Entry 645, on 2007-11-21 at 20:01:14 (Rating 3, Religion)
On another blog I have had a brief discussion concerning by blog entry of two days ago titled "Ridicule". In it I described a visit from a Jehovah's Witness and how they left two of their magazines with me. The outcome of the discussion was that it would be nice to have an atheistic, scientific and skeptical magazine to give them the next time they visited.
On a seemingly unrelated matter I have realised that my print production skills have become somewhat atrophied over the last few years. I recently had to work on a project using In Design and I realised I barely knew how to use it. Of course, I have sufficient skills that I can learn to use almost any program fairly quickly, but it gave me the idea that I should create an atheism magazine using In Design that I could give to religious visitors and make available for use by others on the Internet.
There would be a reasonable amount of work in it, and it would take a substantial amount of time, but I thought why not do it over Christmas. It would be so ironic to use a religious holiday to produce some anti-religious material. Of course, I would like to note here that Christmas isn't really a religious holiday (at least not a Christian one) because it was "stolen" by the Christians and was originally a celebration of mid winter.
I would probably organise it like an FAQ and the types of topics I might cover would include: what is atheism, why be an atheist, is atheism a religion, why do we reject god, what is science, how do we know science works, what is evolution, how do we know evolution is true, what is the Big Bang, how do we know the Big Bang is true, where does morality come from, even if its not true isn't religion still useful, etc.
If you are reading this blog and have any ideas of topics I should include, or would like to contribute anything, please email me. Please give a source for all material you use because I would like this document to be fairly scientifically rigorous.
No offense OJB, you do a good job with your blog, but with the amount of comments made, I don't think you get a lot of visitors. A wee hint: think about auto-approval of comments. The waiting for your approval is a real turn-off. Not aware of any main NZ ones that take the same approach as you on this.
As for the magazine - you go girl... I am sure you and your like won't even match the circulation of the "Watchtower", magazine of the Jehovah nutters you so refer to in this post.
And finally - you really show your jealousy towards Christianity when you get technical on the roots of Dec 25. Face it, we all take the day off in honour of Christ's birthday. Thats where we are at now. Spare the pagan borrowings, it makes no difference.
Comment 2 by OJB on 2008-01-13 at 20:03:59:
When I hosted this site on a University of Otago computer I had to be careful about what was put there. Also I got quite a lot of spam. Its now hosted on my own computer at home so I could loosen the approval system. I might try it for a while.
According to my stats system my blog has had 511,768 hits since I started it, which isn't too bad for something I don't publicise at all. You're right though - I would like more comments.
The atheist magazine is progressing, but you're right: I wouldn't expect the same circulation as Watchtower. But if I convert one person I'll be happy!
I don't know anyone who takes Dec 25th off to honour Christ. Everyone I know takes it as a day off work, an excuse to buy a lot of crappy consumer goods, or a chance to spend time with their family. Maybe the meaning has changed again: from mid winter, to Christ's imaginary birthday, to a general consumer driven holiday.
Comment 3 by SBFL on 2008-01-29 at 02:25:18:
Well you should reconsider. It is a well presented blog, relatively regularly posted to, and well written (even if I disagree with 95% of it!).
The approval waiting time is the real problem. You must lose it. Like I said before, I don't know of too many other blogs that take the same approach. It is bad because it doesn't allow other commentators to respond - and by the time you let it through, you've already had your right of reply. Woah - comes across a bit lefty regulatory to me! haha. Anyway if you want to invite debate - real debate - than lose the comment "approval" system. Also, then link your site with the others in NZ's blogoshere. Easy to do, all the main blogs have a blogroll. Won't take long before other take notice. BTW, the left of NZ blogoshoere could do with you in their midst - another number will help achieve some balance.
"But if I convert one person I'll be happy!" You sound like one of those Latter Day Saints that roam the suburbs!!
"I don't know anyone who takes Dec 25th off to honour [the birth of] Christ." Well now you do. Actually this comment concerns me about your judgement - you post so much on Christianity, yet you don't even know one practising Christian? Tut, tut.
