Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
See it does not matter when religion started as most people are still too wicked for the taste of God, where God has to fix people who do come to him and have their souls repaired for heaven
Some "weirdo" Christians (LOL) that I know and appreciate reject much of the Bible (i.e. the Old Testament, everything in the NT outside of the Gospels and Acts). So all of that could be "wrong", but there still be no issue. They/we could be considered purists, only endorsing the teachings of Jesus specifically. Otherwise, it's a mishmash clash of opposing Christian vs. Jewish teachings, combined with Revelation oddball stuff, and Paul's ramblings, which ends up a stumbling mess. Just because some folks - representing "the church" - decided to lump it all together is no excuse.
Last edited by Thoreau424; 11-25-2020 at 09:16 AM..
Some "weirdo" Christians (LOL) that I know and appreciate reject much of the Bible (i.e. the Old Testament, everything in the NT outside of the Gospels and Acts). So all of that could be "wrong", but there still be no issue. They/we could be considered purists, only endorsing the teachings of Jesus specifically. Otherwise, it's a mishmash clash of opposing Christian vs. Jewish teachings, combined with Revelation oddball stuff, and Paul's ramblings, which ends up a stumbling mess.
Here's the problem with a bible (or any other religious document) that is (let's use the term) 'quite a bit wrong'. I'll give the example of the school principal (me) who's investigating a disciplinary incident and as he interviews the student already has the facts based on numerous witnesses that were already interviewed. And the boy or girl sits there and lies, lies, lies...and then, when presented with the actual facts already established, suddenly wants to start telling his or her 'truth'...and expects to be believed. We also see that happen with witnesses and defendants in courtrooms. Once you discover that a significant part of a story is just a story, it brings into serious question everything else.
^ That's fine and understandable, but those I know only use the select scriptures as a rudimentary starting point. The rest is active meditation and observation (especially the latter). And only in that is the "circle" complete, understood, and approved. The writings are never taken solely and completely for that; i.e. used as proof. That'd just be religion, and would be pathetically weak. Jesus likewise didn't tell people to read scrolls, or depend on them for proof or understanding. And he exposed and confronted those into legalism and lost in religious written rules, such as the Pharisees.
This probably the biggest misunderstanding for those 'outside looking in' on this, so to speak.
Last edited by Thoreau424; 11-25-2020 at 09:57 AM..
The article is obviously pseudo-science (assuming you define anthropology as a science at all). (I'm not impugning the scholarship of the authors of the article. They are all - especially Harvey Whitehouse - noted academics in the branch of anthropology that seeks to explain religion in cultural terms. Some or all acknowledge they are atheists, although they've been highly critical of the simple-mindedness of the so-called New Atheist movement.)
We build a database (that sounds scientific!) of contributions from "more than 100 scholars" (that sounds scientific!) regarding "hundreds of variables relating to social complexity, religion, warfare, agriculture and other features of human culture and society that vary over time and space" (that sounds scientific!) and perform a "statistical analysis" (ooh, very scientific!) of "51 measures of social complexity and four measures of supernatural enforcement of moral norms" (oh, my God, scientific orgasm!) in an effort to establish how and why "moralizing religions" arose. (The term Big Gods is commonly used in this type of anthropology.)
We then close our confident pronouncements with the classic disclaimer that even if our work really can't establish anything definitive (as it obviously can't) "it could provide a more reliable way of estimating the probabilities of different futures." Estimating probabilities, as you fans of Bayes' Theorem well know, is extremely sorta kinda scientific!
Notions of divinity, morality and immortality are curiously ubiquitous throughout human history, dating to the most primitive of cultures. This surely is the overarching anthropological reality. We have no real idea why this is so, and we never will. But it is curious.
Oh, we hope our database may be useful in predicting what "declining belief in such deities" might "mean for the future of societies today." Could it "contribute to the unravelling of efforts to cooperate regionally – such as the European Union?" Oh, the horror!
