It's nice to believe that there were "true" christians while the catholic church was around, but that's simply wishful thinking. Until Martin Luther's little rebellion took hold in the 1500s, if you called yourself a Christian, 99% of the time you were Catholic. Or Eastern Orthodox, or any of the various heretical and schismatic churches - Nestorians, Monophysites, Bogomils, Waldensians, and on and on.
I don't think anyone needs to elaborate on how far off the mark Catholicism is from anything represented by Christ. Actually, I'd appreciate it; I'm curious to hear why you, as an atheist, are more qualified to interpret the various texts discussing Christ than Christians are. Yes, I'm aware of the non-canonical documents, especially the Gnostic texts, but there are reasons they are non-canonical - the primary one being that they just weren't in existence during the early years of the formation of the canon.
I don't think Paul was an agent of Rome, but I absolutely think that they made a calculated effort to popularize his views, especially regarding whether Christians should follow Jewish law. Romans wanted to de-emphasize the obvious link to Judaism so they could claim the church for themselves. The major problem with this idea is chronology. Christian apologists were writing against Judaism quite early; many wrote against Judaism and against Roman persecution (see, for example, Justin Martyr's First Apology and Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. Two hundred years before Constantine, at the beginning of the persecutions, Pauline Christianity was the predominant form.
Arguments from self-evidence aren't very convincing. The thing is, the distinction between science and metaphysics is a relatively recent one; most societies have intermingled metaphysics, observation of the world, and theology. There is no natural distinction; simply a constructed one that has been around for a few centuries.
I think you misunderstand a bit; I'm not arguing that science is not valuable, or that it doesn't provide a more satisfactory answer to the question of origins than 6 day creationism; I'm rather an agnostic when it comes to origins. I'm arguing that, well, that the yard is an arbitrary measure. It's useful; however, there are other ways to measure. There is nothing inherent in the issue of measurement that leads us to use the yard; similarly, there is nothing inherent in the process of observation and explanation of the world that leads us to science and the scientific method. Neither the yard nor science has a monopoly on the end to which they are used.
No, it is the only system which explains how the world works reliably to someone who is using a scientific standard of reliability. For someone who is, say, a polytheist, "Because the gods are angry" can be a perfectly reliable explanation. It is a scientific predilection to place value on, for example, reproducibility.
Science is a consensus-based methodology; it is based upon the consensus that there is such a thing as evidence; that our senses are reliable; that there can be such a thing as an independently existent "meaning." Whether that consensus is derived from lots of people reaching rationalist conclusions based on their own experience, or upon something else, it is still consensus-based.
And my point is that science is an arbitrary, if useful, methodological approach; it has no independent existence apart from consensus. Students ought to be allowed (and encouraged) to question the validity of the scientific method just as intensely as they question ID, or 6-day Creationism, or Flying-Spaghetti-Monsterism.
Before one is taught to measure conventional wisdom (whatever that means), ought children not be taught the scientific method properly, and thus can be able to grasp why the massive and overwhelming number of scientists (including ID superstar Michael Behe) accept evolution and common descent?
So you propose to indoctrinate children into a relatively recently-developed methodological approach, so that their questioning is colored by the assumption that this particular methodology is not a permissible target for that same questioning?
The scientific method is not true in any real absolute sense. It is a popular methodology - admittedly, a pretty damned useful one - but it cannot be said to be universally applicable.
You know mplayer can play streams, right? Just pass the url to the file as an argument. I've used it before with Windows Media - not sure about Real, though, as mplayer's support for that is flaky at best.
for all you folks with bad broadband connections. I truly do. Out here (Columbus, OH area), I've had RoadRunner through TW for half a year, and the only major interruption was a dead cable modem, and when I called tech support, I just told them I'd done all the standard stuff, checked with other pc's, network adapters, etc., and they sent a tech out the next morning. Also, we're out in the boonies, and there's almost noone on my node, so my download speed is pretty much only limited by the site I'm downloading from.
Still, even with California being democratic, 0% of the votes counted and they're saying he's won? Go ahead and say he probably will win it, but with no votes in, he definitely hasn't won. And don't forget Nader. They all say that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, and we Bush people have been counting on that.
Vote Vader Vaderfor2000.org
I posted something like this on the earlier subject. All the networks just gave California to Gore 4 mins. after the polls closed, with 0% counted! Is it just me, or have they seemed really eager to get Gore elected?
I'm watching CBS, and they have Florida and Michigan for Gore, even though Bush is head in those states. When they called Michigan, it was literally "The polls have just closed in Michigan, and we're giving it to Gore." I believe it was New Hampshire that was called for Gore, even though it was 48% to 48%. Don't you just love a liberal media? That's why I don't usually watch CBS, cable is gone though, so no Fox News.
