[split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-01-2014, 02:28 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(02-01-2014 01:00 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  Maklelan,
You appear to be quite knowledgable, but that is just it, I get the "appearance" from a quick read of your posts. You however do not offer up much of this understanding that you wish to provide in these forums. The elloquent use of intellectual word salad tossed about at other posters do nothing for my understanding behind the "what" and "why" of your views.

IMO - you do come across as a bit pompus

*pompous Smartass

(02-01-2014 01:00 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  and seem to think everyone else should be a schooled theologin or shut up.

When they're trying to talk down to religion as a whole, yes, they ought to know what they're talking about or just keep their mouths shut. Wouldn't you agree that people with no background in physics shouldn't spend all their time on the internet harping about how stupid M-theory is?

(02-01-2014 01:00 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  It does not take a scholar to desire some evidence or valid explanations supporting any supernatural ideology.

I don't really see that here. I see somewhat uninformed declarations and judgments being passed around, with any corrections or calls for more informed and measured assessments answered with condescension and derision (for the most part). I'm going to speak primarily in generalities with my comments, as no one here wants a book written for every post, and if I link endlessly to more research it's largely going to go ignored anyway. If you want clarification, point to specific things you'd like clarified or backed up, and if I have the time, I'll try to accommodate.

(02-01-2014 01:00 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  Please give this community something to help us understand, rather than responding to posts with your sophisticated dialouge. And please avoid the word "rhetoric" as you seem to be obsessed with this word, and like to here yourself talk - this coming from the King of rehtoric.

What would you like to better understand?

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes maklelan's post
02-01-2014, 02:37 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(02-01-2014 02:26 PM)anonymous66 Wrote:  They are definitely in the minority. But, that in and of itself doesn't make them wrong.

I didn't say that necessarily made them wrong. It's their arguments that make them wrong.

(02-01-2014 02:26 PM)anonymous66 Wrote:  and they are respected scholars.

In certain capacities. Carrier does fine work in Classics.

(02-01-2014 02:26 PM)anonymous66 Wrote:  your statement "There are far, far more erudite and insightful contributions being made by others" is merely an assertion.

I already pointed to several authors that I suggested be consulted for more information on the psychology and history of religion. You may consult those scholars and see how frequently they promote the work of the mythicist crowd.

(02-01-2014 02:26 PM)anonymous66 Wrote:  But, I would like to read more about the history of religions from a variety of sources.

Boyer, Tremlin, Bellah, Guthrie, and Midgley (more on science as religion) are some of the best when it comes to the broad philosophy and psychology of religion. On the history of religion, you're getting into a place where the analysis is best done on specific religions. Armstrong is a decent popular place to start on Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes maklelan's post
02-01-2014, 02:41 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(02-01-2014 01:15 PM)Stevil Wrote:  There is not even one provided piece of positive evidence for any god.

I never claimed otherwise.

(02-01-2014 01:15 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Gods are generally deemed to be supernatural thus unobservable. Thus any "evidence" always falls into the GOTG.

This characterizes a very small portion of the theological worldviews of the world's contemporary religions.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2014, 02:45 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(02-01-2014 02:22 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  I don't think there is much debate that Scientology is a cult.

There is, however, much debate about the word "cult," and whether it has any value to academic language and assessment. These days it is generally only used by sectarians and people just trying to belittle religions they don't like.

(02-01-2014 02:22 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  LDS may have moved on but they still act a bit cultish from time to time. My opinion is that the reason we can point out all the flaws in Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard is they lived in a time that saw their actions reliably recorded. If we had the same for Jesus or Muhammad (provided either actually existed) I think we would have a much different discussion.

Perhaps.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2014, 02:54 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(02-01-2014 02:26 PM)anonymous66 Wrote:  
(02-01-2014 02:16 PM)maklelan Wrote:  I'm saying that mythicists don't really characterize "more scholarly approach to the history of religions," as you originally suggested. There are far, far more erudite and insightful contributions being made by others. Mythicists are basically fringe scholars of religion.

They are definitely in the minority. But, that in and of itself doesn't make them wrong. and they are respected scholars.

your statement "There are far, far more erudite and insightful contributions being made by others" is merely an assertion.

But, I would like to read more about the history of religions from a variety of sources.

You might like Dr. Robert N. Bellah's "Religion in Human Evolution ... from the Paleolithic to the Axial age", (he's a pretty..actually VERY famous sociologist from U of Cali..Berkley), or one of the people mentioned above, Thomas Verenna's things : http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Verenna

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2014, 02:58 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(02-01-2014 02:45 PM)maklelan Wrote:  
(02-01-2014 02:22 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  I don't think there is much debate that Scientology is a cult.

There is, however, much debate about the word "cult," and whether it has any value to academic language and assessment. These days it is generally only used by sectarians and people just trying to belittle religions they don't like.

(02-01-2014 02:22 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  LDS may have moved on but they still act a bit cultish from time to time. My opinion is that the reason we can point out all the flaws in Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard is they lived in a time that saw their actions reliably recorded. If we had the same for Jesus or Muhammad (provided either actually existed) I think we would have a much different discussion.

Perhaps.

I get what you are saying but when there is the level of control and brainwashing that goes on sometimes the word Cult is applicable. Having families completely shun children because they leave the faith is cult activity and it has real world consequences. There are some people here that have had that happen and it is traumatic.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
02-01-2014, 03:06 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(02-01-2014 01:22 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(02-01-2014 01:18 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  Mak, just read the quoted post twice. That is, if you want my two cents.

You agree with that bs? Dodgy

No. My (poor?) attempt at humour. This isn't the first time I've met Mak. The first time I referred to him as pompous, and he handed me my ass with a pretty bow on top.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2014, 03:12 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(02-01-2014 02:58 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  I get what you are saying but when there is the level of control and brainwashing that goes on sometimes the word Cult is applicable. Having families completely shun children because they leave the faith is cult activity and it has real world consequences. There are some people here that have had that happen and it is traumatic.

Exactly - just because the word may not be liked, or sometimes comes with a negative message does not preclude the definifition. Whether there are 10, 100, or 1,000,000 followers - if it walks like a cult...

Intellectually dishonest to not link said churches to what is considered cult behavior.

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2014, 03:14 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(02-01-2014 02:58 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  I get what you are saying but when there is the level of control and brainwashing that goes on sometimes the word Cult is applicable.

I appreciate you taking the time to flesh out your position with me here, and I feel bad that I keep coming back with objections, but I've got another one here. Control is one thing, but the entire notion of brainwashing was dismissed by psychologists back in the early 90s when the anti-cult and counter-cult movements finally ran up against actual science and lost their legitimation. You'll notice if you take a look at scholarship on "cults" and "brainwashing" that there aren't really any legitimate publications in academic journals after around 1995. That's when the medical and scientific community finally figured out that the "cult" rhetoric was being propped up by shoddy science executed by the same anti- and counter-cultists.

(02-01-2014 02:58 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Having families completely shun children because they leave the faith is cult activity and it has real world consequences. There are some people here that have had that happen and it is traumatic.

I agree with that, and I vehemently, vehemently oppose any such behavior. I have run across that on occasion within the LDS communities I've been a part of, but I can guarantee it's in complete and direct violation of the standards and values taught by the central church and its hierarchy. Sometimes religious rhetoric can be misconstrued and blown out of proportion, often because of rhetoric is unthinking and insensitive, and I strongly oppose such rhetoric.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2014, 03:21 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(02-01-2014 03:06 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  No. My (poor?) attempt at humour. This isn't the first time I've met Mak. The first time I referred to him as pompous, and he handed me my ass with a pretty bow on top.

Hey, I can't let people get away with pointing out my character flaws. Dodgy

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: