Re: Bible websites

[stevertigo-2]

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 6:50 PM, David Carson<carson63000@...> wrote:

> Did you actually read Charles' message, or just stop after the first
> sentence to fire off a reply? He wasn't saying "why on earth would
> Wikipedia be citing the BIBLE?!", he was saying that you need to look at
> the reason for the citation because that may well affect your choice of
> which version to cite.

Your right. His message though was quite characteristically
sophisticated, and I of course knew that he did not mean to suggest
that we *not quote the Bible.

Still I sort of took the liberty of interpreting his first statement a
bit literally, and maybe out of context too, just to make a tangential
reference to the fact that ~65% percent of us are devoutly atheistic,
and yet are dealing, somewhat accurately, with technical aspects that
directly affect theological sourcing. It's always slightly ironic when
atheists deal with theological topics, and myself being, by design,
one of the other ~35%, I felt a bit compelled to bring that up in as
flat and contrite a way as possible.

Apologies to Charles for the out of context parsing. I'm hoping he
didn't take it without a grain of salt and a read between the lines.

-Stevertigo

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Ray Saintonge]

stevertigo wrote:
> Still I sort of took the liberty of interpreting his first statement a
> bit literally, and maybe out of context too, just to make a tangential
> reference to the fact that ~65% percent of us are devoutly atheistic,
> and yet are dealing, somewhat accurately, with technical aspects that
> directly affect theological sourcing. It's always slightly ironic when
> atheists deal with theological topics, and myself being, by design,
> one of the other ~35%, I felt a bit compelled to bring that up in as
> flat and contrite a way as possible.

Atheists who haven't gone so far as to make a devotion of their beliefs
are perhaps in a better position to deal with certain theological
subjects objectively. The atheist's faith is not committed to the truth
of a particular version of the Bible.  He disbelieves them all.  Yet
this allows him to view the Bible as purely a cultural and literary
artifact.

Ec

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[stevertigo-2]

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Ray Saintonge<saintonge@...> wrote:
> stevertigo wrote:
>> It's always slightly ironic when
>> atheists deal with theological topics, and myself being, by design,
>> one of the other ~35%, I felt a bit compelled to bring that up in as
>> flat and contrite a way as possible.

> Atheists who haven't gone so far as to make a devotion of their beliefs
> are perhaps in a better position to deal with certain theological
> subjects objectively. The atheist's faith is not committed to the truth
> of a particular version of the Bible.  He disbelieves them all.  Yet
> this allows him to view the Bible as purely a cultural and literary
> artifact.

While I did say that there were point of view issues to take into
consideration when dealing with similarly polarizing subject matter, I
would never say that certain people were more qualified* than others.
Especially not atheists. By the way, an "atheist who [hasn't] gone so
far as to make a devotion of their beliefs" is called an "agnostic"  -
not an "atheist." Atheists *hate agnostics.

> [agnostics] are perhaps in a better position to deal with certain theological
> subjects objectively.

Which ones? Even the moderately tricky ones like lapsed soteriological
consubstantiation might be a challenge for them.

> The atheist's faith is not committed to the truth of a particular version of the Bible.

What faith?  If you are talking about the capacity to reject dogmatic
interpretation, people of faith do that anyway. Catholics, for
example, buy and use condoms even though there are several fatawa
against them.

> He [the agnostic] disbelieves them all.

Hardly an endearing trait, but anyway the ability to reject the
dogmatic aspects does not mean "disbelief."  I know for a scientific
fact that there are plenty of crypto-believers walking around.

> Yet this allows him to view the Bible as purely a cultural and literary artifact.

"Artifact," as in "obsolete?" "Purely cultural" as in "non-Divine?"
"Purely literary" as in "purely fictional?"
Hence your hypothesis is only that non-believers can view things
non-believingly?  Ha!

-Steven

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Magnus Manske-2]

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:29 AM, <wjhonson@...> wrote:
>
>  Funny Wycliffe is the only one who states clearly that God created everything from nothing.
> http://toolserver.org/~magnus/biblebay.php?booknumber=&bookname=Genesis&range=1%3A1&source=&doit=Do+it

"created everything from nothing"? Just like we did with Wikipedia!

