| Helping the poor and the end of the world Mar 25th 2012, 10:34 Just wondering how moral the various bits in the New Testament about sharing stuff, giving someone your shirt, turn the other cheek, actually are.
I assume this is high moral ground stuff, but is it? If you think the end of the world is next week, would you not suggest this stuff?
And that makes it not that moral! | | The myth of the great flood. Mar 22nd 2012, 19:11 Written by mfaber at iidb.org
I have been looking for any scientific study of how much water it would take to flood the earth to three cubits above the highest mountain on earth. (If anyone knows the answer to this I would love to see it.) Can't find any study, but this little bit of history shows that the great flood story is a myth, because many civilizations lived through the time of the flood with no reports of flooding.
I tried to track down the article's author or where it was printed, but it is an old article and the links don't work anymore, so I had to post the relevant info here. However if you do a search on any of these examples you will find millions of links to the various cities and civilizations, all pointing out that what is said here is true. Though I'm sure many of you already know this, It was a first for me. I know that the true believers here will dispute this, but come up with a truthful rebuttal? They can lie about it or re write it but they can't change history.
"The Biblical flood did not happen. This is a falsifiable date. The Bible gives the date of the flood as beginning 2345 BCE and ending in 2344 BCE If this were really the world-wide gig claimed by creationists then the civilizations of the world would all show a disruption in their history or at least take note of such an event, but does the rest of archeology/history corroborate the Biblical account===> NO!
1. The city of Ur of the Chaldees (ancient Sumer, location of the "plains of Shinar", hangout of Noah) was the leading city from about 2400 BCE until about 2,285 BCE and its history is not broken by any flood in this period.
2. Babylon was rising to power from about 2,400 BCE on and reached a great height of civilization under the famous King Hammurabi, who would have been a contempory of Hebrew patriarch Abraham (about 2,250 BCE), and again there is no break in this history due to a flood.
3. In Egypt, the 5th Dynasty, which began to reign about 2,465 BCE, was followed by the 6th Dynasty (2,323 BCE), which ruled to about 2000 BCE. This time-period is very well-documented and there was no disruption during the 5th Dynasty at the time of Noah's flood, 2,345 BCE, with the nation remaining strong and powerful throughout these dynasties.
4. The Harappan Civilization(2300 - 1900 BCE) in India shows no disruptions at the time of the Flood and, ironically, appears to have ended because of a region-wide drought! (some used to think that an invasion was the cause, but the evidence points away from this earlier scenario).
5. Chinese history begins nearly 3,000 BCE. The Shu-King historic record of China, shows that King Yao came to the throne in 2356 BCE and ruled China for many years after the alleged flood. Incidentally, durring the reign of Yao, the Shu King reports that the Hwang Ho River flooded on a number of times, for three generations, again with NO break in history. Please consult the History of China or THIS timeline. The only place you find these early rulers listed are at Chinese sites (spelled Tangyao, Westerners shorten this to Yao).
6. Ancient civilizations in India which predate the Bible entirely and shows no evidence that such an event ever happened ( appearance of the oldest book of the Hindu religion, the Rig Veda pre-dates the Bible considerably, according to astronomical dating provided by astronomical events listed in the Rig Veda)…"
There you go all you true believers, now all you have to do is prove that history is a lie. Good luck with that. ;)
David | | Yet another RCC scandal exacerpated by emergence of evidence of Vatican cover-up Mar 22nd 2012, 19:08 http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...2fb96c5fbe3368 Quote:
Pope Benedict XVI arrives in Mexico this week to a very public reminder of one of the Catholic Church's most egregious sex abuse scandals: A new book says internal Vatican documents show the Holy See knew decades ago of allegations that the Mexican founder of the disgraced Legion of Christ religious order was a drug addict and pedophile.
The documentation has been compiled in a book "La voluntad de no saber" ("The will to not know"), which is co-authored by Jose Barba, a former Legion priest who along with other priests in 1998 brought a church trial against the Legion's founder, the Rev. Marciel Maciel, for having sexually abused them while they were seminarians.
