±«Óãtv

Re:"Religion may become extinct in nine nations":

Maybe International Planned Parenthood should read that article.They seem to be having concerns about an opposite outcome in Europe.

mscracker,

I think you may be confusing two different phenomena.

The article quoting the demise of religion refers to the practise of religion amongst the masses, the article from IPP refers to the churches' hierarchy desperately and insidiously using whatever influence they can muster to get their way bypassing democracy on the way.

The two are not incompatible if the churches reduce to their corporate structures, and the laity become secular, and those corporate structures become screaming right wing extremists then both predictions become largely fulfilled. I would predict that as the churches become smaller and more out of touch they will lose whatever influence they had (which will cause them to scream even louder about victimisation and special god given privileges) and become a reclusive and anachronistic bunch closed of from the rest of society without influence and largely irrelevant to mainstream life. The only way I see for them to remain relevant to the majority is to reassess their dogma and move to a more humanistic outlook on life based on equality and respect not rules and punishments.

I think it will be a while in happening whatever the outcome.

The survey results are encouraging. Not long ago a guest on Sunday Sequence said that the Czech Republic was the country in Europe with most non-believers, and this survey supports what he said. A big growth market for Christians is China, where I have read that one company is producing 1 million copies of the Bible every month.

The bishops in these countries may come under pressure to find some Lourdes-like nonsense to regenerate interest and to help refill the coffers!

@3:
I think the IPPF is couching their words a bit, though they're not afraid to mention Catholics in the article.(Not a surprise.)
If they're afraid of a "rise of the religious right" in Europe I think they're referring to more of a movement rather than the "same old, same old" from the Church hierarchy.
And I'm not sure why religion is required to be democratic, or how it would be improved by democracy.Even in civil issues, "equality" is based upon rules & there are punishments when laws are broken.And in some societies some are more "equal" than others.

mscracker,


rules and punishments in democratic society are decided by democratic not theocratic means, we the people have a say in those rules. That is the benefit as it means stupid or inhuman rules based on various beliefs do not get any more credence than they deserve. I did not say that religion was required to be democratic in itself I simply indicated that it has no job trying to pervert democracy or be exempted from democratically agreed rules.

What wonderful certainty regarding the demise of religion! Really, I'm not being a smart alec here, I just find the mindset at work to be quite fascinating. Clearly based on the Whig view of history, there is no doubt in the minds of contributors that religion is on the way out, hooray! The trouble, however, is that we cannot even predict what's going to happen over the next two or three years, as the recent sudden collapse of the world economy should have thought us. In fact, the Whig view is a nonsense - there is only right and wrong, and you need to pick a side, that's the only real 'freedom' human beings have. I would make a modest prediction (which may or may not come to pass) that as the demi-paradise of sweet atheist rationality fails to materialize, the age old truths of religion will be revisited by an increasing number. There are practical worldly advantages to such things as prudence, industry, self-denial and personal responsibility, all of which are anathema to the way we live now.

@5:
The problem with pure democracy is that you can end up with mob rule. And "stupid or inhumane rules" can be voted in by a majority if there is no constitution to protect the freedom of the minority.And I think many Americans would argue that the U.S. Constitution is based on Judeo-Christian teachings.
If a religious doctrine is based on unchanging truths, a majority vote will not affect what is objectively moral/immoral. Moses did not take up a vote on which Commandments to obey.
@6:
I agree that folks enjoy predictions like this when in reality, we actually have no idea what tomorrow might bring. And I always find it interesting-and a bit odd-that intelligent people, which would describe most atheists, can only believe in a material world/universe.Our minds, as wonderfully made as they are, are only finite & it seems a bit prideful & limited to not admit there may be more than we can wrap our limited intelligence around.

Her Indoors!

Last year a short course on the Hebrew Bible was linked to from this blog. Reference was made to the Ras Shamra tablets that identified the Canaanite pantheon. El was the main man (sky god) and Asherah was his wife. I forget the name of the scholar who took the course, but she referred to the "striking resemblances between the biblical gods of the patriarchs and the Canaanite god El."

I presume that at some later date scribes saw fit to rework the myth.