(burn, karma, burn)

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Ray Saintonge]

stevertigo wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>  
>> stevertigo wrote:
>>    
>>> ~65% percent of us are devoutly atheistic,
>>> and yet are dealing, somewhat accurately, with technical aspects that
>>> directly affect theological sourcing. It's always slightly ironic when
>>> atheists deal with theological topics, and myself being, by design,
>>> one of the other ~35%, I felt a bit compelled to bring that up in as
>>> flat and contrite a way as possible.
>>>      
>> Atheists who haven't gone so far as to make a devotion of their beliefs
>> are perhaps in a better position to deal with certain theological
>> subjects objectively. The atheist's faith is not committed to the truth
>> of a particular version of the Bible.  He disbelieves them all.  Yet
>> this allows him to view the Bible as purely a cultural and literary
>> artifact.
>>    
> While I did say that there were point of view issues to take into
> consideration when dealing with similarly polarizing subject matter, I
> would never say that certain people were more qualified* than others.
> Especially not atheists. By the way, an "atheist who [hasn't] gone so
> far as to make a devotion of their beliefs" is called an "agnostic"  -
> not an "atheist." Atheists *hate agnostics.
>  

"Qualified" is you word, not mine. Your eccentric distinction between
atheists is seriously unhelpful.  It is one thing to believe that there
is no god (atheist), and quite another for that person to treat it as a
"devotion" to a cause.  Your crude hypothesis that atheists hate
agnostics imputes upon non-believers the kind of sectarianism that is
such a comfort to Christians.

>> [agnostics] are perhaps in a better position to deal with certain theological
>> subjects objectively.
>>    
> Which ones? Even the moderately tricky ones like lapsed soteriological
> consubstantiation might be a challenge for them.
>  

That atheist just reports what he sees.  Maybe he'll supply a few
pin-heads to alleviate the crowded condition of angels, and to allow
their vaudeville to entertain a larger population.

>> The atheist's faith is not committed to the truth of a particular version of the Bible.
>>    
> What faith?  If you are talking about the capacity to reject dogmatic
> interpretation, people of faith do that anyway. Catholics, for
> example, buy and use condoms even though there are several fatawa
> against them.
>  

It's his absence of faith that protects him from such commitments.
Rejecting dogma is only one aspect of the objectivity.  Decrees about
condoms derive from the temporal power of the Church.  Jesus never wore
them.  The Jesuits have often been at odds with the church's dogmatism.
>> He [the agnostic] disbelieves them all.
>>    
> Hardly an endearing trait, but anyway the ability to reject the
> dogmatic aspects does not mean "disbelief."  I know for a scientific
> fact that there are plenty of crypto-believers walking around.
>  

Of course, again, I said "the atheist", not "the agnostic."  
Nevertheless, neither panders his disbelief to be endearing.  It's true
enough that disbelief goes well beyond rejecting dogma; it rejects the
foundations for the dogma that god exists.  Yes, there are plenty of
crypto-believers; somebody had to take over the closet when the gays
vacated it. But how does "scientific fact" come into play.  Those who
follow scientific method are more likely to say that there is no such
thing as scientific fact.

>> Yet this allows him to view the Bible as purely a cultural and literary artifact.
>>    
> "Artifact," as in "obsolete?" "Purely cultural" as in "non-Divine?"
> "Purely literary" as in "purely fictional?"
> Hence your hypothesis is only that non-believers can view things
> non-believingly?  Ha!
>
>  
Artifacts are regularly being produced as long as there are humans to
produce them, and a writing does not need to be fiction to be literary,
though I am more willing to find "non-divine" acceptable.  Your final
characterization of my hypothesis is reasonably accurate., but then it's
also very close to an understanding of NPOV.

