Rise in atheistic fundamentalism

[Rosaline]

One of the things that always surprises me is how convoluted most religious text is. It reminds me of the European Constitution.

I'd like to take a moment to defend legalese - the more I read about legal matters, the more impressed I become

Legal text appears convoluted to the layperson because of a need to:

• be precise and carefully define
• keep statements for which every possibility cannot be covered open to allow for the intent of the law to be followed

Religious text, however, is convoluted because of a need to:

• Sound good when spoken, rather than in writing (similar to LOTR - it was made to be listened to)
• Account for the fact they are often made up of works written over a long period of time by many people who may not have access to all other works
• Entrance the reader (to get them to follow the religion), rather than to inform
• Gather either as many followers as possible, or a specific group of followers (or both, in the case of combined separate works
• Seem above the abilities of mere men to create

I do have to admit, most religious texts sound amazing when spoken. The Quoran, I believe, actually means "the spoken" in arabic, and the albums of verses of it being chanted sound amazing. Gregorian chants based off the Bible are also amazing. You may also recall Tony Robinson's "Blood and circuses" TV series. Mostly this is an artefact of the emergence of most world religions from before the time of the cheap written word and widespread reading, and as such people were taught and converted by verbal preaching.

However, when it comes to following what's written, give me legal papers and hansard minutes any day!

[TheAnimus]

two me, the big two differences between legal texts and religous ones are:

legal text is for a proffessional, it should have only one meaning to a person who is well versed in all the jargon.

religous texts tend to have many layers of interpretation, which often give different meanings depending on how litterally its taken. Is this a result of translation from the original texts, i'd love to know, regretably i can read english + german and thats it.

[Rosaline]

It's not purely a result from the translation, I can tell you that, but it must be noted that I doubt the original authors always made them have multiple interpretations. Most religious texts were written by individuals either recording their thoughts, or occasionally writing to people who knew them (which I believe is the case with a few pieces in the bible).

They probably never considered the idea that they would not be the only person to be teaching the material, that others may twist the material for their own power. When they do consider this, few if any write in a style similar to that of the law, and even when they tried, I am not sure the idea of legal writings was fully developed at that time (especially given the fact that modern democracy did not exist then, there was semi-absolute rule in most cases).

[santa claus]

.....snip.... the original authors ......snip.....

Surely the Bible has one author?

[TheAnimus]

The names Mathew, Mark, Luke and TheAnimus mean nothing santa?

[santa claus]

The names Mathew, Mark, Luke and TheAnimus mean nothing santa?

Hahaaar! Oh yes they do, very much. Each is a conduit; to read or not to read, that is the question

[Kezzer]

Surely the Bible has one author?

Remember the Bible is just a collection of books written over time. Some books have the same author, and some books have unknown authors. The actual books were always in circulation throughout Jewish history and then spread amongst other religious sects. Catholocism employ an extra book(s), the name's on the tip of my tongue but alas, I can't remember it.

Eventually the books were rounded up and put together into one book which is what we know as the Bible. Remember, the word "Bible" pretty much means "books" or "scrolls" (notice the plural).

[santa claus]

Remember the Bible is just a collection of books written over time. Some books have the same author, and some books have unknown authors. The actual books were always in circulation throughout Jewish history and then spread amongst other religious sects. Catholocism employ an extra book(s), the name's on the tip of my tongue but alas, I can't remember it.

Eventually the books were rounded up and put together into one book which is what we know as the Bible. Remember, the word "Bible" pretty much means "books" or "scrolls" (notice the plural).

Plural content but single author?

[Lucio]

This thread is way way off track really!

Surely the original point wasn't whether or not religion or atheism is correct, but whether it's become unacceptable to the world at large for religion to be correct, hence the phrase "atheistic fundamentalism". I think given the number of people who are willing to argue how "wrong" religion is and how "inaccurate" things they believe are, it proves the author of the original article has a point.

I can't say I blame either side, the world really doesn't encourage belief, time and time again we're scammed, conned or otherwise tricked by people looking to get their own benefit, whether it's a simple childhood prank of "look over there" or a million dollar fraud scheme, faith in anything is discouraged. It's small wonder that religion falls by the wayside because it relies on our nature to put belief in something out there that is intangible and our experiences tell us intangible things are out there to benefit other people, not us.

[Rosaline]

I wouldn't say that belief has fallen to the wayside because of how it only helps others. Altruism is a built-in part of being human, as is a general inability for most people to deal with the dangers of power (for the most part in our history, we have had to put aside the problems with this for survival).

I think it is more because religion does not serve the new masters, the mass media conglomerates and big business. These want power and control over the masses (if, for nothing else, to ensure a profit to shareholders), and so religion cannot be allowed to share it (especially any that talk about the insignificance of material wealth). It's similar to the reasons that communist states suppressed and controlled religions, except done not through brute force but through influencing the public away from spiritual and scientific matters (science too is a thorn in all of this, really).

[Kezzer]

Plural content but single author?

Bleh?

[santa claus]

Bleh?

Try it in bite-sized chunks:

Plural = more than one
Content = books or scrolls
But = however
Single = one
Author = God (not to be confused with those who did the transcribing)

[TheAnimus]

but how do you know its the word of god?

There was this incident at sunday school, when some little obnoxctious brat of a child chribbed a few lines from Dante's Inferno, and wrote them in the bible. Then tried to pass them off as gospal.

Parenting tip, don't force children to goto sunday school.

[Kezzer]

That was rather demeaning, but hey, whatever makes you feel good about yourself

[santa claus]

That was rather demeaning, but hey, whatever makes you feel good about yourself

Apologies for that...but you were making hard work of it . Incidentally, "bleh?" is probably equally demeaning.

[santa claus]

but how do you know its the word of god?

There was this incident at sunday school, when some little obnoxctious brat of a child chribbed a few lines from Dante's Inferno, and wrote them in the bible. Then tried to pass them off as gospal.

Parenting tip, don't force children to goto sunday school.

If you accept that the Bible is the word of God, you will accept that it cannot be corrupted or anything lost in its translation. If you don't think the Bible is the word of God, then you won't care anyway.

We have free will to choose in what we do or do not believe in.