Random News
Random news and thoughts:
What Was Behind Mysterious Collapse of the Mayan Empire?
link
The article talks about how the change to the environment could have worsen droughts which led to the downfall of the Empire. "...the Mayans appear to have exacerbated the problem by cutting down the jungle canopy to make way for cities and crops..." I guess the Mayans hated Jungles as much as Angie (and newly I) do. Its good that you can't cause droughts in Civ through getting rid of jungles!
From Bible-Belt Pastor to Atheist Leader
Link
First of all, I'll admit that I'm more sensative to atheist articles since I identify as an atheist (even thought technically I'd probably be Agnostic). For the most part, the article typically talk about how stupid atheist groups go out and insult other religions primarily with billboards. Also, college atheist stories sometimes appear where students do programs designed to annoy religious people. Anyway, I like to complain about those and I hate the "Fundamentalist Atheists" who seem to be all about putting down other religions and seem to be as annoying as the people they claim to be so different from.
So I thought this was going to be an article about someone who goes from being an annoying pastor to someone who's behind atheist attacks on religion. Luckily, it wasn't exactly that. There's still lots of things that I disagree with in the article and things that I'm surprised about. But overall, the article is okay and the dude doesn't seem that bad.
Anyway, let's talk about issue I have with the article. The author says she's a WASP, which is Protestiant if I'm not mistaken. So I think his concept of atheism is pretty wrong and you can tell from a several points in the article. It almost seems like "non-religious" and atheism is the same to him. When describing the increasing number of atheists in society, he says:
When asked about religious affiliation in a Pew poll published this summer, nearly 20 percent of Americans chose “none,” the highest number the center has recorded. Many of those people would not call themselves atheists; “agnostic,” which technically refers to people who believe that the existence of a higher being can’t be known by the human mind, remains the safer option.
He gives no mention of the actual number of people who are atheist or agnostic. He just says 20% are "none" meaning no religion, which is very different than either atheist or agnostic. That can simply mean not following a religion but still believing in a deity. I think I typically hear numbers closer to 10% as atheist and agnostic, but it'd be nice to get an update on the number. Also, his statement that agnostic is a "safer option" shows a misunderstanding of what agnostism is about. Its not just "being neutral" or "sitting on the fence", many times it is a strong belief, just like the others. I personally think agnosticism the most "scientific" belief, unlike what many atheists would argue.
So I'm not sure if it the author's misconceptions on atheists or if I'm just very surprised by what other atheists think. Its probably both since I'm sure not all atheists have analyzed thinks in the same manner. And I'm sure there's lots of atheists that are just converts with little knowledge like all religions have. But something that really surprised me was the authors assertion (which I'm not sure if its wrong because of his own misconceptions) that many younger atheists are a result of the Sept 11 attacks. To me, that makes absolutely no sense. Two of the thoughts presented are based on (a) "disgust with religious zealotry in any form" (which I ironic considering some action of atheists) and (b) "blasting away [...] lingering belief in any sort of deity".
I think both are really silly responses. For (a), it implies that one doesn't like religion so choses to not believe in a deity instead of not following the teachings of the zealots. If you believed in a certain religion and then realized that your leaders were idiots, why would you stop believing in that religion let alone their god. Why not just stop following your leaders, but still maintaining the religion or the god. You can believe in a supreme being without following the words of a priest. But this might be the author's misunderstanding where he relates non-religious to atheist. Its more understandable that people may have turned away from their organized religion, but still believe in tenets or the deity. So I'm not sure which is true.
For (b), the idea that it was so bad that it means there's no god? First of all, there's been much worse atrocities. But the idea that having a deity means that they have to prevent a certain level of horribleness. So the god would sit back and let a common Joe die, but the god would step in if 1000 Joes would die (but only in America because it doesn't care when people die elsewhere). Its just so bad on so many levels. But I'll say I haven't read the whole statement so maybe its a different take.
The article does talk about atheist groups being support networks for people who lose their church groups. They actually have an example of a good ad that I like. It is "Are You Good Without God? Millions Are." Its just a statement that you can be happy without God and it doesn't need to attack anything. I, personally, don't get needing a support network but to me, core beliefs should come from introspection and personal analysis. I don't think people should need to be convinced to be atheists or they should be constantly reassured. (I'm against many books that go out to disprove the existence of a god.) But the article does illustrate how they could be useful for people who grew up in a community which the church was very important.
But the article tells about the man who probably wanted to help people more than preach religion. It also seems to be fairly balanced, portraying both atheists and Christian in a positive light. Its not bad, probably more human interesty than I would have liked though. It does give a different view on how some people come to atheism which is surprising to me. But I guess I never had to "come out of the atheist closet" like the article says you "always" have to do. (I don't like lots of their termology or the fact that much is taken from AA, the Bible, or the gay movement.)
Streetlight Manifesto
And finally, I saw that Streetlight Manifesto is releasing a new album in November!!! They're also touring to promote it. They have a show that's a Friday in November at Starland that I'll probably try to go to if we're not otherwise busy. But I'm extremely excited at the prospects of a new album. I think its called "the hands that thieve".
