Atheism in the USVI

JG - We are talking Harry Potter vs the New York Times here.

At best a 1000 year old handwritten copy of what is supposed to be a 2000 year old issue of the New York Times. I don't even believe everything that I read in a current New York Times much less one with as dubious a history as this. Are you sure this isn't just another Shroud of Turin? Middle aged forgery?

JG - And, second, remember its only a “myth” if it didn’t happen.

Easy to say, hard to prove. If you want to prove that your particular myth is true then let's use proof from the last few hundred years. Something that is more verifiable. Preferably something from modern times. I would like to see a little video footage of a miracle.

At most these ancient writings only prove that ancient people believed this stuff. How is that proof of reality. They believed that the earth was flat and was the center of the universe. That doesn't make it true.

You have also never answered my previous statement. Why do you think that the worlds most intelligent people overwhelmingly reject this religious mythology? Lack of evidence to support it?

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
-- Steven Weinberg, Freethought Today, April, 2000

Rotor,

You said:

ROTOR - "At best a 1000 year old handwritten copy of what is supposed to be a 2000 year old issue of the New York Times. I don't even believe everything that I read in a current New York Times much less one with as dubious a history as this. Are you sure this isn't just another Shroud of Turin? Middle aged forgery?"

JG - Of course, I am using my comparison of Harry Potter and the New York Times to contrast the "type" of literature we are talking about. I am not saying Tacitus wrote a newspaper, what I am saying is that his works were written in order to provide valid information the accuracy of which he himself was ready to vouch for.

If you want to make it another "shroud of Turin" or middle aged forgery, I am waiting for something more than you have already presented to give me reason to agree with you. I have answered very thoroughly everything you have asked (with the exception of a few things from Doughty). If you want to claim Tacitus' works are simply "middle aged" forgeries, then the onus is on you to explain how a forger in the "middle ages" would know so many details so accurately from the early period of Roman History. Remember, archaeology has confirmed virtually everything that it has touched from Tacitus as extremely accurate as both Mellor and Grant indicated in the quotes I made from them in my last post. I am waiting for your evidence of forgery. Do you have something beyond mere speculation or don't you?

You continue:

ROTOR - "Easy to say, hard to prove. If you want to prove that your particular myth is true then let's use proof from the last few hundred years. Something that is more verifiable. Preferably something from modern times. I would like to see a little video footage of a miracle.

At most these ancient writings only prove that ancient people believed this stuff. How is that proof of reality. They believed that the earth was flat and was the center of the universe. That doesn't make it true."

Now Rotor, you asked me to come to this thread and present MY proof. I can't help it if you don't like MY evidence and want me to present something else. As I said, something is only a "myth" if it didn't happen, and unless you can show me that the proofs I am presenting that It DID happen are invalid, then you have not shown the claim that I am making is invalid either.

I really don't think a video tape would prove much. You know as well as I do that they can be "doctored". Further, even if there was some kind of verifiable "miracle" video, how would that prove the claims of Christianity? Even if I could provide you with one showing say, water being turned into wine, how would that lend any proof at all to the Christian claim that Christ was resurrected from the dead some 2,000 years ago? And it is that claim and that claim only upon which the truth or falsity of Christianity' rests. So, why should I present evidence that is irrelevant to the claim I am arguing in favor of?

It is true that the writings, such as those of Tacitus, proved that ancient people (such as Tacitus) were aware ("believe" is a bit of a pejorative term, too many people associate it with blind leaps and uncritical acceptance of something so I will refrain from using it here) of certain things.

Again, however, I need to repeat that whatever Tacitus (and we are talking about Tacitus Annals 15.44 in the context of his overall works) believed about the shape of the earth or its position in relation to the rest of the universe we will never know for sure. Why? Because his writings are not about those things. His writings are about people, places, and events for which he had ready access to resources that he objectively used to verify what he presented to the best of his ability. You won't find Tacitus speculating about the meaning of life or the origin of the earth anywhere in his works. He simply is not writing about things that he doesn't know. He writes about what he did know. And modern archaeology has borne out his accuracy in what he did write time and time again.