Slashdot Mirror
It's nice to believe that there were "true" christians while the catholic church was around, but that's simply wishful thinking. Until Martin Luther's little rebellion took hold in the 1500s, if you called yourself a Christian, 99% of the time you were Catholic.
Or Eastern Orthodox, or any of the various heretical and schismatic churches - Nestorians, Monophysites, Bogomils, Waldensians, and on and on.
I don't think anyone needs to elaborate on how far off the mark Catholicism is from anything represented by Christ.
Actually, I'd appreciate it; I'm curious to hear why you, as an atheist, are more qualified to interpret the various texts discussing Christ than Christians are. Yes, I'm aware of the non-canonical documents, especially the Gnostic texts, but there are reasons they are non-canonical - the primary one being that they just weren't in existence during the early years of the formation of the canon.
I don't think Paul was an agent of Rome, but I absolutely think that they made a calculated effort to popularize his views, especially regarding whether Christians should follow Jewish law. Romans wanted to de-emphasize the obvious link to Judaism so they could claim the church for themselves.
The major problem with this idea is chronology. Christian apologists were writing against Judaism quite early; many wrote against Judaism and against Roman persecution (see, for example, Justin Martyr's First Apology and Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. Two hundred years before Constantine, at the beginning of the persecutions, Pauline Christianity was the predominant form.
Arguments from self-evidence aren't very convincing. The thing is, the distinction between science and metaphysics is a relatively recent one; most societies have intermingled metaphysics, observation of the world, and theology. There is no natural distinction; simply a constructed one that has been around for a few centuries.
I think you misunderstand a bit; I'm not arguing that science is not valuable, or that it doesn't provide a more satisfactory answer to the question of origins than 6 day creationism; I'm rather an agnostic when it comes to origins. I'm arguing that, well, that the yard is an arbitrary measure. It's useful; however, there are other ways to measure. There is nothing inherent in the issue of measurement that leads us to use the yard; similarly, there is nothing inherent in the process of observation and explanation of the world that leads us to science and the scientific method. Neither the yard nor science has a monopoly on the end to which they are used.
No, it is the only system which explains how the world works reliably to someone who is using a scientific standard of reliability. For someone who is, say, a polytheist, "Because the gods are angry" can be a perfectly reliable explanation. It is a scientific predilection to place value on, for example, reproducibility.
Science is a consensus-based methodology; it is based upon the consensus that there is such a thing as evidence; that our senses are reliable; that there can be such a thing as an independently existent "meaning." Whether that consensus is derived from lots of people reaching rationalist conclusions based on their own experience, or upon something else, it is still consensus-based.
And my point is that science is an arbitrary, if useful, methodological approach; it has no independent existence apart from consensus. Students ought to be allowed (and encouraged) to question the validity of the scientific method just as intensely as they question ID, or 6-day Creationism, or Flying-Spaghetti-Monsterism.
No replies, and they're already Slashdotted. Must be some kind of record.
You know mplayer can play streams, right? Just pass the url to the file as an argument. I've used it before with Windows Media - not sure about Real, though, as mplayer's support for that is flaky at best.
ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm.................
Arthur C. Clarke is _not_ dead!
The freeciv windows client(www.freeciv.org) uses gtk for win32. It's sloooooow and somewhat buggy, though, IIRC.
for all you folks with bad broadband connections. I truly do. Out here (Columbus, OH area), I've had RoadRunner through TW for half a year, and the only major interruption was a dead cable modem, and when I called tech support, I just told them I'd done all the standard stuff, checked with other pc's, network adapters, etc., and they sent a tech out the next morning. Also, we're out in the boonies, and there's almost noone on my node, so my download speed is pretty much only limited by the site I'm downloading from.
linux/i386
linux/ppc
linux/m68k
linux/ia64
linux/alpha
linux/sparc
linux/t-shirt
So when can I buy it from ThinkGeek?
Sorry. Thought of that like 2 minutes after I posted. Still, it's a matter of principle.
>They use a more sophisticated model than you might think. The retraction of Florida was a pretty rare event.
What, like ouija boards? There were no votes counted!
Still, even with California being democratic, 0% of the votes counted and they're saying he's won? Go ahead and say he probably will win it, but with no votes in, he definitely hasn't won. And don't forget Nader. They all say that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, and we Bush people have been counting on that. Vote Vader Vaderfor2000.org
I posted something like this on the earlier subject. All the networks just gave California to Gore 4 mins. after the polls closed, with 0% counted! Is it just me, or have they seemed really eager to get Gore elected?
I completely agree.
I'm watching CBS, and they have Florida and Michigan for Gore, even though Bush is head in those states. When they called Michigan, it was literally "The polls have just closed in Michigan, and we're giving it to Gore." I believe it was New Hampshire that was called for Gore, even though it was 48% to 48%. Don't you just love a liberal media? That's why I don't usually watch CBS, cable is gone though, so no Fox News.
But will they send Warriors?