@7
The problem with religious doctrines is that they cannot change when they are found to be in error and that they can be manipulated through time and translation. Moses may not have taken a vote, that makes him a dictator, and he has no right to speak to us today as to what we decide ourselves is moral or not, we did not elect him. I would rather live with the flaws and risks of a modern secular democracy than the, sometimes frankly inhuman, shackles of a ancient myth about mountains and tablets or the 600 odd rules invented by sheepherders 3000 years ago who had no concept of a wife as anything other than property.

A theocracy leaves no room for personal morality in areas where they are purely benign and consensual. There is no such thing as objective morality except in the eyes of those who wish to impose one. You and I can have different morals and be free to act on them with others who share the same morality within a secular and free society. This causes no injury to you or impact on you or society at large. A theocracy removes that freedom and imposes a morality without a care for the individual harm it causes.

@6 interesting that you dismiss the capability to predict and then make your own predictions.

@9:
I think a democratic republic works for me.But one based on the 10 Commandments.

Casur 6 "There are practical worldly advantages to such things as prudence, industry, self-denial and personal responsibility, all of which are anathema to the way we live now."

I have a horrible feeling that ,when each generation reaches a *certain age* , it has a tendency to reflect on the society it's in through a certain light. I think you could find examples going back through recorded history echoing your sentiments and I certainly don't think even in recent recorded history -the 18th or 19th century for example, that their age was any better than our own. At least society and laws here & now in the West protect the vulnerable from the cruelty and abuse of others to a greater extent

"A theocracy leaves no room for personal morality in areas where they are purely benign and consensual" This is the problem the Catholic Church has with personal morality- that it makes any fixed rule of faith impossible and disempowers the role & influence the Catholic Church can exercise over an individual

Is this really what it means to be a proud Irish speaking Catholic? :s
/news/uk-northern-ireland-12832306

@12:
Re. "benign & consensual": we currently have polygamists in America argueing this point.And a brother & sister couple, with a child/children, in Germany has asked for changes in incest laws.And then there are the pedophiles lobbying for a lowering of the age of consent.
I like libertarian ideas up to a point, but maybe up to a point before Western society falls apart.

re14- Secular , common law covers that. There is of course a necessity for an element of common sense.Common law & a secular society seem to be a better defender of that than Biblical law & a theocracy

mscracker,

The 10 commandments are a very poor way of establishing a law, given an alarming minority of them refer to thought crimes. Are you going to start making jealousy illegal? How about not respecting your parents, even if they abuse you? I suggest you read before suggesting such a ludicrous course of action.

Casur1,

Yey for mindless theists! Funny how secular atheism, and the tolerance, rational progress and liberalism that it brings, is on the increase all over the world. Now, I can back up my claims with evidence, can you?

@16:
Based upon the 10 Commandments, not the Commandments as penal code.
Jealousy & coveting what is not one's own is the basis of much crime here where I live.
One can respect parents in differing ways.In extreme situations one can at least respect the fact they gave you life.

@15:
Who legislates common sense? And how can you defend one couple's rights against another's using common sense?
I think the libertarian model believes in man as basically rational & if left to his/her own devices, will make the best decisions.
I like that idea as far as it goes but in the end I believe our weakened nature comes into play.

Natman, besides the obligatory casual abuse atheists believe themselves entitled to indulge in, you're not actually saying anything. You speak to me of virtues like tolerance, yet seem completely unaware that the very concept of virtue is a religious one. You don't even get to a notion of right and wrong without religion, and the virtues that atheists have convinced themselves only appeared in their generation are actually parasitic on the back of thousands of years of theology. But go ahead, tell yourself I'm mindless because I don't see things your way - I can tolerate that.

Casur1,

"You don't even get to a notion of right and wrong without religion"

Ah, that old potato again. I'm assuming you've evidence to back that claim up and it's not just grand posturing?

Unlike you, I don't need a religion to tell me what's right and what's wrong. I can figure that out all by myself.

Correlation does not imply causaton.

Casur,"..actually parasitic on the back of thousands of years of theology"

There's interdependency pretty much everywhere you look. Christianity grew out of Judaism. Atheism grew (for the most part out of Christianity) There is a certain symmetry in behaviour between those 2 parallels. It's less to do with religion- or lack of it, & more to do with human behaviour - where one group feels it has the upperhand. Our culture is still rooted in Ancient Greece , so it's a little unfair to attribute virtue to being a soley religious concept

mscracker,

Which 10 commandments would you base the law upon then? Don't kill, steal or give false witness? Wow. That just about sums up every legal system ever, even those based on totally non-bibical sources.