Further, Tacitus is not just some guy who decided to pick up a pen and start doodling words. He was a high ranking official in the Roman government and very much esteemed for his reliability by his colleagues. I still intend to post a look at his background and most importantly his methodology before we are done with him, and I will illustrate more what I am talking here about when I do that.

Best regards to you, Rotor.

More later.

JG

PS I note you added to your post after I first read it.

You said:

ROTOR - "You have also never answered my previous statement. Why do you think that the worlds most intelligent people overwhelmingly reject this religious mythology? Lack of evidence to support it?

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
-- Steven Weinberg, Freethought Today, April, 2000"

JG - I cannot answer for others. There are plenty of intelligent people who are Christians also, but I don't consider that as any kind of real proof that it is true. As for Mr. Weinberg, I would be most happy to consider his reasons for rejecting Tacitus (as well as the other items we have yet to discuss). If you can forward to me his comments on Tacitus, then I will be most interested in reading what he has to say and providing a response. If you can't find anything from him on the subject, then I will have to assume that he is totally unaware of it, intelligent though he may be. Of course I would be skeptical of those who make claims regarding something that they have not adequately investigated. Its simply my nature to do so.

Again,

Best regards to you Rotor,

More later,

JG.

JG - If you want to make it another "shroud of Turin" or middle aged forgery, I am waiting for something more than you have already presented to give me reason to agree with you. I have answered very thoroughly everything you have asked (with the exception of a few things from Doughty). If you want to claim Tacitus' works are simply "middle aged" forgeries, then the onus is on you to explain how a forger in the "middle ages" would know so many details so accurately from the early period of Roman History. Remember, archaeology has confirmed virtually everything that it has touched from Tacitus as extremely accurate as both Mellor and Grant indicated in the quotes I made from them in my last post. I am waiting for your evidence of forgery. Do you have something beyond mere speculation or don't you?

Rotorhead - I am waiting for the evidence of authenticity. If we carbon date the oldest copy of the document we find that it comes from the 11th century. How do we know that it is a true copy of an ancient document. The historians that you use as reference simply say that it appears to be written in the style of Tacitus. They have no way of actually authenticating it. Let's find a copy of the original document for proof that 15.44 was actually a part of the original annals document.

You jump to the conclusion that Christus mentioned in this document refers to Jesus. Jesus is never mentioned by name. Are you trying to prove that someone named Christus was killed in Judea or that Jesus was killed in Judea?

You propose that this document must be accepted as an accurate copy of the original Tacitus document unless I can show proof to the contrary. I propose that you and your experts must provide proof that it is an accurate copy before it can be submitted as proof of anything.
Stalemate. I regard something that has not adequately been proven as conjecture, that is MY nature.

JG - I cannot answer for others. There are plenty of intelligent people who are Christians also, but I don't consider that as any kind of real proof that it is true. As for Mr. Weinberg, I would be most happy to consider his reasons for rejecting Tacitus (as well as the other items we have yet to discuss). If you can forward to me his comments on Tacitus, then I will be most interested in reading what he has to say and providing a response. If you can't find anything from him on the subject, then I will have to assume that he is totally unaware of it, intelligent though he may be. Of course I would be skeptical of those who make claims regarding something that they have not adequately investigated. Its simply my nature to do so.

Rotorhead - The quote from Weinberg had nothing to do with Tacitus. It was in reference to religious mythology in general, which was the topic of the immediately preceding paragraph. The paragraph about the most intelligent people rejecting religious mythology. I doubt Weinberg would bother with a document like Tacitus Annals since its origin is so questionable. Where did it come from? How many copies between it and an original?

I would love to see your list of very intelligent people who buy into this religious mythology. Are these contemporary people or people from the ancient past? I have told you where my list of intelligent people comes from where do you get yours?