What Was Behind Mysterious Collapse of the Mayan Empire?
link
The article talks about how the change to the environment could have worsen droughts which led to the downfall of the Empire. "...the Mayans appear to have exacerbated the problem by cutting down the jungle canopy to make way for cities and crops..." I guess the Mayans hated Jungles as much as Angie (and newly I) do. Its good that you can't cause droughts in Civ through getting rid of jungles!
From Bible-Belt Pastor to Atheist Leader
Link
First of all, I'll admit that I'm more sensative to atheist articles since I identify as an atheist (even thought technically I'd probably be Agnostic). For the most part, the article typically talk about how stupid atheist groups go out and insult other religions primarily with billboards. Also, college atheist stories sometimes appear where students do programs designed to annoy religious people. Anyway, I like to complain about those and I hate the "Fundamentalist Atheists" who seem to be all about putting down other religions and seem to be as annoying as the people they claim to be so different from.
So I thought this was going to be an article about someone who goes from being an annoying pastor to someone who's behind atheist attacks on religion. Luckily, it wasn't exactly that. There's still lots of things that I disagree with in the article and things that I'm surprised about. But overall, the article is okay and the dude doesn't seem that bad.
Anyway, let's talk about issue I have with the article. The author says she's a WASP, which is Protestiant if I'm not mistaken. So I think his concept of atheism is pretty wrong and you can tell from a several points in the article. It almost seems like "non-religious" and atheism is the same to him. When describing the increasing number of atheists in society, he says:
When asked about religious affiliation in a Pew poll published this summer, nearly 20 percent of Americans chose “none,” the highest number the center has recorded. Many of those people would not call themselves atheists; “agnostic,” which technically refers to people who believe that the existence of a higher being can’t be known by the human mind, remains the safer option.
He gives no mention of the actual number of people who are atheist or agnostic. He just says 20% are "none" meaning no religion, which is very different than either atheist or agnostic. That can simply mean not following a religion but still believing in a deity. I think I typically hear numbers closer to 10% as atheist and agnostic, but it'd be nice to get an update on the number. Also, his statement that agnostic is a "safer option" shows a misunderstanding of what agnostism is about. Its not just "being neutral" or "sitting on the fence", many times it is a strong belief, just like the others. I personally think agnosticism the most "scientific" belief, unlike what many atheists would argue.
So I'm not sure if it the author's misconceptions on atheists or if I'm just very surprised by what other atheists think. Its probably both since I'm sure not all atheists have analyzed thinks in the same manner. And I'm sure there's lots of atheists that are just converts with little knowledge like all religions have. But something that really surprised me was the authors assertion (which I'm not sure if its wrong because of his own misconceptions) that many younger atheists are a result of the Sept 11 attacks. To me, that makes absolutely no sense. Two of the thoughts presented are based on (a) "disgust with religious zealotry in any form" (which I ironic considering some action of atheists) and (b) "blasting away [...] lingering belief in any sort of deity".
I think both are really silly responses. For (a), it implies that one doesn't like religion so choses to not believe in a deity instead of not following the teachings of the zealots. If you believed in a certain religion and then realized that your leaders were idiots, why would you stop believing in that religion let alone their god. Why not just stop following your leaders, but still maintaining the religion or the god. You can believe in a supreme being without following the words of a priest. But this might be the author's misunderstanding where he relates non-religious to atheist. Its more understandable that people may have turned away from their organized religion, but still believe in tenets or the deity. So I'm not sure which is true.
For (b), the idea that it was so bad that it means there's no god? First of all, there's been much worse atrocities. But the idea that having a deity means that they have to prevent a certain level of horribleness. So the god would sit back and let a common Joe die, but the god would step in if 1000 Joes would die (but only in America because it doesn't care when people die elsewhere). Its just so bad on so many levels. But I'll say I haven't read the whole statement so maybe its a different take.
The article does talk about atheist groups being support networks for people who lose their church groups. They actually have an example of a good ad that I like. It is "Are You Good Without God? Millions Are." Its just a statement that you can be happy without God and it doesn't need to attack anything. I, personally, don't get needing a support network but to me, core beliefs should come from introspection and personal analysis. I don't think people should need to be convinced to be atheists or they should be constantly reassured. (I'm against many books that go out to disprove the existence of a god.) But the article does illustrate how they could be useful for people who grew up in a community which the church was very important.
But the article tells about the man who probably wanted to help people more than preach religion. It also seems to be fairly balanced, portraying both atheists and Christian in a positive light. Its not bad, probably more human interesty than I would have liked though. It does give a different view on how some people come to atheism which is surprising to me. But I guess I never had to "come out of the atheist closet" like the article says you "always" have to do. (I don't like lots of their termology or the fact that much is taken from AA, the Bible, or the gay movement.)
Streetlight Manifesto
And finally, I saw that Streetlight Manifesto is releasing a new album in November!!! They're also touring to promote it. They have a show that's a Friday in November at Starland that I'll probably try to go to if we're not otherwise busy. But I'm extremely excited at the prospects of a new album. I think its called "the hands that thieve".