One God versus many

[Anomalocaris]

The reason why quantum mechanics is hard to understand is there is actually a real, measurable, but highly counterintuitive thing there to be understood. 

The reason why religion is hard to understand is there is nothing whatsoever to understand, but whole lot of committed bullshitters make muturally conflicting crap up as they go, shout at you to follow their bullshit of the day, while making outlandish promises of rewards if you do, vile and not always vailed threats if you don’t.

equating quantum mechanics’ difficulties to understand with the “difficulties” of understanding religion is like equating the difficulties in reading great work of literature in a complex writting system in which you are not tutored, with the difficulties in reading shakespearean meaning into a crayon scratches of extremely overindulged 3 year old who claims what he scratched was the greatest of all literature.

Bollocks once again.

The raison d'etre of Social Anthropology is to understand what cultural practices, including myths and religion, mean to believers. 

The approach you're using is known as 'the quaint custom' method usually used by we the people. Pretty much invented by James Frazer  in the nineteenth  century. His 2 volume book, 'The Golden Bough' was first published in 1890. For reasons passing all understanding, it remains in print. Yes, I've read it, or at least a great chunk of the abridged version.

To simply simply dismiss an argument or a person's beliefs as nonsense is an ad hominem fallacy, simplistic and intellectually lazy imo.

I think I need to agree to differ.

---

Bollocks once again.

The raison d'etre of Social Anthropology is to understand what cultural practices, including myths and religion, mean to believers. 

The approach you're using is known as 'the quaint custom' method usually used by we the people. Pretty much invented by James Frazer  in the nineteenth  century. His 2 volume book, 'The Golden Bough' was first published in 1890. For reasons passing all understanding, it remains in print. Yes, I've read it, or at least a great chunk of the abridged version.

To simply simply dismiss an argument or a person's beliefs as nonsense is an ad hominem fallacy, simplistic and intellectually lazy imo.

We're talking at different levels. I think I need to agree to differ.

indeed we are talking at different levels.

You seem to be talking at the level of why believers believe should obscure whether the belief is well founded.   Apparently the idea is If the reason for belief seems pleasing enough, falsity doesn’t matter.

I talking at the level of whether the belief is well founded, then, or now.

Why those people who did not care to verify their own claims but yet may really have believed their own claims to be true could be worthy subjects of social anthropology.    

Why those people who did not care to verify their own claims but may yet insist others believe their claims could be worthy subject of social anthropoplgy.

But first things first.  Did those belief arise out of well founded observation and reasoning then, and do they constitute to exert influence now because their foundation is still sound. 

And no, getting to the core of the problem is not intellectually lazy.   Rather letting supposition about the why obscure what actually is, is intellectually self-delusional.