John

Rotor,

You are the one claiming the document could be a forgery. Please tell me what makes you think it is.

Almost no one doubts the authenticity of Tacitus. No one has found a good reason to do so. When you go against the consensus, the onus of proof is on you.

As I said before, what would another older copy prove? We can still just say, "Well, that could be a forgery, too." Where do we draw the line?

Further, the historians I quote don't just say it must be Tacitus because it appears in his style. They also say (as I quoted them) that archaeology has shown him to be extremely accurate in what he writes. Are you proposing that some genius forger must have done this work? Some one who lived long after Tacitus, but who somehow was able to know accurately so many details from the early Roman empire?

You ask:

ROTOR - "Are you trying to prove that someone named Christus was killed in Judea or that Jesus was killed in Judea?"

JG - Are you proposing that there was someone else in Judea during the rule of Pilate (no later than about 35 A.D.) who was also executed by him, who also was known by the name "Christos" and who also had followers in Rome at the time of Nero (about 60 A.D.). If you have evidence for such a person, please provide it. It would most certainly be an odd coincidence, wouldn't it?

You said:

ROTOR - "You propose that this document must be accepted as an accurate copy of the original Tacitus document unless I can show proof to the contrary. I propose that you and your experts must provide proof that it is an accurate copy before it can be submitted as proof of anything.
Stalemate. I regard something that has not adequately been proven as conjecture, that is MY nature."

JG - I have asked you several times now what would prove that this writing by Tacitus is authentic. So far, none of the things you have asked me to provide would prove its authenticity any more than what I have already provided. Since you cannot come up with an example of anything that would prove it absolutely, then its up to you to provide proof that it is not. Can you do this, or not?

No stalemate here. You doubt its authenticity. I am simply asking "why?"

You close with:

Rotorhead - "The quote from Weinberg had nothing to do with Tacitus. It was in reference to religious mythology in general, which was the topic of the immediately preceding paragraph. The paragraph about the most intelligent people rejecting religious mythology. I doubt Weinberg would bother with a document like Tacitus Annals since its origin is so questionable. Where did it come from? How many copies between it and an original?

I would love to see your list of very intelligent people who buy into this religious mythology. Are these contemporary people or people from the ancient past? I have told you where my list of intelligent people comes from where do you get yours?"

JG - That's all fine. However, whatever Mr. Weinberg might wish to say is of his concern. We are talking about Tacitus. (Remember, you told me we were far from done with him, and I obliged your objection.) I would be happy to discuss anything you want WHEN we are finished with my proofs (you did invite me here to hear what I had to say, remember?). I do think it would be quite interesting, but for now its just a detour from the topic at hand.

Best regards to you, Rotor,

More later,

JG

JG - You are the one claiming the document could be a forgery. Please tell me what makes you think it is.

Almost no one doubts the authenticity of Tacitus. No one has found a good reason to do so. When you go against the consensus, the onus of proof is on you.

As I said before, what would another older copy prove? We can still just say, "Well, that could be a forgery, too." Where do we draw the line?

Further, the historians I quote don't just say it must be Tacitus because it appears in his style. They also say (as I quoted them) that archaeology has shown him to be extremely accurate in what he writes. Are you proposing that some genius forger must have done this work? Some one who lived long after Tacitus, but who somehow was able to know accurately so many details from the early Roman empire?

Rotorhead - I am saying that it is impossible for you or any of these experts to prove that a 1000 year old copy of a 2000 year old manuscript is in fact a reliable copy of the original. I can't prove it is not, but you and your experts can't prove that it is. Usually to use something as evidence it has to be proven to be authentic.

Many still question this manuscript but you choose to ignore their arguments. Many who accept the manuscript as authentic question Tacitus' sources. There are still many unanswered questions.
http://www.opposingviews.com/counters/tacitus-can-t-be-a-witness-of-the-historical-jesus
http://knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Tacitus_on_Jesus/
http://users.drew.edu/ddoughty/Christianorigins/persecutions/tacitus.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html#tacitus

You are arguing with the wrong person about the fine details of Tacitus. I have never claimed to be an expert on Tacitus. All that I am saying is that it is going to be impossible for you to convince me of anything using a 1000 year old copy of a 2000 year old manuscript. Period! So there is very little reason to continue to try. Unless you just like to hear yourself talk.