While details of the abuse were made public years ago, the new documents seem to solidify proof that the Vatican knew of the allegations long before taking action. Excerpts of the book were published by the Mexican magazine Proceso on Sunday.
"The importance of this book is that it documents the irrefutable evidence and proof that the Vatican has been lying about Maciel," said Bernardo Barranco, an expert from the Religious Studies Center of Mexico and author of the prologue of the new text.
| David | | Interesting Discovery Channel prog on people who have left the Amish Mar 21st 2012, 22:40 People who still think they are going to hell, because if you are not Amish who are going to hell.
People who think they can worship the biblical god better outside.
People who are deprived of the paper work they need to get a driving licence, and have to work like buggery to get it.
A community of people who have left.
Some who go back, because there are elements of being in the cult that they miss.
I can relate to that - there was a lot I missed about my cult.
Particularly - and I can't relate to this personally, but have enough empathy to sympathise - people who are being shunned by their families and miss them.
People who have been abused, and accounts of people being shunned because they make a fuss about it,
I don't want to say that all children brought up in a religious household are abused children, though I would go as far as to say that people who are genitally mutilated for religious reasons are abused, and people brought up to believe that they are doomed to hell if they demur are abused, and that people who are abused are abused, and people who are shunned for complaining of abuse are doubly abused.
The prog sort of reinforces my judgement that those who say we should just STFU about religion, on the basis that there are some religious views which are not obviously out of touch with reality (taking evolution on board and stuff), are not harmful and can provide comfort, have not really thought through the implications of that view.
There is some really nasty stuff in religion, and the Amish leavers prog just reinforces that.
As an ex cultist myself, I've read, and been politicised by, not only web sites about fellow ex cultists from my own ex cult, but ex Mormons, ex JWs, ex-Muslims, ex-Scientologists - the list goes on.
I don't think we should STFU, but that we should be vocal about the damage that religion can and sometimes does do, and the lack of credible evidence in favour of any of it.
The Amish look cute and quaint, but for the kids brought up within that milieu it is really bad news.
David | | 40 Days for Life Performing Exorcisms At Ohio Abortion Clinic Mar 20th 2012, 22:04 http://www.care2.com/causes/40-days-...on-clinic.html Oh.....FFS.....these people are deranged..... Quote:
The national anti-abortion network 40 Days for Life has decided to transition from prayer vigils outside an Ohio abortion clinic to something a little more spiritually aggressive. According to reports the group held an exorcism at the clinic this Sunday.
The group first sought the permission of the Rev. Steve J. Angi, chancellor of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Cincinnati before organizing the satanic purge. Ruth Reddens, an organizer with the 40 Days for Life campaign explained the group would be holding a "exorcism of locality" which is designed to drive evil out of a place rather than a person.
Rick Pender, spokesman for Planned Parenthood of Southwest Ohio, which refers local women for abortions and performs abortions at a clinic in Cincinnati, said, "This is America — people have a right to free speech. We don't agree that we're doing something evil. We're providing a service that is needed and appreciated by a lot of people."
The event included a reading of the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel, written by Pope Leo XIII in 1886 and is one of the "minor" exorcism traditions in the Catholic faith.
Believe it or not this is not the first time anti-choice activists have turned to exorcism. A similar vigil was held in 2009 at a Rockford, Illinois clinic.
| | | Pastor Terry Introduces Rick Santorum, Tells Liberals and Non-Christians to 'Get Out' of America Mar 20th 2012, 21:29 http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten...stians-get-out So much for separation of church and state....again.... Quote:
Greenwell Springs Baptist Church pastor Dennis Terry introduced presidential candidate Rick Santorum and Family Research Council president Tony Perkins tonight in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, with a rousing speech railing against liberals and non-Christians and condemning abortion rights, "sexual perversion," same-sex marriage and secular government. Terry said that America "was founded as a Christian nation" and those that disagree with him should "get out! We don't worship Buddha, we don't worship Mohammad, we don't worship Allah!" Terry, who has a long history of attacks against the gay community, went on to criticize marriage equality for gays and lesbians, and said that the economy can only recover when we "put God back" in government.