Ec

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Ray Saintonge]

Magnus Manske wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:29 AM, <wjhonson@...> wrote:
>  
>>  Funny Wycliffe is the only one who states clearly that God created everything from nothing.
>> http://toolserver.org/~magnus/biblebay.php?booknumber=&bookname=Genesis&range=1%3A1&source=&doit=Do+it
>>    
> "created everything from nothing"? Just like we did with Wikipedia!
>
> (burn, karma, burn)
>
>  

"De nihil nihil fit."

"In the beginning God-king created the heaven and the earth."

Ec

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Gerard-2]

2009/7/6 Magnus Manske <magnusmanske@...>:

> You're right. To atone for my sins, here the auto-comparing toolserver
> tool I hacked since my first mail:
> http://toolserver.org/~magnus/biblebay.php?bookname=John&range=3%3A16-3%3A18


:-O That would be more or less precisely what I was thinking of. Well done!


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Gerard-2]

2009/7/7 David Gerard <dgerard@...>:
> 2009/7/6 Magnus Manske <magnusmanske@...>:

>> You're right. To atone for my sins, here the auto-comparing toolserver
>> tool I hacked since my first mail:
>> http://toolserver.org/~magnus/biblebay.php?bookname=John&range=3%3A16-3%3A18

> :-O That would be more or less precisely what I was thinking of. Well done!


Feature suggestion: original untranslated verse (Hebrew or Greek) at top.


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Carcharoth]

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Ray Saintonge<saintonge@...> wrote:

> Magnus Manske wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:29 AM, <wjhonson@...> wrote:
>>
>>>  Funny Wycliffe is the only one who states clearly that God created everything from nothing.
>>> http://toolserver.org/~magnus/biblebay.php?booknumber=&bookname=Genesis&range=1%3A1&source=&doit=Do+it
>>>
>> "created everything from nothing"? Just like we did with Wikipedia!
>>
>> (burn, karma, burn)
>>
>>
> "De nihil nihil fit."
>
> "In the beginning God-king created the heaven and the earth."

Since the rest of this thread is threatening to descend into a long
discussion about theology, atheism and agnoticism, I'll chip in at
this point where people are making theological jokes involving
Wikipedia.

Take a look at the prediction in the Wikipedia eleventy billion article pool:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Benjamin_Mako_Hill/11BP#The_Last_Article

A brilliant rip-off of Asimov's "The Last Question".

Going from one end of creation to the other (and back again) is pretty
good going for one post.

Carcharoth

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Charles Matthews]

stevertigo wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 6:50 PM, David Carson<carson63000@...> wrote:
>
>  
>> Did you actually read Charles' message, or just stop after the first
>> sentence to fire off a reply? He wasn't saying "why on earth would
>> Wikipedia be citing the BIBLE?!", he was saying that you need to look at
>> the reason for the citation because that may well affect your choice of
>> which version to cite.
>>    
>
> Your right. His message though was quite characteristically
> sophisticated, and I of course knew that he did not mean to suggest
> that we *not quote the Bible.
>
> Still I sort of took the liberty of interpreting his first statement a
> bit literally, and maybe out of context too, just to make a tangential
> reference to the fact that ~65% percent of us are devoutly atheistic,
> and yet are dealing, somewhat accurately, with technical aspects that
> directly affect theological sourcing.

You did. If I get trolled I usually hope for something wittier.
> It's always slightly ironic when
> atheists deal with theological topics, and myself being, by design,
> one of the other ~35%, I felt a bit compelled to bring that up in as
> flat and contrite a way as possible.
>  
No irony at all, I think. The encyclopedia that anyone can edit includes
medical pages, legal pages and even theological pages anyone can edit.  
In fact I think the absence of a WikiProject Religious History to match
the awesome WikiProject Military History is a big lack. (I'm not great
at starting WikiProjects so don't sofixit me.) There is nothing ironic
about people editing on military history in ways that belie
nationalistic beliefs or their absence, is there?

Charles


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Charles Matthews]

Carcharoth wrote:
>
> Since the rest of this thread is threatening to descend into a long
> discussion about theology, atheism and agnoticism, I'll chip in at
> this point where people are making theological jokes involving
> Wikipedia.
>  
I think Wikimedia needs a new deprogramming language, myself.

