Are you Atheist or Christian?

[Riddick]

Are you Atheist or Christian? Which is closer to your line of thinking?

[scribble]

Can you say, "False Dichotomy?"

Let me ask in advance, Riddick, just for kicks. What will this poll demonstrate?

[evildave]

It certainly ignores all the other religious groups.

How about practitioners of Judaism, Hunduism, and Islam? You're not claiming that they're 'atheist', are you?

Could people perhaps be agnostic, deistic or atheistic? After all, a deist would believe in a god, just not your specific conclusions about it.

Perhaps a new poll?

[Riddick]

Upchurch said in another post that these forums are not predominately the Atheist mindset.

So I thought a little poll on the subject was warranted.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Riddick
Upchurch said in another post that these forums are not predominately the Atheist mindset.

So I thought a little poll on the subject was warranted.

But Christianity is not the only alternative to atheism.

[Riddick]

yes, I put a little "Which is closer to your line of thinking" catch all in there.

[MLynn]

People of most perspectives are left out - deists, agnostics, wiccans, etc.

[scribble]

Perhaps "Atheist" or "Not" would have been better then. As your poll stands, you're going to get a lot of people who aren't atheists, but are closer to it than Christianity, who choose Atheist because it's the closest... or who don't vote at all.

I know, it's not easy to see these things from your Christian perspective... but try to look outside the box ocassionally.

[Upchurch]

I'm Unitarian. In a nutshell, we believe in finding our own way and that truth can be found from a madrid of sources, including atheism and the many, many forms of Christianity (as well as Buddhism, Islam, Hindu, etc.) Neither option is correct.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Riddick
Are you Atheist or Christian?Yes.

[geni]

What defintion of Christianity are we using here anyway?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Riddick
Are you Atheist or Christian? No.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Riddick
yes, I put a little "Which is closer to your line of thinking" catch all in there.

Trying to force all possible religions into a simple binary choice with a simple "which is closer to your line of thinking" doesn't really work. Deists, Buddhists, Pagans, and probably a dozen others that I am not thinking of at the moment aren't really close to either, so it would intellectually dishonest for them to try to fit into one of the two choices you provided. Your poll is flawed by its very nature.

Heck, even adding an "Other" option would have been a huge improvement.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Neither. I suppose you could call me a Taoist, but I'd be a philosophical Taoist, not a religious one.

I suppose I would fit the weak definition of an atheist - a "godless one", so I'll choose that.

[Riddick]

Originally posted by geni
What defintion of Christianity are we using here anyway?
The Church of England definition.

[scribble]

I think nearly every single post in here has explained how the poll is critically flawed.

Will Riddick still attempt to consider it valid for something?

Time will tell.

[Riddick]

So, how do you guys feel about the dating system, 2004 A.D.? The fact that it's based on 2004 years since the birth of Jesus. Disturbing?

[DangerousBeliefs]

Originally posted by Riddick

The Church of England definition.

So what or where is the definition?

[frisian]

Originally posted by Riddick
So, how do you guys feel about the dating system, 2004 A.D.? The fact that it's based on 2004 years since the birth of Jesus. Disturbing?

Ok, I now have a headache...anyway. Riddick, I am of the opinion that you are the chosen one. Where do I sign up? Can we start a cult or something?

Have you thought of writing a book of Riddickian Apologetics?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Riddick

The Church of England definition. So, state established church created in order to allow certain indiscretions that weren't allowed under Catholisism?

Okay, in that case, I lean towards atheism. It has a higher set of principles.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Riddick
So, how do you guys feel about the dating system, 2004 A.D.? The fact that it's based on 2004 years since the birth of Jesus. Disturbing?

Are you derailing your own threads now? Wow.

Any dating system is gunna be arbitrary. That one's especially arbitrary, since they missed JEsus birth by a few years, if he wwas ever born at all. It works just fine for me. At least we've got a standard, instead of something like dating everything by political regime or something silly... "THE FOURTH YEAR OF BUSH THE SECOND." Hell yeah.

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Riddick
So, how do you guys feel about the dating system, 2004 A.D.? The fact that it's based on 2004 years since the birth of Jesus. Disturbing?


Not more than today being Wednesday* and tomorrow being Thursday.


* I`m in Germany :D

[frisian]

Originally posted by scribble


Are you derailing your own threads now? Wow.


