Neat NYT article about a new kind of Christian college. The opening intro where the young uns’ insist that perfectly nice and inspirational music isn’t propagandistic enough is funny.
Biola, whose 95-acre campus is in La Mirada, 20 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles, is part of the fast-expanding movement of ‘‘Christ centered’’ colleges – schools that are not loosely affiliated with a church, like Notre Dame or Southern Methodist University, but that integrate Christianity into all aspects of the curriculum and require faculty members, and sometimes students, to sign a pledge of faith in Jesus Christ. The 102 American schools in the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (many of which, like Biola, are nondenominational) represent just 1.5 percent of the country’s total college population, but in the last decade their enrollment has increased 67 percent, compared with an average increase of just 2 percent for American colleges and universities as a whole.
Though I’ve got to wonder about the accuracy of unsourced statements like this:
Over the last 50 years, evangelical Christianity in the United States has moved away from fundamentalism, which is still dedicated to the idea of separation from an ungodly world. Evangelicals believe that the way to change culture is to participate in it, albeit with caution. Particularly in the last decade, as the movement has matured, intellectual institutions – journals, scholarly presses and advanced academic work – have quietly budded within evangelical circles. Biola’s evolution from a Bible college to an accredited liberal-arts university offering advanced degrees is just one manifestation of this change.
But then you’d have to have students and faculty sign pledges of faith in themselves. Who’s got that kind of intestinal fortitude these days? :wink:[/quote]
MBA students. Make it a business school, MS.
Oh, wait — they all worship Mammon. No good for an atheist school.
But then you’d have to have students and faculty sign pledges of faith in themselves. Who’s got that kind of intestinal fortitude these days? :wink:[/quote]
Actually, you don’t have to have faith in anything to be an atheist, at least not anything specific (such as yourself). You would just have to sign a pledge that says you won’t think about God anymore. You could still bring God up as a professor or student in order to make a point, just as you could still bring up Santa. But you couldn’t take the thought seriously or dwell on it for very long. That’s why we have rules!
My experience with Atheists is nothing like this. Usually they don’t like Christian culture and have a LOT of criticism about that culture, often involving things like “killing for your god”, sometimes involving the Christian tendency toward willful ignorance and faith (and anti-science). They seem to think about God just as often as Christians do, perhaps more (due to them being on the average more intellectual and educated).
I must admit the high degree of irony when after being regaled by all of this, I ask the Atheist what he thinks of God and he says “God does not exist”. I then ask him if he often gets so passionate over non-existant things. He doesn’t like that remark and usually doesn’t stick around for more conversation.
This is pretty much what produced my “God is a cultural element” truth. Something that affects culture is existant regardless of whether it can be found with a GPS. I wonder why Atheists have no problem “believing” in abstract concepts such as Democracy, but suddenly they need “faith” to believe in God.
So I define the Atheist not as he who believes God to be nonexistant, but rather he who believes God to be bad. The Atheistic criticism of God is in terms of God having a negative effect on humanity.
Christian speaks: God is a good idea.
Atheist speaks: God is a bad idea.
Atheists to this day remain ignorant of their nature and of the nature of God. This will give humans something to do when they wake up tomorrow.
Then you’re misusing the term. Please see our previous conversation on this topic to see how your usage doesn’t match with the general English usage.[/quote]
The general English usage on that word is ignorant, derived from ignorance of the meaning of God. It is not uncommon for new meanings of words to develop over time.
Then you’re misusing the term. Please see our previous conversation on this topic to see how your usage doesn’t match with the general English usage.[/quote]
The general English usage on that word is ignorant, derived from ignorance of the meaning of God. It is not uncommon for new meanings of words to develop over time.[/quote]
Peanut teakettle Panzer switchback barbecue?
(Everybody else: I just asked Koontz how old he was when his brain chemistry went out of whack.)
Beautiful… a man completely ignorant of etymology is calling the general usage of the word ignorant.
Brian, atheist comes from Greek… “a” means “without” and “theist” means “God”, hence “without God” is the correct and well-informed usage of the word. If you want a word that means “against God”, then the word you’re looking for is something like “anti-theist”, or possibly “theophobe”.
Then you’re misusing the term. Please see our previous conversation on this topic to see how your usage doesn’t match with the general English usage.[/quote]
The general English usage on that word is ignorant, derived from ignorance of the meaning of God. It is not uncommon for new meanings of words to develop over time.[/quote]
When in doubt… :roll:
Then you’re misusing the term. Please see our previous conversation on this topic to see how your usage doesn’t match with the general English usage.[/quote]
The general English usage on that word is ignorant, derived from ignorance of the meaning of God. It is not uncommon for new meanings of words to develop over time.[/quote]
I think you have a somewhat valid point Brian, and I’ve certainly encountered the word being used in the sense you describe, but not in the majority of cases. Perhaps given time that could become the main definition of atheism but right now I don’t think it is.
Ok, I have decided to translate the issue brought up from Sphinxian Koontztacular Form into english.
Basically, his argument procedes thus:
Athiests claim they do not believe in God.
God is a social construct, not a literal entity. (And thus exists)
Athiests claim that God/Religion causes many world problems.
THEREFORE:
Self-proclaimed athiests who dislike religion/God actually believe in God (as a social construct), because they see it as harmful (and it is undeniable that the social construct “religion/God” exists).
WHICH LEADS TO:
Given that athiests believe in the social construct “religion/God”, we should redefine “athiest”, as used by athiests who are angry at God, to mean “those who dislike religion/God”.
In rebuttal:
The idea of redefining a word does not have the same effect as accurate description. For example, “goth” does not accurately describe the truth of the goth movement. We should not redefine goth, but instead call it by its true name, such as “People with low self esteem who use a “scary” appearance to shock “conventional people” but instead look more or less like total fucktards who should be beaten unmercifully about the head and torso with a large wooden dowel”.
