Ash Wednesday

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

padraic But the atheist in me views religion as a primitive form of thought and beliefs based on ignorance of the world around us and the sciences.

I understand, a bit. However,I'm unable to accept your views are result of your atheism.With respect,they are not.Atheism does not infer any belief or ideology,it's merely the absence of a belief in god(s).

The anthropologist in ME views such perceptions of religion as ignorant and simplistic. No offence. I guess we need to agree to differ.

[chatpilot]

padriac as an atheist my not believing in God or gods should have some reason behind it.It's true that we all come to different reasons for not believing in god which are influenced by our own personal experiences etc.I dont consider my views as some sort of ideology its just my way of thinking yours is evidently very different.Besides what is wrong with simplicity?I dont see it as simple but instead I see my views as practical and realistic.No offense taken I am fine with agreeing to disagree.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

padriac as an atheist my not believing in God or gods should have some reason behind it.

I have no problem agreeing to disagree.We each presented an opinion based on personal experience and world view. The way I see it is neither of us has claimed to be right in any absolute sense.

I hope I'm always open minded enough to concede the possibility of error--and to remain true to the spirit of scepticism.

[chatpilot]

I am of the opinion padriac that sometimes that anthropology and those involved in religious studies tend to over complicate the issue of the existence of Jesus just to name one example.There are many examples of this but when you look at something like Greek mythology it is evident that religion in general was just derived out of mans ignorance about the world around him.Religion in general is a search for origins and our so called place in the universe.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

[quote='chatpilot' pid='11596' dateline='1236697731']
I am of the opinion padriac that sometimes that anthropology and those involved in religious studies tend to over complicate the issue of the existence of Jesus just to name one example.
quote]


The existence of Jesus is not a topic which would properly be considered by anthropologists.It's irrelevant. One of my anthropology professors defined anthropology as "the study of meaning". Beliefs are examined for their meaning,especially in context. The question of the truth of such beliefs has not been considered since James Frazer (The Golden Bough Published 1890)

There is no such thing as an ancient historian as we understand the term. History as a discipline did not exist before Edward Gibbon in the C17th. Ancient historical accounts tend to polemics and propaganda with little regard for fact and may not reasonably be accepted a prime sources. EG Josephus was a Roman apologist,everything he wrote needs to be "sifted", as does anything written by Julius Caesar who umm "exaggerated" (Caesar "invented" the Germans,a small tribe,as a major threat to Rome for for personal political ends)

In my opinion you seem be conflating scholarly method and thoroughness with being over complicated. Just a wild guess,but I would I be right in thinking you might not not have actually read a lot of history and virtually no anthropology? (the C19th notion of anthropology is a bit of a hint)




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Bough


It's in two volumes,and really boring. I've only been able to wade through part of the abridged version, which is still 1000 pages.

[chatpilot]

Wrong guess I have read The golden bough and several books on history.That was the first thing I did when I left the church.Church history is rife with false history the so called holy bible is the prime example of this.Theology,philosophy and all the so called studies of ancient history especially when trying to find origins to religious beliefs and such are all over complicated systems of thought.Almost in all religious systems that believe in a God or gods it is evident that god is their own creation.All of the so called qualities of these gods are personified and are mere reflections of man.

Especially in Judaism and Christianity where God has all of the exact same emotions and personalities of man both negative and positive.I may be mistaken but you seem like you have been brain washed by one or more of our so called many institutions of higher learning.The study of religion and god is actually a very simple matter when viewed objectively and not being biased and trying to read meaning into something so obvious.Man created god or gods in his own image not the other way around.This my friend padraic is obvious and actually the so called study of theology in my view isn't a valid system of learning since it is nothing more than the study of god and trying to understand him,it or her.Using a myth as your starting point and then building upon that myth to perpetuate it does not make that myth true.

[Edwardo Piet]

The whole Ash thing may be totally bizarre...and I haven't ever heard of it before...I think its really weird.....

BUT: A lot of religion (or most of it) is totally mental so I'm not THAT surpirsed LOL

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

@chatpilot.

I obviously did not make a wrong guess.

Buying "a few books" on history dos not equate to having read a lot of history. A few books on the same period is usually considered a good start.

If you've read only "The Golden Bough" you've read virtually no anthropology.

I was reading Aquinas at 16,and also have little respect for theology. I don't consider it real philosophy because it's presuppositional. This view is not the consensus amongst philosophers.


"False history" is correct I think from several perspectives:

There is no such thing as ancient history in the sense we use the word. All ancient records of people and events are false to some degree.BUT so are most modern historical accounts,it's a matter of degree,from extreme to petty. History deals in probabilities when discussing the "how" and the "why". Ancient sources tend to be also problematic about the "what"

The church uses false history in several ways: By presenting [carefully chosen*] myth as fact,by suppressing dissenting views and by deliberate falsification.


*EG The books of the Catholic Canon canon used today were largely the choices of one man,Athanasius of Alexandria ,and ratified by the First Council of Nicea in 325 CE. Many more books,collectively called "apochrypha" were omitted .


Accusing me of being brain washed because my opinion differs from yours is a ad hominem attack. My tit for tat response is that your posts use the kind of argument from ignorance common amongst autodidacts..

That's all I have to say.

[infidel666]

I'd never seen it before. I told my coworker she had a smudge on her forehead.

Nice, was she offended?

She just nicely explained to me what it was for.

I have often thought I have the right to a workplace devoid of religion. It always makes me uncomfortable when people try to sell their church raffle tickets and such, almost like asking coworkers their beliefs. That's not appropriate is it? Organized wearing of clothing and other symbols of religion like that seems designed to out those who aren't "saved" so the witchburning can start.

[leo-rcc]

I have often thought I have the right to a workplace devoid of religion.

It doesn't bother me really. Everyone in the office I work knows what I think of religion and I know where they stand as well. Live and let live.