Comments on: Illuminated History http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/04/illuminated-history.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Sat, 11 Oct 2008 06:52:51 +0000 By: Doug http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/04/illuminated-history.html#comment-23642 Doug Sat, 05 May 2007 17:22:56 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/04/illuminated-history.html#comment-23642 "Or far harder, as the mass of sources to shift through becomes ever greater, to actually put together a coherent picture of what was going in…" Can you imagine what Google will be able to do in 200 years? I'm only half joking... "Or far harder, as the mass of sources to shift through becomes ever greater, to actually put together a coherent picture of what was going in…"

Can you imagine what Google will be able to do in 200 years? I'm only half joking...

]]> By: Polly http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/04/illuminated-history.html#comment-23327 Polly Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:40:37 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/04/illuminated-history.html#comment-23327 Funny, I read <i>Mere Christianity</i> for the first time mere weeks before I became an atheist. Though I had already been a true believer all my life, I found the arguments flawed and superficial. The internet helped me greatly in that the variety of perspectives I found from reading other posters' comments on a Bible blog spurred me on to research the Bible's history myself. (<u>talkorigins</u> also opened my eyes to the foolishness of YEC)The net brought me into contact with a much broader spectrum of people who didn't think like me and knew things about MY holy book that I didn't know. I always had a strong, but narrow, knowledge base - I knew the Bible backward and forward. But, I never learned ABOUT the Bible until others forced the question to the forefront of my mind. The net puts people in contact with people all over the world and from all different cultures, albeit as I mentioned above, a more educated segment of those cultures. Unlike TV, arguments are given full expression in long essays and the ability to quickly insert references to supporting sources. Funny, I read Mere Christianity for the first time mere weeks before I became an atheist. Though I had already been a true believer all my life, I found the arguments flawed and superficial.
The internet helped me greatly in that the variety of perspectives I found from reading other posters' comments on a Bible blog spurred me on to research the Bible's history myself. (talkorigins also opened my eyes to the foolishness of YEC)The net brought me into contact with a much broader spectrum of people who didn't think like me and knew things about MY holy book that I didn't know. I always had a strong, but narrow, knowledge base - I knew the Bible backward and forward. But, I never learned ABOUT the Bible until others forced the question to the forefront of my mind.
The net puts people in contact with people all over the world and from all different cultures, albeit as I mentioned above, a more educated segment of those cultures. Unlike TV, arguments are given full expression in long essays and the ability to quickly insert references to supporting sources.

]]> By: jpok http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/04/illuminated-history.html#comment-23321 jpok Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:11:17 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/04/illuminated-history.html#comment-23321 I suspect the internet will do more damage to religion than anything else could. Religion feeds on sequestering its followers so that they never think about opposing viewpoints. To be sure, the loonies can certainly use the internet to get their message out (yesterday I watched a video of a man trying to prove that the flood in Genesis caused the Grand Canyon, and that dinosaurs existed a few thousand years ago) but the vast majority of people will recognize who's full of shit and who isn't, when exposed to both. My father converted to Christianity in the 60's when he was 15, and somehow remains one today. He read Mere Christianity and was really impressed by it. I can't imagine that happening were he 15 in the year 2007, with instantaneous access to opinions and commentary that easily shred Lewis' weak points to bits. I suspect the internet will do more damage to religion than anything else could. Religion feeds on sequestering its followers so that they never think about opposing viewpoints. To be sure, the loonies can certainly use the internet to get their message out (yesterday I watched a video of a man trying to prove that the flood in Genesis caused the Grand Canyon, and that dinosaurs existed a few thousand years ago) but the vast majority of people will recognize who's full of shit and who isn't, when exposed to both.
My father converted to Christianity in the 60's when he was 15, and somehow remains one today. He read Mere Christianity and was really impressed by it. I can't imagine that happening were he 15 in the year 2007, with instantaneous access to opinions and commentary that easily shred Lewis' weak points to bits.

]]> By: Halakhic Woman http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/04/illuminated-history.html#comment-23260 Halakhic Woman Sun, 29 Apr 2007 03:32:51 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/04/illuminated-history.html#comment-23260 I lay awake at night worrying about this very problem. It would be good to try and save all this information somehow (or print it! haha), but it may easily disappear and our society may be as forgotten as the pre-ancients you describe--and we will never know about it. I lay awake at night worrying about this very problem. It would be good to try and save all this information somehow (or print it! haha), but it may easily disappear and our society may be as forgotten as the pre-ancients you describe--and we will never know about it.

]]> By: Ric http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/04/illuminated-history.html#comment-23256 Ric Sat, 28 Apr 2007 14:18:55 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/04/illuminated-history.html#comment-23256 Ebon, your task is clear, then: start printing out the internet. I'll help you. You start on the west side and I'll start on the east side. :) Ebon, your task is clear, then: start printing out the internet. I'll help you. You start on the west side and I'll start on the east side. :)

]]> By: tobe38 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/04/illuminated-history.html#comment-23244 tobe38 Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:13:44 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/04/illuminated-history.html#comment-23244 Dominic Self said: <blockquote>Or far harder, as the mass of sources to shift through becomes ever greater, to actually put together a coherent picture of what was going in…</blockquote> I see what you're saying, but I think any historian worth his salt would rather be spoilt for choice on sources than not have any, or very few. Can you imagine what we would know about ancient civilisations from thousands of years ago, if we had access to hundreds of thousands of written journals? What historian today would turn down that opportunity on the grounds you've suggested? Dominic Self said:

Or far harder, as the mass of sources to shift through becomes ever greater, to actually put together a coherent picture of what was going in…

I see what you're saying, but I think any historian worth his salt would rather be spoilt for choice on sources than not have any, or very few. Can you imagine what we would know about ancient civilisations from thousands of years ago, if we had access to hundreds of thousands of written journals? What historian today would turn down that opportunity on the grounds you've suggested?

]]> By: Polly http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/04/illuminated-history.html#comment-23241 Polly Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:52:12 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/04/illuminated-history.html#comment-23241 <blockquote>made up not of societal elites but of ordinary people, discussing their views on the issues of the day.</blockquote> I agree in principle and in another decade this will probably be the case. Certainly, media has been further democratized by the net, no doubt about it. But, for now, I think bloggers and members of the internet community as a whole, including consumers of e-information are a self-selecting group of above-average educated citizens with other attendant demographic similarities. If you're reading this, chances are you've been to a Starbucks recently, or have used a word with an umlaut. :) I've been thinking about this a lot recently. Why is it virtually everyone on the net not only seems to know English no matter what country they're from, BUT they write it really well, better than a lot of my fellow countrymen? I'm struck by the rally of coherent arguments and comments back and forth. There really is a <i>relative</i> dearth of stupidity on the net. There are loons and nuts, of course, but very few inarticulate blatherers. The medium itself kind of pre-qualifies entrants by setting the bar at some minimum level of technical sophistication and the ability to express one's self non-verbally. In short: For now, I doubt that the net is representative of the general populace, probably a minority. Anyone with the requisite knowledge of a script can pick up an ostracon (pottery fragment used before paper) and read it. In the future, they will need the same equipment, or backward compatibility going centuries, in order to peer into our archives. The legacy of our civilization hangs on ASCII!

made up not of societal elites but of ordinary people, discussing their views on the issues of the day.

I agree in principle and in another decade this will probably be the case. Certainly, media has been further democratized by the net, no doubt about it. But, for now, I think bloggers and members of the internet community as a whole, including consumers of e-information are a self-selecting group of above-average educated citizens with other attendant demographic similarities. If you're reading this, chances are you've been to a Starbucks recently, or have used a word with an umlaut. :)

I've been thinking about this a lot recently. Why is it virtually everyone on the net not only seems to know English no matter what country they're from, BUT they write it really well, better than a lot of my fellow countrymen? I'm struck by the rally of coherent arguments and comments back and forth. There really is a relative dearth of stupidity on the net. There are loons and nuts, of course, but very few inarticulate blatherers. The medium itself kind of pre-qualifies entrants by setting the bar at some minimum level of technical sophistication and the ability to express one's self non-verbally.

In short: For now, I doubt that the net is representative of the general populace, probably a minority.

Anyone with the requisite knowledge of a script can pick up an ostracon (pottery fragment used before paper) and read it. In the future, they will need the same equipment, or backward compatibility going centuries, in order to peer into our archives. The legacy of our civilization hangs on ASCII!

]]> By: Dominic Self http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/04/illuminated-history.html#comment-23239 Dominic Self Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:37:41 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/04/illuminated-history.html#comment-23239 "And as our ability to search and catalogue this information only grows, future historians will find it far easier to study." Or far <i>harder</i>, as the mass of sources to shift through becomes ever greater, to actually put together a coherent picture of what was going in... "And as our ability to search and catalogue this information only grows, future historians will find it far easier to study."

Or far harder, as the mass of sources to shift through becomes ever greater, to actually put together a coherent picture of what was going in...

]]>