All the rest are blantant monotheistic religious rules that I would fight, tooth and nail, to keep out of the legal system. You can restrict yourself whichever way you want, but the right for me to think and say what I want is sacrosanct.

This mindset that the 10 commandments are some kind of ideal law is highly flawed. Once you remove the rules telling you to worship god, the rest are either based on a wierd moral code (I'll sleep around if I want!) or common sense (no killing? Duh).

Casur:

"...You speak to me of virtues like tolerance, yet seem completely unaware that the very concept of virtue is a religious one."

Oh boy. Oh dear. Virtue IS religious.

Give up and go home. Self-flaggellate on the way. Carry a cross! Wear a crown of thorns. But whatever you do, don't dare to hold your head up high. Don't you dare stand up straight. Do NOT think for yourself, because because because...

There is a better way...

Glory Be.

Casur1

Was the concept of virtue not first expounded by Aristotle as part of his development of moral philosophy ? That no more makes virtue a religious concept than a wedding a christian construct.

as for

"You don't even get to a notion of right and wrong without religion"

rubbish.

I sometimes think religious people are so used to peddling their theistic nonsense as fact that they cannot even distinguish the boundaries between their bible based fiction and the fictional claims they extrapolate from it.

Please don't think this is casual abuse as I do it in love - as I always say Love the christian, Hate the christianity.

"You don't even get to a notion of right and wrong without religion"

Speak for yourself. Perhaps you're wicked and libidinous, but for the grace of your spy-in-the-sky, but the brightest lights in the history of ethics have very often been unbelievers.

In any case, the no-god-then-everything-is-permitted line applies more to believers than atheists.

Plato puts it thus: Is a thing considered good because it is good in itself, or because god wills it?

If it's the former, then god is not the source of good-ness (virtue/morality/ethics).

If it's the latter, then eating babies should be considered good if god willed it.

This has not been answered satisfactorily by the religious.

@19. Casur1 :

I agree.
Our society here in the States & Western civilization for many centuries has been based on Judeo-Christian teachings, though at times imperfectly.
We take this for granted.
And I'm perplexed by the caustic posts of those who profess no belief in God & yet say they can muddle through the concepts of right & wrong with no assistance from the Creator.The internet seems to bring out bad manners in anonymous posters in general, but rude remarks hardly demonstrate discernment of virtue or a moral code of manners I'd want to follow.

On the question of virtue Aristotle writes that happiness is:

"an activity of the soul in accordance with perfect virtue".

Christianity later twisted his meaning of the the words "soul" and "virtue". The soul for Aristotle (so my book tells me) is just being alive. "Virtue" has more to do with excellence than saintliness. So, Aristotle could talk about a virtuous knife and a virtuous horse.

"A virtuous human, then, is someone who performs distinctly human activities very well. A virtuous human is an excellent thinker."

Sorry, but I've said that I think people to be essentially good, if fallible and flawed. Your friend said that without his god people can't tell right from wrong, the implication being that people are intrinsically evil and would be wicked, left to their own devices. I think that doctrine is pretty worthy of contempt. A large part of my moral objection to religion is that it misleads people so horrendously in this way, as has been pointed out as far back as history goes by people with the slightest regard for truth. It actually pains me to watch the extent to which people will go in order to blind themselves to the plain fact that the monotheistic god is a monster, one of man's most evil creations, and that religion is a millstone around humanity's neck.

@28: I do agree with your first point.In religous-speak we'd say man has a weakened nature due to "The Fall", which I'm rather sure you'd reject, but I think it still describes something essentially good but flawed.
I'm not sure the previous poster you refer to believes in man having a depraved nature or not. I don't see that expressed in his post.
And I should also say that some religious folk's posts are uncharitable in the extreme.It goes both ways on the internet.

Pope to ''

@ 30:
Thanks for the "Onion" link! It's one of my son's favorite sites.
It would have been a bit more timely, though, next Friday(April Fool's.)

Former church elder convicted of massive fraud. Victims included motorbike legend Robert Dunlop.