Scribble, you are a stronger being than I, I can't follow this anymore.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Riddick
So, how do you guys feel about the dating system, 2004 A.D.? The fact that it's based on 2004 years since the birth of Jesus. Disturbing?

Nope, our system of dating needs a "year one" and the year of Jesus (alleged) birth is as good as any other arbitrary date we could pick. It has been used for centuries and changing it would simply be a lot of trouble for zero benefit.

[geni]

Originally posted by Riddick

The Church of England definition.

There doesn't appear to be an option for excomunicated.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Riddick
So, how do you guys feel about the dating system, 2004 A.D.? The fact that it's based on 2004 years since the birth of Jesus. Disturbing? It's just a convention. The dating system itself was based on a guess that most biblical historians agree is based on the wrong date. It missed Jesus's likely birth year by, what, 4 years or so?

[scribble]

Originally posted by frisian


Scribble, you are a stronger being than I, I can't follow this anymore.

I've got to admit, I've broken every rule I've made about talking to these people today. But I'm putting off other things... and procrastination is king. Coding isn't rewarding in and of itself, but pointing out the flaws of others will always give me a tingly feeling.

[evildave]

Originally posted by Riddick

The Church of England definition.

Their web site
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/

The closest thing to a definition of 'Christianity' seems to come from the organizations they work with. Basically whomever will open a dialog with them and say "we're Christian" will probably be recognized as "Christian".
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/frame_relations.html


Across the country, a network of Inter Faith Advisers and contacts in each diocese provide specialist advice and encouragement for church leaders and members seeking to develop good relations with members of different faiths. Bishops often have a particularly important role to play alongside other religious leaders and ecumenical colleagues in speaking for the faith communities. Some of the ways in which local churches are involved in inter faith work include these:

* Joining or helping to establish council of faiths or inter faith groups.
* Practical partnerships, e.g. caring for homeless people or asylum seekers; urban regeneration schemes; young people’s projects; groups to fight racism.
* Building up links with mosques, synagogues, temples, or gurdwaras nearby – arranging visits, exchanging seasonal greetings, and so on.
* Combating misinformation, prejudice and bigotry about other faiths.
* Responding courteously to requests to use church halls and other premises.
* Studying inter faith issues and reflecting theologically on them.
* Forming small groups where people of different faiths can meet to share experiences in trust, friendship and prayer.

[frisian]

Originally posted by scribble


I've got to admit, I've broken every rule I've made about talking to these people today. But I'm putting off other things... and procrastination is king. Coding isn't rewarding in and of itself, but pointing out the flaws of others will always give me a tingly feeling.



*is thinking agreeing with everything Riddick states may be the best course of action*

;)

[MLynn]

Originally posted by Upchurch
It's just a convention. The dating system itself was based on a guess that most biblical historians agree is based on the wrong date. It missed Jesus's likely birth year by, what, 4 years or so?
Yes, Pope Gregory XIII wanted to replace the Julian calendar and came up with our current calendar - he was off by about 4 years, so Christ was born in 4 BC -

[c4ts]

Two words:
FALSE DICHOTOMY!

[scribble]

Originally posted by scribble
Can you say, "False Dichotomy?"


Originally posted by c4ts
FALSE DICHOTOMY!


I knew you could.

Let's go talk to picture-picture!

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Riddick
Upchurch said in another post that these forums are not predominately the Atheist mindset. Technically, that isn't what I said. I said that this board was predominately held a skeptical mindset and that Riddick was free to choose to believe that "skeptical" is synonymous with "atheist" if he liked.

So, can I add "strawman" to our vocabulary list?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by scribble




I knew you could.

Let's go talk to picture-picture!
Dammit, you got there first! That's what I get for not reading all the other posts.

[Marc]

Originally posted by Riddick
yes, I put a little "Which is closer to your line of thinking" catch all in there.

In other words you've got an agenda of trying to classify this forum as atheistic. To prove that classification you have created an unrealistic poll to force a choice that will come closest to the results you want.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Riddick
yes, I put a little "Which is closer to your line of thinking" catch all in there.

It isn't a catch all. I am nothing like either. It is a dumb false dichotomy that could only come from a westerner. Ask a Hindu this question and he'd probably look at you like you were stupid. He would likely reply "Atheism and Christianity are both ridiculous."

