|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 05/26/2011 : 10:54:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Originally posted by Dave W.
So no, it's not a philosophy, it's a political movement in favor of comfortable deconversion based on lies. |
BAM! |
Thanks, Emeril4rock! |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Hercules
New Member
35 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2011 : 13:44:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by marfknox
Actually, Dave brought up a good point - isn't Mythicism more of a historical position than a philosophical position? |
Reading "What is a Mythicist again, it is primarily a method with which to approach the study of the origins of religion. As a "philosophy," then, it utterly fails.
The cut-and-pasting we're seeing here is from the final paragraphs of the linked article:...the mythicist position importantly serves as a bridge between theism and atheism, as it does not seek to discount or denigrate the long and exalted history of thought concerning religion and mythology, dating back many thousands of years, as manifested in the religious and spiritual practices of man beginning millennia ago and continuing since then. In other words, Mythicism is being used as an attempt to make theists more comfortable with leaving theism by making a boogeyman out of atheism, since atheism (not even "new" or Gnu atheism) is not a position from which one would naturally "discount or denigrate" the factual and historical importance of religion and the origins of religion on shaping the modern world. Nobody denies that, denigrates it or discounts it. But at least the Mythicist who wrote that article thinks it's okay to throw strawman atheists under the bus in order to bridge the gap.
So no, it's not a philosophy, it's a political movement in favor of comfortable deconversion based on lies. |
What you have said here is derogatory nonsense. We mythicists enjoy STUDYING the religion and mythology, which includes PHILOSOPHICAL IDEAS, of the ancients, in order to see what they were trying to convey. If you personally don't have any interest in ancient cultures, that's your prerogative, but I personally DO have interest in ancient cultures, including and especially their philosophy, religion and mythology. I don't just dismiss all human culture because it has been around for thousands of years. On the contrary, I enjoy it very much. Take for example the ancient cultures of Greece and Egypt - they reached tremendous heights of creativity and brilliance. I want to know all about them, including their deepest thought processes, expressed through their philosophy and religion. If that's not an interest to you, that's fine, but it is to me. I see that we can call this passion "mythicism." That's all there it is to it. None of this hostility or derogation is necessary.
If you don't like mythology / mythicism and the mythicist position fine, then, stay out of my thread and stop trolling it up with your trash. Nobody is twisting your arm forcing you to post here. |
|
|
|
Hercules
New Member
35 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2011 : 13:45:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Hercules wrote: | The HELL it doesn't and mythicism certainly is a philosophy. You just don't know what you're talking about because you know nothing about it. So, your opinion is based on ignorance and is therefore, irrelevant. |
That's your argument? I'm wrong because you think I don't know what I'm talking about? Did you even read what I wrote? I gave a whole laundry list of reasons why Mythicism is lacking as a full fledged philosophy. |
The word "philosophy" comes from the Greek words "love" and "wisdom." It is not a single ideology set in stone. Those of us who love wisdom can be called philosophers. Mythicism is science - coming from the Greek word for "to know" - that we "lovers of wisdom" can study and appreciate. Mythicism reveals the wisdom of the ancients by demonstrating what their mythology was really all about. No, it doesn't have a "set of practices," so it isn't a dogma, and that's why we can appreciate it. My point is that whereas by my definition atheism is the absence of belief in God, mythicism is the acceptance of various figures as myths, which we can study and learn from - mythicism is therefore not absence but fullness of data, which we don't have to believe in. If evemerism is a philosophy, then so is mythicism. If you wish, we can call it a perspective.
"Mythicism is to religious studies what logic is to philosophy..."
- Acharya S
http://www.amazon.com/review/RN3PUV2TP1U3B/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2011 : 13:48:35 [Permalink]
|
Gosh. I'm interested in the history of the myths. But other claims were made.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2011 : 14:07:46 [Permalink]
|
originally posted by Hercules
| If that's not an interest to you, that's fine, but it is to me. I see that we can call this passion "mythicism." |
I don't think anyone is questioning your interest in history and everything that goes with it. I have great interest in the same things. I think the issue is that you are somehow trying to dispove theism using it. (which I do not think is possible). I do think it is a great way to get the theists to understand that their Jesus myth is just another myth like anything else.
