1 of 3
1
History of religion
Posted: 22 April 2007 09:45 PM   [ Ignore ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  52
Joined  2007-02-21

It’s probably been posted here before
http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/history-of-religion.html

 Signature 

Seeking truth is a never ending search for possibilities.
Finding truth is an end to that search.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2007 09:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  52
Joined  2007-02-21

History of religion

It’s probably been posted here before
http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/history-of-religion.html

 Signature 

Seeking truth is a never ending search for possibilities.
Finding truth is an end to that search.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2007 02:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  508
Joined  2006-04-18

It is a bit simple, ignoring the many and potent religions which occurred during their time line. I’d also like to see data that supports the video.

But maybe I’m too skeptical.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2007 02:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14

Yes, for sure it’s oversimplified. Well to note that.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2007 05:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7506
Joined  2007-03-02

That’s what I was thinking too.  While I don’t disagree that a majority of people in this world are Christians, there are other religions than what they listed and it I think if they included those the map might look a wee bit different.  Not by much though.  What is it with Christianity that it seems to be so popular?

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2007 06:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14
[quote author=“Mriana”]What is it with Christianity that it seems to be so popular?

Well, I think it’s a line of historical accidents, most specifically that it was the christians who colonized the new world.

(For more about the roots of european power, a great source is Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs and Steel).

Of course, it also doesn’t distinguish between Eastern Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Protestantism ... while these are nominally the same religion, they really are quite different. Same is true for different strains of Islam, Buddhism, etc.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2007 06:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4052
Joined  2006-11-28

What is it with Christianity that it seems to be so popular?

Ahh, now there’s a great question. I’m sure there are a hundred valid partial answers. I think one key compnent is the flexibility of Christianity to be whatever a particular “audience” wants it to be. I grew up among left-wing Catholics who saw the whole message of their faith as being about social justice, service to others, etc. I was stunned the first time I met a right-wing libertarian Catholic who saw his faith as supporting exactly the opposite set of ideals. Christianity has appropriated indigenous practices effectively wherever it has gone, and its holy text has so many ambiguities and contradictions (as Chris recently illustrated with his link to the skeptic annotated bible), that it can be almost all things to almost all people. Hard to beat that for successful marketing. And that’s without even touching the more general reasons why religion itself is attractive.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet
The SkeptVet Blog
Militant Agnostic: I don’t know, and neither do you!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2007 06:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7506
Joined  2007-03-02

That’s interesting and here I sit seeing all the misery religion causes people.  Sometimes I wish I could see what others see, but then again I might not be what I am today if I did.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2007 08:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  241
Joined  2006-07-17

The later portion of the video is useful, but the first part is not, indeed it just reinforces misunderstandings about the religions.

Krishna, Buddha, and Abraham are certainly mythical figures who never existed.

The timelines for Judaism and Buddhism are taken from the respective sources, not objective information, thus they are actually very wrong.

Judaism isn’t as old as the religion itself claims to be, and there is zero support for a Jewish conquest of Canaan. Indeed the Jews probably are Canaanites, who never fled from Egypt and never had an era of great conquest, and never had a “first Temple”.

Jesus of course probably never existed either, and we know nothing really about Muhammad, and he also may not have existed.

This should be called “History of Religion According to the Accounts of the Respective Religious Groups”

 Signature 

http://www.rationalrevolution.net

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2007 03:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  508
Joined  2006-04-18

Plus there is the very important connection of Zoroastrianism and all preaxial beliefs are ignored.

Also Doug is right, it is hard to put Christianity (or the others) under one big tent, Many protestants claim the Catholics are not Christians at all. Christianity is one of those big terms that is itself almost meaningless (as referenced by Religious tolerance)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_defn.htm

Most liberal Christian denominations, secularists, public opinion pollsters, and this web site define “Christian” very broadly as any person or group who sincerely believes themselves to be Christian.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2007 06:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  52
Joined  2007-02-21

Sure it’s simplistic but no where near as simplistic as what most people know about the history of religion.

Besides, if you added every religion and every sectarian split within them it would go on for hours and hours and bore everyone to death.

Pity stuff like this isn’t shown in schools. I try to teach my kids what little I know about religious history in order to try and counteract the christo-biased crap they get at school.

 Signature 

Seeking truth is a never ending search for possibilities.
Finding truth is an end to that search.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2007 06:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  508
Joined  2006-04-18

[quote author=“Doubter”] no where near as simplistic as what most people know about the history of religion

And there is another strong claim that would need some factual support to be of any value (other than rhetorical). wink

Also, how is teaching people other error ridden simplistic half truth any better than the error ridden and simplistic half truths they have learned or know already? Is it just a better the devil you approve of or more a tastes great/less filling sort of thing? smile

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 April 2007 12:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14

Well, for all its oversimplification, I still like the video and technique. Gets across a lot of information, much of it correct, in a quick visual.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 April 2007 02:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  241
Joined  2006-07-17

I think it’s a good presentation overall, it just shouldn’t use “birth of X” as the starting point for each of the religions, and it should be based on latest archaeological evidence, not the claims of the religions.

Trying to teach something objective about Judaism by presenting the false Jewish timeline of events that is widely agreed to be false isn’t a very good approach.

Why show that the Jews conquered Canaan if this never happened? The Torah says that the Jews conquered Canaan, but there is zero support for this.

This is a major problem that I have with so-called secular approaches to religious studies. There has been a major tendency over the past 100 years among a dominant segment of scholars to simply take all religions at face value, remove the supernatural claims, and assume that everything else they say si 100% true history, which is absurd, and then when you teach this, all you do is further legitimize and support these religions.

 Signature 

http://www.rationalrevolution.net

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 April 2007 04:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4052
Joined  2006-11-28

Also, how is teaching people other error ridden simplistic half truth any better than the error ridden and simplistic half truths they have learned or know already? Is it just a better the devil you approve of or more a tastes great/less filling sort of thing?

I think teaching comparative religion is a great way to innoculate children against religious thinking. If you present a variety of myths as a collection of bedtime stories, and include the myths of the dominant culture, it becomes hard to imagine your own culture’s mythology is the Truth and everyone else’s is just a collection of stories, especially since they all sound surprisingly alike.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet
The SkeptVet Blog
Militant Agnostic: I don’t know, and neither do you!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 April 2007 04:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  241
Joined  2006-07-17

[quote author=“mckenzievmd”]

Also, how is teaching people other error ridden simplistic half truth any better than the error ridden and simplistic half truths they have learned or know already? Is it just a better the devil you approve of or more a tastes great/less filling sort of thing?

I think teaching comparative religion is a great way to innoculate children against religious thinking. If you present a variety of myths as a collection of bedtime stories, and include the myths of the dominant culture, it becomes hard to imagine your own culture’s mythology is the Truth and everyone else’s is just a collection of stories, especially since they all sound surprisingly alike.

The problem with this presentation is that it mixes myth and history and presents myth AS history, thereby legitimizing myths as real historical events.

There is nothing good about that.

 Signature 

http://www.rationalrevolution.net

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 3
1