Charles


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Gerard-2]

2009/7/7 Carcharoth <carcharothwp@...>:

> Take a look at the prediction in the Wikipedia eleventy billion article pool:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Benjamin_Mako_Hill/11BP#The_Last_Article
> A brilliant rip-off of Asimov's "The Last Question".


Humanity: LOLBOT, CAN WE REVERSE ENTROPY?
LOLbot: i dunno lol


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[stevertigo-2]

Note: Yeah, this one's got snippy comments about irreligion and
unscience in it. Skip it at your discretion, and don't complain about
the magnetized aluminum grains it uses up on your free email host.

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Ray Saintonge<saintonge@...> wrote:
> "Qualified" is you word, not mine.
Fine. More "(perhaps) in a better position to deal with certain [things]," then.

> Your eccentric distinction between atheists is seriously unhelpful.
I don't suppose "seriously unhelpful" comment would be the same kind
of criticism a Muslim might make of a Westerner who illuminated some
basic distinctions between Sunnis and Shia?  I understand the basic
sectarian and 'united front' concepts, actually.

> It is one thing to believe that there is no god (atheist), and quite another for that person to treat it as a
> "devotion" to a cause.
It has been my experience that atheist can be quite irate people -
Dawkin's book for example is just an sophomoric screed. I've also been
personally attacked by atheists:  crude, vaudeville, and eccentric,
are some examples.

> That atheist just reports what he sees.
No, the *scientist just reports what he sees. The *atheist assumes
that only what he can see actually exists.

> Maybe he'll supply a few pin-heads to alleviate the crowded condition of angels, and to allow
> their vaudeville to entertain a larger population.
Huh?

> It's his absence of faith that protects him from such commitments.
Well, note that yesterday you called atheism both a faith and a
belief. I'm glad you now cleared that up.

> Rejecting dogma is only one aspect of the objectivity.
Being objective is wonderful.

> Decrees about condoms derive from the temporal power of the Church.
Hm. This expresses more of a "fight the power" sentiment than anything
else doesn't it?

> Jesus never wore them.
Actually he found them constricting.

> The Jesuits have often been at odds with the church's dogmatism.
Well, they redeem us.

> Nevertheless, neither panders his disbelief to be endearing.
This is actually not true. For example, I once had a discussion with
an online atheist wherein I threw in some jokes. The atheist did not
get them.

> It's true enough that disbelief goes well beyond rejecting dogma; it rejects the
> foundations for the dogma that god exists.
The funny thing here is that you illuminate the very concept of the
existence of God as a "dogma" - thus eccentrically exceeding the
bounds of agnosticism and transcending the actual meaning of the word
"dogma." Scientists in fact have "dogmas" as well, though these aren't
usually called such. The notion that "life" is an entirely
materialistic concept, is one example.

And you've expressed the atheist dogma quite nicely: claiming that a
merely quantitative discipline can and should be used to make
qualitative distinctions about God and whatnot. This excess would be
just as bad as the inquisition against Galileo, if it were not dressed
in the same modernistic veneer that helped disguise eugenics for what
it really was, and was expressed with currency.

Anyway, it is a bit unscientific for a discipline with no substantive
transmaterialistic concept of how God *could exist, would then state
that natural human ignorance alone substantiates His inexistence.

> Those who follow scientific method are more likely to say that there is no such thing as scientific fact.
And yet people feel free to base qualitative worldviews based on
merely quantitative observations.

> I am more willing to find "non-divine" acceptable.
Me too, actually. Saying there are serious untruths in the Bible
doesn't really impinge on the truly divine aspects, but it's still a
difficult subject to deal with.  No Golden Tablets from the sky for us
humans.

> "[my thesis that non-believers = non-believer interpretations is] also very close to an understanding of NPOV."
Actually it's not. NPOV doesn't deal with a person's interpretations
at all - merely the artifacts of one's work in explaining things.

