|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 26, 2024 18:39:58 GMT
Cultural reasons for self-identification as a Christian? She was up there as part of the New Atheist movement: "Ali was a central figure in New Atheism since its beginnings She was strongly associated with the movement, along with Christopher Hitchens, who regarded Ali as 'the most important public intellectual probably ever to come out of Africa.'" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_AliBut she now identifies as a Christian... unherd.com/2023/11/why-i-am-now-a-christian/So...she is a "cultural Christian" (like historian Tom Holland and "atheist Christian" Douglas Murray?). Is this a "New Christianity," a cultural reaction to the "New Atheists"? Is that enough to "qualify"? |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Apr 26, 2024 20:03:45 GMT
Cultural reasons for self-identification as a Christian? She was up there as part of the New Atheist movement: "Ali was a central figure in New Atheism since its beginnings She was strongly associated with the movement, along with Christopher Hitchens, who regarded Ali as 'the most important public intellectual probably ever to come out of Africa.'" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_AliBut she now identifies as a Christian... unherd.com/2023/11/why-i-am-now-a-christian/So...she is a "cultural Christian" (like historian Tom Holland and "atheist Christian" Douglas Murray?). Is this a "New Christianity," a cultural reaction to the "New Atheists"? Is that enough to "qualify"? What's that old say? One swallow doesn't make a summer... Or something like that. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 26, 2024 22:06:23 GMT
Cultural reasons for self-identification as a Christian? She was up there as part of the New Atheist movement: "Ali was a central figure in New Atheism since its beginnings She was strongly associated with the movement, along with Christopher Hitchens, who regarded Ali as 'the most important public intellectual probably ever to come out of Africa.'" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_AliBut she now identifies as a Christian... unherd.com/2023/11/why-i-am-now-a-christian/So...she is a "cultural Christian" (like historian Tom Holland and "atheist Christian" Douglas Murray?). Is this a "New Christianity," a cultural reaction to the "New Atheists"? Is that enough to "qualify"? What's that old say? One swallow doesn't make a summer... Or something like that. Three sparrows. Douglas Murray and Tom Holland would be remarkably similar. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Apr 26, 2024 23:12:44 GMT
What's that old say? One swallow doesn't make a summer... Or something like that. Three sparrows. Douglas Murray and Tom Holland would be remarkably similar. Still not much of a summer. Plus I said "swallow" not "sparrow". It seems you've been influenced by "Game of Thrones" and their bizarre polytheistic yet Christian like religion... |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 26, 2024 23:28:21 GMT
Three sparrows. Douglas Murray and Tom Holland would be remarkably similar. Still not much of a summer. Plus I said "swallow" not "sparrow". It seems you've been influenced by "Game of Thrones" and their bizarre polytheistic yet Christian like religion... 🙂 Nice catch there. Three of "formerly aggressive and well-known atheists." How many of those are there? Hitchens and Bennett are both dead now. Dawkins is going strong. Harris might be softening...depending. Who else is there? Michael Shermer? Lawrence Krauss? Who else? I'm not aware of any more off the top of my head. So...yeah, a few swallows. Not really the point, though. I was more asking as to whether a cultural Christian "counts." Because by any traditional or orthodox measure, I don't think Holland or Murray would. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Apr 27, 2024 0:24:50 GMT
Still not much of a summer. Plus I said "swallow" not "sparrow". It seems you've been influenced by "Game of Thrones" and their bizarre polytheistic yet Christian like religion... 🙂 Nice catch there. Three of "formerly aggressive and well-known atheists." How many of those are there? Hitchens and Bennett are both dead now. Dawkins is going strong. Harris might be softening...depending. Who else is there? Michael Shermer? Lawrence Krauss? Who else? I'm not aware of any more off the top of my head. So...yeah, a few swallows. Not really the point, though. I was more asking as to whether a cultural Christian "counts." Because by any traditional or orthodox measure, I don't think Holland or Murray would. You know most definitely more on the subject than I do. I don't know any of these, except for Hitchens from YouTube videos and Dawkins (mostly by reputation as I've yet to read any if his books ( I started one ages ago but I am still at the very beginning. I know that Hitchens would have gladly shaved his head with a rusted cheese grater before he'd even consider becoming a Christian. To me none of this matters though as my atheism is not the result of any role model like influence. I reasoned myself a long time ago into it and only reason could make me get out of it which seems highly unlikely and even unlikelier as time passes. I don't feel any loss when a so called ardent atheist turncoat toward religion nor do I feel a gain when the opposite happens. At any rate, I am always suspicious of "former" believers as I have never been in their shoes. Even as a child the priest found my relentless asking of questions he didn't have satisfactory answers to... Grating... To say the least. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 27, 2024 0:34:12 GMT
