Concerns About Sony's Religious Intolerance

[Gaurnim]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

<atheistic religious tangent>
If life ends at death--truly ends, no afterlife, no reincarnation, no ghosts, no join-the-eternal-in-bliss-of-nirvana--then this life is all we have.

That makes it PRECIOUS.

All the meaning, justice, goodness in the universe is what we create. That makes us important--we are the ones who perceive order, who prefer nurturing over destruction, who have invented and sustained love for thousands of years.

I do agree with most of your point in there (non-committal about the part on miracles, though, not sure I understand it well).

I don't feel the need for a justification to my life.
It IS meaningless, and I don't care. I'm just here to enjoy it while it lasts.
And enjoying it depends on personal well-being, but also depends on spreading it to others.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by msmith

First of all, Wikipedia is not the most credible resource in the world, and tends to lean towards the bias of the editors--as do polls and studies.

Well it seems to stand up good when compared to Britannica according to a recent study...

So is the apparent inference from the posted statistics is that the French should be exponentially smarter than Americans because they don't believe in God to the overwhelming degree that Americans do (i.e. religious people= dumb, atheists=smart). That is patently absurd. The United States is one of the highest educated nations on the face of the earth, and one of the most religious.

I do not believe that is true. See for example:

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/HCP/De...graduates.aspx

Sweden, Switzerland and Finland has twice the number Phd per capita then US. And I expect Sweden and Finland to be similar to France with respect to religious belief.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by HarryT

With respect, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that Jesus was not a genuine historical figure. His reported activies are completely "in line" with the various "apocalyptic" cults we know from documentary evidence were prevalent in 1st century Judea - it was very widely believed at the time that the Roman occupation of Judea was a "punishment from God" and signalled the imminent end of the world.

Certainly by the mid-60's AD the "Christians" were a sufficiently well-known (and disliked) group for them to be a convenient "scapegoat" for Nero to blame them for the great Fire of Rome in 64 AD, as reported by the Roman historian Tacitus in "Annals XV":



(This is, by the way, the first "independent" historical mention of Christianity.)

That is, of course, entirely different from saying that Jesus was anything other than a normal human being - a think which I don't personally accept for an instant.

No offense taken. I was more or less of the same opinion as you, until I took more active interest in the subject a few years ago. Since then, based on the evidence I have seen, I have come to believe that it is more likely that a historical Jesus never existed, even as a charismatic apocalyptic sect leader.

The lack of any contemporaneous evidence (even if you accept the Tacitus passage as genuine, and there are good arguments why you should not, the Annals were written in the second decade of the Second Century) fits nicely with the etherial Christ and gnostic tendencies of Paul.

The argument for etherial, non-historic Son of Man origins of the Jesus myth, seems to provide a more coherent and satisfactory explanation for the gradual emergence of a flesh and blood Jesus figure in the Second Century.

I personally find religion in general, and the history of early Christianity in particular, fascinating, so pardon my jumping here with both feet:-) There are a bunch of books on the subject, some decently written and some not (I've pointed to a couple in a previous post.) But a quick Google search will bring up various summaries of the main arguments, such as this one: http://skeptically.org/newtestament/id6.html

[msmith]

Originally Posted by tompe

Sweden, Switzerland and Finland has twice the number Phd per capita then US. And I expect Sweden and Finland to be similar to France with respect to religious belief.

AGAIN, the U.S. trumps France (and every other country that you mentioned) in virtually every meaningful category of success, accomplishment, technological development, financial power and influence, which would naturally be a significant offshoot of intelligence. Are you actually attempting to argue that the French as a whole (or any other country that you mentioned) are "smarter" than Americans?

How does Finland or Sweden stack up against the United States with regards to their respective economies? Does your assertion that they are less religious contribute to the fact that they are objectively less successful and less developed nations than the United States? (with all due respect to their inhabitants)

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by msmith

..., the U.S. trumps France (and every other country that you mentioned) in virtually every meaningful category of success, accomplishment, technological development, ...

Even if true, those who are actually responsible for such success are not likely to be of the bible-thumping variety, but of the Academy of Science variety. See this: http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/jesus/inte...20religion.htm

It only means, I suppose, that those American Academy of Science types have a very large trailer (pun intended,) of faithful dead weight to pull behind, on their quest to accomplishment and technological development.

[slayda]

Originally Posted by msmith

...
So is the apparent inference from the posted statistics is that the French should be exponentially smarter than Americans because they don't believe in God to the overwhelming degree that Americans do (i.e. religious people= dumb, atheists=smart). That is patently absurd. The United States is one of the highest educated nations on the face of the earth, and one of the most religious.
...
If it helps some people feel more "comfortable" reading it, Vox Day the author of "The Irrational Atheist" is a member of Mensa.

...

Just to keep things on a level playing field, the opposite of smart is dumb & the opposite of educated is ignorant. There are plenty of well educated people who aren't very smart as well as plenty who are not formally educated but are very smart.