Watch: Greenwell Springs Baptist Church pastor Dennis Terry introduced presidential candidate Rick Santorum and Family Research Council president Tony Perkins tonight in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, with a rousing speech railing against liberals and non-Christians and condemning abortion rights, "sexual perversion," same-sex marriage and secular government. Terry said that America "was founded as a Christian nation" and those that disagree with him should "get out! We don't worship Buddha, we don't worship Mohammad, we don't worship Allah!" Terry, who has a long history of attacks against the gay community, went on to criticize marriage equality for gays and lesbians, and said that the economy can only recover when we "put God back" in government.
Watch:
(Not loaded: B2emBxDOY7g)
Update: At the end of the event, Terry prayed over Santorum and asked God to "have favor upon Rick Santorum" and to "do a mighty work" in President Obama's life:
(Not loaded: mvYERZvu9_0)
| | | The catholic church in Holland gets its revenge. Mar 20th 2012, 21:25 Report one of our's for molesting you and we'll cut your balls off! Quote:
Two clergymen were convicted of abuse but Mr Heithuis, a victim, was nonetheless transferred by police to a Catholic psychiatric hospital before being admitted to the St. Joseph Hospital in Veghel later that year.
There, court papers confirm, he was castrated "at his own request", despite no submission of his written consent. Sources told Mr Dohmen that the surgical removal of testicles was regarded as a treatment for homosexuality and also as a punishment for those who accused clergy of sexual abuse.
| Even worse it looks like the Governemt of the day was aware and just went along. :eek: | | Has the Atheist Movement Been Chasing a Red Herring? Mar 19th 2012, 16:44 http://www.atheistrev.com/2012/03/ha...asing-red.html This is an interesting one, which, I think, should spark some discussion.....one way or another :) Quote:
Are the culture wars raging in the U.S. really about religion, or are we facing a much larger problem in which religion is simply one more tool used by the powerful to control the masses? How we answer this question is of vital importance to the atheist movement, at least the part of it based in the U.S. For the most part, I think it is fair to say that we have been operating as if it is really about religion. That is, most of our efforts seem to fit the perspective that religion is of central importance in the culture wars. But what if we're wrong?
Suppose that religion is not the central issue at all but little more than a tool, a tool used by the powerful to manipulate the masses. A more perfect tool could scarcely be imagined. By casting issues in religious terms, the powerful can easily activate the emotions of the people. Is there any better way to inflame the passions of one's supporters than to suggest that their very religion is under attack by an outside threat? Need money for a campaign? Manufacture a "war on Christmas."
To the degree that religion is a tool used in this way, one would have to wonder if the efforts of the atheist movement have been futile…or worse. An argument could be made that we have been doing little more than pursuing a red herring. Instead of addressing the central issues (e.g., massive social inequality, a sellout of the media to corporate masters, and really nothing short of the end of democracy), we've been focusing on a somewhat trivial distraction. And one could go one additional step and suggest that we've become the bogeyman needed by the powerful to make their false drama seem all the more real.
Maybe none of this is true and religion really is the central issue. But I think it might be helpful, at least for me, to stop periodically and reevaluate where I've been focusing my efforts. I need to ask myself whether at least a portion of my time and energy wouldn't be better spent elsewhere. This sort of critical reflection is one of the only protections I have against finding that I'm merely a pawn in someone else's game.
| BTW: just for comfort for the admins...I contacted the author of all the Atheist Rev posts, and got his permission to reproduce them at SC. | | The Evolution of religions Mar 19th 2012, 15:11 Fundamentalism can clearly be understood as a late nineteenth century invention in reaction to the modern world.
I wonder if this is true of other religions - Sikkhism, Wahaabism, Pentecostals, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses...?