🙂 Nice catch there. Three of "formerly aggressive and well-known atheists." How many of those are there? Hitchens and Bennett are both dead now. Dawkins is going strong. Harris might be softening...depending. Who else is there? Michael Shermer? Lawrence Krauss? Who else? I'm not aware of any more off the top of my head. So...yeah, a few swallows. Not really the point, though. I was more asking as to whether a cultural Christian "counts." Because by any traditional or orthodox measure, I don't think Holland or Murray would. You know most definitely more on the subject than I do. I don't know any of these, except for Hitchens from YouTube videos and Dawkins (mostly by reputation as I've yet to read any if his books ( I started one ages ago but I am still at the very beginning. I know that Hitchens would have gladly shaved his head with a rusted cheese grater before he'd even consider becoming a Christian. To me none of this matters though as my atheism is not the result of any role model like influence. I reasoned myself a long time ago into it and only reason could make me get out of it which seems highly unlikely and even unlikelier as time passes. I can understand that. Why would that be? You think they were "not quite legitimate" atheists? That would be grating, yes. My dad left the church for the same reason: "Those are not questions we ask." |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Apr 27, 2024 0:46:12 GMT
You know most definitely more on the subject than I do. I don't know any of these, except for Hitchens from YouTube videos and Dawkins (mostly by reputation as I've yet to read any if his books ( I started one ages ago but I am still at the very beginning. I know that Hitchens would have gladly shaved his head with a rusted cheese grater before he'd even consider becoming a Christian. To me none of this matters though as my atheism is not the result of any role model like influence. I reasoned myself a long time ago into it and only reason could make me get out of it which seems highly unlikely and even unlikelier as time passes. I can understand that. Why would that be? You think they were "not quite legitimate" atheists? That would be grating, yes. My dad left the church for the same reason: "Those are not questions we ask." Because my atheism is not based on the rejection of a specific religion. It's like when a teenager says he detests his parents... That doesn't mean necessarily that he does. That could just be a phase. |
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Apr 27, 2024 3:35:32 GMT
I'll stick with old atheist Bertie Russell, though the title of her
book is fairly clever.
|
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Apr 27, 2024 8:57:41 GMT
I'll stick with old atheist Bertie Russell, though the title of her book is fairly clever. Which one? |
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,410
|
Post by thor on Apr 27, 2024 21:40:41 GMT
Three sparrows. Douglas Murray and Tom Holland would be remarkably similar. Still not much of a summer. Plus I said "swallow" not "sparrow". It seems you've been influenced by "Game of Thrones" and their bizarre polytheistic yet Christian like religion... That part of GoT was a salient warning about letting religious fanatics get the power of the state.  |
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Apr 27, 2024 21:54:33 GMT
I'll stick with old atheist Bertie Russell, though the title of her book is fairly clever. Which one? Why I Am Now a Christian. Russell gave a lecture in the late 1920s titled Why I Am Not a Christian which was later published. I suppose her title could have been coincidental, though I would lean the other her way and say it was a reference to Russell's earlier work. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 27, 2024 23:09:19 GMT
Why I Am Now a Christian. Russell gave a lecture in the late 1920s titled Why I Am Not a Christian which was later published. I suppose her title could have been coincidental, though I would lean the other her way and say it was a reference to Russell's earlier work. It was not coincidental. Did you read the linked article? |
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Apr 28, 2024 0:51:12 GMT
Why I Am Now a Christian. Russell gave a lecture in the late 1920s titled Why I Am Not a Christian which was later published. I suppose her title could have been coincidental, though I would lean the other her way and say it was a reference to Russell's earlier work. It was not coincidental. Did you read the linked article? No, I read the link to her Wikipedia entry and forgot about the other link. Russell's tone is relatively light-hearted, almost waggish, her's is of the doom and gloom variety that never seems to come true. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Apr 28, 2024 10:06:34 GMT
It was not coincidental. Did you read the linked article? No, I read the link to her Wikipedia entry and forgot about the other link. Russell's tone is relatively light-hearted, almost waggish, her's is of the doom and gloom variety that never seems to come true. "Doom and gloom" that was denounced in Russell's essay (among many other things) that I have now read. It's quite good, although I must say that I've come to most of these conclusions myself, although it's possible that I've been influenced indirectly by it given that it's been made a long time ago and is now very likely part of the cultural landscape. I knew about the fig tree incident for example and how it shows Jesus to be a petty vindictive man and I wonder how the Christians deal with that passage if they deal with it at all given that most of them have not read the gospels in their entirety. It's likely that most of the ones that did just dismissed this passage as "unimportant" or "with hidden significations" that they do not presently get (and won't ever).
|
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Apr 28, 2024 21:30:49 GMT
No, I read the link to her Wikipedia entry and forgot about the other link. Russell's tone is relatively light-hearted, almost waggish, her's is of the doom and gloom variety that never seems to come true. "Doom and gloom" that was denounced in Russell's essay (among many other things) that I have now read. It's quite good, although I must say that I've come to most of these conclusions myself, although it's possible that I've been influenced indirectly by it given that it's been made a long time ago and is now very likely part of the cultural landscape. I knew about the fig tree incident for example and how it shows Jesus to be a petty vindictive man and I wonder how the Christians deal with that passage if they deal with it at all given that most of them have not read the gospels in their entirety. It's likely that most of the ones that did just dismissed this passage as "unimportant" or "with hidden significations" that they do not presently get (and won't ever).