Also having been a member of Mensa and known several other members, I am not terribly impressed with the organization nor their members. Some of them would have a hard time finding their way in out of the rain. Indeed they would have a hard time recognizing that they were out in the rain until it was pointed out to them. But that's just my opinion. I'm sure that they are all very smart.

[msmith]

Originally Posted by Sonist

It only means, I suppose, that those American Academy of Science types have a very large trailer (pun intended,) of faithful dead weight to pull behind, on their quest to accomplishment and technological development.

Really? I see. So according to you, American Academy of Science members and/or atheists create all of the wealth and success in America. They create all of the jobs and all of the economic development...that, in effect, atheists are the economic engine of the wealthiest nation in the world.

Is that the point you are laughably trying to make? Everyone in America is dead weight except for the American Academy of Science members and atheists?

Wow.

[lilac_jive]

Originally Posted by slayda

Just to keep things on a level playing field, the opposite of smart is dumb & the opposite of educated is ignorant. There are plenty of well educated people who aren't very smart as well as plenty who are not formally educated but are very smart.

Also having been a member of Mensa and known several other members, I am not terribly impressed with the organization nor their members. Some of them would have a hard tiome finding their way in out of the rain. Indeed they would have a hard time recognizing that they were out in the rain until it was pointed out to them. But that's just my opinion. I'm sure that they are all very smart.

Well said. I know some very very smart people who are also very stupid

[tompe]

Originally Posted by msmith

AGAIN, the U.S. trumps France (and every other country that you mentioned) in virtually every meaningful category of success, accomplishment, technological development, financial power and influence, which would naturally be a significant offshoot of intelligence. Are you actually attempting to argue that the French as a whole (or any other country that you mentioned) are "smarter" than Americans?

I assume you mean per capita. What do you base this claim on? Just you wanting it to be true does not make it true?

US are usually bad in measurement of mathematic skills. Also a lot of phd studies in the US are done by people from other countries.

I only complained here about your claim about US.

[Patricia]

Originally Posted by msmith

AGAIN, the U.S. trumps France (and every other country that you mentioned) in virtually every meaningful category of success, accomplishment, technological development, financial power and influence, which would naturally be a significant offshoot of intelligence.

I am now deeply puzzled. I always understood that Christians didn't measure success by such worldly standards. Yet here they are described as the only meaningful ones.

Nothing about striving for holiness, excelling in works of charity, or promoting human dignity actually counts as a success then?

[Valloric]

Originally Posted by Patricia

I am now deeply puzzled. I always understood that Christians didn't measure success by such worldly standards. Yet here they are described as the only meaningful ones.

Nothing about striving for holiness, excelling in works of charity, or promoting human dignity actually counts as a success then?

Very good point.

[amgoforth]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You mean a book like the Bible, which says that all homosexuals should be executed?

Poor argument. Please read the post again.

[Gideon]

Originally Posted by Patricia

I am now deeply puzzled. I always understood that Christians didn't measure success by such worldly standards. Yet here they are described as the only meaningful ones.

Nothing about striving for holiness, excelling in works of charity, or promoting human dignity actually counts as a success then?

It depends on the type of Christian you're talking about. Personally, I think the things you mentioned last are the only things that do matter. Most the religious people I associate with believe that, too. No one in my church talks about the status of someone's immortal soul, but we talk a lot about the Missions (and missions in our church are not about converting people) in Africa that have built schools or feeding the hungry there or here. We talk a lot about social justice and the importance of equality and then go out and do what we can towards those goals. We talk a lot about Jesus... but we do not dwell on his death or 'resurrection.'

Personally, and I do mean that in the sense that I know very well, I don't know many Christians who actually believe in miracles or that Jesus was the literal son of God or was resurrected. They certainly don't believe in God as a big dad in the sky or Hell for those not saved (or anyone else, for that matter).

But the point is there is an entire strata of theology and religion that exists in this vein. It's not all hocus pocus and world-denying.

Which is not to say many, or even most, don't. But it's not as uncommon as some like to think.

[amgoforth]

Now it may just be because it's 3:45 here, and I've spent most of the day in a heavily smoky atmosphere - neither of which are conducive to clear headedness, but there seems to be a subtext in some of these "Sony shouldn't have done it" posts which seems to be suggesting that because it might offend some people it should maybe never have been published at all. Which is something I find rather frightening. I've waffled on long enough here, so I'll leave it at that for now, but I may come back to it when I'm less tired.[/QUOTE]


I am in favor of publishing books critical of anyone or anything. I have had friends in the past when I was a Pro Wrestler who were gay. I am just sick and tired of Christianity being attacked when so many other subjects are off limit. I worked in Iraq etc for KBR Halliburton for two years. I made alot of Muslim friends, but we all know what happens if they are attacked in print.

[amgoforth]

Originally Posted by tompe

It seems that that this is religious propaganda. See for example:

http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/23/...s-in-foxholes/

http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/09/0...or-respect.htm

If the scrawny little punks who wrote the articles in the links above, had been in Iraq with me, and saw the death and destruction, then the might have something to say on the subject.