Commentary on why atheist must fight for pro-choice on reproductive rights- from The Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/05/abortion-opposition-religious-atheists-must-help-fight-for-choice

The Bookworm Report #8: Misquoting Jesus

The Bookworm Report #8

Submitted by Russell Pizer

Misquoting Jesus © 2005, 242pp

The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why

by Bart D. Ehrman

It is often asked, “How can a biblical scholar who is a Christian believe in The Bible as the inerrant and/or revealed word of God? The inside flap of the dust cover of Misquoting Jesus provides a partial answer.  It reads in part, “When world-class biblical scholar Bart Ehrman first began to study the texts of the Bible in their original languages he was startled to discover the multitude of mistakes and intentional alterations that had been made by earlier translators. In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman tells the story behind the mistakes and changes that ancient scribes made to the New Testament and shows the great impact it had on the Bible* we use today. . . [His studies] made him abandon his once ultraconservative views of the Bible.”  [One writer said that the living God must be a very poor communicator to have allowed such variations in his written message to mankind.]

The dust cover flap then continues, “Ehrman makes the provocative case that many of our cherished biblical stories and widely held beliefs concerning the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, and the divine origins of the Bible itself stem from both intentional and accidental alterations by scribes – alterations that dramatically affect all subsequent versions of the Bible.”

On page 46, Ehrman explains one of the many problems that have occurred over and over throughout the early years of biblical literature.  He writes: “One of the problems with ancient Greek texts . . . is that when they were copied, no marks of punctuation were used, no distinction made between lowercase and uppercase‡ letters, and, even more bizarre to modern readers, no spaces used to separate words. This kind of continuous writing is called scriptuo continua, and it obviously could make it difficult at times to read, let alone understand, a text.  The word godisnowhere could mean quite different things to a theist (God is now here) and an atheist (God is nowhere) . . .”

Continuing on page 48, Ehrman writes: [scribes] “could not distinguish between the syllables. [Being as most scribes] could not read the text fluently but could only recognize the letters, and so copied them one at a time.  Obviously, if you don’t know what you’re reading, the possibility of making mistakes in transcription multiply.”

On Page 88 Ehrman tells of the search made by John Mill who was an English theologian. He is noted for his critical edition of the Greek New Testament which included notes on the many variant readings.  (This John Mill is not to be confused with John Stuart Mill – the great Utilitarian.) This earlier John Mill spent 30 years accumulating materials for his text that was published in 1707. During that time, he isolated some 30,000 places where different manuscript citations and versions had different readings for passages . . . Mill was not exhaustive in his presentation of the data he had collected.  He had, in fact, found far more than 30,000 places of variation. He did not cite everything he discovered, leaving out variations such as those involving changes of word order . . .  Whereas Mill knew of or examined some 100 Greek manuscripts to uncover his 30,000 variations, today [2005] we know of far, far more.  At last count, more than 5,700 Greek manuscripts have been discovered and catalogued. . . .  These include everything from the smallest fragments of the size of a credit card to very large and magnificent productions, preserved in their entirety. . . These manuscripts range in date from the early [2nd down to the 16th century].  Some of these manuscripts are inexpensive, hastily produced copies; some were actually copied onto reused pages (a document was erased and the text . . . was written over the top of the erased pages); others are enormously lavish and expensive copies, including some written on purple-dyed parchment with silver or gold ink.”

On page 89, Ehrman adds: “Scholars differ significantly in their estimates [of the number of variants known]. [S]ome say there are 200,000 variants, some say 300,000, some say 400,000 or more!  We do not know for sure because, despite impressive developments in computer technology, no one has yet been able to count them all.  Perhaps . . . it is best simply to leave the matter in comparative terms.  There are more variations among manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.”

- - - - -

* In modern American-English prose writing about “the Bible,” the word “the” should not only have an uppercase “t” but also be in italics.  Also, the word “Bible” should be italicized.  Thus the name of this particular book should appear in print as: The Bible.

‡ The terms “upper case” and “lower case” come from the suitcase-like boxes with shallow drawers called type-cases that held the “type” type for the movable-type printing presses.  The “capital” letters were in the upper part of the case.  The lower part of the case held the “smaller” type.  We still use the word “type” today, as in “typographical” errors.  That term should perhaps be changed to 

“computergraphical” or “data-entry” error.

Alternate invocations don't go down well in Idaho. Surprise?

From the AP wire via the New York Times, a protest against an invocation that is non-Christian:

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/dfd5b4a7cbe14252b5e16aa11a6a1872/idaho-senate-opens-hindu-prayer-3-lawmakers-protest

At least in parts of Arizona, secular invocations at governmental meetings haven't met with this kind of reaction.

Be sure to read the comments.  One of my favorites was the commenter who asked how it was OK to have a Jewish invocation (non-Christian last I looked) but Hindu is protest-worthy.

The Myth of the Angry Atheist

This column from the Guardian debunks the Angry Atheist myth.  We might be annoyed, but not necessarily angry.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/oliver-burkeman-column/2015/mar/03/are-atheists-all-angry

The Bookworm Report #7: The Mythmaker by Hyam Maccoby

Submitted by Russell Pizer

The Bookworm Report #7

The Mythmaker

– Paul and the Invention of Christianity

by Hyam Maccoby ©1986, 237pp

The inside flap of the dust cover of the book titled The Mythmaker, begins with this question: “Who was the founder of Christianity? The answer seems obvious – Jesus. . .”  The author, a Talmudic scholar, shows clearly that this is not true. The information on that flap continues: “. . . Jesus’ disciples never had any thought of founding a new [religion]; they never embraced such ideas as Jesus’ divinity and the Eucharist, which were the brainchildren of Paul; and the heretical Ebionite* sect was really a continuation of ‘Jewish Christianity’ against which Paul had rebelled.”

For clarity, this “Paul” was Saul of Tarsus who has become known as the “Apostle Paul.” Also, for clarity, there is no evidence in The Bible that Paul had contact with Jesus except through Paul’s own alleged revelations that he said came directly for the risen Jesus.

It may seem nonsensical to Christians that the founder of Christianity was not the Jesus of Nazareth or any of his apostles – including James – his biological brother – or Peter, but Paul. At first, Paul defied James and Peter and claimed revelations from Paul's new deity as a basis of the doctrines of his (Paul’s) new religion which has come down to present day societies as the Christian religion.

On page 139, this is found: “[The book of Acts – particularly Chapter 15] was written to minimize the conflict between Paul and the leaders of the ‘Jerusalem Church’ – James and Peter.  Peter and Paul, in later Christian traditions, became twin saints – brothers in the faith. . . The idea that they were historically bitter opponents standing for irreconcilable religious [differences] would have been repudiated with horror.  The work of the author of Acts was done well. [H]e rescued Christianity from the imputation of being the individual creation of Paul . . . [He] gave it a respectable pedigree, as a doctrine with the authority of the so-called ‘Jerusalem Church’ . . .   Yet, for all his efforts, the truth of the matter is not hard to recover. If we examine the New Testament evidence with an eye to tell-tale inconsistencies and confusions, rather than with the determination to gloss over and harmonize all difficulties,  . . .” the truth of the conflict becomes evident.

Page 145 continues with, “Paul did not accept, either in his private thoughts or in his teaching . . . that he was under the authority of the Jerusalem Community led by James [the brother of Jesus].  On the contrary, he regarded his own authority as higher than theirs, since his doctrines came – as he declared – direct from the risen Christ, while theirs came only from the earthly Jesus. Yet he came meekly to Jerusalem when summoned and submitted himself to the decision of James for he did not consider the time ripe for a complete break with Jewish Christianity.”  In other words, Paul wasn’t honest enough to tell the followers that Jesus had selected that he [Paul] was going to “do his own thing.”

Because it is in the Book of Acts that we find Saul’s conversion making him the “Founder of Christianity” – not Jesus of Nazareth, the author of The Mythmaker, Hyam Maccoby, on page 88, gives a problematic view of the New Testament.  Maccoby states that there are three accounts of [Paul’s conversion] in Chapters 9, 22 and 26 with some curious inconsistencies. Also there are four other accounts in the first chapter of Galatians written by Paul himself. These raise problems also.