Many of Russell's arguments are not new, but he puts them in an entertaining form. I like his idea that the conception of God came from "the ancient Oriental despotisms." I think the puzzle of the fig tree would be solved by believers through it being symbolic or else a mistranslation from the original. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 29, 2024 13:22:25 GMT
No, I read the link to her Wikipedia entry and forgot about the other link. Russell's tone is relatively light-hearted, almost waggish, her's is of the doom and gloom variety that never seems to come true. "Doom and gloom" that was denounced in Russell's essay (among many other things) that I have now read. It's quite good, although I must say that I've come to most of these conclusions myself, although it's possible that I've been influenced indirectly by it given that it's been made a long time ago and is now very likely part of the cultural landscape. I knew about the fig tree incident for example and how it shows Jesus to be a petty vindictive man and I wonder how the Christians deal with that passage if they deal with it at all given that most of them have not read the gospels in their entirety. It's likely that most of the ones that did just dismissed this passage as "unimportant" or "with hidden significations" that they do not presently get (and won't ever).
The fig tree example. Petty. Seems reading the "fig tree" that way is actually a "petty" way to read it. I mean, a cigar isn't just a cigar. I teapot isn't just a teapot. And a fig tree isn't always just a fig tree. Which, in the context of the whole text, should be pretty obvious. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 29, 2024 13:27:53 GMT
No, I read the link to her Wikipedia entry and forgot about the other link. Russell's tone is relatively light-hearted, almost waggish, her's is of the doom and gloom variety that never seems to come true. "Doom and gloom" that was denounced in Russell's essay (among many other things) that I have now read. It's quite good, although I must say that I've come to most of these conclusions myself, although it's possible that I've been influenced indirectly by it given that it's been made a long time ago and is now very likely part of the cultural landscape. I knew about the fig tree incident for example and how it shows Jesus to be a petty vindictive man and I wonder how the Christians deal with that passage if they deal with it at all given that most of them have not read the gospels in their entirety. It's likely that most of the ones that did just dismissed this passage as "unimportant" or "with hidden significations" that they do not presently get (and won't ever).
It's a lot easier to conclude "doom and gloom" today than it was when Russell delivered that lecture. The optimism offered by science, technology, naturalism, etc., has been significantly eroded. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Apr 29, 2024 14:32:19 GMT
"Doom and gloom" that was denounced in Russell's essay (among many other things) that I have now read. It's quite good, although I must say that I've come to most of these conclusions myself, although it's possible that I've been influenced indirectly by it given that it's been made a long time ago and is now very likely part of the cultural landscape. I knew about the fig tree incident for example and how it shows Jesus to be a petty vindictive man and I wonder how the Christians deal with that passage if they deal with it at all given that most of them have not read the gospels in their entirety. It's likely that most of the ones that did just dismissed this passage as "unimportant" or "with hidden significations" that they do not presently get (and won't ever).
The fig tree example. Petty. Seems reading the "fig tree" that way is actually a "petty" way to read it. I mean, a cigar isn't just a cigar. I teapot isn't just a teapot. And a fig tree isn't always just a fig tree. Which, in the context of the whole text, should be pretty obvious. Well, if it's so obvious, then why don't you just tell us? |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Apr 29, 2024 14:33:55 GMT
"Doom and gloom" that was denounced in Russell's essay (among many other things) that I have now read. It's quite good, although I must say that I've come to most of these conclusions myself, although it's possible that I've been influenced indirectly by it given that it's been made a long time ago and is now very likely part of the cultural landscape. I knew about the fig tree incident for example and how it shows Jesus to be a petty vindictive man and I wonder how the Christians deal with that passage if they deal with it at all given that most of them have not read the gospels in their entirety. It's likely that most of the ones that did just dismissed this passage as "unimportant" or "with hidden significations" that they do not presently get (and won't ever).
It's a lot easier to conclude "doom and gloom" today than it was when Russell delivered that lecture. The optimism offered by science, technology, naturalism, etc., has been significantly eroded. That's no reason for abandoning science for magic. |
|