I find the use of the word "mythicism" to be quite humorous. |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Hercules
New Member
35 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2011 : 14:26:57 [Permalink]
|
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the word "mythicism." Maybe if people learned more about it BEFORE having knee-jerk reactions over the word, things would be better.
| marfknox: "And for what it is worth, what I've read so far and seen in that stupid movie Zeitgeist, there are much more persuasive arguments against Christianity and other religions, and have been for hundreds of years." |
LOL, that has worked really well hasn't it - NOT!
Stop tossing around straw man arguments - nobody has claimed that we should stop making other arguments. However, there is one that isn't being discussed right now and it's precisely what's missing from the discussion. As I made clear previously, you'll never get it from Dawkins, Carrier, Harris or the rest.
The New Zeitgeist Part 1 Sourcebook (2010) has been thoroughly backed up with highly respected scholarship, which you probably haven't read ...
The New Zeitgeist Part 1 Sourcebook (2010)
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/zeitgeistsourcebook.pdf
Rebuttal to Dr. Chris Forbes concerning 'Zeitgeist, Part 1'
http://truthbeknown.com/chrisforbeszeitgeist.html
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/christinegypt.html
The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/originsofchristianity.pdf
The Origins of Islam
http://www.truthbeknown.com/islam.htm
Astrotheology of the Ancients
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/astrotheology.html
The 2011 Astrotheology Calendar
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/2011calendar.html
Jesus as the Sun throughout History
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/jesussunexcerpt.html
Zeitgeist Part 1 & the Supportive Evidence
http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2997 |
| Edited by - Hercules on 05/26/2011 14:28:31 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2011 : 14:32:54 [Permalink]
|
Hercules, YOU posted a bunch of links and info about mythicism, including this:
| ...the mythicist position importantly serves as a bridge between theism and atheism, as it does not seek to discount or denigrate the long and exalted history of thought concerning religion and mythology, dating back many thousands of years, as manifested in the religious and spiritual practices of man beginning millennia ago and continuing since then. |
This statement is saying that atheism seeks to discount or denigrate religion and mythology. And that's just bullshit. That's why people here - who identify as atheists - are annoyed, myself included.
| Mythicism reveals the wisdom of the ancients by demonstrating what their mythology was really all about. No, it doesn't have a "set of practices," so it isn't a dogma, and that's why we can appreciate it. My point is that whereas by my definition atheism is the absence of belief in God, mythicism is the acceptance of various figures as myths, which we can study and learn from - mythicism is therefore not absence but fullness of data, which we don't have to believe in. If evemerism is a philosophy, then so is mythicism. If you wish, we can call it a perspective. |
Who said a philosophy had to be a dogma? That's absurd. I told you I was a Humanist - a philosophy that is about as far from dogmatic as it can get. You have yet to say anything that explains how Mythicism is a philosophy. It is a method, a "perspective" as you put it, okay sure. But it is not a philosophy. Cynicism, Stoicism, and modern Humanism, THOSE are examples of philosophies. A basis for a particular set of values and conclusions about the nature of reality. I'm not saying that someone's personal philosophy won't be deeply shaped if one were to employ the approach and perspective of Mythicism. But Mythicism itself is not a philosophy. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2011 : 14:35:01 [Permalink]
|
| LOL, that has worked really well hasn't it - NOT! |
Ahem, there are a bunch of atheists on this forum who came to that conclusion based on arguments other than Mythicism. And I don't see you presenting any evidence that when Christians are presented with Mythicism they drop their religion like a hot potato. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2011 : 15:05:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hercules
What you have said here is derogatory nonsense. |
Then why didn't you address it?| We mythicists enjoy STUDYING the religion and mythology, which includes PHILOSOPHICAL IDEAS, of the ancients, in order to see what they were trying to convey. |
That doesn't make Mythicism itself a philosophy.
