Seth MacFarlane Supports Bernie Sanders, Here's Why You Should Too
Family Guy creator and comedian Seth MacFarlane gave a great speech introducing Bernie Sanders. He tells us the moment Bernie Sanders won the debate.
Labels: Bernie Sanders
Labels: Bernie Sanders
Labels: Bernie Sanders
Labels: Bernie Sanders
Labels: Bernie Sanders
Lindsay correctly argues in this book that theism (or “God”) is dead, even though most people don’t realize it yet, echoing the words of Nietzsche’s madman. Lindsay surprisingly goes on to argue that if theism is dead then so is atheism. For without theism we shouldn’t be atheists either, just human beings living in a post-theistic secular society where the relevancy of theism for our lives is beneath serious consideration. Lindsay calls us to completely rethink both theism and atheism, and he informs us what this means and how we should proceed into the future. This is a very thought provoking book, sure to be controversial. I love it!Privately though, I emailed him some concerns:
Description: This book offers an original interpretation of the origin and early reception of the most fundamental claim of Christianity: Jesus’ resurrection. Richard Miller contends that the earliest Christians would not have considered the New Testament accounts of Jesus’ resurrection to be literal or historical, but instead would have recognized this narrative as an instance of the trope of divine translation, common within the Hellenistic and Roman mythic traditions. Given this framework, Miller argues, early Christians would have understood the resurrection story as fictitious rather than historical in nature. By drawing connections between the Gospels and ancient Greek and Roman literature, Miller makes the case that the narratives of the resurrection and ascension of Christ applied extensive and unmistakable structural and symbolic language common to Mediterranean "translation fables," stock story patterns derived particularly from the archetypal myths of Heracles and Romulus. In the course of his argument, the author applies a critical lens to the referential and mimetic nature of the Gospel stories, and suggests that adapting the "translation fable" trope to accounts of Jesus’ resurrection functioned to exalt him to the level of the heroes, demigods, and emperors of the Hellenistic and Roman world. Miller’s contentions have significant implications for New Testament scholarship and will provoke discussion among scholars of early Christianity and Classical studies. Full review here.
Camping's followers live on |
Labels: "Avalos"
I am a Christian, and I don't believe that Jesus was God. I don't believe Mary was a virgin, or that God exists as a "trinity." I certainly do not believe Jesus died for my sins or those of anybody else, and perhaps most shocking, I do not believe Jesus rose from the dead. LINK.I take everyone at their word when calling themselves Christians. If that's what they call themselves then that's what they are. Who am I to decide between them anyway? That's for Christians themselves to decide, not me. Good luck! Argue among yourselves and come back when there is a consensus. Then I'll debunk it. ;-)
Before I became a writer, I got my degree in Anthropology, the study of humans, their culture, their biology, their history and their evolution (I suppose I should say “our,” but you get the idea). One of the most important aspects of studying Cultural Anthropology is understanding the concept of cultural relativism, “the principle that an individual human’s beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of that individual’s own culture.”I have no doubt these other cultures would be as shocked with our religious rituals as we are with theirs. Ahhhh, but the Christian rituals are correct rituals while theirs are incorrect ones, right? Right? Nothing so destroys the so-called virtue of religious faith but seeing a different group of people who hail the virtue of a different faith. For then their own religious rituals are seen for what they truly are, as cultural, based on nothing more than ancient superstitious beliefs. It takes a brilliant mind to defend one's own religious rituals of life stemming from ancient superstitious people, but then faith makes otherwise brilliant people look, well, dumb, as we all know too well.
That essentially means put yourself in their shoes. In anthropology, we don’t demonize or criticize other culture’s practices, but instead try to understand why they do what they do within the context of their culture. No matter how strange, weird or plain horrific these cultural practices may seem to us within the context of our culture.
Keeping cultural relativism in mind, here are 19 cultural practices from around the world that you won’t believe exist (within the confines of your culture), along with some context to help you understand why they do what they do. LINK.
The Dead Line the Street at Mina |
Supermax prisons isolate inmates from social contact. Often prisoners are in their cells, sometimes smaller than 8 by 12 feet, 23 hours a day, released only for a shower or exercise in a small fenced-in outdoor space. Isolation changes the way the brain works, often making individuals more impulsive, less able to control themselves. The mental pain of solitary confinement is crippling: Brain studies reveal durable impairments and abnormalities in individuals denied social interaction. Plainly put, prisoners often lose their minds. LINK.This still depicts tortures beyond what human beings could endure, especially if consciously suffering them forever. So we still have a barbaric God that no one should trust in, much less worship. The punishment would still not fit the crimes committed in this life.
Everybody Is Wrong About God is, frankly, an ambitious project of mine in which I aim to completely pull the rug out from under theism and theology. With them, therefore, atheism has to go too. My goal, then, is nothing less than turning the first page in a new chapter, one that points us toward a new post-theistic phase in human history--one that leaves God behind, for good (and I mean that both ways).I wrote a blurb for it:
Lindsay correctly argues in this book that theism (or “God”) is dead, even though most people don’t realize it yet, echoing the words of Nietzsche’s madman. Lindsay surprisingly goes on to argue that if theism is dead then so is atheism. For without theism we shouldn’t be atheists either, just human beings living in a post-theistic secular society where the relevancy of theism for our lives is beneath serious consideration. Lindsay calls us to completely rethink both theism and atheism, and he informs us what this means and how we should proceed into the future. This is a very thought provoking book, sure to be controversial. I love it!
In cases ... where the evidence will not settle the dispute, scientists must employ philosophical arguments. And they do. Therefore, the suggestion that science can simply replace philosophy is wrong for the reason that, as [Thomas] Kuhn observed, scientific debates often embed—or are embedded within—philosophical debates. These philosophical differences often cannot be settled by straightforward empirical means, but must be addressed with philosophical argument. Science cannot replace philosophy because philosophy is an essential part of the scientific enterprise. Kuhn was wrong about many things, but on this point he was absolutely right.I had commented previously on what makes for philosophy right here. And I have no bone to pick with philosophy per se. But this is an interesting question. I think we can agree that mere reasoning is not equivalent to philosophy, so scientific reasoning is not necessarily doing philosophy. We should also agree that we don't need to wait until everyone agrees that a particular dispute has been settled by science, before we can say scientists are no longer doing philosophy when reasoning about the evidence. This was the case in Darwin's day, but the dispute over evolution has been settled in our day. I think the implications about evolution are settled too. What Parsons needs to do is show why anyone should wait until evolution deniers agree that this dispute has been settled, before saying evolutionists are not doing philosophy. So I see no reason to accept that criteria with regard to his specific example.
Labels: Keith Parsons