JG - I have asked you several times now what would prove that this writing by Tacitus is authentic. So far, none of the things you have asked me to provide would prove its authenticity any more than what I have already provided. Since you cannot come up with an example of anything that would prove it absolutely, then its up to you to provide proof that it is not. Can you do this, or not?

No stalemate here. You doubt its authenticity. I am simply asking "why?"

Rotorhead - And I have answered you before. I do not think that there is any way to prove that a 1000 year old copy of a 2000 year old manuscript is an authentic copy. Not until some scientist invents time travel and explorers can go back and see history for themselves. Until then all you have is speculation. And this is not a case of universally agreed upon speculation, otherwise there would not be so much discussion about this topic on the internet. Just because one part of a manuscript contains valid historical references does not prove that the entire manuscript is without question the truth. Many works of fiction contain references to real events and as several researchers of Tacitus point out we have no clue who the sources are for this passage in Tacitus. How can it then be accepted as the truth. And why is it up to me to have to prove that it isn't true, I still think it is up to the person asserting that something is true to bear the burden of proof.

Stalemate! Tacitus is not proof of anything.

JG - That's all fine. However, whatever Mr. Weinberg might wish to say is of his concern. We are talking about Tacitus. (Remember, you told me we were far from done with him, and I obliged your objection.) I would be happy to discuss anything you want WHEN we are finished with my proofs (you did invite me here to hear what I had to say, remember?). I do think it would be quite interesting, but for now its just a detour from the topic at hand.

Rotorhead - I am done with Tacitus. I have listened to what you have said and do not find the arguments convincing. As I said, I cannot imagine any argument that you could make that could convince me that you or your experts can prove that the 1000 year old copy of this 2000 year old manuscript can be proven to be an acceptable form of evidence for anything. It might very well be an interesting document but it is 1000 years newer than the original and a direct link to the original is not provable. In addition, even if it could be proven to have been written by Tacitus; he is not the source for this story. He is simply reporting something that he was told and we have no idea who told him the story. What can it possibly prove.

So I have nothing more to say about Tacitus, I think that I have been quite clear about my position on this. If you want to argue Tacitus further then take it to someone who cares. There are many ongoing Tacitus discussions on the Internet.

I personally am more interested in discussing the present than in arguing about unprovable ancient history.

John

http://www.miamiherald.com/367/story/1165325.html

Hi Rotor,

I hope you had a weekend as enjoyable as mine.

I want to proceed with a good summary of Tacitus’ bio and the methodology that he used to assemble his writings. I have promised this several times during our discussion, and I wish now to make good on those promises.

Who exactly was this guy, Tacitus?

“Publius or Gaius Cornelius Tacitus (born around AD 55 - died around AD 117), was a Roman historian. His major works - the Annals and the Histories - took for their subject the history of the Roman Empire.

Biography
Tacitus, like many other literary figures of his age, was born to a provincial equestrian family, probably in northern Italy or southern Gaul. As a young man he studied rhetoric in preparation for a career in law and politics. In his early 20s he married Julia Agricola, daughter of Gnaeus Julius Agricola. In 81, under Titus, he began his political career as quaestor. He advanced steadily through the cursus honorum, gaining acclaim as a lawyer and orator; his skill in public speaking gave a marked irony to his cognomen Tacitus (silent). He survived Domitian's reign of terror -- that he was serving in the provinces from c. 89 to c. 93 doubtless helped -- and from a senator he advanced to the consulship in AD 97. In the same year he reached the height of his fame as an orator when he delivered the funeral oration for the famous old soldier Verginius Rufus. In the following year he wrote and published his three minor works, after which he returned to practicing law. In 100 A.D. he, along with his old friend Pliny the Younger, successfully prosecuted Marius Priscus (proconsul of Africa) for corruption; Pliny wrote a few days later (Letters, 2.11) that Tacitus had spoken "with all the majesty which characterizes his usual style of oratory". After a lengthy absence from politics, during which time he wrote his two major works, he held the highest civilian governorship, that of the Roman province of Asia in Western Anatolia, in 112. He is thought to have died around 117; it is unknown whether he was survived by any children, though the emperor Marcus Claudius Tacitus claimed him as an ancestor.”

http://www.biographybase.com/biography/Tacitus_Publius_Cornelius.html

In the above, we find that Tacitus’ ambitious career carried him to membership in the Roman Senate, and to the position of the “Consulship”.

The post of Consul entailed the following responsibilities and authority:

“The consuls were the chairmen of the Senate, which served as a board of advisers. They also commanded the Roman army (both had two legions) and exercised the highest juridical power in the Roman empire. Therefore, the Greek historian Polybius of Megalopolis likened the consuls to kings. Only laws and the decrees of the Senate or the People's assembly limited their powers; only the veto of a consul or a tribune could supersede their decisions. This meant that the consuls could always interfere with the decisions of praetors, aediles and quaestors. (Tribunes, censors and dictators were immune.) “

http://www.livius.org/cn-cs/consul/consul.html

Tacitus gained renown for his oratory and legal skills which he demonstrated in various noted events. He ended his career at the post of the highest civilian governorship possible in the empire, that being governor of Asia (western Turkey). Along with Africa, this was considered one of the two plums of governorship available in the entire empire.

It should be clear from the above that Tacitus possessed not only the skills to do proper research and to effectively communicate what he discovered, but also that he held unique positions within the Roman government allowing him both exposure to events occurring in the empire, and access to records of what had happened previously. His writings give us a rare peek under the curtains to see what was actually going on center stage as well as “behind the scenes”.

(From this background came Tacitus’ two major works, the Histories and the Annals which are running histories of the reign of various Roman Emperors, with the Annals being the second of the two works and covering, more or less, the first half of the first century. In our current discussion, it is Annals 15.44 that has been the focus.)

It is possible, however, that even well respected and capable people do not always live up to what we might expect of them in what they produce. How do we know the qualities that propelled Tacitus reputation and career are equally present in his writings? Was he objective, accurate, and critical in what he penned?

Let’s take a look at a few examples that can help to paint the full picture of just what we have in Tacitus’ works.
When we look at Tacitus’ writings, we see not only what he says about events and people, but also what he tells us about his methodology in obtaining the information that he is passing on to us. For instance, as support of what he writes, we find these details mentioned or implied in his descriptions:

In Annals 11.14, Tacitus supports his statement with reference to bronze inscriptions to which the public had access for verification of what he says.

In Annals 15.16, he refers to memoirs and things that have been “put on record”.

In Annals 15.73, he speaks of things “published”, and “in writing”. He also records reference to personal testimonies of “exiles who have returned to the capital since the death of Nero”.

In Annals 15.42, Tacitus speaks of physical evidences of some of Nero’s construction follies that he verifies as “evidences of that futile ambition (which) survive”, indicating that he has seen them himself.

In Annals 15.41, he speaks of things “noted” and of the “research” of others which he has obviously consulted before writing his own statement here in Annals.

In 12.26, Tacitus mentions that what he tells us there is based on a “report”, and in 12.67, he speaks of his consultation of what the authors of the period he is discussing “have recorded”.

In 13.17, he conveys what is “asserted by many contemporary authors” which he has obviously examined prior to his writing of the passage.

Nor are these mere isolated examples. It is almost impossible to read through more than 2 or 3 sections without bumping into these kinds of substantiations being made rather routinely by Tacitus.

