Among the 13,500 scanned pages are 1,500 different language versions of Genesis 1-3
I'm sure they picked bible passages because the translations were mostly done for them already but I'm a little embarassed that future generations are going to think how amazingly superstitious we were. I mean, Genesis 2 alone...
Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
Yeah really, why Bible passages, why not texts from *this* day instead of from thousands of years ago, there's so much choice of things from today, such as slashdot articles, QDB quotes,.....
Because the bible is already translated, and because the bible is more likely to survive 2000 years.
Assume that none of the 1500 languages used still exist 2,000 years from now. It's a fairly safe bet that if there's still humans, there's still going to be religion. And as annoying as it is to admit for some people, Christianity is likely to be one of those religions that survives. That'll give them a translation key for 1,500 languages, which can in turn be used to translate the rest of the information con
Also the bible is, to say the very, very least, a huge part of our past, present and future.
Everything we know today developed in a society that was utterly permeated by the bible in every nook and cranny.
And since people seem to have forgotten what the purpose of ideology is (you should read some ancient roman texts, or the bible for that matter. But if you've got to pick a single text either read the story of Sodom and Gomorra, and ask yourself the question "there is ONE vague reference to homosexuality i
If those people choose what economists call "Nash efficiency" as an ideology (what atheists do), improving themselves without conscious regard to others
That's embarrassingly wrong. Do you know any actual atheists?
Let's take the classic ur-atheist, the physical scientist. You're suggesting all of those people are in it for themselves? Because the ones I know could do a lot better than a post-doc's wage. The ones I've asked do it because they want to be involved in an enterprise for the ages. They want to learn and contribute that learning to human understanding. They want to teach, sharing knowledge with young minds. They are atheists, but they are not so m
What you see wrong is how ideology works. Ideology works by creating the tinyest of differences, and then this difference grows over time.
What is the basic difference between an atheist and a Christian, well simple: -> a Christian works to advance the glory of God ("be merry and fertile", the ten commandments, "love thy neighbour",...) -> an atheist works to advance himself, without open regard for others (this does not mean he has to be a murderer, just that he does not see the need to consider the e
You go on to admit that atheism is in fact in disagreement with you
No. No, I don't.
What I'm "admitting" is that your (erroneous) expectations don't match my actual views. Dreaming your dreams of a Santa Claus in the sky, the impermanence of the physical world scares you.
It does not scare me. That nothing lasts takes none of the fun out of making something good. If anything, it makes it more poignant, more beautiful. If you don't believe me, go experience some of the art of people like Andy Goldsworthy, who make some works intentionally impermanent.
Again we will see less moral incentive determining their actions. The cracks will be wider.
This is a fine argument from theory, with no actual data. You, some random guy, on the Internet, "guarantee" your argument. So?
History shows that you are wrong. Buddhism started out as a godless venture, accepting the eternal flux we live in, and the Zen Buddhists carry that atheism through today. Have they turned evil? Go meet some and let me know what you think, but I'd say they're doing fine.
Science also suggests you are wrong. At least some and probably much of the human moral sense is provably an innate biological function. For readable introductions, see "Good Natured" by Franz de Waal or "Demonic Males" by Richard Wrangham. And in the decade since those books came out, there's been a heap of good experimental and fMRI observational work, reinforcing the biological basis of community-oriented behavior. And let's not forget "The Forest People," showing that non-Christan societies can develop strong community-oriented behavior.
Your theory that the only source of morality is Christian memes is provably false. And the data about crime and atheism proves the opposite of your notion as well. Atheists are circa 10% of America's population, are circa 0.2% of the prison population. Japan, the least Christian country in the G8, has the lowest violent crime rate. America, the most Christian country, has the highest.
You're really just repeating and embroidering the kind of ignorant statements that Christians make about atheists all the time.
I agree with you, but in fairness, the reason the atheist prison population is so low is probably because it is mostly accepted by philosophically minded, middle to upper class, well educated people (based on anecdotal evidence).
I agree with you, but in fairness, the reason the atheist prison population is so low is probably because it is mostly accepted by philosophically minded, middle to upper class, well educated people (based on anecdotal evidence).
That seems reasonable to me. It could indeed be that people inclined to be good are more likely to become atheists.
It could also be that becoming atheists makes them more likely to behave well. Or there could be some third factor that drives them both.
