Hard News: Belief Media
414 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 17 Newer→ Last
-
Islander, in reply to
Not wrong mate!
-
Hi folks.
The show itself was good tonight.
It has struck me that a lot of my focus on Christianity has been on lunatic American evangelicals and their local analogues, like McCoskrie and Tamaki., who I actually think are bad people. It was genuinely pleasant to talk to some decent and articulate people from the Christian community.
Good story about the connection between the CBA and the pirate-era Radio Hauraki too.
-
andin, in reply to
It has struck me that a lot of my focus on Christianity has been on lunatic American evangelicals and their local analogues, like McCoskrie and Tamaki.
Hey we're not all bad.
-
and
“We are on secular, commercial networks,” says Phil Guyan who took over command of CBA in 1995, “so 86 to 91 per cent of our listeners are non-Christian. It’s the most effective means of reaching large numbers of New Zealanders.
Ah yes. It's a numbers game alright. Somewhere out there in the 86 to 91% there will be enough found to keep the funding coming in eh John?
Extra extra:
“When we had our media prayer day a couple of months ago we wrote to over 1400 churches and we know that at least 700 churches prayed,” says Mr Guyan.
What a bugger it doesn't seem to work.
-
Dawkins on "What if he is wrong?"
An accident of birth.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Extra extra:
“When we had our media prayer day a couple of months ago we wrote to over 1400 churches and we know that at least 700 churches prayed,” says Mr Guyan.
What a bugger it doesn't seem to work.
The evidence is certainly not encouraging. On the other hand, it didn't hurt you or me that other people did this thing.
-
andin, in reply to
On the other hand, it didn't hurt you or me that other people did this thing
Most communal activities rarely hurt others
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
It has struck me that a lot of my focus on Christianity has been on lunatic American evangelicals and their local analogues, like McCoskrie and Tamaki., who I actually think are bad people. It was genuinely pleasant to talk to some decent and articulate people from the Christian community.
What sets the fundyism of McCroskrie, Tamaki, Wishart, McVicar et al from normal Christianity? There's a strong whiff of nouveau riche wheeler-dealer-ism about the kind of Christianity they practice.
And how long before we have a Trayvon Martin or Amadou Diallo in NZ?
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
I’m sure you’re right, but who said these things??
Christopher Hitchens (which I revere, FWIW, but when he got his crank working? Oy and vey.) and Jerry Falwell, who didn't even have the decency to wait a full day after the 9/11 attacks to let loose that spew.
-
You are right. It appears their prayers did not hurt you or me. (I suspect the intention was the opposite.) I am more concerned about how people get to the point where they feel the need to get on bended knee to pray. I dare to suggest that without the 'help' of parental guidance that the numbers frequenting churches would be few. What is even more scary is how seemingly rational people can be influenced by the evangalists. What tools 1) do the people picked up have missing and 2) do the evangies have that enhance the pickup?
And what influence has the media here?
-
Find me that first quote Craig. I am having difficulty. Found the Falwell one though.
-
Lucy Stewart, in reply to
The evidence is certainly not encouraging. On the other hand, it didn't hurt you or me that other people did this thing.
The only time prayer is a problem is if it's used to be exclusionary (official prayers in inappropriate settings) or if it's substituted for effective action (children in need of medical treatment, etc.) Otherwise it is, frankly, not anyone else's business to be bothered about.
-
Scott Chris, in reply to
Materialist? As in “This material world that we can see, hear, touch, taste and smell is all there is”?
{Lilith]It’s a pity that Materialist has other, less happy meanings. And I’ve got a Madonna earworm just thinking about it!
Maybe "physicalist" is the label you are looking for.
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
hmmm.... I think you learned me a new word, and one that may have been closer to the meaning I wanted than the one I used. Thank you.
-
Lucy Stewart, in reply to
Materialist? As in “This material world that we can see, hear, touch, taste and smell is all there is”?
It also occurs that the other problem with that definition is that there is decidedly more to the physical world than humans can sense. In the spectrum of signals out there, our sight (and hearing, and smell, and so forth) covers but a tiny fraction. We can come up with ways to detect those signals that translate into our senses, but that's just a translation.
-
Craig Young, in reply to
Yes, but how many 'christian' respondents are conversely only liable to go to church for reasons of civil religion or holidays- Christmas, Easter, and funerals? Don't discount kneejerk nominalism- which may explain why there has been a rise in the category of no religious observance. I agree, though- the census categories for religious observance are truncated and munted. Perhaps the number of faithless infidels is even more!