[Silicon]

RIDDICKULOUS!!!


Did that make the Boggart disappear?

[c4ts]

No, but it turned him into a talking moose who says exactly the same kinds of crazy intolerant things.

[Chareen]

Originally posted by scribble
I know, it's not easy to see these things from your Christian perspective... but try to look outside the box ocassionally.

That reminds me of a Christian I new once who when asked why he believes in Christianity responded, "Because like 90% of the world believes it"

I'm tempted to leave it at that but I know there are some idiots out there who won't realize what an asinine statement that is.

My response was, "What about the billion+ people who live in China?"

"They don't count"

Tell that to them.

Idiots.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Riddick

The Church of England definition.

Wait a minute! Wasn't the Church of England formed because Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife and the Pope wouldn't grant it? So he formed his own church with him at the head?

[triadboy]

I voted for Atheist. Although I think the Christian will do good in the swimsuit competition.

[Finella]

Wait a minute! Wasn't the Church of England formed because Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife and the Pope wouldn't grant it? So he formed his own church with him at the head?
Yyyyyep. And we've been partying ever since. Care to join? :D

[jaderook01]

I can't really go with either category, I'm all hung up with the definitions.;)

[c4ts]

Of course there isn't a choice that suits you. That's what a false dichotomy is all about.

[MLynn]

Originally posted by triadboy
I voted for Atheist. Although I think the Christian will do good in the swimsuit competition.
Thanks, Triadboy - I only have to compete against 4 other people for the swimsuit crown :p

[jaderook01]

Of course there isn't a choice that suits you. That's what a false dichotomy is all about.

Obviously. I've seen that people are quite fond of them on these types of boards.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Riddick
So, how do you guys feel about the dating system, 2004 A.D.? The fact that it's based on 2004 years since the birth of Jesus. Disturbing?
Its heartbreaking :nope:...

[Z]

Good heavens! What a miserable, bigoted, and one-sided poll!!

As a Pagan/Christian/Shamanic Agnostic Pseudo-Atheist, I have to take exceptional umbrage at your 'poll'.

Here, let me suggest a better poll - "Are you ignorant, or just stupid?"

//pants several times, wipes brow//

Sorry, had to get that off of my chest. No offense intended.

[MLynn]

Hey Zaayrdragon, you're up to 50 posts - time to have an avatar! ;)

[Graham]

Originally posted by triadboy


Wait a minute! Wasn't the Church of England formed because Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife and the Pope wouldn't grant it? So he formed his own church with him at the head?

Interestingly, the current Queen of England is head of the Anglican Church in England, head of the Presbyterian church in Scotland and yet somehow still retains the title Fidei Defensor (sp?) - Defender of the (Catholic) Faith bestowed upon one of her ancestors by the Pope.

And they say religion isn't a crazy ole mish-mash of bullsh**!

Graham

[Z]

Actually, the 'Church of England' existed before Henry decided to legitimize it... It's a very common misconception you hold there, triadboy.

My wife was a PGK of an Episcopal minister.

So... how do ya like it, MLynn?

[Graham]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Actually, the 'Church of England' existed before Henry decided to legitimize it... It's a very common misconception you hold there, triadboy.

My wife was a PGK of an Episcopal minister.

So... how do ya like it, MLynn?

That's somewhat misleading, IMO.

The English branch of the Roman Catholic church obviously existed before Henry and that was essentially "The Church of England" - pretty much the only church in England.

Henry appointed himself head of that church in opposition to the authority of the pope, seperating it from the Catholic Communion and making it a seperate entity, thereafter known as "The Church of England". Most of the population, fearing for their necks, went with him.

So, prior to Henry, the COE was a division of the Catholic church, after Henry it was a seperate denomination.

Graham

[Z]

Only somewhat true - the Anglo-Catholic Church was considered by some to be a separate denomination prior to Henry - in fact, what caused it to separate was exactly what Henry wanted. The Roman-Catholics refused to allow divorce, but the Anglo-Catholics allowed it, so Henry decided to support Anglican belief instead.

IN fact, one can trace the roots of the Church of England back to 457 C.E., when Victorius of Aquitaine decided to redate Easter - a move that was embraced by Rome and Gaul but rejected in Britain. Then, in 597 C.E., Augustine (archbishop of Canterbury) created practices espeically for English-speaking peoples - the origins of Anglican traditions.