The problem is, there is no such declining belief and never will be. This is an atheist fantasy. See https://www.theguardian.com/news/201...t-happens-next. The other problem, of course, is that historical anthropology is absolutely the softest, most speculative, whatever-you-want-to-hear species of "science." The scientific trappings of databases, variables, norms, measures, statistical analyses and probabilities don't alter this reality.
The peace that surpasses understanding. That is why people don't like Christians.
I don't dislike Christians. I dislike that some Christians try to convert people or convince them they are facing wrath and judgment if they don't believe like they themselves do. I have a lot more peace today than I did all the decades I was a devout Christian.
I don't dislike Christians. I dislike that some Christians try to convert people or convince them they are facing wrath and judgment if they don't believe like they themselves do. I have a lot more peace today than I did all the decades I was a devout Christian.
I dont even know how you believed when you were a Christian.
one thing this place has taught me ... what good parents I had.
I dont even know how you believed when you were a Christian.
one thing this place has taught me ... what good parents I had.
I don't know where I got the fanaticism. My parents, especially my mama, were good people and not really religious at all. We had a bible in our house, but we didn't talk about religion much. As a matter of fact, my mama would take me to church and pick me up because I felt this impetus to go, even as a young child. When I started really getting fanatical in my mid-teens I remember her picking me up from church one day and me telling her that I had to start reading my bible all the time. She looked at me and said, "be careful, too much religion can make you crazy." LOL. I wish I'd listened then. I could have saved a lot of heartache for myself.
The article is obviously pseudo-science (assuming you define anthropology as a science at all). (I'm not impugning the scholarship of the authors of the article. They are all - especially Harvey Whitehouse - noted academics in the branch of anthropology that seeks to explain religion in cultural terms. Some or all acknowledge they are atheists, although they've been highly critical of the simple-mindedness of the so-called New Atheist movement.)
We build a database (that sounds scientific!) of contributions from "more than 100 scholars" (that sounds scientific!) regarding "hundreds of variables relating to social complexity, religion, warfare, agriculture and other features of human culture and society that vary over time and space" (that sounds scientific!) and perform a "statistical analysis" (ooh, very scientific!) of "51 measures of social complexity and four measures of supernatural enforcement of moral norms" (oh, my God, scientific orgasm!) in an effort to establish how and why "moralizing religions" arose. (The term Big Gods is commonly used in this type of anthropology.)
And here we have Irkle's methodology on display. No actual rebuttal of the project, just more hyperbole and opinions, pretending a credible project collecting as much of the data as possible to find new information is pseudo-science while pretending the pseudo-science of creationism, sorry, ID, has support of very many very intelligent people.
Seriously, "ooohs". Very rational.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
We then close our confident pronouncements with the classic disclaimer that even if our work really can't establish anything definitive (as it obviously can't) "it could provide a more reliable way of estimating the probabilities of different futures." Estimating probabilities, as you fans of Bayes' Theorem well know, is extremely sorta kinda scientific!
More hyperbole and misrepresentation. Bayes is a very valid tool. Deal with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
Notions of divinity, morality and immortality are curiously ubiquitous throughout human history, dating to the most primitive of cultures. This surely is the overarching anthropological reality. We have no real idea why this is so, and we never will. But it is curious.
Your ability to know the future while being ignorant of the science providing evidence for why we believe is amusing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
Oh, we hope our database may be useful in predicting what "declining belief in such deities" might "mean for the future of societies today." Could it "contribute to the unravelling of efforts to cooperate regionally – such as the European Union?" Oh, the horror!
The problem is, there is no such declining belief and never will be. This is an atheist fantasy. See https://www.theguardian.com/news/201...t-happens-next. The other problem, of course, is that historical anthropology is absolutely the softest, most speculative, whatever-you-want-to-hear species of "science." The scientific trappings of databases, variables, norms, measures, statistical analyses and probabilities don't alter this reality.
No one is arguing anthropology is a hard science. But should a creationist be attacking even the soft science?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