Regardless, the crime numbers undermine his theory that atheism is destructive of moral orders in general, just because it wrecks the one he's pushing. He may behave well because only some sky daddy is watching his every move, but that's not true even for my C
That seems reasonable to me. It could indeed be that people inclined to be good are more likely to become atheists.
Or it could be that people who basically have everything, including the power to isolate themselves from the world of the poor, have no intrest in an ideology that demands they help out others.
Above all, they have NO intrest, in actually dirtying their hands while helping someone. "Do that with my taxes" is the spirit. They refuse to live in places where they might (might) be confronted with ac
You have a bad habit of generalizing everyone into some assholes who live in the suburbs. I would bet that a bum from NYC on a suburban church doorstep would earn quite a bit of resentment in many places, though all would be quite the overstatement. There are atheists everywhere. Get out of your shell.
What sort of bizarro-world do you live in? Atheism is at its most rampant in the big cities and academic communities, where everyone is living side by side. There's a corresponding correlation between gated communities and church attendance (or at least professed intention toward church attendance).
As to the medieval fortresses, I fail to grasp what sort of point you might be trying to make. Church entrances were not guarded because the people inside were so nice that nobody would want to attack them? And
What I'm "admitting" is that your (erroneous) expectations don't match my actual views. Dreaming your dreams of a Santa Claus in the sky, the impermanence of the physical world scares you.
The impermanence of the world ? You're kidding right ? What is more permanent than the world ?
Are you a postmodernist ? "Whatever I think is the truth".
I realize that for people like you things like, oh, say the laws of nature are "temporary inconvenient". You will find them, obviously, beyond merely inflexible, and more t
You're arguing to prove a point, rather than trying to understand anything I'm saying. I don't see any value in carrying this further.
For the record, I disagree with pretty much every interpretation you have made of what I've said. You've also dragged in a host of things that I haven't said and don't agree with, apparently because they sound vaguely similar to you. I decline to accept responsibility for dealing with the bag of nonsense that you've chosen to carry around with you.
Further, I continue to
The fancy is indeed no other than a mode of memory emancipated from the order
of space and time. -- Samuel Taylor Coleridge
Well that's embarassing (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure they picked bible passages because the translations were mostly done for them already but I'm a little embarassed that future generations are going to think how amazingly superstitious we were. I mean, Genesis 2 alone...
Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
They're going to think we were cuckoo!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the bible is already translated, and because the bible is more likely to survive 2000 years.
Assume that none of the 1500 languages used still exist 2,000 years from now. It's a fairly safe bet that if there's still humans, there's still going to be religion. And as annoying as it is to admit for some people, Christianity is likely to be one of those religions that survives. That'll give them a translation key for 1,500 languages, which can in turn be used to translate the rest of the information con
Re: (Score:-1, Troll)
Also the bible is, to say the very, very least, a huge part of our past, present and future.
Everything we know today developed in a society that was utterly permeated by the bible in every nook and cranny.
And since people seem to have forgotten what the purpose of ideology is (you should read some ancient roman texts, or the bible for that matter. But if you've got to pick a single text either read the story of Sodom and Gomorra, and ask yourself the question "there is ONE vague reference to homosexuality i
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
If those people choose what economists call "Nash efficiency" as an ideology (what atheists do), improving themselves without conscious regard to others
That's embarrassingly wrong. Do you know any actual atheists?
Let's take the classic ur-atheist, the physical scientist. You're suggesting all of those people are in it for themselves? Because the ones I know could do a lot better than a post-doc's wage. The ones I've asked do it because they want to be involved in an enterprise for the ages. They want to learn and contribute that learning to human understanding. They want to teach, sharing knowledge with young minds. They are atheists, but they are not so m
Re: (Score:2)
What you see wrong is how ideology works. Ideology works by creating the tinyest of differences, and then this difference grows over time.
What is the basic difference between an atheist and a Christian, well simple : ...)
-> a Christian works to advance the glory of God ("be merry and fertile", the ten commandments, "love thy neighbour",
-> an atheist works to advance himself, without open regard for others (this does not mean he has to be a murderer, just that he does not see the need to consider the e
Re:Well that's embarassing (Score:5, Informative)
You go on to admit that atheism is in fact in disagreement with you
No. No, I don't.