 — Russell Pizer   

- - - - - 

* The Ebionites regarded Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah while rejecting his divinity and insisted on the necessity of following Jewish law and rites. They revered James the Just and rejected Paul (Saul of Tarsus). Ebionim was one of the terms used by the sect at Qumran that sought to separate themselves from the corruption of the Temple, whom many believed were the Essenes.

Don't look now, but Hell may be freezing over - Evangelicals embrace gay marriage (!!!)

I found this article to be moving in a couple of ways.  First, just the fact that an evangelical church has pivoted to a position of acceptance of same-sex marriage.  The second was in reading the thought process that led up to this decision, grounded in scripture, if you can believe it.  Even though we don't share the same views on religious issues, maybe there really is a way we can work it out so that we achieve the same end.  It's not the belief, it's the action that counts in the end.

http://time.com/3687368/gracepointe-church-nashville-marriage-equality/

David Brooks of the NY Times takes on secularism - worth reading for the comments

Conservative NY Times columnist David Brooks has recently strayed into the minefield of philosophy.  This column is worth reading not necessarily for what he says but rather for the comments, many of which rebut Brooks' argument in thoughtful responses which contain nuggets of wisdom that HSGP members could use to further refine their own thoughts about secularism.  (Sorry for the bad pun but I couldn't resist.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/03/opinion/david-brooks-building-better-secularists.html?

Bookworm Report #6: The Jefferson Bible

By Russell Pizer

The Jefferson Bible

The Life and Morales of Jesus of Nazareth

Christians like to assert that Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, et al., founded these United States of American on Christian principles and especially the Ten Commandments.  However, those who assert such appear to discount one of Thomas Jefferson’s activities regarding The Bible.

On 3/16/2011, this headline appeared in the Hoffington Post: “Will the Jefferson Bible Spark New Smithsonian Controversy?”  The article read, in part: “The Smithsonian recently began the painstaking restoration of one of America’s great hidden treasures: what is called the “Jefferson Bible.” Composed through a process of rigorous editing, Thomas Jefferson assembled a spare, concise book that was devoid of supernatural events from six different biblical texts. Even the crowning moment of the Christian story, the Resurrection, is completely deleted from Jefferson’s version. . . .

“[Religious] pundits . . . would have you believe that the Founding Fathers were devout believers who saw America as a Christian nation. They point to the phrase in the Declaration of Independence,* noting that natural rights are ‘endowed by a Creator’‡ . . . 

“[T]he Founding Fathers shared little consensus on religion.  Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine were explicit deists.  Franklin’s writings revealed ‘some doubts as to [Jesus’s] divinity' . . .”  [Presidents Jefferson and Madison were charged with being atheists.]  “Madison, the author of the Constitution and no friend to organized religion, composed a ‘Detached Memoranda’ to the Constitutional Conventions decrying religious influence as injurious to public life. . .”

Concerning the “Ten Commandments,” Jefferson selected only six for his version of The Bible.  He included these: Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother; and Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.  These are the same six that Jesus gave in Matthew 19:17-19.  Historically, it should be noted that in 787 the 7th Ecumenical Council nullified the 2nd commandment. This was done so the Roman Catholic Church could have its statues, paintings, icons and images of God, the Holy Family and all the saints.

People who are not familiar with this effort by Jefferson will probably be mortified to learn that one of our Founding Fathers mutilated the Bible.  Jefferson literally took scissors and cut out the portions he liked and glued them together – making him perhaps the first great American Cafeteria Christian.

NOTE:  The Jefferson Bible can be downloaded for free from the internet.  An 8½- by 11-inch version contains 33 pages.

- - - - - - - - - -

* Contrary to popular belief, there is no such document in U.S. history that is titled “The Declaration of Independence.” The heading on the first broadside as printed by John Dunlap is: “A Declaration by the Representatives of the United States of American in General Congress Assembled.”  The embossed official document – the hand-written version by Timothy Matlack – has the title: “The unanimous Declaration of the united States of America.”  Notice it is not the United States of America – with an upper case “U”.  And, history shows that it was not “unanimous.”

‡ When Thomas Jefferson submitted the hand-written version of the so-called “Declaration of Independence” to the printer – John Dunlap – the word “creator” appeared with a lower case letter “c.”  There seems to be no historical record as to who changed the word “creator” to “Creator.” It was probably some unknown typesetter in the Dunlop printing office on the night of July 4, 1776. Also note, the phrase is “endowed by their creator,” not, “endowed by the Creator.”

Labeling GMO foods - followup to January presentation

For those of you interested in knowing whether or not what you're buying is GMO, here's an article from the NY Times that doesn't offer much reassurance about product labeling.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/business/gmo-labels-for-food-are-in-high-demand-but-provide-little-certainty.html?ref=business

Bookworm Report #5 The Quest of the Historical Jesus by Albert Schweitzer

Submitted by Russell Pizer

The Quest of the Historical Jesus

by Albert Schweitzer

There are a large number of books that are supposed to show that the man the Christians call Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene was an historical figure, i.e., was a real person that lived and walked the roads of Galilee 2000 years ago.  One great attempt is by an almost saintly figure, Albert Schweitzer. His book is titled: The Quest of the Historical Jesus. The paperback dated 2001 contains 562 pages.

For the most part, there are 354 pages of typical Christian dogmatic prose and “interpolations”* of what The Bible is supposed to teach or what should be a true interpretation of the original written materials. It includes discussions of eschatology and contain citations from biblical literature and what those citations should really mean.  Schweitzer then gets to the subject of the book – the quest of the historical Jesus. However, he never gets to the point in question: Was there ever a person named Jesus as depicted in The Bible that appear in any historical source other than that which can be found only in religiously-biased writings?

The title of Chapter 22 (page 355) is: “The Most Recent Disputing of the Historicity of Jesus.”  Christians who are looking for an historical Jesus – as was Schweitzer – often quote from Flavius Josephus who wrote The Jewish Antiquities ca. 93-94 A.D.  On page 359, Schweitzer uses a questionable quotation from Josephus’ book 18, chapter 3, section 3.  That quotation consists of a 126-word highly disputed passage. That passage begins with these words:  “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. . .”  It then goes on to state that: “He was the Christ; and when Pilate, on the indictment . . . condemned him to the cross . . . [but he] [re]appeared on the third day . . .” At the end of this section it is alleged that Josephus recorded that: [his followers were considered] to be “the tribe of Christians . . .”

Strangely, following this Josephus quotation presented by Schweitzer, Schweitzer states, “This note is either inauthentic or so extravagantly interpolated that it can no longer be presented as credible evidence.”  (Here Schweitzer appears to be destroying his own thesis.)

A complete condemnation of this passage as being a fraudulent interpolation by an unknown Christian copyist is presented in The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy by C. Dennis McKinsey.  Beginning on page 100, McKinsey presents 18 major errors in this oft-quoted section from Josepheus beginning with: “[Josephus], a devout Jew, would not imply that [Jesus] was divine.”  And, “a devout Jew would never say that Jesus was the Christ.”

After fully describing 18 major errors in this passage, this is added, “[O]n page 50 of The Mythical Jesus, Patrick Campbell notes that the historian Edward Gibbon, author of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, considered this passage to be a forgery as do many theologians.” 

Question: Did Schweitzer achieve his quest, i.e., show there was an historical Jesus?  Not in these 562 pages!

- - - - - -

* The word “interpolation” in this case means inserted information that is believed to be true or is believed to have actually occurred or been handed down by oral tradition. For example: The Bible states that wise men from the east visited the baby Jesus after having followed a star in the east. Somehow the wise men became the three kings. The names of the three kings are somehow known to be Balthasar, Caspar, Melchior. They brought gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. Somehow we now know their mode of transportation.  It should be noted that many astronomers have searched ancient astronomical records and attempted to recreated events that could have caused a conjunction of stars, or planets or asteroids or comets that would have resulted in the star of Bethlehem. No such phenomenon has ever been found or replicated in a planetarium.

Religion with God? Column from NY Times

This column bears re-reading even if you saw it in the NY  Times.  The comments section is, as always, revealing of how people think on the topic.

At HSGP, we recognize the need for community mentioned in the column, even if we're not big on ritual.  Our Humanist Community Center is not a psuedo-church consuming vast amounts of resources, as one commenter put it, but a focal point for building community for freethinkers and other like-minded people, a place where non-theists can feel comfortable and not worry about adherence to dogma.



http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/25/opinion/religion-without-god.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0

Another way of explaining why everyone needs to be vaccinated

Recent HSGP speaker Will Humble did a fine job of explaining why vaccination is a good thing.

Here's another explanation, this time in pictures.  (Actually a "comic" but I wanted you to take it seriously.)

https://medium.com/the-nib/vaccines-work-here-are-the-facts-5de3d0f9ffd0

Interesting comments on the Christmas Season

I am constantly surprised at how many of my fellow Humanists actively celebrate "Christmas".   Sure, many of us pay lip service to "Solstice" but then run out and buy gifts for all the relatives.  Personally, I'll admit to doing a tiny bit of decoration, but more in the mood of bringing light into these dark winter days (such as they are at this latitude!)  But the materialism surrounding the season has repelled me for years and the idea that our national economy depends on Christmas spending is downright boggling.

Here's a New York Times columnist with whom I rarely agree, but I think he's made some interesting points in this op-ed.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/14/opinion/sunday/arthur-c-brooks-abundance-without-attachment.html?action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&region=Footer&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=article

And by the way,  Happy Solstice to all!

Bookworm Report #4 by Russell Pizer "why we believe in gods"

why we believe in god(s) (143pp, © 2011)

“A concise Guide to the Science of Faith”

by J. Anderson Thomson, Jr., MD with Clare Aukofer

with a forward by Richard Dawkins

•  •  •  •  •

This is an unusually small book.  Though it has 143 numbered pages, it is really only about half that length because it measures 4½” wide by 7” high and ¾” thick.  A fast reader could probably finish this in a few hours.  However, it is a book the reader will probably want to read two or maybe even three times.  This is because of the large number of endnotes that contain related and/or  apropos information.

The title is in lower case letters probably because the author purposely did not want to spell the word “god” with a upper case letter G.

The Forward by Richard Dawkins has this to say, “Darwin, though not religious in his maturity, understood the religious impulse. He was a benefactor of Down Church and regularly walked his family there on Sundays then continued his walk while they went inside. He had been trained to the life of a clergyman.  William Paley’s Natural Theology was his favored undergraduate reading.  Darwin killed natural theology’s answer stone dead, but he never lost his preoccupation with its question: the question of function. It is no surprise that he was intrigued by the functional question of religiosity.  Why do most people . . . harbor religious belief? . . .

“‘Fast food’ is a leitmotif of the book: ‘if you understand the psychology of fast food, you understand the psychology of religion.’  Sugar is another good example.  It was impossible for our wild ancestors to get enough of it so we have inherited an open-ended craving that, now that it is easily met, damages our health.”

“Thomson’s chapters identify a series of evolved mental faculties exploited by religion, each one beguilingly  labeled with a line familiar from scripture or liturgy; ‘Our Daily Bread,’ ‘Deliver Us from Evil,’ ‘Thy Will be Done,’  ‘Lest Ye Be Judged.’ . . .

“To most of us, the arms-extended gesture of the worshipers looks merely foolish. After reading Thomson we shall see it through more penetrating eyes: it is not just foolish, it is infantile. . .”

The Preface ends with: “We [the non-religious] now know why and how our minds manufacture and spread beliefs in god(s). [N]ew research continues to add to what we know. This knowledge can free us. Anything we can do, no matter how small, to loosen fundamentalist religious’s grasp on humanity strikes a blow for civilization and boosts the chances for truly global civil society – and perhaps even for our species’ long-term survival. . .”

Mr. Thomson concludes his amazingly logical, carefully researched and scientifically based explanation as to why people believe in god(s) with this:

“It is . . . so much easier to believe. Religions offer sets of rules and, when combined with all of our adaptive mental mechanisms, eliminates the need for serious thought about the issue.  The 2010 Pew Poll on Religion actually found that agnostics and atheists were more knowledgeable about the world’s religions than believers were, which would seem to indicate a higher level of thought about the issues involved.

“But there is hope.  In a June 6, 2010, ABC News interview, physicist Steven Hawking, considered by many to be one of the greatest scientific minds of our or any time, said, ‘There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority; and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works.’ As most people know, without the aid of science, Hawking would long ago have succumbed to the ravages of amyotropic lateral sclerosis (ALS, or ‘Lou Gehrig’s disease’) no matter how many people prayed for him. Instead, his fine mind survives and continues to learn and teach, aided by an array of technological accouterments. . . .

“As demonstrated in this book, science – specifically the cognitive and social neurosciences – shows us how and why human minds generate religious beliefs. More than an outline is apparent and with each passing day, psychological mechanisms, the neuroanatomy, and the neurochemistry of religion continue to come into sharper focus. . . .

“Religion may offer comfort in a harsh world; it may foster community; it may incite conflict.  In short, it may have its uses – for good and for evil. But it was created by human beings, and this will be a better world if we cease confusing it with fact.”

If someone asks you to say "grace" at Thanksgiving

We will be spending Thanksgiving with my daughter, her boyfriend and the boyfriend's family.  I know that my daughter has been religious in the past and it's likely that the rest of the attendees are also on the religious side.  In case someone asks me to say "grace" at the bounteous table, it seemed reasonable to be prepared.  The internet, as we all know, is full of suggestions for every occasion, including this one.

From the website Secular Seasons there are a number to choose from.  Some I found in interesting were these:

........ from the humanist writer Nicolas Walter:

Let us think thrice while we are gathering here for this meal. 
First, let us think of the people we are with today, and make the most of the pleasure of sharing food and drink together.

Then, let us think of the people who made the food and drink and brought it to us, who serve us and wait on us, and who clear up and clean up after us.

Finally, let us think of all the people all over the world, members with us in the human family, who will not have a meal today.

For those who find these humanist graces too long, or don’t want to be reminded of the suffering of others just before a celebratory meal, there are these simple words of secular thanks and good wishes:

We are thankful for the food on this table.
We are thankful for this time together.
Our thoughts go out to family and friends;
We hope that they are safe and well.

Or these words of humanist benediction
For the meal we are about to eat,
for those that made it possible, 
and for those with whom we are about to share it,
we are thankful.

From the Science Notes blog on Wordpress:

What a great occasion! We are gathered here together in the safety of our home, each of us taking a moment from our busy, separate lives, to enjoy this wonderful meal with ones we love. Let this evening be a special time in our lives, a blessed stopping point in which we can simply enjoy who we are, where we are, and what we are doing. Let us enjoy this magnificent now with family and friends. Thank you, mother, for preparing this beautiful meal.

Presumably one could substitute for "mother" as appropriate

We have created this meal to serve and sustain our lives. Let us enjoy this meal in the full knowledge that all life is purposeful action aimed toward our highest value, our own precious lives and happiness.

Many of the suggestions I found were way too wordy, especially for folks who are sitting there looking at that glorious meal in front of them.  (You didn't think they were going to bow their heads and close their eyes, did you?)

This one from the American Humanist Association is a perfect example of TMI:

A Non-Believers Grace
I offer my deepest appreciation and my most profound apologies to the plants and animals whose lives were forfeit for our good health this day.

We give thanks to the ranchers and the farmers, their workers and their hands whose skill, sweat and toil have brought forth this bounty from the Earth.

We are grateful to the workers in the fields who pick our food, the workers in the plants where our food is processed, the teamsters who carry it to market and the stockers and the checkers who offer it up for our selection.

We are particularly appreciative for those at this table who have prepared this food with love and affection for our enjoyment and nourishment this day.

We remember fondly those who the miles and circumstance keep from joining us today as we remember those who are no longer with us and are grateful for the time we have shared with them.

We enjoy the warmth and fellowship that surrounds this gathering as we share the fervent hope that people the world over can share the good fortune, warm feeling and conviviality that embraces this gathering.


Thank you.

Besides the length, I personally also have a little problem with the concept of apologizing not only to the animals but the plants.  If you need to apologize, then don't eat them.  Otherwise, perhaps you could thank them too for their contributions in some manner that doesn't introduce guilt at the very beginning of the speech.  I trust the writer buys only humanely raised and slaughtered turkeys or artisan tofurkey and gently-pulled heirloom carrots.  Needless to say there were lots of interesting comments on the original publication.  Enjoy them at http://americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2012-11-a-thanksgiving-grace-for-humanists


And finally, if you're with the right group to appreciate it, here's a short one from Thinkatheist.com:

Thank you glycolysis and electron transport chain, which we are about to receive your STP bounty through phosphorylation.  Amen.

Trying to figure out the grammar on that one gave me a headache, but I'm impressed that the spell checker got all the words right.  From Thinkatheist.com.

The Bookworm Report #3: Humanism - An Introduction

By Russell Pizer

•  •  •  •  •

Humanism - An Introduction by Jim Herrick -- the subject of this Bookworm Report #3 -- is a small paperback (105 pp)that begins with this introduction written by Laurie Taylor.

“It sounded like an easy way to win half-a-crown.  All I had to do was to stand in the middle of the playground at my Catholic school and shout out in a voice that was loud enough to be heard by the giggling crowd of fellow [students] who’d come up with the bet: ‘If there really is a God then I challenge him here and now to strike me dead.’  But I can still recall the drumming of my heart as I slowly walked towards what I still secretly feared might be a date with destiny.

“I’d brought it on myself. For the best part of a year, I’d been trying to convince my school friends there was no proper basis for the religious dogmas that we were being force fed in class. It had earned me a certain mild notoriety but I was only too well aware that my dismal failure to effect any conversions to atheism had something to do with the shallowness of my own arguments. I’d told my classmates, for example, that the idea of a virgin birth was a contradiction in terms. You simply couldn’t be a virgin and have a baby. Didn’t they know the facts of life? I’d also argued that the miracles of the loaves and fishes and the rising of Lazarus were really nothing more than cleverly conjuring tricks and even made the profoundly heretical suggestions that if Jesus was God and God was all knowing and all powerful then surely he could have avoided his own crucifixion and gone on teaching until a ripe old age.

“As I struck my pose in the middle of the playground, I made a resolution which nearly captured my adolescent moral capacity to have it both ways at the same time. If God failed to strike me dead after I’d made my challenge then I would devote myself to the task of discovering some rather better reasons for not believing in his existence. . . .”

“[Jim Herrick’s] account of humanism [in this book] does much to trace its historical development, its philosophical underpinnings and its current status as an alternative to systems of religious belief.  But he is always faithful to his underlying contention that ‘humanism is a position which thinking individuals can reach as a personal conviction.’ . . .”

On page 1 (Chapter 1 - Humanism Outlined), Mr. Herrick begins with this: “Humanism is a most human philosophy of life. Its emphasis is on the human, the here-and-now, the humane. It is not a religion and it has no formal creed, though humanists have beliefs. Humanists are atheists or agnostics* and do not expect an afterlife. It is essential to humanism that it brings values and meaning into life.

“As we move away from the morass of the 20th century, we can hope that humanism will be a beacon to help us through the 21st century. It is an approach that is neither optimistic nor pessimistic, but realistic. 

Chapter 2 begins: “The tradition of humanism is a long one. It questions existing ideas and quests for new one. People have asked what powers control our lives, what is the nature of the world about us, what is our personal potential? From the documents of ancient history to the flowering of thought in ancient Greece, from renaissance Italy to the 18th century Enlightenment, from the wide developments in philosophy and science in the 19th century to the crystallization of humanist ideas in the 20th century, the humanist temper has developed through time.”

He then continues with: “Some Greek philosophers laid down the essential foundations of humanism. In his work Of the Gods, Protagoras (481-411 B.C.E.) stated, ‘About the gods I have no means of knowing either that they exist or that they do not exist . . .’

- - - - -

*Many Humanists that would disagree that there are only two such categories.

An popular-press article talking about evolution that actually gets some things right

Anyone else get frustrated with writing on evolution that implies that species evolve toward a planned goal?   Even when used as a figure of speech, it annoys the heck out of me.  Here's a fun article, with some delightful images, and it actually mentions that evolution can be pretty wacky at times.  How refreshing!

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/10/wtf_evolution_book_and_blog_why_weird_awkward_hacked_together_species_are.html

Finally someone notices that Ark Encounter project has a little religion/state problem

For some reason, the lawmakers in Kentucky failed to notice until recently that state support of Ken Ham's enterprises violates the law.  I'm not sure who to thank (one of the few down-sides of being a non-believer) but perhaps someone in the state has finally come to their senses.


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/10/ken_ham_ark_encounter_theme_park_religious_discrimination_may_block_kentucky.html

Where the Nones are

From The  Guardian, this set of maps showing where the godless and the non-godless live in various cities in England and Wales.  We've frequently noticed that the Brits are much more inclined to self-identify as non-religious than Americans and this data visualization bears out the observation.

Be sure to click on the link "It's not about atheism" above the maps to get another viewpoint on what these maps mean.

http://www.theguardian.com/cities/datablog/gallery/2014/jul/03/where-atheists-live-maps-uk-godless-cities-religion-census-data-viz

Bookworm report for October 2014: The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors

By Russell Pizer

This Bookworm Report  is regarding a paperback reprint dated 2007 from an original book dated 1875.  Whereas it might be intriguing for Humanists, it would probably be shocking for Christians. 

The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors was written by Kersey Graves who was born in Brownsville, Pennsylvania on November 12, 1813. The rear cover states: “His parents were Quakers. As a young man he accepted the observances of his parents then later, moved to a different wing of Quakerism. He was disowned by his Quaker meeting group due to his neglect of attendance and also setting up a rival group.”  

That disownment was, no doubt, also a result of the many ideas he must have acquired through a book titled: The Anacalypsis by Sir Godfrey Higgins dated 1833. Mr. Graves used much of that book’s contents for the basis of his 1875 publication.

I have read many books about what would be called “anti-Jesus literature” but this was incredible. I thought I knew a lot of the incongruities that exist in The Bible, however, this is full of additional and surprising revelations.

Beginning on page 33, Graves begins: “The following considerations exhibit some of the numerous absurdities involved in the story of the miraculous birth of Jesus . . .”  He then gives, by actual number, 17 items.  Here are the first three:

 “1.  The evangelical narratives show that Christ himself did not claim to have a miraculous birth.  He did not once allude to such an event; while if, as Christians claim, it is the principal evidence of his deityship, he certainly would have done so. . . 2.  His parental genealogy, as made out by Matthew and Luke, completely disproves the story of his miraculous conception by a virgin. . . .  3. [H]is own disciple (Philip) declared him to be the son of Joseph . . .  [This] is still further confirmation of the conclusion [that he did not come to earth via a virgin birth] . . . ”

The next excerpt begins on page 39. “There is much evidence that the Christian Savior was a black man, or at least a dark man . . .  And that evidence is the testimony of his disciples who had nearly as good an opportunity of knowing what his complexion was as the evangelists who omit to say anything about it. In the picturers and portraits of Jesus by the early Christians, he is uniformly represented as being black. . . [T]he only text in the Christian bible quoted by orthodox Christians, as describing his complexion, represents it as being black.  Solomon’s declaration, “I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem. . . .” (Sol. I.5) . . .”

Mr. Graves goes on to speculate . . . “Let us suppose that, at some future time, he makes his second advent to the earth, as some Christians anticipate he will do, and that he goes to . . . one of our fashionable churches . . .   Would the [usher] show him to a seat? . . .”

This next except is especially amusing.  It appears on page 46.  “. . . observe the absurdity in Matthew’s story, which teaches that the wise men followed the star in the east, when they, coming from the east, were, as a matter of course, traveling westward, which would placed the star at their backs. . . .”

Chapter XXXII is titled: “Three Hundred and Forty-Six Striking Analogies Between Christ and Krishna.”  (Krishna’s birth is given as 3228 B.C.E.)  This shows, if the book’s contents are true, those ghost writers of Matthew, Mark, Luke & John, borrowed almost all of their material for the story of the man the Christians call Jesus of Nazarus from the life and teachings of The Lord Krishna of India.

Needless to say, there are some vociferous criticisms of this book to be found on the Internet.