RE: Is the generally accepted version of history a faith based religion?
March 15, 2017 at 5:40 am
(March 15, 2017 at 3:19 am)trustyoursources Wrote:(March 15, 2017 at 2:46 am)Aroura Wrote: Generally accepted history has many flaws, but there is usually some evidence for it. It can be refuted, changed or updated if challenged, it isn't fixed dogma.
There is absolutely nothing religious about history.
Does it fit the definition of "faith based"? No.
Does it fit the definition of "Religion"? No.
Easy, the answer is no.
I disagree we have no way to witness anything other then my own experiances its our faith in "historians" and "experts" and "text books" ask clergy and religious text of government approved story on who we are and what we came from... so yeah religion, a godless socialist religion.
(March 15, 2017 at 3:11 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: History is not faith-based, to the working historian.
Yeah because to make it so far as to be recognized as a "historian" by the main stream our nations liberal universities made sure he stays in lock step and doesnt get to far off the official story. You gather to listen to your history teachers aka clergy and read you history books and articles aka religious text and worship your favorite historic characters aka idols. History is a scam.
A hypothesis that cannot be falsified is essentially a bald claim bereft of support. Especially when one can conduct one's own research into historical events, and especially when one considers the multiplicity of views espoused by historians on a wide variety of events. At that point, it is not faith; it is evidence and reasoned argumentation.
And finally, even if your claim about history were true, what is it that would exempt your own view of it from the claim you yourself lay?