What I'm "admitting" is that your (erroneous) expectations don't match my actual views. Dreaming your dreams of a Santa Claus in the sky, the impermanence of the physical world scares you.
It does not scare me. That nothing lasts takes none of the fun out of making something good. If anything, it makes it more poignant, more beautiful. If you don't believe me, go experience some of the art of people like Andy Goldsworthy, who make some works intentionally impermanent.
Again we will see less moral incentive determining their actions. The cracks will be wider.
This is a fine argument from theory, with no actual data. You, some random guy, on the Internet, "guarantee" your argument. So?
History shows that you are wrong. Buddhism started out as a godless venture, accepting the eternal flux we live in, and the Zen Buddhists carry that atheism through today. Have they turned evil? Go meet some and let me know what you think, but I'd say they're doing fine.
Science also suggests you are wrong. At least some and probably much of the human moral sense is provably an innate biological function. For readable introductions, see "Good Natured" by Franz de Waal or "Demonic Males" by Richard Wrangham. And in the decade since those books came out, there's been a heap of good experimental and fMRI observational work, reinforcing the biological basis of community-oriented behavior. And let's not forget "The Forest People," showing that non-Christan societies can develop strong community-oriented behavior.
Your theory that the only source of morality is Christian memes is provably false. And the data about crime and atheism proves the opposite of your notion as well. Atheists are circa 10% of America's population, are circa 0.2% of the prison population. Japan, the least Christian country in the G8, has the lowest violent crime rate. America, the most Christian country, has the highest.
You're really just repeating and embroidering the kind of ignorant statements that Christians make about atheists all the time.
Re: (Score:1)
I agree with you, but in fairness, the reason the atheist prison population is so low is probably because it is mostly accepted by philosophically minded, middle to upper class, well educated people (based on anecdotal evidence).
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you, but in fairness, the reason the atheist prison population is so low is probably because it is mostly accepted by philosophically minded, middle to upper class, well educated people (based on anecdotal evidence).
That seems reasonable to me. It could indeed be that people inclined to be good are more likely to become atheists.
It could also be that becoming atheists makes them more likely to behave well. Or there could be some third factor that drives them both.
Regardless, the crime numbers undermine his theory that atheism is destructive of moral orders in general, just because it wrecks the one he's pushing. He may behave well because only some sky daddy is watching his every move, but that's not true even for my C
Re: (Score:1)
That seems reasonable to me. It could indeed be that people inclined to be good are more likely to become atheists.
Or it could be that people who basically have everything, including the power to isolate themselves from the world of the poor, have no intrest in an ideology that demands they help out others.
Above all, they have NO intrest, in actually dirtying their hands while helping someone. "Do that with my taxes" is the spirit. They refuse to live in places where they might (might) be confronted with ac
Re: (Score:1)
You have a bad habit of generalizing everyone into some assholes who live in the suburbs. I would bet that a bum from NYC on a suburban church doorstep would earn quite a bit of resentment in many places, though all would be quite the overstatement. There are atheists everywhere. Get out of your shell.
Re: (Score:2)
What sort of bizarro-world do you live in? Atheism is at its most rampant in the big cities and academic communities, where everyone is living side by side. There's a corresponding correlation between gated communities and church attendance (or at least professed intention toward church attendance).
As to the medieval fortresses, I fail to grasp what sort of point you might be trying to make. Church entrances were not guarded because the people inside were so nice that nobody would want to attack them? And
Re: (Score:1)
What I'm "admitting" is that your (erroneous) expectations don't match my actual views. Dreaming your dreams of a Santa Claus in the sky, the impermanence of the physical world scares you.
The impermanence of the world ? You're kidding right ? What is more permanent than the world ?
Are you a postmodernist ? "Whatever I think is the truth".
I realize that for people like you things like, oh, say the laws of nature are "temporary inconvenient". You will find them, obviously, beyond merely inflexible, and more t
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh.
You're arguing to prove a point, rather than trying to understand anything I'm saying. I don't see any value in carrying this further.
For the record, I disagree with pretty much every interpretation you have made of what I've said. You've also dragged in a host of things that I haven't said and don't agree with, apparently because they sound vaguely similar to you. I decline to accept responsibility for dealing with the bag of nonsense that you've chosen to carry around with you.
Further, I continue to