Therefore dump modernism.....:evil: | | The Apologist's Turnstile by Ebonmuse Mar 17th 2012, 05:20 The Apologist's Turnstile | Daylight Atheism | Big Think After mentioning Morton's Demon, a form of selective attention, he continues: Quote:
Today, I want to discuss a different but equally commmon one: the idea that no particular level of knowledge is needed to assent to a religion, but an impossibly, unattainably high level of knowledge and expertise is needed to deny it. In the minds of many believers, the entrance to their religion is like a subway turnstile: a barrier that only allows people to pass through in one direction.
This is similar to the tactic called the Courtier's Reply, the silencing argument often used against atheists which holds that no one is qualified to criticize a religion in any particular unless they've completed a total study of its most esoteric doctrines. The difference is that the Apologist's Turnstile adds the assumption, implicitly or explicitly, that none of this knowledge is necessary to join or to be a member of that same religion.
| Not only that, none of that knowledge is supposed to be necessary to reject every other religion and every other sect. Consider that in Islam, the canonical version of the Koran is the original Arabic version, and that means that one would have to be proficient in Classical Arabic in order to properly criticize it. But most non-Muslims don't think that they ever have to read the Koran in order to reject Islam, let alone read the Koran in the original Arabic. | | fundamentalist atheism. Mar 17th 2012, 00:41 So, it came up again today that someone who commonly insults people who hold different ideas than this individual does didn't like my use of the term fundamentalist atheist, and it occurred to me that it might be a good idea to explain what it means when i use the term.
Hopefully, a few of the actual specemins will show up and provide examples in this thread for examination and analysis. Potentially one might even make the telltale mark of using the word 'oxymoron'. However, we need not get such absolute confirmation to identify and describe the true believers.
First, they correctly identify it as a derogetory term and simultaneously as an accurate in terms of descriptive and identifying term so it is pretty easy to get them to respond simply by using the word.
What does it mean when I use the term? It means an atheist who holds tightly to a prescribed truth to the point where they allow it to define what hey are capable of perceiving. In other words, the effect is identical to religious fundamentalism which is why it makes afundamentalist atheists so uncomfortable to hear the phrase. They cannot process the idea that there is a point of view which is not us or them.
One example of fundamentalist atheistic truth is that god means only a bearded guy in the sky or nothing at all. When pressed, a fundamentalist atheist will often go so far as to say there is no possible useful other meaning and so what everyone really means is a bearded guy in the sky.
Often they will claim that some materialist ontological position or another is obviously truth and they also tend to get angry when someone points out the simple-mindedness at best and pure cluelessness at the median down to hate-speech at the low end.
Sometimes, the really stupid ones will actually argue that the phrase doesnt mean to me what i define it to mean to me, apparently in the blind misunderstanding that anyone can use any phrase they want and define it however they want.
Finally, the main reason i assign a contemptuous tone to the label is because fundamentalist atheists are almost always abusive to others regarding their ridiculous and wrong truths and i like to see how abusive people deal with justifies scorn heaped back on them.
Its like tweaking the bullys nose. And the ideas underlying fundamentalist atheism really are stupid and simple which makes the irony factor high. | | Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams to stand down Mar 16th 2012, 13:43 Quote:
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams to stand down
Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams Dr Williams will continue as the Archbishop of Canterbury until the end of the year
Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams has announced he is to stand down in December.
He will take the position of Master of Magdalene College at the University of Cambridge from January next year, his website says.
Dr Williams, 61, was appointed the 104th Archbishop of Canterbury in 2002.
In a statement on his website, the head of the 85 million-strong Anglican Communion said serving as archbishop had been "an immense privilege".
He said stepping down had not been an easy decision.
He added that during the time he has left there is "much to do" and thanked those in the Church of England and the wider Anglican Communion who had "brought vision, hope and excitement" during his ministry.
In a more in-depth interview, Dr Williams reflected on growing divisions within the Anglican Church, and said it seemed some conflicts would not go away "however long you struggle with them".
....
| http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17399403 | |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.