"Everyone I know ... an excuse to buy a lot of crappy consumer goods". Ummm, in case you hadn't noticed, shops are closed on Christmas day. And I hope you don't have a problem with that - after all, that's where we conservatives, and you social democrats have an area of commonality: protecting the family (see even the unionists have one good point ;-).
Comment 4 by OJB on 2008-01-30 at 17:36:26:
You mean there is 5% you agree with! I am surprised! :)
I have started getting spam comments on this system again so I will need to eliminate those before disabling the approval system. I do check for comments at least twice a day and I don't always reply immediately, so it is a reasonable compromise until I sort out the spamming.
There's nothing wrong with people trying to convince others that there is merit in their opinions. I don't mind Mormons and Witnesses trying to convert me. The problem I have is that what they say is obviously untrue. So its the truth of the opinion, not the attempt at conversion which I dislike. In that case my wish to convert people to atheism isn't hypocritical.
Actually, after thinking about it a bit more, I have thought of a few people who might take the traditional Christian interpretation of Christmas. One is even a creationist!
Comment 5 by SBFL on 2008-01-31 at 00:27:53:
I don't know how much spam you are getting but I thought that validation number thingy got rid of (most of) that..? I don't run a blog myself, but most are operated by individuals like yourself. If they can allow immediate comment publishing, why can't yours? Limit of the Mac? (just kidding).
You don't have to reply immediately yourself, but you disallow others replying until you have (a) authorised it and (b) had your own two cents worth. Add a new dimension to your blog and allow others to get in on the debate, your blog will only be richer for it.
Re the "conversion" comment - that was light-hearted, not to be taken seriously.
Actually....I have thought of a few people who might take the traditional Christian interpretation of Christmas. Oh you are stretching yourself OJB... come on, you can break through to admitting there a is a hefty % of the population that take this view...!
Comment 6 by OJB on 2008-01-31 at 11:42:17:
I'll try to find some time to make some enhancements to the blogging system today. I wrote this system myself completely from scratch and there are a few features which could be improved. I'll make a blog entry describing the changes when they are done.
I found this data relating to the meaning of Xmas at the the Families Commission's online panel web site, www.thecouch.org.nz...
Q8: Are any of the following traditions for your family at Christmas time?
Attending a religious or spiritual service [471]
Exchanging gifts [1064]
Decorating a Christmas tree [961]
Making/filling Christmas stockings [606]
Sharing a special family meal [1036]
Kissing under mistletoe [30]
Singing Christmas carols [476]
Writing and sending Christmas cards [783]
Helping out with a charity event [170]
Contributing to food banks or giving gift items to charity organisations [513]
None of the above [5]
Our family does not have any Christmas traditions [7]
Other [62]
Attending religious services seems fairly well down the list but its still significant. Of course, the sample is self-selected so I don't know how accurate this might be.
Comment 7 by OJB on 2008-02-02 at 20:49:04:
OK, I have changed the comment system so that the authorisation is no longer needed and the comment appears instantly. I have also added a preview system. Please let me know if there are any problems.
Comment 8 by SBFL on 2008-02-11 at 23:34:44:
Thanks for the info from the Families Commission. Obviously it was a multiple tick box question. Anyway, nothing overly surprising there. However it doesn't really prove your point, because you said "I don't know anyone who takes Dec 25th off to honour Christ. and that is not an option in the questionnaire. I would suspect that even a majority of those who didn't go to a religious service, yet did say, share a special family meal, actually agree that they honoured Christ on the day. Some may even have said grace before that meal!!
Well done on adding the auto-approval and preview functions. Especially since you built the technology yourself. I had a problem when I previewed twice with the same comment. Will trial it further in case it was something thing else buggy (like hitting the wrong key on my pokey laptop keyboard). Cheers.
Comment 9 by SBFL on 2008-02-11 at 23:36:50:
Hmm, seems the preview cuts off the comment in the text box after the < i > tag after the initial time you use the preview function.
Comment 10 by OJB on 2008-02-12 at 05:17:27:
Its possible that some of the people who didn't choose the first option still honoured Christ, and its possible that some of the people who did choose the first one didn't honour him (plenty of people go to church as a habit or social duty only). The point is this is a reasonable statistic which gives us an idea of what the true number who take religion seriously might be.
BTW. Thanks for the bug report. I'll have a look at that.