Henry's interaction, declaring himself the 'head of the English church', was in no way the foundation of Anglicanism - rather, just another step in the lengthy process. You'll find that church practice largely went on as normal, right at first, and that it took much longer than Henry's lifespan for the current 'Anglican' church to truly emerge as it stands today - yet the schism was present for centuries prior to Henry's naughtiness.

[Graham]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Only somewhat true - the Anglo-Catholic Church was considered by some to be a separate denomination prior to Henry - in fact, what caused it to separate was exactly what Henry wanted. The Roman-Catholics refused to allow divorce, but the Anglo-Catholics allowed it, so Henry decided to support Anglican belief instead.

IN fact, one can trace the roots of the Church of England back to 457 C.E., when Victorius of Aquitaine decided to redate Easter - a move that was embraced by Rome and Gaul but rejected in Britain. Then, in 597 C.E., Augustine (archbishop of Canterbury) created practices espeically for English-speaking peoples - the origins of Anglican traditions.

Henry's interaction, declaring himself the 'head of the English church', was in no way the foundation of Anglicanism - rather, just another step in the lengthy process. You'll find that church practice largely went on as normal, right at first, and that it took much longer than Henry's lifespan for the current 'Anglican' church to truly emerge as it stands today - yet the schism was present for centuries prior to Henry's naughtiness.

Yes, I see what you're saying and I think you're right to an extent.

However, if you wanted to pick a seperating moment it would have to be Henry appointing himself head of the Church in England.

Prior to 597, the Church in England was of the "Celtic" tradition, IIRC. Augustine brought it under the umbrella of the RC hierarchy.

There was always a certain resistance to Roman rule even after Augustine though, a legacy of the independence of the Celtic tradition, IMO.

What Henry did took advantage of that resistence, since it encouraged mass support of what was essentially heresy, without which he could have been in serious trouble.

I don't think it's fair, however, to say that there was any kind of ongoing process that Henry was simply a part of.

Graham

[Z]

Points of view, I suppose.

The only thing I know is, the Episcopal church I was dragged into insisted that it existed (as the Anglican church) pre-Henry, and that Henry's self-proclamation is barely even recognized by the Church proper...

of course, this same church also refused to recognized 'that other Episcopal church', whatever that means.

And, when you get to the core, they're all wanna-be Pagans anyway.

[bjornart]

Originally posted by MLynn

Yes, Pope Gregory XIII wanted to replace the Julian calendar and came up with our current calendar - he was off by about 4 years, so Christ was born in 4 BC -

Actually, the guy you want is this dude: Dionysius Exiguus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysius_Exiguus) He's the one who calculated the birth year of Christ and used it as a new starting point. (OK, he's one of many, but his calculations are to blame for the date we use.) It was still the same julian calendar though, and a bit off when it came to leap years.

[Graham]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Points of view, I suppose.

The only thing I know is, the Episcopal church I was dragged into insisted that it existed (as the Anglican church) pre-Henry, and that Henry's self-proclamation is barely even recognized by the Church proper...

of course, this same church also refused to recognized 'that other Episcopal church', whatever that means.

And, when you get to the core, they're all wanna-be Pagans anyway.

If my holy religion was based on someones rampant sexual appetites, I'd deny it too :p

I think you're right though, you could see it either way. The Church of England's own website, for instance, covers all the bases:

There have been Christians in Britain since AD200 and probably earlier. It became the dominant religion through the melding of Celtic Christianity with the direct missionary thrust from Rome by St Augustine in 597. Through war, peace, famine and prosperity, the Church was critical in the development of society, law, buildings and the quiet piety of the people. English civil power and the Church developed in an increasingly uneasy parallel. Two points of contention were the Church's wealth and its ties with Rome.

These differences came to a head in the 1530s, when King Henry VIII wished to obtain a divorce from Queen Catherine of Aragon for not producing a male heir. The Pope would not grant it. After a long campaign to reverse this decision, the King ran out of patience and proclaimed himself Supreme Head of the Church of England and the Church began its separate existence from Rome, although, and this is important, its bishops have been consecrated in unbroken succession from St Peter.

There are factions within the Catholic Church that are at least equally as at odds with the official line as the Anglicans are but who still call themselves Catholic and not a few people within the Anglican community who are far more Catholic in tradition than many Catholics.

The word "Christian" covers such a multitude of sins as to be almost completely meaningless, IMO.

Graham

[Z]

Yep - that's why I proudly refer to myself as a Pagan-Christian-Shaman-...

oh heck with it.

I'm eclectic. I think something exists, but I don't think it rules your life. I think Jesus probably existed, and had a good line going, but his best lesson (Do Unto Others...) was drowned in rhetoric and nonsense for the last two millenia. I respect J.C. as much as all the other teachers from all the other religions/mythologies/cults who expressed the same opinion (which was the foundation for the Jesus legend anyway) that it's not what you believe that matters, but how you live.

Do you know what the absolute best credo for living is? Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics (Modified) - the final version ascribed to by R. Daneel Olivaw by the end of Robots and Empire, which included a 'Zeroeth Law'.

0. A robot shall not harm Humanity, nor, through inaction, allow Humanity to come to harm;

1. A robot shall not harm a Human, nor, through inaction, allow a human to come to harm, except where such would violate the 0th law;

2. A robot must obey orders given it by a human, except where such orders would violate the 0th or 1st law;

3. A robot must protect its own existence, except where such protection would violate the 0th, 1st, or 2nd law.

(Rough paraphrase from memory, I think)

Now, replace 'robot' with 'human', adjust for logical nonsense (A human must obey orders given it by a human? Does self count?), and I think you've got a damned fine credo to live by. In fact, I think I'll start an Asimovian movement - Hell, if LRH can have his 'religion', why shouldn't Isaac? Besides, at least I.A. was real - something we can't be too certain of with J.C.!!

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Riddick
So, how do you guys feel about the dating system, 2004 A.D.? The fact that it's based on 2004 years since the birth of Jesus. Disturbing?

It's funny - since it is, of course, wrong.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Actually, the 'Church of England' existed before Henry decided to legitimize it... It's a very common misconception you hold there, triadboy.


I did not know that. I'll check it out. Thanks

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Graham


That's somewhat misleading, IMO.

The English branch of the Roman Catholic church obviously existed before Henry and that was essentially "The Church of England" - pretty much the only church in England.

Henry appointed himself head of that church in opposition to the authority of the pope, seperating it from the Catholic Communion and making it a seperate entity, thereafter known as "The Church of England". Most of the population, fearing for their necks, went with him.

So, prior to Henry, the COE was a division of the Catholic church, after Henry it was a seperate denomination.

Graham

That's how I remember it. Thanks. (I really should read further before commenting)

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Graham
The word "Christian" covers such a multitude of sins as to be almost completely meaningless


"Christianity" practiced in the year 200 AD would be unrecognizable to todays Christians.

[evildave]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Yep - that's why I proudly refer to myself as a Pagan-Christian-Shaman-...

oh heck with it.

I'm eclectic. I think something exists, but I don't think it rules your life. I think Jesus probably existed, and had a good line going, but his best lesson (Do Unto Others...) was drowned in rhetoric and nonsense for the last two millenia. I respect J.C. as much as all the other teachers from all the other religions/mythologies/cults who expressed the same opinion (which was the foundation for the Jesus legend anyway) that it's not what you believe that matters, but how you live.

Do you know what the absolute best credo for living is? Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics (Modified) - the final version ascribed to by R. Daneel Olivaw by the end of Robots and Empire, which included a 'Zeroeth Law'.

0. A robot shall not harm Humanity, nor, through inaction, allow Humanity to come to harm;

1. A robot shall not harm a Human, nor, through inaction, allow a human to come to harm, except where such would violate the 0th law;

2. A robot must obey orders given it by a human, except where such orders would violate the 0th or 1st law;

3. A robot must protect its own existence, except where such protection would violate the 0th, 1st, or 2nd law.

(Rough paraphrase from memory, I think)

Now, replace 'robot' with 'human', adjust for logical nonsense (A human must obey orders given it by a human? Does self count?), and I think you've got a damned fine credo to live by. In fact, I think I'll start an Asimovian movement - Hell, if LRH can have his 'religion', why shouldn't Isaac? Besides, at least I.A. was real - something we can't be too certain of with J.C.!!

Actually, R. Daneel Olivaw added 'Rule 0', and it was pure 'heresy' to do so. A rational, sane rule, binding him to more important work, but he'd have been shut down and dismantled over his 'malfunction' if he got caught at it.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Silicon
RIDDICKULOUS!!!


Did that make the Boggart disappear?

Boggart? :D

"Kidsgrove Boggart" is a net-handle of mine, which comes from the legend of an unfortunate woman who got a lift through Harecastle Tunnel on the Trent and Mersey canal (built by Charles Darwins grandfather Erasmus and the source of the fossils which led to Erasmus formulating the first version of the theory his grandson is legendary for) from two boatmen, and failed to arrive at the other end. Her headless body floated out of the tunnel several days later, and her ghost is said to haunt the tunnel to this day, not that she was around when I went through it, mind.

There is no Boggart. From the POV of a Hindu, and probably many buddhists and taoists, the question is meaningless.

[UndercoverElephant]

Henrys divorce was not the only reason. Part of the problem was that the catholic monasteries posessed obscene amounts of money and power, and Henry wanted those monasteries destroyed. England is littered with their ruins.

http://medieval.ucdavis.edu/FOUNTAINS/FL.jpg

[uruk]

So, how do you guys feel about the dating system, 2004 A.D.? The fact that it's based on 2004 years since the birth of Jesus. Disturbing?
Do you find that some of the months and days being named after Roman Gods disturbing?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Henrys divorce was not the only reason. Part of the problem was that the catholic monasteries posessed obscene amounts of money and power, and Henry wanted those monasteries destroyed. England is littered with their ruins.

http://medieval.ucdavis.edu/FOUNTAINS/FL.jpg

Not only that but throughout most of the Christian world of the time there was a certain degree of controversy about whether the Pope or the King had more authority over the church (not just in England, but everywhere) and the further you got from Rome the more people tended to think that the King should have more authority than the Pope. England was about as far from Rome as you could get and still be within lands where the Christian religion held sawy, so the split was likely to happen sooner or later anyway, regardless of whether Henry VII wanted a divorce or not. Henry's divorce merely proved to be the "straw that broke tha camels back" as it were.

[bug_girl]

Originally posted by Riddick
So, how do you guys feel about the dating system, 2004 A.D.? The fact that it's based on 2004 years since the birth of Jesus. Disturbing?

actually, several evolution and geology texts have gone to using "BP" or before present, with year zero 1000. This avoids the issue of having to have a different textbook for each religion/language/belief set.
However, there has been some argument about when, exactly, to make the zero year. maybe kitten is more up to date on this, being a geologist?

[Silicon]

Originally posted by JustGeoff



There is no Boggart. From the POV of a Hindu, and probably many buddhists and taoists, the question is meaningless.


Oh Geoff. Tsk Tsk.



Everyone knows that a boggart takes the form of the thing you fear most.

Any competent witch or wizard is able to defeat a boggart by swishing their wand at it, shouting "Riddikulus" and laughing.

If you don't know this, I reccomend a refresher course on June 4th, at a theater near you.

[rustypouch]

Originally posted by uruk

Do you find that some of the months and days being named after Roman Gods disturbing?

And that several of the days are named after Norse gods?

[triadboy]

Originally posted by rustypouch


And that several of the days are named after Norse gods?

I thought the days of the week were named after the planets.

[TruthSeeker]

Originally posted by Silicon



Everyone knows that a boggart takes the form of the thing you fear most.

Any competent witch or wizard is able to defeat a boggart by swishing their wand at it, shouting "Riddikulus" and laughing.

If you don't know this, I reccomend a refresher course on June 4th, at a theater near you.


This is what I think of everytime I read one of Riddick's posts. Glad I'm not the only one!

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by triadboy


I thought the days of the week were named after the planets.

Only Sunday and Monday (sun and Moon respectively), not technically planets, but the ancients considered them so, at least for purposes of astrology.

Tuesday is named after a Norse god (whose name I forget), Wednesday is named after Wotan, Thursday is named after Thor, Friday is named after Frigga, Saturday is named after the Roman God Saturn.

[rastamonte]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon


As a Pagan/Christian/Shamanic Agnostic Pseudo-Atheist, I have to take exceptional umbrage at your 'poll'.



I like this. For myself I would try:

Pagan/Rastafarian/Atheist.