Oh, nevermind. I see that you're making an argumentum ad Greek roots in a later post. How special of you. Makes you feel superior, doesn't it? We can all add "philosophy" and "science" to "militant" and "fundamentalist" as words for which Hercules has his own private definitions.| If you personally don't have any interest in ancient cultures, that's your prerogative, but I personally DO have interest in ancient cultures, including and especially their philosophy, religion and mythology. I don't just dismiss all human culture because it has been around for thousands of years. On the contrary, I enjoy it very much. Take for example the ancient cultures of Greece and Egypt - they reached tremendous heights of creativity and brilliance. I want to know all about them, including their deepest thought processes, expressed through their philosophy and religion. If that's not an interest to you, that's fine, but it is to me. I see that we can call this passion "mythicism." That's all there it is to it. |
That's great, but Mythicism still looks like social studies to me, with a political movement layered on top based on denigrating atheists.| None of this hostility or derogation is necessary. |
Then why have you been so hostile and derogatory?| If you don't like mythology / mythicism and the mythicist position fine, then, stay out of my thread and stop trolling it up with your trash. Nobody is twisting your arm forcing you to post here. |
Here, let me one-up your whine: If you don't like me responding to your comments, then stay off my web site and stop using it as a soapbox from which to flaunt your fake intellectualism. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2011 : 17:15:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by teched246
| From what location on Earth? |
It's visible from both hemispheres. Not that it matters in light of how advanced the Ancient Egyptians and Sumerians were in astronomy, with knowledge surpassing even ours' today.
| Also keep in mind that the "Southern Cross" was "discovered" by either Augustin Royer or Petrus Plancius in the 17th century A.D. |
.
Incorrect, he's just the one who officially named it the "Southern Crux". It is a highly distinguishable constellation. The Ancient Greeks took note of and included it in the Centaurus constellation, as did the Ancient Egyptians, who depicted the sun overhead the Southern Crux in the following image:
| The relative movement along the ecliptic isn't a northward movement |
Yes it is. It's moving Northward and Westward at the same time starting December 25th. If the ecliptic was only from East to West, the sun would never make it's annual trip to and from the North and South...common knowledge...common sense.
| Besides, it moves about 1 degree along the ecliptic *every day of the year* |
It only changes North/South directions *twice a year* : at the time of Winter Solstice and Summer Solstice, thus making December 25th significant.
|
The picture does not depict the southern cross.
Ancient Egyptians considered Amun/Ra (the sun) as a source for life (the ankh). If one looks at funerary art for Tutankhamun, one sees the sun (Ra) with rays coming down ending in a hand grasping an ankh.
I have studied quite a bit of Egyptian mythos (it being the particular mythos I call upon as part of my religious ceremonies) and nowhere have I seen the picture you describe as meaning the Southern Cross.
Other things to consider. December 25th isn't where it used to be. With the switch between calendars (Julian to Gregorian)occurring in the 1700's (1752 IIRC) one moves the dates that various events originally were on. While Christianity did borrow some of it's holidays from the old religion (ostensibly to ensure that there were no converts practicing their old religions), the rituals and what they were ascribed to did not mesh.
Jesus did have some parrallels to other older mythos. Some of the claims I have seen do not mesh with any Gods I am familiar with. No birthday was given to Osirus or Horus that I have seen.
The Egyptian mythos did recognize the Equinoxes and Solstaces as well as the rhythm of the Nile. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2011 : 20:48:56 [Permalink]
|
Hercules said:
You, and the author of the post you link to, are the ones who fail to comprehend word definitions and are changing them to suit your own bias. Very few people, even those you label "strong" atheists, just simply say "there is no god" and call it done. Those who do are wrong. Your intentional distortion of the strong atheist position only shows your own insecurity. Most "strong" (or new) atheists have reasons for actively disbelieving in any deity. The reasons are the same for Zeus, Odin, Osiris, Jesus, and the god of the christian/muslim/jewish faiths. A complete lack of evidence combined with the obviously fluid nature of religious belief across time, geography, and cultures. Religion is an anthropological phenomenon.
Grab yourself any book by Victor Stenger if you are capable of challenging your bias. From your posts and general attitude I doubt you are, but go read this book anyway.
Another word that you and that forum fail to comprehend. You could just simply examine the origin of the word agnostic, learn what the person who coined it said it meant, but that would require you to step outside your sad little box too.
T.H. Huxley, the man who coined the term, defines it like this: "Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable."