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Easter Edam and other cheeses…
…but praying for a parking spot must constitute godbothering.
prepare to meter your maker…
So good lab practice has lab coats never leaving the lab…
I recall some study (reported here in New Scientist ) finding that Doctors’ ties were a serious disease vector…
The important point is that you were not BORN a presbyterian.
I was, it’s on my birth certificate and everything!
Gawd knows what gave me away….You’ll never see a Wicker Man on Mt Vic…
8 pages before a Wickerman reference
that’s gotta be a restraint record round here…
(how long till the YouTube George Michael clip?)
<PS> I note this thread started on Tuesday,
meaning “Tīw’s Day”, the day of Tiw or Týr, the god of single combat, victory and heroic glory in Norse mythology.
carried on through Wednesday - Wotan’s (Odin) Day
and here we are on Thor’s day with Frigg’s day off tomorrow,
then we get to go all Saturnine before the two big Heavenly hitters
Sun and Moon get a look in on the daily pantheon…turn, turn, turn...
-
Chris...we have a problem
infidel [in-fi-dl, -del] [in-fi-dl, -del] noun
1.Religion .
a. a person who does not accept a particular faith, especially Christianity.
b. (in Christian use) an unbeliever, especially a Muslim.
c. (in Muslim use) a person who does not accept the Islamic faith; kaffir.
2. a person who has no religious faith; unbeliever.
3. (loosely) a person who disbelieves or doubts a particular theory, belief, creed, etc.; skeptic.Nothing like covering the bases.
-
Will de Cleene, in reply to
I got chatting to a stranger the other week who is of the Eastern Orthodox persuasion.
There's room for everyone here, even the tuataras.
Thank you Will de Cleene
Ta, but don't thank me. Thank the PA System and its colourful ecosystem.
On the other hand, it didn't hurt you or me that other people did this thing.
Call me contrary, but I beg to differ. Oliver Stone's W. demonstrated the falseness of that security, when more time is spent on appealing to faith than evidence.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
Dawkins has always struck me as a condescending and unpleasant arsehole
Ditto (though that's possibly also because I am a person of faith). He is no less offensive and obnoxious than the "in your face" theists of whom he is so derisive, and I know several atheists who consider him a cock. He's a hypocrite, but nobody with a public profile in atheism has ever said as much.
-
Sacha, in reply to
official prayers in inappropriate settings
like Parliament
-
Hilary Stace, in reply to
I disagree that there aren't some sort of 'general' ethics. There are multiple strands in the development of ethics and various ways of looking at it all. Since there have been humans there have probably been people discussing and thinking about what it means to be human. The are disciplines of legal ethics and medical ethics and philosophy and moral approaches. You could go back to Aristotle and his belief that we need to think about ourselves as ethical beings, or look at historical development in various cultures. But I think you would come to some common aspiration of treating others as you would like to be treated (whether or not people actually do it in their real lives).
I personally prefer the concept of 'right' relationships (originally from Buddhism) which starts from a premise that everyone is fully and equally human, and respecting that equality you work on building an ethical, respectful and appropriate relationship with other humans whatever the task - so there is on ongoing process of negotiating an ethical relationship in any particular situation. So you wouldn't have one person imposing their beliefs on another and conversely you would speak up if you saw injustice to another. Michael Kendrick has developed this concept in the concept of provision of disability services - an area very vulnerable to abuses of power or of treating dsabled people as not fully human.
You could take that idea further and apply it to the environment and everything on earth on the assumption that we are all part of one ecosytem whereby we are all interrelated and what we do affects others and thereby ourselves. So why would you allow pollution? It is not an ethical 'right' relationship.
-
andin, in reply to
He's a hypocrite,
Oh do tell....
Hilary
I personally prefer the concept of 'right' relationships (originally from Buddhism) which starts from a premise that everyone is fully and equally human,
I think whatshisname was trying to put a chink in the armour of the caste system that was prevalent back then. But its easily extended to present day polluters isnt it!
-
Lilith __, in reply to
no less offensive and obnoxious than the “in your face” theists of whom he is so derisive, and I know several atheists who consider him a cock.
I’ve probably said enough on this subject, but many of the people who complain that Dawkins is offensive seem very free with their insults when describing him.
If you think he’s wrong, fine, but is the personal abuse helpful? Would it be more constructive to say why you disagree with him, or what your own position is?
-
Emma Hart, in reply to
Most communal activities rarely hurt others
Sorry, what? That's how we most efficiently oppress other people, in groups. Even the most benign group in some sense defines itself by the people it excludes, that's what makes it a group. We don't have to go as far as "lynchings are communal activities", obviously that's not 'most', but how about popping along to a Promise Keepers meeting and thinking about how that communal activity hurts women?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.