Pagan - with the coolest rituals and holidays (and magic is fun.)
Rastafarian - great music, cool people, and, of course, I love the ganja.
Atheist - I used to say agnostic, then realized I was just being wishy-washy.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Originally posted by bug_girl


actually, several evolution and geology texts have gone to using "BP" or before present, with year zero 1000. This avoids the issue of having to have a different textbook for each religion/language/belief set.
However, there has been some argument about when, exactly, to make the zero year. maybe kitten is more up to date on this, being a geologist?

Riddick dropped out of this thread since he can't find a definition for "Christian".

:dl:

[Dragonrock]

Where's the option for Elvisian Tacoists?

[Riddick]

Originally posted by bug_girl
actually, several evolution and geology texts have gone to using "BP" or before present, with year zero 1000. This avoids the issue of having to have a different textbook for each religion/language/belief set.
However, there has been some argument about when, exactly, to make the zero year. maybe kitten is more up to date on this, being a geologist?
Of course the generally accepted notations are:

B.C. => Before Christ
A.D. => Anno Domini => Latin, "In the year of Our Lord"

[Dancing David]

Riddick I can't vote you left out the place for those of us who aren't atheists and aren't christians. You know like one of the other religions out there. Sheesh!

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by bug_girl


actually, several evolution and geology texts have gone to using "BP" or before present, with year zero 1000. This avoids the issue of having to have a different textbook for each religion/language/belief set.
However, there has been some argument about when, exactly, to make the zero year. maybe kitten is more up to date on this, being a geologist?

Hey Bug Girl! I hate to say this but I think that the zero year in BP is set to 1950. So it is currently 54 AP.
:)

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Riddick
yes, I put a little "Which is closer to your line of thinking" catch all in there.

Sorry in left field I am left rather far from those base lines.

[Riddick]

Originally posted by rustypouch


And that several of the days are named after Norse gods?
Four of the days were named after Norse Gods.

English has retained the original planets in the names for Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. For the four other days, however, the names of Anglo-Saxon or Nordic gods have replaced the Roman gods that gave name to the planets. Thus, Tuesday is named after Tiw, Wednesday is named after Woden, Thursday is named after Thor, and Friday is named after Freya."

Nobody knows the origin of the 7-day week for a fact.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Riddick
So, how do you guys feel about the dating system, 2004 A.D.? The fact that it's based on 2004 years since the birth of Jesus. Disturbing?

Sorry Riddick Anno Domine references the years of the Death of the allged Christ. That is the original meaning, I think that Pope Gregory cleared that mess up.

[Riddick]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Sorry in left field I am left rather far from those base lines.
I'm sure you'll find another opportunity to heckle me.

The poll, nevertheless, revealed what I suspected. It was not a great suprise.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Dancing David

Anno Domine references the years of the Death of the allged Christ.Pardon the interruption, but I thought "Anno Domine" stood simply for "Year of the Lord" or "Year of our Lord"?

[Skeptical Greg]

How do you feel about Noah's Ark ?

[Ceinwyn]

Originally posted by Riddick
The poll, nevertheless, revealed what I suspected. It was not a great suprise. How could it be,when you only gave two choices: atheist or christian. So yes, you were right.

I personally think you may be clinically insane, but I'm not a psychiatrist, so I don't know.

Try to do good, ok?

[scribble]

Originally posted by scribble
I think nearly every single post in here has explained how the poll is critically flawed.

Will Riddick still attempt to consider it valid for something?

Time will tell.


Originally posted by Riddick
I'm sure you'll find another opportunity to heckle me.

The poll, nevertheless, revealed what I suspected. It was not a great suprise.


...and we're done!

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Riddick

The poll, nevertheless, revealed what I suspected. It was not a great suprise. What exactly did you suspect? What it says to me is that a group of most skeptical thinkers identify more closely to atheists than they do with the Church of England. I'll admit that does not come as a great surprise, but I'm not sure what point it is supposed to make.

[Ælfgifu]

Originally posted by Riddick

Of course the generally accepted notations are:

B.C. => Before Christ
A.D. => Anno Domini => Latin, "In the year of Our Lord" "Generally accepted" doesn't mean "right."

The CORRECT terms are:

BCE => Before the Common Era
CE => Common Era

The current year is 2004 CE.