-Stevertigo

PS: I would have just kept this short, but I deal with things as they come in.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Charles Matthews]

stevertigo wrote:
> Note: Yeah, this one's got snippy comments about irreligion and
> unscience in it.
So you have your divisive discussion going now. Explain to me again how
this improves the English Wikipedia. Do we have to have this stuff each
time religion comes up, or is this is a one-off, or just when someone is
unselfdisciplined enough to feed the corrupted ent?

Charles


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[stevertigo-2]

Previous post typo correction diff:

-suppose "seriously
+suppose this "seriously
-that atheist can
+that atheists can
-just an sophomoric
+just a sophomoric
-concept, is one example.
+concept is one example.
-nicely: claiming
+nicely - claiming
-dressed in the
+dressed up in the
-unscientific for a discipline
+unscientific that a discipline

-S

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Carcharoth]

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Charles
Matthews<charles.r.matthews@...> wrote:

<snip>

> unselfdisciplined enough to feed the corrupted ent?

Did you say ent? :-)

Those loquacious, garrulous, verbose, lugubrious rambling tree-herders?

OK, Charles is right, back to the bible link quoting stuff.

I believe somewhere in all this, there was some working code. What
more needs doing to make that go live, or to propose to take it live?

Magnus Manske: "You're right. To atone for my sins, here the
auto-comparing toolserver
tool I hacked since my first mail"

http://toolserver.org/~magnus/biblebay.php?bookname=John&range=3%3A16-3%3A18

Where should that tool be discussed?

Carcharoth

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[stevertigo-2]

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Charles
Matthews<charles.r.matthews@...> wrote:

> So you have your divisive discussion going now. Explain to me again how
> this improves the English Wikipedia. Do we have to have this stuff each
> time religion comes up, or is this is a one-off, or just when someone is
> unselfdisciplined enough to feed the corrupted ent?

Hm. Let's break this down.

> So you have your divisive discussion going now.
Its not "my discussion." For one, it takes two to tango. Secondly, I
finished it didn't I?

> Explain to me again how this improves the English Wikipedia.
That would take too long.

> Do we have to have this stuff each time religion comes up,
Are you complaining about the magnetized aluminum grains the last
couple posts are taking up on your free email host?

> or is this is a one-off,
Hopefully.

> or just when someone is unselfdisciplined enough
What do you mean by this? Are you calling Ray "unselfdisciplined" for
being a vocal atheist?

> to feed the corrupted ent?
Do I understand this to be a personal invective directed at me? I will
give you an opportunity to apologise for it, failing that, I will give
you an opportunity to regret it.

-Steven

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Charles Matthews]

stevertigo wrote:
>> feed the corrupted ent?
>>    
> Do I understand this to be a personal invective directed at me?
It's a Tolkien reference, but I suppose if Carcharoth didn't get it, it
is fairly obscure.

Charles


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Carcharoth]

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Charles
Matthews<charles.r.matthews@...> wrote:
> stevertigo wrote:
>>> feed the corrupted ent?
>>>
>> Do I understand this to be a personal invective directed at me?
> It's a Tolkien reference, but I suppose if Carcharoth didn't get it, it
> is fairly obscure.

Doh! Trolls. Of course. :-)

http://lalaith.vpsurf.de/Tolkien/The_History_of_Ents.html

Carcharoth

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[stevertigo-2]

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Charles
Matthews<charles.r.matthews@...> wrote:
> stevertigo wrote:
>> Do I understand this to be a personal invective directed at me?
> It's a Tolkien reference, but I suppose if Carcharoth didn't get it, it
> is fairly obscure.

Ah. So "corrupted ent" is just your sly way of calling me a "troll,"
one that by mentioning Tolkien has the added benefit of making you
look like a kind Tolkien-fan genius - even while making an undue
personal attack.

Which kind of troll, by the way, do you suppose I am?  Stone troll,
maybe? River troll?

Just to amuse myself, I'm searching now for the appropriate fallacy to
describe, categorize, and thus contain your vexatious litigation. Just
flipping through my short list of fallacies, perhaps the classic "do
you still beat your wife?" fallacy would be a good place to start.

-Stevertigo
I'll be on KGS as "nako" for a bit, if you want to understand what
trolling really is

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l