carols that are not only harmonically lush but explicitly pious."
I'll take 2 lumps of Dennett and one lump of Dawkins. Hold the fundamentalist cream.
quote:
Henig: What can be made of atheists, then?
A very good question. In fact, some of the theorists over at [b]Internet Infidels[/b] even have a specific name for the argument that the existence of atheists is proof itself that God does not exist. It's an argument worthy of careful scrutiny and I recommend every atheist, agnostic or non-monotheist to have a look. Here is Henig's final paragraph:
quote:
This internal push and pull between the spiritual and the rational reflects what used to be called the "God of the gaps" view of religion. The presumption was that as science was able to answer more questions about the natural world, God would be invoked to answer fewer, and religion would eventually recede. Research about the evolution of religion suggests otherwise.
Henig is wrong here, I think. Why presume the results in advance?
quote:
Henig: No matter how much science can explain, it seems, the real gap that God fills is an emptiness that our big-brained mental architecture interprets as a yearning for the supernatural. The drive to satisfy that yearning, according to both adaptationists and byproduct theorists, might be an inevitable and eternal part of what Atran calls the tragedy of human cognition.
The tragedy of cognition is no more than the tragedy of human existence in general. We all must find and make meaning in a finite existence. Such questions can't be reduced to simple survival and reproduction. Furthermore, there are many occassions in social life when the surrender of one's own life is the human thing to do; this is an indication of an unwillingness to abandon our humanness, humaneness, our non-negotiable spiritual values beyond belief in some primitive deity, and remain our human selves to the death. This is no surprise at all. Such self-sacrifice is often pointed to with overwhelming social approval and unstinting admiration.
quote:
Although he may be dying even his vestiges retain man's victorious efforts on the road to immortality .... He leaves behind him something unique that he creates through words, deeds, thoughts, even greetings, a handshake or only a silent smile.Mikhail Prishvin
quote:
Lumpyprole: The whole notion of the cooperative, rather than competitive element of groups seems to be ignored by the Darwinian Science community ...
Check out Dennett's [i]Freedom Evolves[/i] in which he examines cooperative elements.
[ 21 March 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
Wed, 2007-03-21 20:53
#73
M. Spector
“I have absolutely no doubt that the secular and scientific vision is right and deserves to be endorsed by everybody, and as we have seen over the last few thousand years, superstitious and religious doctrines will just have to give way." - Daniel Dennett
Thu, 2007-03-22 08:02
#74
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]“I have absolutely no doubt...[/b]
[Cue Eric Idle][i]Say no more, say no more...[/i]
The familiar first verse of an article of faith. If it were true, the zealots wouldn't bleat so loudly.
Fri, 2007-03-23 10:42
#75
I don't think saying "I believe" or "I have no doubt" indicates blind faith. It's the verses that being with "I know and nothing will convince me otherwise" that indicate the truly faithful.
Fri, 2007-03-23 14:48
#76
quote:
Originally posted by Blondin:
[b]I don't think saying "I believe" or "I have no doubt" indicates blind faith. It's the verses that being with "I know and nothing will convince me otherwise" that indicate the truly faithful.[/b]
Where there is no doubt, there is no science.
quote:
[i]In science, self-satisfaction is death. Personal self-satisfaction is the death of the scientist. Collective self-satisfaction is the death of the research. It is restlessness, anxiety, dissatisfaction, agony of mind that nourish science.[/i]Jacques Monod
And from a Good Catholic:
quote:
[i]Preserve in everything freedom of mind. Never spare a thought for what men may think, but always keep your mind so free inwardly that you could always do the opposite.[/i]St. Ignatius Loyola
The real intellectual battle of our time is not against the hokey and childish beliefs of the superstitious and the blindly faithful as their errors are apparent enough. Rather, we face an onslaught of vain and dogmatic "scienticians" who have ironically found in scientific method a place to hang their banners, a mountain from which to proudly trumpet their superiority and to speak with the authority of On High. Priests of all kinds should be doubted. Those who come dressed in labcoats no less than those in collar and habit.
Having slayed "God" (or so they tell themselves and us) they would anoint themselves Masters of the Universe, the pinnacle of Evolution, the vanguard of a teleological progress ongoing for eons.
Science is a highly useful tool. It is also a very dangerous one, the results of which have been mixed, to say the least. It is not coextensive with truth, reality, nor human evolution - be it intellectual, spiritual or otherwise. Anyone who tells you they have "no doubt" is a snake oil salesman.
Fri, 2007-03-23 16:23
#77
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:
[b]Where there is no doubt, there is no science.[/b]
Are you absolutely sure of that?
Sat, 2007-03-24 12:57
#78
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]Are you absolutely sure of that?[/b]
Without a doubt.
Sat, 2007-03-31 16:42
#79
M. Spector
quote:
An atheist group leader says he is the victim of a religious hate crime.Freethought Association of Canada president Justin Trottier said he was assaulted at Ryerson University earlier this week while he and a colleague were hanging posters for a coming lecture.
"Their motives were clearly premised on the fact that we were atheists [publicizing] an atheist event and that was seen as unacceptable to them," Mr. Trottier said in an interview yesterday.
"They mocked the nature of the event."
Mr. Trottier, 24, and his colleague were hanging posters Tuesday night announcing a lecture by Victor Stenger, author of [b]God: The Failed Hypothesis[/b], when they were approached by two men. The men asked for a copy of the poster, mumbled under their breath and tossed it to the ground. Mr. Trottier said he yelled after them, "You could have recycled that."
Fifteen minutes later, when Mr. Trottier and his colleague were in a more secluded area of the university, he said the two men reappeared and started a verbal argument. One of the men hit him in the face twice, and butted him on his face, causing his nose to bleed, Mr. Trottier said.
He said the two men looked like they were in their early 20s. He didn't know if they attended the university. [b]"If the incident had been reversed and it had been an atheist that had physically assaulted a theist for postering for a theist event . . . that would easily be considered a hate crime -- and it frequently is.[/b] This is the exact reverse scenario," Mr. Trottier said.
"This assault should be taken just as seriously."
[url=http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC... and Mail[/url]
Stenger will be speaking on April 5 at the George Vari Engineering and Computing Centre, 245 Church St., in downtown Toronto, Room 103, Ryerson University, at 7:30 pm.
[ 31 March 2007: Message edited by: M. Spector ]
Sun, 2012-01-01 17:53
#80
M. Spector
[url=http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20111201/bc_atheist_res... are distrusted to roughly the same degree as rapists, according to a new University of British Columbia study exploring distaste for disbelievers.[/url]
Dec.1, 2011
The research, led by UBC psychology doctoral student Will Gervais, found distrust to be the central factor motivating antagonism toward atheists among the religious."Where there are religious majorities – that is, in most of the world – atheists are among the least trusted people," Gervais said in a release.
"With more than half a billion atheists worldwide, this prejudice has the potential to affect a substantial number of people."
Researchers believe the negative perception of atheists may stem from some people's understanding of morality; a 2002 Pew poll suggests nearly half of Americans believe morality is impossible without belief in god.
For one part of Gervais' six-part study, researchers compared views of atheists, homosexual men and the general population, noting that the first two groups are "often described as threatening to majority religious values and morality."
Both are explicitly denied membership to the Boy Scouts of America, the study adds.
A sample of 351 Americans between the ages of 18 and 82 were quizzed on their feelings for each group. Sixty-seven per cent or subjects were Christian while 14 per cent said they did not believe in god.
The results suggested anti-atheist prejudice was characterized by distrust, while anti-gay prejudice was characterized by disgust.
Sun, 2012-01-01 19:36
#81
I think I am an agnostic and therefore don't believe atheists are typical of those holding extremist views in general. I do fear right wing Christian fundamentalists, though, because they are in positions of power and U.S. military today. Perhaps we have a few in the Canadian military, but I can't be sure. And they believe it is their duty to "force the hand of God" in the Middle East or something to that effect. They think that a war of Armageddon is inevitable and that only 144K or so Jews will be saved or something close to it according to this rabidly anti-Semitic belief. If only 144,000, then apparently they are willing to write down the lives of 6 million Jewish people to the inevitability of their twisted religious views.
Mon, 2012-01-02 08:53
#82
I'm open to evidence if and when any is presented, because I'm generally against 100% absolutism.
Mon, 2012-01-02 09:24
#83
It's either the case that this guy prefers living on the edge, or it just amounts to one more thing in the Bible that the higher ups no longer take seriously for themselves.
Rev.22:18-19 says: I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Mon, 2012-01-02 09:25
#84
Boom Boom
A bit of drift - retired US Anglican bishop John Shelby Spong has a new book out in which he argues that the bible should be continued/expanded upon, among the contributors he would like to see is Martin Muther King, perhaps in the form of 'epistles'. I've long thought the bible could be easily expanded, but my fear has been that it would be taken over by right wing fundie crazies. I guess conservatives fear an expanded bible would be taken over by the far left. Haven't read Spong's book yet, not sure I will.
Mon, 2012-01-02 10:21
#85
@ Boom Boom
It's interesting, but hardly a revelation.
You want different bibles? Take your pick; some of them translate the same passage with completely different meanings. And there are a number of different versions I know of which aren't even on this list.
Why doesn't he just compile a modern book of scripture/philosophy - preferably one that isn't god-centred and can apply to atheists as well? Near as I can see trying to put new books in the bible is an exercise that is going to satisfy no one, as you say.
Mon, 2012-01-02 10:23
#86
Boom Boom
That was a fast response, SJ! I'm impressed. 
ETA: It's been a really long time since I've read any commentary or research on Revelation, but I'm aware there are other warnings in scripture against messing with 'holy writ'. What authority do they carry - were they a later addition by a scribe, etc... I'm not a biblical literalist (fundie) and I hvae a tendency to question things I am unsure about. I've long felt that scripture should be the continuing story of God's revelation - not simply closed or ended with the final words of Revelation.
Mon, 2012-01-02 10:30
#87
Boom Boom
I'm aware of the different bibles out there - I even have the Reader's Digest condensed version (it was a gift many years ago).
ETA: The Spong article suggests to me that Spong is trying to start the conversation. Actually getting new books into the canon of scripture would take many, many decades and probably would end in failure.
Mon, 2012-01-02 10:49
#88
Boom Boom
Why doesn't he just compile a modern book of scripture/philosophy - preferably one that isn't god-centred and can apply to atheists as well? Near as I can see trying to put new books in the bible is an exercise that is going to satisfy no one, as you say.
Excellent idea. I looked for his email address, not available. He has a website.
Mon, 2012-01-02 13:37
#89
M. Spector
I'm open to evidence if and when any is presented, because I'm generally against 100% absolutism.
I guess the jury's still out on Santa Claus. And there's a lot more evidence for his existence than there is for a deity.
Mon, 2012-01-02 13:57
#90
I'm leaving .5% or so out of a possible 100% certainty that Santa, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny and a supreme designer do not exist, just in case. To me that would better represent an antithesis to the typical 100% certainty we normally encounter with theism.
Mon, 2012-01-02 14:10
#91
I've long thought the bible could be easily expanded, but my fear has been that it would be taken over by right wing fundie crazies. I guess conservatives fear an expanded bible would be taken over by the far left. Haven't read Spong's book yet, not sure I will.
Have you heard of Conservapedia's Bible project, where they are re-translating the Bible to remove the liberal bias? Srsly!
http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project
The Conservative Bible Project is a project utilizing the "best of the public" to render God's word into modern Englishwithout liberal translation distortions.[1] ...Already our translators have identified numerous pro-abortion distortions that omit or twist clear references to the unborn child.Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations. There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning are, in increasing amount:
- lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ
- lack of precision in modern language
- translation bias, mainly of the liberal kind, in converting the original language to the modern one.
Experts in ancient languages are helpful in reducing the first type of error above, which is a vanishing source of error as scholarship advances understanding. English language linguists are helpful in reducing the second type of error, which also decreases due to an increasing vocabulary. But the third -- and largest -- source of translation error requires conservative principles to reduce and eliminate.[3]
As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:[4]
- Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias. For example, the Living Bible translation has liberal evolutionary bias;[5] the widely used NIV translation has a pro-abortion bias.[6]
- Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other feminist distortions; preserve many references to the unborn child (the NIV deletes these)
- Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity[7]; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level[8]
- Utilize Terms which better capture original intent: using powerful new conservative terms to capture better the original intent;[9] Defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words that have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".
- Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction[10] by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";[11] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census
- Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
- Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
- Exclude Later-Inserted Inauthentic Passages: excluding the interpolated passages that liberals commonly put their own spin on, such as the adulteress story
- Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels
- Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."
This is the sort of stuff that makes satire redundant, no?
Mon, 2012-01-02 14:35
#92
Boom Boom
Sineed:
Meanwhile: Council of Chalcedon to Be Re-fought on Bethlehem Quidditch Pitch
excerpt:
BETHLEHEM - Following a broomstick brawl between priests of the Greek Orthodox and Armenian Apostolic Churches in the Church of the Nativity, the two churches, at odds since their falling out over the definition of Christ's nature at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, have agreed to decide the theological question once and for all in a game of Monastic Quidditch here in Bethlehem.
"We'll show those stinking Monophysites," said Greek team captain Nikodimos Apollonarios. "Christ has two natures and we're going to beat you by two points!"
"We are not Monophysites!" said Armenian captain Aghexandr Lylozian, "and we're going to beat the Chalcedon out of you heretics."
"Is that really the way Christians are supposed to speak to one another?" asked your intrepid editor.
"We have a dispensation from our bishop," said Lylozian. "Talking Quidditch smack is allowed under ekonomia."
Mon, 2012-01-02 14:46
#93
I guess the jury's still out on Santa Claus.
Nope, Santa copped a plea - part of the deal is doing community service once a year.
Mon, 2012-01-02 14:49
#94
I think I am an agnostic ...
I'm not sure if I am or not.
Mon, 2012-01-02 15:12
#95
Boom Boom
The newest Bible translation:
(sent by a FB friend)
Mon, 2012-01-02 15:21
#96
@ Sineed
That's as interesting as it is terrifying. Just a bit more evidence that many so-called literalists aren't really interested in following what they say is the word of god.
Also, I see some problems. I know the Shocken translation of the Books of Moses points out that the god in those books was neither male nor female, so their whole patriarchal image is based on a mistranslation.
As well, this reminds me of Jim Wallis's exercise of taking all the references to poverty (the thing Jesus apparently spoke of more than anything else) out of the bible. He found over 3,000 references.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Wallis
(lest anyone think all evangelicals are on the right wing)
And Thomas Jefferson's de-magicked bible.
Mon, 2012-01-02 19:37
#97
And speaking of playing fast and loose with the rules:
http://www.memecenter.com/fun/25391/sometimes-thats-why-we-get-sick
(edit)
And something else that could probably use its own thread - Harper's new office of religious freedom:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/baird-defends-office-of-rel...
Mon, 2012-01-02 21:41
#98
As well, this reminds me of Jim Wallis's exercise of taking all the references to poverty (the thing Jesus apparently spoke of more than anything else) out of the bible. He found over 3,000 references.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Wallis
(lest anyone think all evangelicals are on the right wing)
And Thomas Jefferson's de-magicked bible.
Well that's strange. Because according to Al Franken and Don Simpson, Jesus was a conservative.
Now I'm really confused.
Mon, 2012-01-02 22:04
#99
Boom Boom
Long hair, sandals, peasant robe, beatific smile - naw, he's gotta be a hippy liberal, and probably on drugs. Peace, man.
Mon, 2012-01-02 22:12
#100
You must mean Republican Jesus™ , Fidel
Mon, 2012-01-02 22:14
#101
Boom Boom
oh my god!!! 