Have a nice day,
Kelly :)

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Riddick

Four of the days were named after Norse Gods.

English has retained the original planets in the names for Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. For the four other days, however, the names of Anglo-Saxon or Nordic gods have replaced the Roman gods that gave name to the planets. Thus, Tuesday is named after Tiw, Wednesday is named after Woden, Thursday is named after Thor, and Friday is named after Freya."



Here's my take on it:

The Latin names of the Planets were simple translations of the Greek names, which in turn were translations of the Babylonian names, which go back to the Sumerians.

The curious thing about the Latin names, clearly using the planets, is that the ancient order of the planets, rising from the Earth to the Fixed Stars, can be read off by starting with Monday and jumping every other day for two weeks: Monday (Moon), Wednesday (Mercury), Friday (Venus), Sunday (Sun), Tuesday (Mars), Thursday (Jupiter), and Saturday (Saturn). One is left with the impression that the names were assigned in a kind of code, so that the Sun would come first in the week, but then the true order of the planets could be read off nevertheless. Saturn comes both at the end of the week and at the end of planets.


http://www.friesian.com/week.htm

Nobody knows the origin of the 7-day week for a fact.

We know where the Jews got it though - the Babylonians - when they were in exile there for 50+ years.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Riddick
The poll, nevertheless, revealed what I suspected. It was not a great suprise.

The poll should be an examination of the god - not "Christian" and "Not-Christian".

Does your god have a "personality"?

Is your god "everything"?

Is your god alone?

Does your god punish you?

Does your god exist in this universe?

Does your god exist?



I believe Joseph Campbell here - once you name the god, you miss the point.

[evildave]

Another opinion about weekdays.

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/time/weekdays.html

It gets even more confusing.

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/time/weekdays-names.html

[Fordama]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Neither. I suppose you could call me a Taoist, but I'd be a philosophical Taoist, not a religious one.

I suppose I would fit the weak definition of an atheist - a "godless one", so I'll choose that. That would sum it up for me, also. I like reading different translations. I don't believe the mystical aspects, but it does seem to have good insights on human motives and behavior.

Plus I find just trying to interpret the different verses a challenge.

Fordama

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Pardon the interruption, but I thought "Anno Domine" stood simply for "Year of the Lord" or "Year of our Lord"?

It does. And David is incorrect it references Christs birth, not his death.

[diddidit]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I'm Unitarian. In a nutshell, we believe in finding our own way and that truth can be found from a madrid of sources, including atheism and the many, many forms of Christianity (as well as Buddhism, Islam, Hindu, etc.) Neither option is correct.

I guess I'm a Unitarian, too, then. Interesting.

did

[rustypouch]

I also found this source, which agrees with some previous postings.

http://pantheon.org/miscellaneous/origin_days.html

[Upchurch]

So, Riddick, how do you feel about your sabbath being based on pegan sun worship? In the Jewish tradition, Saturday has always been the sabbath. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was Constintine who adapted pegan traditions and beliefs and applied them to Christianity, including moving the sabbath Sunday. Disturbing?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Upchurch
So, Riddick, how do you feel about your sabbath being based on pegan sun worship? In the Jewish tradition, Saturday has always been the sabbath. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was Constintine who adapted pegan traditions and beliefs and applied them to Christianity, including moving the sabbath Sunday. Disturbing?

Riddick, IIRC, claims to be a Seventh Day Adventist. Therefore he would celebrate the sabbath on Saturday.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

Riddick, IIRC, claims to be a Seventh Day Adventist. Therefore he would celebrate the sabbath on Saturday. I did not know that. I'm guessing he has more serious problems to worry about then.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I did not know that. I'm guessing he has more serious problems to worry about then.

Oh he has some problems alright;)

I don't think any of us are qualified to help him either.

[Riddick]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Oh he has some problems alright;)

I don't think any of us are qualified to help him either.
Your problems are all in front of you.

Cheers. ;)

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Riddick

Your problems are all in front of you.

Cheers. ;)

Oh come on now Riddick, you aren't even trying. That was the best you could come up with? Seriously?

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by Riddick

Of course the generally accepted notations are:

B.C. => Before Christ
A.D. => Anno Domini => Latin, "In the year of Our Lord"

The current scientific notation is:

B.C.E. => Before the Common Era
C.E. => Common Era

;P