Here is a link to the Annals. Check it all out for yourself.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Tacitus/home.html#Annals

All of these instances are mentioned by Mendell (Tacitus, Page 207). (Mendell is another of those names from the Tacitus Bio page I linked in a previous post). Mendell further states that in Books 11-16 of the Annals, Tacitus "concerns himself with the evidence and source references to a greater extent than in the earlier books” (Ibid, Page 207). The passage mentioning Christos, you will remember, is found in 15

Mendell also cites an instance of Tacitus’ objectivity in reporting his facts found in Annals 15.53. There, Tacitus recounts what he was told by a close friend regarding an issue, but dismisses it as “absurd” based on his own knowledge of the subject (Ibid, Page 209).

In his review of Tacitus, Mendell further lists 30 examples in which Tacitus chooses to use specific language to "substantiate a statement or to present a statement for which he does not care to vouch" (Ibid, 205) as well as another 68 instances in Tacitus’ Histories where “Tacitus indicates either a recorded statement or a belief on someones part with regard to something which he himself is unwilling to assert as a fact; in other words, he cites divergent authority for some fact or motive"(Ibid, Page 201).

Mendell’s conclusion is telling:

"The sum total of the picture is clear. For the main narrative, Tacitius assumes the responsibility of the historian to get at the truth and present it. His guarantee was his own reputation. To make this narrative colorful and dramatic, he felt justified in introducing facts and motives which he might refute on logical grounds or leave uncontested but for which he did not personally vouch. There is no indication that he followed blindly the account of any predecessor." [Ibid, 203-4]

Nor is Mendell alone in his respect for Tacitus’ writings validity. Others have similar things to say:

Benario (Tacitus, Page 87) -

He says Tacitus "chose judiciously among his sources, totally dependent upon none, and very often, at crucial points, ignored the consensus of his predecessors to impose his own viewpoint and his own judgment."

Mellor (Tacitus, Page 31-32) -

"If research is the consultation and evaluation of sources, there can be little doubt that Tacitus engaged in serious research though it is not often apparent in the smooth flow of his narrative."

Also, Mellor notes that Tacitus "consulted both obscure and obvious sources," and that he “distinguishes fact from rumor with a scrupulosity rare in any ancient historian."

Citations from Tacitus’ works themselves as well as from the Historians who have studied them could be multiplied, but this sampler should serve more than adequately to prove my point: Tacitus was not some Joe Shmo who picked up a pen and wrote as fact whatever someone dropped into his lap. He was thorough, critical, and took pains to ensure that he set down the facts as they really were, even when it came to what might be perceived as minor details in his writings.

This summary should lay to rest the objections that Tacitus was irresponsible in what he wrote and that, therefore, we cannot trust what he tells us.

Best regards to you, Rotor.

More later,

JG

"Dyslexic, Agnostic, Insomniac...
Lying awake at night, wondering if there is a Dog."

Promoting Atheism.

http://www.thestate.com/faith/story/890073.html

rotor i saw on the news a couple weeks ago a story about summer camps for kids that are athiests,good story,i meant to tell you about when you come in but i keep forgetting

trw, if you check earlier on this thread you will find that I posted a link to an article about this camp. Great idea. I would have preferred a camp that teaches science to Vacation Bible school which teaches nonsense.

You know they now have a museum for people with low IQ's.
http://creationmuseum.org/

Just found this video about "do dogs have souls". The beginning is really funny. The rest is very well presented.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNau_Cdll3w

I still fear that the concept of souls was introduced to religion so that humans could come up with a religious reason to claim that humans have souls and animals don't... and therefore, there is no problem killing animals just to eat... a purely political move.

Are you a Christian and wonder what will happen to your pets when you are Raptured?

Well, thank God for atheists.

A particularly enterprising pair of non-believers named Bart and Brad (they don't like to use last names) in June started a business called Eternal Earth-Bound Pets (or "EE-BP" for handy reference). For just $110, and $15 for any additional pet, the group of "dedicated animal lovers, and atheists" pledge to "step in when you step up to Jesus." And they're serious.
"We see this as a win-win for both sides," Bart told me in a telephone call from New Hampshire.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/08/26/when-your-pet-is-left-behind/

LMAO! Rotor, that post made my day!

Are religious people crazy? Judge for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxOPSTQ0YuQ

ok here's a question, if the taxi drivers are getting their taxi medallions from the government and the taxi drivers association is a shirttail government agency,can they legally play all the christian music while they are transporting customers?isn't that a a violation of separation of church and state?

If you will read your constitution, you'll note it's separation of state from church, not the other way around. The purpose was to keep the government's meddling fingers out of church business. But like always, the power hungry politicians twisted the language as the pigs did in Animal Farm.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances (1st Ammendment to the Constitution of the United States.)

dude it was just a question

TRW~ I know, I know. And I did laugh at it in spite of myself. Cheers

The Pope blames atheists for global warming. Pope Benedict is claiming atheists are responsible for the destruction of the environment. The Pope made the claims in a recent speech given at the Vatican. The claim is a puzzling attack on atheism that frankly makes little sense.

The Pope is not alone is his hypocrisy. It is a hallmark of the successful Christian leader to live in luxury while preaching charity. It is one of the great and ugly ironies of religious life. The Pope is just another religious con man, the pointy hat and funny dress symbolic of criminal decadence and moral corruption.

http://www.examiner.com/x-10853-Portland-Humanist-Examiner~y2009m8d29-Pope-blames-atheists-for-global-warming

As a child I remember asking my dad why he went to mass in such a huge fancy expensive church but then they took up collection to help the "poor" people. Wouldn't it be better to have a small simple building and have lot's more money to help the poor?

Rotor do you know of any study of what religions turn out the most atheists?

I'm guessing from my own experience Catholicism must be pretty high up the list .... and dad hasn't gone to mass in a long time to the best of my knowledge .... guess I ruined it for him too.

Michael,

I am not sure which religion has the highest defection rate. Catholics sure had a lot after the pedophile priest mess.

I have had some pretty interesting discussions with my father too. Two of the most interesting were

1) Jerry Falwell's claim after 9-11 that gays and atheists were to blame. God was punishing America for its sins.

2) The fossil record and evolution. He is convinced that god created the earth in 6 days, about 6000 years ago. He claims that god put the dinosaur fossils in the ground when he created the earth. God did this to separate the true believers from those who will believe anything that scientists tell them.

John

The creation "museum" is about 45 minutes away across the river.
I'm thinking about going just to see what there is to see. If I do will file a full report*-)

Let us know! Think of all of the poor that could have been helped instead of wasting $27 million on this nonsense.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=8280168&page=1

http://www.nateanddi.com/?p=424

Creationist Chairwoman of S.C. Board of Education Resigns as Sex Scandal Goes Public.

August 31, 2009 By: Nate and Di Category:

And today we add yet another evangelical official to the ever-growing mass of flotsam swirling down the drain of conservative political hypocrisy:

Kristin Maguire

Kristin Maguire, the Chairwoman of the S.C. State Board of Education resigned her post shortly before SC poliblog FITSNews published a piece claiming that Maguire is a "prolific author of hardcore erotic fiction on the Internet." FITS promised something juicy was on the way last Friday, which is actually when she submitted her resignation to the LuvGov himself. The article also alleges that Maguire engaged in lap dances at bars, public indecency at Jenny Sanford's desk in the governor's office, and points to a probable cover-up by Sanford's staff when they were tipped off earlier this year.

While her resignation letter makes no mention of the alleged salacious details, the upstate evangelical apparently acknowledged to FITS that "she had visited certain websites where such material was posted and reviewed."

This is probably good news for all public school students in S.C., as the home-schooling mom of four had no business chairing the very board responsible for public education policy to start with. She has been a vocal anti-evolutionist and is a strong supporter of "abstinence only" sex education. When she was elevated to lead the S.C. Board, her appointment was hailed as a victory for social conservatives and cheered on Christian blogs and websites across the Southeast.