/news/uk-northern-ireland-politics-12865970

@msc

Every day's April Fools' Day at the Onion.

So Franklin Graham thinks we might be near the end eh? Pity he didn't make a specific prediction as to when the end would come. If he had, he could have joined the countless other (judeo)christian nutties who thought they new the plan of the big sky daddy. A few hundred of them are listed here:



And if anyone doubted what sort of nut the reverend is, there is plenty more (apart from being the intensely devout christian in itself). He has some quite wacky ideas about the Muslim Brotherhood having infiltrated every level of the US Government.

@33:
There you go. :)

This was an interesting article in Prospect this month concerning morality

Jesuits agree to pay £103.03 million to hundreds of sex abuse victims.

/news/world-us-canada-12868046

Distinguished biblical scholar Bart Ehrman reveals in his latest book:

"The Apostle Peter was illiterate, and therefore could not have written two letters (1 & 2 Peter) credited to him in the Bible.

Six of the Pauline letters in the New Testament are forgeries.

The First Book of Timothy, known to be a forgery, is still used today to oppress women, and provides the Scriptural basis for the Roman Catholic Church's refusal to ordain female priests."

Read more:

newlach (@ 38) -

I think this is a case of "forgery is in the eye of the beholder". Strip away all the fallacious philosophical assumptions and agendas that are brought to the biblical text, and these critics wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Atheists and cynics can form a long queue and wait their turn to have their rather sad 15 minutes of notoriety 'proving' to the world that the Bible is not what it seems. It's nothing new and it's not going to make any difference to the views of genuine believers. The Word of God has weathered far worse storms than this.

The Bible itself makes clear that there are enemies of God. Christians know this full well. So another one rears his head. So what? Are we surprised or shocked?

In fact, if the Bible didn't have such vicious critics then I suppose we would have reason to be worried. Think about it.

"In fact, if the Bible didn't have such vicious critics then I suppose we would have reason to be worried. Think about it."

Interesting. That a body of work can have criticism leveled at it by those opposed to it on a fundamental level is a marker of its worthiness?

The Bible, as it stands, is -not- the body of scriptures that the early church would've used to manage doctrine or to establish precendent. The bible most people use at the moment isn't even that collection of manuscripts put together 300 hundred years later. The bible that most people these days consider their 'bible' is a personally chosen -translation- of texts authorised by the leading body of the denomination that you subscribe to. Most of the 'books' written at the same time of the accepted books of the bible by contempory authors aren't even in the bible!

To claim the bible is some sort of sacrosanct divinely inspired document of more historical and authorial authenticity than any other historical document of a comparable age is pushing it, to say the least.

newlach

To whom, I wonder, is Erhman revealing this.

Those who have already read their bible, or are prepared to read it will know the following:

Acts 4:13 When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus.

They will also know - Romans 16:22 I, Tertius, who write this letter, greet you in the Lord.

They will know - 1 Corinthians 16:19, 20, 21 (ending with) The greeting is in my own hand--Paul.

and - Galatians 6:11, Colossians 4:18, 2 Thessalonians 3:17, all of which have implications about how these letters were written.

Even apart from that, that Erhman jumps from The Apostle Peter was illiterate to can’t have ‘written’ the letters (meaning ‘had no part in’) to forgery leaves me wondering if he has a point at all.

Not Erhman!

Erhman is either a prophet or the son of a prophet; how else could he turn 1 book into 5000?

For some good responses to Erhman's previous books, see James White, Dan Wallace, Darrell Bock & Andreas Kostenberger. Look to the same chaps for upcoming reviews of his latest.

On a side note, I got the latest Teaching Company catalogue through my door the other day and although since iTunes I don't really use TC anymore I always check to see if they've updated Erhman's NT course with someone...well, better. They haven't of course. Erhman is an apostate grinding axes all the live long day. And I don't mind axe grinding as long as there's honesty about.

peterm2 (@ 41) -

"Even apart from that, that Erhman jumps from The Apostle Peter was illiterate to can’t have ‘written’ the letters (meaning ‘had no part in’) to forgery leaves me wondering if he has a point at all."

I think that RationalWiki (properly known as 'IrrationalWiki') ought to feature a new article entitled "Why dictation equals forgery".