Comment 11 by SBFL on 2008-02-12 at 23:17:27:
Slightly clutching at straws..I would say "Its likely that many of the people...". Why? Because it's a fact that many Christians do not attend church regularly.
So clearly the results do not indicate the number who "takes Dec 25th off to honour Christ."
This is from a purely statistical point-of-view.
Comment 12 by OJB on 2008-02-13 at 10:09:42:
We seem to be getting back to the old problem of defining what a Christian is. While my stats don't answer the question exactly in the form you require they still give a useful approximation, I think. If you can find anything better I'll take a look, apart from that playing with words lie "many" and "likely" is pure idle speculation.
Comment 13 by SBFl on 2008-02-29 at 01:49:58:
Not really. One way to determine what is a Christian is is if someone themselves believes themself to be one. Independent measurement? The census.
Comment 14 by OJB on 2008-02-29 at 11:50:59:
I disagree, but I don't think we will ever resolve this. Its the nature of belief systems which are based on fiction that they can never be made sufficiently specific to form any real conclusions.
Comment 15 by SBFL on 2008-02-29 at 23:08:38:
Hmm, so since I call myself a Christian and tick the relevant box in the census form, OJB disagrees with this as says he doesn't believe so. He doesn't recognize Christians who call themselves Christians to be Christians. Who is the dictator now? I respect your choice of belief system OJB, sorry you can't do the same of mine.
Comment 16 by OJB on 2008-03-01 at 11:26:55:
Some Christians who call themselves Christians are Christians by some definitions of the word Christian. I would point out that many fundies don't think Catholics are real Christians, for example.
Comment 17 by SBFL on 2008-03-10 at 02:57:24:
Well I don't disagree with the Christian fundamentalists because of that but rather of the inane literal view of the Bible, something you and I may have some common ground on. Though of course you have a point, as John McCains buddy 'preacher' John Hagee has so eloquently illustrated.
PS Regarding one of your other posts where you asked the question, this is an example of the abuse Catholics are subject to.
Comment 18 by SBFL on 2008-03-10 at 03:01:23:
Sorry, my link went awry. Should have been: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/02/29/politics/horserace/entry3892932.shtml
Comment 19 by OJB on 2008-03-10 at 11:46:23:
What a scary freak. That's the religious extremist - the type of person who starts campaigns of persecution and murder given the right circumstances (look at similar people in the Muslim world today).
On the other had all he's doing is calling the Catholic Church "The Great Whore". So what? I don't think anyone would take his opinions seriously. And I'm sure he's got a lot worse to say about atheists and evolutionists! I would welcome his abuse. It means we are doing the right thing!
According to your definition he's a Christian, right? You said: One way to determine what is a Christian is is if someone themselves believes themself to be one.
Comment 20 by SBFl on 2008-03-21 at 02:23:08:
"I don't think anyone would take his opinions seriously." - apparently John McCain does, and if you think that is not significant then you have "head in sand" syndrome.
"I would welcome his abuse. It means we are doing the right thing!" - point taken. Nice.
"According to your definition he's a Christian, right? - nice attempt at entrapment OJB, like it!! Well no doubt he considers himself a Christian, and ticks the box on his census form. I guess God will be the ultimate judge. Maybe God won't appreciate the comments about His church...? We are all sinners - proletariat and preachers alike!
Comment 21 by OJB on 2008-03-21 at 10:30:27:
Fair enough. I shouldn't have implied that no one would take them seriously. No doubt other religious freaks do. John McCain probably doesn't - but his support is more likely due to political expediency.
That is something we have in common: raving lunatic fundamentalists criticise atheists and Catholics with equal vehemence! We are on the same team on this one, which is a point you have made in the past: moderate religion and atheists against extreme religion. In fact many atheist activists believe this is a good approach but I think its a bit dishonest.
You see my point that its impossible to define what a Christian actually is?
Comment 22 by SBFL on 2008-03-21 at 22:56:47:
Heh - marriage of convenience, but for a good cause at least!
Well I have no doubt he considers himself one, which is the definition I am happy to accept. Whether or not he is a good one will be decided later! If there's any ambiguity then I would say we must be careful not to confuse 'Christian' the noun with 'Christian' the adjective.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE