I think what Tim was saying is that this magic link would only be for raw bible citations, not for templated ones. That is Gen 4:2 instead of {{biblequotex|Gen|4|2}}
The raw citation would be magically linked to the wikisource KJV. That would be super. Then *if* someone feels the need to template it to link say to the NIV instead, then they could do that instead.
Will Johnson
************** Looking for love this summer? Find it now on AOL Personals.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 4:20 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
I think what Tim was saying is that this magic link would only be for raw bible citations, not for templated ones. That is Gen 4:2 instead of {{biblequotex|Gen|4|2}}
The raw citation would be magically linked to the wikisource KJV. That would be super. Then *if* someone feels the need to template it to link say to the NIV instead, then they could do that instead.
Will Johnson
Most modern translations have known benefits and weaknesses, so the one you pick is largely a matter of taste, albeit with a bit of politics mixed in. The KJV, on the other hand, is perhaps the least accurate translation. So while I am hesitant to endorse an off-site script doing the picking, using the KJV because it's (arguably) PD is like using EB 1911. It's hard to read up on the Rwandan genocide when your source thinks that Kigali is in German East Africa.
Guettarda wrote:
Most modern translations have known benefits and weaknesses, so the one you pick is largely a matter of taste, albeit with a bit of politics mixed in. The KJV, on the other hand, is perhaps the least accurate translation. So while I am hesitant to endorse an off-site script doing the picking, using the KJV because it's (arguably) PD is like using EB 1911. It's hard to read up on the Rwandan genocide when your source thinks that Kigali is in German East Africa.
On the other hand, why is a Wikipedia article citing a Bible verse? In the case I had this morning, at [[Gangraena]] (title of a book), where the word itself is in the (Greek) New Testament at 2 Timothy 2:17 and is being used as a book title in 1646, the point is certainly to track the allusion as it would have had an impact on the readership in England (mostly). In other words the point of the link is to allow the reader of the article to see that Gangraena for a KJV reader renders as "canker". And another interesting point is that (and I hadn't appreciated this) you are probably supposed to read in verse 16 as well: "But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness./ And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus." There would have been a few English readers at the time who would have preferred the Geneva Bible or even the Tremellius translation (as Milton is supposed to have, but I suppose for the OT).
Anyway I like, in principle, the idea, of having as default a link to a Wikisource page offering a menu of different translations or editions (free text). Which could presumably link to various commentaries. All done to an agreed template. I don't think this should be imposed, but available.
Charles
The current practice in many academic publications on religion for non specialists seems usually to use the NIV, and often add the KJ V if substantially different.
If however one is discussing English literature, one would just link to the KJV
I therefore do not see how we can find a uniform practice.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Guettarda wrote:
Most modern translations have known benefits and weaknesses, so the one you pick is largely a matter of taste, albeit with a bit of politics mixed in. The KJV, on the other hand, is perhaps the least accurate translation. So while I am hesitant to endorse an off-site script doing the picking, using the KJV because it's (arguably) PD is like using EB 1911. It's hard to read up on the Rwandan genocide when your source thinks that Kigali is in German East Africa.
On the other hand, why is a Wikipedia article citing a Bible verse? In the case I had this morning, at [[Gangraena]] (title of a book), where the word itself is in the (Greek) New Testament at 2 Timothy 2:17 and is being used as a book title in 1646, the point is certainly to track the allusion as it would have had an impact on the readership in England (mostly). In other words the point of the link is to allow the reader of the article to see that Gangraena for a KJV reader renders as "canker". And another interesting point is that (and I hadn't appreciated this) you are probably supposed to read in verse 16 as well: "But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness./ And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus." There would have been a few English readers at the time who would have preferred the Geneva Bible or even the Tremellius translation (as Milton is supposed to have, but I suppose for the OT).
Anyway I like, in principle, the idea, of having as default a link to a Wikisource page offering a menu of different translations or editions (free text). Which could presumably link to various commentaries. All done to an agreed template. I don't think this should be imposed, but available.
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/7/6 David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com:
The current practice in many academic publications on religion for non specialists seems usually to use the NIV, and often add the KJ V if substantially different. If however one is discussing English literature, one would just link to the KJV I therefore do not see how we can find a uniform practice.
Hence the suggestion to link to all reasonable translations of a verse. Since we're writing in English rather than Hebrew, Aramaic or ancient Greek.
- d.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:52 AM, David Goodmandgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
The current practice in many academic publications on religion for non specialists seems usually to use the NIV, and often add the KJ V if substantially different.
If however one is discussing English literature, one would just link to the KJV
I therefore do not see how we can find a uniform practice.
Yes, the NIV is both necessary and proprietary. It simply means we need to deal with the portals - albeit to a lesser degree than currently.
Summing up, people seem to agree that the bibleref tag needs to point to a local tool, and that tool should do something a bit more tailored and sophisticated about how to present Bible sources - particularly free sources where available.
Where we can, simply replacing BibleGateway with Wikisource links will make things more free.* And replacing most BG references with other competing online portals will make things more fair.*
-S
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
On the other hand, why is a Wikipedia article citing a Bible verse?
Because in spite of their dominant representation, its the Wikipedia and not the Atheistpedia.
-Stevertigo
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 6:52 PM, stevertigostvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
On the other hand, why is a Wikipedia article citing a Bible verse?
Because in spite of their dominant representation, its the Wikipedia and not the Atheistpedia.
Come to think of it:
The bible is either wrong, in which case it shouldn't be cited.
Or it's true, which would mean that it was dictated by God himself. Wouldn't that make it original research?
/me ducks
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Magnus Manskemagnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
Come to think of it:
The bible is either wrong, in which case it shouldn't be cited.
Or it's true, which would mean that it was dictated by God himself. Wouldn't that make it original research?
The Bible is a well-known ancient work with great cultural significance. Its status as fiction or fact is almost beside the point. It is accurate about what it itself says, which can be cited as appropriate to inform articles where what it said was/is relevant.
(And I know I'm taking a joking suggestion seriously, prolonging the joke!)
-Matt
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Matthew Brownmorven@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Magnus Manskemagnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
Come to think of it:
The bible is either wrong, in which case it shouldn't be cited.
Or it's true, which would mean that it was dictated by God himself. Wouldn't that make it original research?
The Bible is a well-known ancient work with great cultural significance. Its status as fiction or fact is almost beside the point. It is accurate about what it itself says, which can be cited as appropriate to inform articles where what it said was/is relevant.
(And I know I'm taking a joking suggestion seriously, prolonging the joke!)
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%...
Magnus
Magnus Manske wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Matthew Brownmorven@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Magnus Manskemagnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
Come to think of it:
The bible is either wrong, in which case it shouldn't be cited.
Or it's true, which would mean that it was dictated by God himself. Wouldn't that make it original research?
The Bible is a well-known ancient work with great cultural significance. Its status as fiction or fact is almost beside the point. It is accurate about what it itself says, which can be cited as appropriate to inform articles where what it said was/is relevant.
(And I know I'm taking a joking suggestion seriously, prolonging the joke!)
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%...
Magnus
Magnus: that is awesome.
Cary
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Cary Basscary@wikimedia.org wrote:
Magnus Manske wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Matthew Brownmorven@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Magnus Manskemagnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
Come to think of it:
The bible is either wrong, in which case it shouldn't be cited.
Or it's true, which would mean that it was dictated by God himself. Wouldn't that make it original research?
The Bible is a well-known ancient work with great cultural significance. Its status as fiction or fact is almost beside the point. It is accurate about what it itself says, which can be cited as appropriate to inform articles where what it said was/is relevant.
(And I know I'm taking a joking suggestion seriously, prolonging the joke!)
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%...
Magnus
Magnus: that is awesome.
I didn't know we were allowed to end silly discussions here with actual working cool code.
I second Cary - that's awesome. Thanks, Magnus!
Funny Wycliffe is the only one who states clearly that God created everything from nothing. http://toolserver.org/~magnus/biblebay.php?booknumber=&bookname=Genesis&...
-----Original Message----- From: George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Mon, Jul 6, 2009 3:54 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Cary Basscary@wikimedia.org wrote:
Magnus Manske wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Matthew Brownmorven@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Magnus Manskemagnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
Come to think of it:
The bible is either wrong, in which case it shouldn't be cited.
Or it's true, which would mean that it was dictated by God himself. Wouldn't that make it original research?
The Bible is a well-known ancient work with great cultural significance. ?Its status as fiction or fact is almost beside the point. ?It is accurate about what it itself says, which can be cited as appropriate to inform articles where what it said was/is relevant.
(And I know I'm taking a joking suggestion seriously, prolonging the joke!)
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%...
Magnus
Magnus: that is awesome.
I didn't know we were allowed to end silly discussions here with actual working cool code.
I second Cary - that's awesome. Thanks, Magnus!
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:29 AM, wjhonson@aol.com 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&...
"created everything from nothing"? Just like we did with Wikipedia!
(burn, karma, burn)
Magnus Manske wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:29 AM, wjhonson@aol.com 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&...
"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
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Ray Saintongesaintonge@telus.net wrote:
Magnus Manske wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:29 AM, wjhonson@aol.com 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&...
"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
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
2009/7/7 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
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.
2009/7/6 Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com:
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%...
:-O That would be more or less precisely what I was thinking of. Well done!
- d.
2009/7/7 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/7/6 Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com:
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%...
:-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.
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:09 AM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/7 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/7/6 Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com:
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%...
:-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.
Do we have that (in the fame format) on wikisource?
Magnus Manske wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:09 AM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/7 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/7/6 Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com:
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%...
:-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.
Do we have that (in the fame format) on wikisource?
Following the "Bible" page on enWS leads quickly enough to http://el.wikisource.org/wiki/%CE%9A%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%AC_%CE%99%CF%89%CE%AC%CE...
which is actually the Gospel of John marked out in verses. Now, whether that is the "original" Greek is another matter: it seems to be the standard version for the Patriarchate of Constantinople?
I got well lost trying the heWS interwiki.
Charles
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Magnus Manske wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:09 AM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/7 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/7/6 Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com:
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%...
:-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.
Do we have that (in the fame format) on wikisource?
Following the "Bible" page on enWS leads quickly enough to http://el.wikisource.org/wiki/%CE%9A%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%AC_%CE%99%CF%89%CE%AC%CE...
which is actually the Gospel of John marked out in verses. Now, whether that is the "original" Greek is another matter: it seems to be the standard version for the Patriarchate of Constantinople?
I got well lost trying the heWS interwiki.
There is now Greek (where available), and a link to the NIV.
I think I'll pass on the Hebrew for fear of putting my eyeballs in reverse...
Magnus
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Magnus Manske wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:09 AM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/7 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/7/6 Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com:
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%...
:-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.
I would also suggest a new option:
When I typed in 1 Corinthians 13, I expected to get the entire verse, but instead got a blank item.
Perhaps in the event of no ":" it will default to verses "ALL"?
Cary
David Gerard wrote:
2009/7/7 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/7/6 Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com:
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%...
:-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.
Also links to corresponding pages in other languages.
Ec
David Gerard wrote:
2009/7/6 Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com:
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%...
:-O That would be more or less precisely what I was thinking of. Well done!
The Qur'an could be treated in a similar way.
Ec
Despite being at least semi off topic, I must comment on this:
The Bible is a well-known ancient work with great cultural significance. Its status as fiction or fact is almost beside the point. It is accurate about what it itself says, which can be cited as appropriate to inform articles where what it said was/is relevant.
But there is a widespread abuse of citing the bible and it will not get better by providing technical means to better cite the bible.
What I mean is giving bible citations as reference for theological statements. There are two thousand years of struggling factions of christianity and libraries full of interpretations of bible verses. You cannot ignore this and propose that the bible verse can speak for itself.
Peter
Peter Jacobi wrote:
Despite being at least semi off topic, I must comment on this:
The Bible is a well-known ancient work with great cultural significance. Its status as fiction or fact is almost beside the point. It is accurate about what it itself says, which can be cited as appropriate to inform articles where what it said was/is relevant.
But there is a widespread abuse of citing the bible and it will not get better by providing technical means to better cite the bible.
What I mean is giving bible citations as reference for theological statements. There are two thousand years of struggling factions of christianity and libraries full of interpretations of bible verses. You cannot ignore this and propose that the bible verse can speak for itself.
I agree. But with more apparatus - links to commentaries and so on - the point about different interpretations can become clearer.
Charles
We can quote autobiographies in terms of what the deity has to say about themselves. It's a primary source, not original research when quoted.? Only original in the first-form. That is, we can't publish it by itself, but we can quote it, with other sources.
Or it's true, which would mean that it was dictated by God himself. Wouldn't that make it original research?
-----Original Message----- From: Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Mon, Jul 6, 2009 2:40 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 6:52 PM, stevertigostvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
On the other hand, why is a Wikipedia article citing a Bible verse?
Because in spite of their dominant representation, its the Wikipedia and not the Atheistpedia.
Come to think of it:
The bible is either wrong, in which case it shouldn't be cited.
Or it's true, which would mean that it was dictated by God himself. Wouldn't that make it original research?
/me ducks
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:52 AM, stevertigostvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
On the other hand, why is a Wikipedia article citing a Bible verse?
Because in spite of their dominant representation, its the Wikipedia and not the Atheistpedia.
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.
Cheers, David...
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 6:50 PM, David Carsoncarson63000@gmail.com 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
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
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Ray Saintongesaintonge@telus.net 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
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
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 Saintongesaintonge@telus.net 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.
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
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com 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%...
Where should that tool be discussed?
Carcharoth
2009/7/7 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
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%... Where should that tool be discussed?
Well, I mentioned it on my Wikimedia blog :-) Er, presumably the Bible-related wikiprojects would be a good place.
- d.
2009/7/7 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
Where should that tool be discussed?
Well, I mentioned it on my Wikimedia blog :-) Er, presumably the Bible-related wikiprojects would be a good place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Bibleverse & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Bibleref would seem a good place to go about it, since this is what it's effectively going to be replacing!
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com 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
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com 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
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com 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
stevertigo wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com 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.
Sure. But not in a good way.
I'll be on KGS as "nako" for a bit, if you want to understand what trolling really is
So what's your KGS ranking?
Charles
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Sure. But not in a good way.
I graciously accept your apology.
So what's your KGS ranking?
It's a new account, but I can give you one stone.
-Stevertigo
stevertigo wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Sure. But not in a good way.
I graciously accept your apology.
So what's your KGS ranking?
It's a new account, but I can give you one stone.
Well, settling it over the board would be good, but on the basis of http://www.gokgs.com/gameArchives.jsp?user=nako I kind of doubt that. Still, I'm rusty too.
Charles
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Well, settling it over the board would be good, but on the basis of [my one game history] I kind of doubt that. Still, I'm rusty too.
Rusty goes around. I had to default on that game actually. Something came up.
-S
stevertigo wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Charles 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.
I didn't understand the allusion either until Carcharoth provided the link, but I would prefer to avoid having my ignorance of a concept as a foundation for perceiving a personal attack.
Which kind of troll, by the way, do you suppose I am? Stone troll, maybe? River troll?
A long-line troll with plenty of bait on the hooks.
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.
"Litigation"??? Once you have presumed fallacy it is only a matter of time before your short list is expanded sufficiently to find an including category.
Ec
stevertigo wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Charles Matthews wrote:
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?
Are you standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier to proclaim this victory?
Explain to me again how this improves the English Wikipedia.
That would take too long.
Hmmm. Proclaiming victory and admitting defeat almost in the same breath.
or just when someone is unselfdisciplined enough
What do you mean by this? Are you calling Ray "unselfdisciplined" for being a vocal atheist?
Unselfdisciplined perhaps, though you do me an injustice to impute such a motive. I'm just happy to treat religious argumentation with all the ROTFL that it deserves.
Ec
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Ray Saintongesaintonge@telus.net wrote:
stevertigo wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Charles Matthews wrote:
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?
Are you standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier to proclaim this victory?
Explain to me again how this improves the English Wikipedia.
That would take too long.
Hmmm. Proclaiming victory and admitting defeat almost in the same breath.
or just when someone is unselfdisciplined enough
What do you mean by this? Are you calling Ray "unselfdisciplined" for being a vocal atheist?
Unselfdisciplined perhaps, though you do me an injustice to impute such a motive. I'm just happy to treat religious argumentation with all the ROTFL that it deserves.
I have a great idea for improving the encyclopedia.
Hows about anyone trying to perpetuate religious arguments on Wikien-L goes on moderation for a week!
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
stevertigo wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
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.
A Westerner with no particular interest in Islam is more likely to see the Sunni/Shia distinction as insignificant; he may be all too willing to tar these "terrorists" with the same brush. Similarly, a believer who sees himself under attack from atheists easily imagines those attacks as from a United Front. But when it comes what distinguishes co-believers the entire homoösis/homoiosis debate breaks out again.
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.
Dawkin is certainly a proseltyser among atheists, but then not all Christians are preachers. On both sides of the divide most people quietly believe without ever setting foot in a common meeting place such as a church.
Some atheists can be quite irate, but it is not logical to generalize this to all atheists. On-line one needs to exercise some discretion before interpreting the questioning of ideas as some kind of personal attack. Inflamitorily disembodying certain words from their contexts does not provide satisfactory evidence of personal attack. How is "crude hypothesis" a personal attack? How is "eccentric distinction between..." a personal attack? How is the "vaudeville" of angels a personal attack?
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.
A clear misunderstanding of science; science depends upon a continuing cycle of hypothesis and hypothesis testing. Your claim about atheists is plain fantasy.
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?
OK, my imagery was obscure. It's rooted in the notion that many religious arguments are about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. I was looking off that one pin-head for a solution. ;-)
This is interesting in the light of your later comment that atheists don't get jokes.
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.
To simplify, we should be able to accept that "faith" and "belief" are synonymous. Read no more into this than is necessary. If there is a convenient word to express the absence of faith I would prefer that to semantic gymnastics.
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?
Somewhat. But I don't underestimate the power of faith, whether or not the foundation for that faith is justified. A charismatic queen bee is effective until the hive mind takes over to impose order.
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.
See the angels discussion above.
There was more that I could comment on (Yawn!) ... but this is taking too long, and I'm getting bored.
Ec
stevertigo wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 6:50 PM, David Carsoncarson63000@gmail.com 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