If you think that is "non-committal", then you have a very big problem. It is a rejection of certainty with regard to matters that can't be demonstrated. i.e. if you don't have the evidence, then you are a retarded douchebag who needs to shut the fuck up, to put it in more modern terms.
| So, your opinion is based on ignorance and is therefore, irrelevant. |
You are projecting, but from what I see you have managed to describe yourself perfectly with that sentence fragment.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 05/26/2011 20:50:50 |
|
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2011 : 22:21:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
The picture does not depict the southern cross.
Ancient Egyptians considered Amun/Ra (the sun) as a source for life (the ankh). If one looks at funerary art for Tutankhamun, one sees the sun (Ra) with rays coming down ending in a hand grasping an ankh.
I have studied quite a bit of Egyptian mythos (it being the particular mythos I call upon as part of my religious ceremonies) and nowhere have I seen the picture you describe as meaning the Southern Cross.
Other things to consider. December 25th isn't where it used to be. With the switch between calendars (Julian to Gregorian)occurring in the 1700's (1752 IIRC) one moves the dates that various events originally were on. While Christianity did borrow some of it's holidays from the old religion (ostensibly to ensure that there were no converts practicing their old religions), the rituals and what they were ascribed to did not mesh.
Jesus did have some parrallels to other older mythos. Some of the claims I have seen do not mesh with any Gods I am familiar with. No birthday was given to Osirus or Horus that I have seen.
The Egyptian mythos did recognize the Equinoxes and Solstaces as well as the rhythm of the Nile.
|
Horus was conflated with Ra
"Horus the Sun, and Ra, the Sun-God of Heliopolis, had so permeated each other that none could say where the one began and the other ended..." - Egyptologist Sir Dr. Gaston Maspero
As seen here
I think that since Horus/Isis/Osiris have astral ties, Horus's birthday was a given because it correlated with the heliacal rise of Sirius assigned December 25th which is what they celebrated as the winter solstice.
Lost Light: An Interpretation of Ancient Scriptures By Alvin Boyd Kuhn Page 495
"Horus, the child is crowned in the seat of Osiris at the end of three days. In the lunar typing, Osiris dies at the winter solstice to be reborn again as Horus on the third day in the moon."
Alvin Boyd Kuhn scholar of comparative religion, mythology, linguistics and language.
The winter solstice on the Julian calendar was January 6th which from my understanding correlates with December 25th on the Gregorian Calendar (I do not have a positive understanding of this yet) Eastern Orthodox churches still celebrates Jesus birthday on Epiphany on January 6th.
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/holidays/christmas.htm
It is also explained here:
*Liturgy for Living By Charles P. Price, Louis Weil Page 164
Jesus birthday on both January 6th and December 25th
This conflation happened in the Old Testament too as seen here
although on that link, they call it assimilation. I am not surprised that Jesus would be an assimilation/conflation.
I find it rather interesting that the Old Testament god Yahweh was called all these lovely names like "El Shaddai, El Elyon, and El Berith" then come to find out that they were actually the names of the Canaanite deities.  |
"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
|
| Edited by - changingmyself on 05/27/2011 00:34:41 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2011 : 23:14:23 [Permalink]
|
Wow, I missed this before:Right at the start, we get this:The strong or positive view of the word "atheist" is claimed to be defined as, "The doctrine or belief that there is no God(s)" or another one is, "One who denies the existence of God(s)." This is sometimes referred to nowadays as "the new atheism" because it has no historical context - it's a new misguided version of atheism. Probably due to the fact that so many don't understand the proper definition of the word nor its historical context nor its Greek root. (Emphasis in original.) Talk about failing to understand the "proper" definition or the historical context! The author, "Freethinkaluva22," is obviously completely ignorant of the historical context of the term "new atheism" (it was coined by their detractors, and all of the "new" atheists have denied doing anything "new"), and so engages in a massive spew of hypocrisy, along with another pseudo-intellectual argumentum ad Greek roots argument. He/she follows up after some emails with this:Those Atheists who want to adhere to the "strong" or "positive" definition of the word "atheist" should perhaps consider creating a new word that best describes their position because "atheist" isn't it. The "strong" or "positive" views are an abuse of the word. Although, that abuse largely comes from theists trying to re-define the word by projecting their own desired definition to the word 'atheist.' That way theists can put all atheists into the "strong" or "positive" corner (and attempt to make endless straw man arguments). It's intellectually dishonest and we must not let them do that. No, that entire argument is intellectually dishonest because it denies the historical context of the word, and it denies the very purpose of dictionaries.
The word "atheist" originally meant something like "heretic" or "apostate" (since even the author's own dictionary links say the Greek word atheos meant "to deny the gods"), and so the "strong" meaning of the word today (which is what's found in dictionaries) is actually the original meaning.
Atheists (like me!) who are attempting to shift the meaning towards its plain Greek roots are the ones who are trying to change the definition. Intellectual honesty demands that we admit to this, and not try to sneak in a definition change under the guise of being "correct." It's a lie, plain and simple.
And anyone who denies without evidence that dictionaries reflect current, popular usage are simply insane. People like Bobbie Kirkhart, president of Atheist Alliance International (email quoted in the linked piece), who are trying to "get the word out" to dictionary publishers about the "correct" definition are simply deluded in what they think a dictionary represents. One can only claim a dictionary is wrong if they have empirical evidence that the number-one definition of a word is truly not the most popular. In the case of "atheist," we atheists need to stop whining about dictionaries and instead work to get our preferred definition to be the one most-commonly used.
Oh, and we also find from the linked piece that Hercules was just cutting-and-pasting when he said,The problem is that these "new atheists" rigidly adhere to this strong/positive stance and they seem to be fundamentalist about it - which may also be referred to as "militant atheism." This is my beef with his fake intellectualism. Hercules obviously has a large set of Internet bookmarks and an ability to accurately parrot what he reads, but this is no substitute for actually internally integrating the meaning(s) and being able to give us a digest in his own words (and more importantly, tell us why it should matter to us).
Wisdom requires more than just plagiarism. A love of quoting does not an intellectual make. All-caps screeching indicates dogmatism, not intelligence. Lecturing people on the "proper" meaning of words for which one is clearly ignorant and/or in denial suggests crude arrogance and stupidity, not wisdom.
Hercules needs to learn the First Rule of Holes, too. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2011 : 05:28:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hercules
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the word "mythicism." Maybe if people learned more about it BEFORE having knee-jerk reactions over the word, things would be better. |
Maybe if people learned more about "atheism" BEFORE having knee-jerk reactions over the word, things would be better.
Maybe if people learned more about "socialized medicine" BEFORE having knee-jerk reactions over the words, things would be better.
Maybe if people learned more about "blacks" BEFORE having knee-jerk reactions over the colour, things would be better.
There are many things that would be different as in better is people cared to inform themselves. But alas, we're living in an imperfect world. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2011 : 11:16:53 [Permalink]
|
A positive or strong atheist is NOT the same thing as the "New Atheists." A strong atheist is simply an atheist who has personally concluded that no gods exist. (And by "gods" I mean personal, celestial beings, the sort of who can hear and understand prayers and have their own separate mind, thoughts, desires, etc. Not some new age definition of "god/s" that means god is the universe or everything or whatever.)
The "New Atheists" is just a term used to label the surge in popularity of more aggressive atheist writers and speakers and their fans who are particularly critical of religious ideas and how they function in society.
So while "New Atheists" (I put it in quotations because there isn't anything new about their ideas.) like Harris and Hitchens and Dawkins are certainly strong atheists, not all strong atheists agree with their aggressive approach to religious criticism or agree with their ideas regarding religious exceptions to secular law.
I myself am a strong atheist, but I don't consider myself part of the "New Atheist" movement. I fit in a little better with the approach of 1960's and 70's secular humanists. Although I am quite happy that the "New Atheists" are around to vocally counter the politically mobilized religious right, and I do agree with much of what the "New Atheists" advocate with regard to church-state separation. And to say they are "militant" or "fundamentalist" is just dumb. Where's the evidence for that in the writings of Hitchens, Harris, or Dawkins, or organizations that support their ideas? I want somebody to show me these supposed atheists who want to institutionally force their strong atheism on society in the same way that fundamentalist Christians want to force their religion on society. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 05/27/2011 11:17:35 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The Mythicist position