Without doubt this article will be a real eye opener, and will revolutionise our way of life. I mean just think of all those letters dictated by GPs, which - thanks to brave Mr Ehrman - we now know are forgeries. Only letters actually written in a GP's highly legible (ha ha) script can be genuine! Think of the litigation which will follow! And think of all the millions of letters typed by secretaries in businesses up and down the land - all obviously evil forgeries.

I think anyone caught with a dictaphone on his person should be summarily sentenced to at least 10 years in nick!!

(Anti-Christian logic. Dontcha just love it?!)

LSV

Quite.

Of course I wrote, "leaves me wondering if he has a point at all", meaning "he hasn't got a point"; I do hope this doesn't constitute a contradiction!

This is a couple of months old, but because of their private thoughts, which have no bearing on the jobs they do.

Of course, this particular 'paragon of truth and honesty' attempts to support his case with extreme fictional examples, but his point is very clear: society should discriminate against people who don't think as he does. He is talking specifically about science jobs, but I noticed one post in the comment section where some atheist was saying that he would not employ a creationist as his acccountant, even though the person's views were irrelevant to the job. He would assume that the person would be unreliable simply because of his private beliefs.

Welcome to the world of atheist bigotry. Now we know that the constant claim that atheists are tolerant is just lies. As I have said before, history has come full circle and Galileo would be turning in his grave.

As an aspiring accountant and without prejudice; it seems to me that the very best accountants are creationists.

LSV,

Good to see you're expressing your viewpoints without rancor and in a balanced and non-biased manner there.

If you're going to go for an academic role and hold opinions contrary to the accepted theories, even if you keep your opinions to yourself you're teaching something you disagree with on a fundamental level.

Now, is that a mindset you want in teachers? That they're quite willing to teach what they think is wrong just to fit in? Or would you want teachers to hold to their ideals and not teach 'lies'?

I'm sure, if the story came out that there were people training to be priests who didn't believe in god, thought the bible was made-up and held morally contrary opinions on a wide range of viewpoints but wanted to be a priest because they liked the job, you'd be first in the queue to ask them to be thrown out.

I do also like that you seem to think all atheists are the same, hold the same opinions and follow Dawkins like some kind of messiah. You really can't break out of your religiously inspired groupthink mindset can you?

Natman -

Ah, so I suppose a teacher is not allowed to have doubts about the theory he or she is professionally expected to promote? Funny, but I thought science was all about doubt and holding theories provisionally.

Of course, we know full well what Dawkins is saying: only the grand unproven evolutionary synthesis counts as science and therefore anyone who questions it cannot be a scientist - even if their questioning is kept PRIVATE!!

And then people like this moan on about so called 'religion' condemning people for 'thought crimes'. What sickening hypocrisy and fraud.

But, of course, we know that there is one rule for the 'religious' and another rule for the self-proclaimed 'guardians of reason' (unreason, more like).

Another example of abusing and exploiting science to promote atheism. If these people really loved science then they would keep ideology well away from it. Why can't they? It wouldn't surprise me if most decent scientists are (privately or otherwise) sick and tired of this childish new atheism. I suspect they just want to get on with their science, and not feel caught up in an ideological culture war that they never asked to be part of, and frankly is just a total bore.

LSV,

'Doubts' do not equate to 'believe is falsehood'. Otherwise I take it that everytime you doubt your faith (as I'm sure you, like everyone else, does) you immediately lose your beliefs and become an amoral atheist.... No?

I also take it from your post that you're quite happy for people to believe one thing and teach or preach another. I'll be signing up for seminary soon! Corrupt the church from within! Atheists Ho!

Natman -

Who decides what is false? You? Dawkins? A democratic vote? The 'infallible' philosophy of materialism? An atheistic elite?

Perhaps if there was more honesty in the definition of 'science', and a better understanding of the limits of the scientific method as well as the difference between empirical data and the philosophically driven interpretation of that data, then many scientists might feel more confident to share what they really believe, instead of having to make comments anonymously (something I noted in a post on the Christchurch thread).

For as long as bitter atheists insist on hijacking science for their own ideological ends, then this problem will persist. Sad, but true.

LSV,

I take it from your posts that you're quite happy for people to believe or agree with one thing and teach or preach another?