I think Im an atheist.

[Newt]

Indy, I studied Anthropology with Archaeology as my major.  There is a great deal of information to be gained from the analysis of material culture remains and their contexts.  We know a great deal about native culture here in North America from what has been systematically excavated and studied.  Written accounts certainly can be useful assistance, but are not the be-all-and-end-all: written records are also subject to interpretation and questions of bias and reliability.
 
And technically: 'history' is what has been recorded.  Anything coming from the time before records (writing) is by definition pre-historic.    

[Doggett]

...written records are also subject to interpretation and questions of bias and reliability.
 

I think this is where the phrase 'History is written by the winners' comes in.

 

[indianasmith]

Absolutely!  Ideally, you'd be able to study both physical traces and written documents, but antiquity is rarely that kind.  It is true we have been able to deduce a lot about Native American culture and lifeways from systematic excavation, but specific details are still impossible to discover without some form of written language.  For example, we know a great deal about the status and importance of the kings that were buried in Cahokia mounds - but we don't know any of their names!
   Your comment about prehistory is spot on - and what makes it confusing to most is that prehistory lasted much longer in some places than in others!  Russia's prehistory lasted till about 1000 AD, and North America's till 1492!  Whereas the history of Sumeria goes back nearly 5000 years.  I would love to talk archeology with you sometime!
  And yes, the winners do write the history books - sometimes.  The South has written a lot about the Civil War, though!

[Flick James]

I would love to be a part of an actual history/archeology/anthropology discussion with Newt and Indy. What would be so great about that is that you both have scholarship in that area, and both have varying perspectives in your analyses. That would be fascinating for me to be a part of or at least be a fly on the wall. There is much to be gained from sharing both information and perspective. At least I think so.

[Raffine]

The South has written a lot about the Civil War War of Northern Aggression, though!

There, now.

That's better.

[RCMerchant]

Vuxflicks-I can understand your anger-you live in Bosnia for Bela's sake! I will not-could not-say anything about your beliefs. The only advice I have to you-relax.Wait. You live in Bosnia? OK. But respect people.Were your freinds.

[ulthar]

A friend of mine posted this on another forum tonight, and I thought it might make interesting reading for this thread:

"Return," by Brion Toss


(On Toss, lest he be hastily labeled a nut...he is perhaps the most widely known rigger of our generation.  I'd wager no human alive has APPLIED more rigging engineering than he...click here for a brief bio)

[AndyC]

...he is perhaps the most widely known rigger of our generation.

I had to read that twice. Didn't see "rigger" the first time, and it startled me.

[indianasmith]

A friend of mine posted this on another forum tonight, and I thought it might make interesting reading for this thread:

"Return," by Brion Toss


(On Toss, lest he be hastily labeled a nut...he is perhaps the most widely known rigger of our generation.  I'd wager no human alive has APPLIED more rigging engineering than he...click here for a brief bio)

Great read, thanks for posting!

[Kaseykockroach]

I'm Agnostic myself. I prefer taking the middle road. -shrugs-

[Flick James]

A friend of mine posted this on another forum tonight, and I thought it might make interesting reading for this thread:

"Return," by Brion Toss


(On Toss, lest he be hastily labeled a nut...he is perhaps the most widely known rigger of our generation.  I'd wager no human alive has APPLIED more rigging engineering than he...click here for a brief bio)

Right up my alley. One would think a deist wrote that piece. Talk of the Universe and Creation, but not one mention of God.

Seriously, though, it seems nearly impossible to all but the most obstinate to escape spirituality. The mind and the soul yearn for it. Despite my disdain for religion, I believe firmly in the full free exercise of it by all people, because such a freedom transcends mere religion and makes possible all manner of contemplations of the Creation, without fear of retribution by a society claiming to speak for God, be on God's side, or that God is on it's side. Rubbish.

I think most people embrace spirituality in one form or another. It is part of the human condition, the human spirit, if you will. I am of the firm belief that people on the extremes of atheism and piousness have plenty of arrogance, obstinance, and ignorance, but neither spirit nor substance. They are empty. I say they are arrogant because they have the audacity to claim to know the Universe. I say they are obstinate because they refuse to open their hearts. I say they are ignorant because only people of such extreme can see things in the world around them that are contrary to their stolid "belief," yet refuse to believe they exist, let alone be touched by them.

What I find interesting is that I find I have something in common with both atheists AND people of faith. For example, vukxfiles, if he and I discussed our mutual disdain of religion, would find we agree far more than our debate earlier would suggest. Yet, although I disagree drastically with Indy on the issue of faith, I share with him a belief in a meaningful force greater than ourselves and a admiration for Western civilization, however much we may disagree on what makes it great.
  

[ulthar]

It's interesting (and perhaps timely for this discussion) that one of the most "religious" friends I have just within the past week told me that he is basically done with 'church' and 'organized religion.'  I'm not sure what prompted that, but there you go.

He said that his is still strongly Christian, but that he and his family will now pursue 'self-study' at home and that sort of thing.

Our church is probably splitting up - we are having a vote next month whether or not to stay with the national organization or leave it (to possibly join a new one that was just founded last year), and the congregation is basically split along some line not too far from 50-50. 

All this drama within the church is certainly distracting from the 'mission' of the church in the community.  And it's so unnecessary.

One of the problems that I see with 'organized church' is what I call an 'external focus.'  They DO become very focused on what they tell others, and how they do that telling, whereas I think a BIG part of the action should be internal - within ME (not in a selfish "I'm all that matters" sense, but in a "I'm at my best in the community when I have my own ducks in order" sense).  I've had a number of conversations with pastors about this over the years - that my fight is my own struggle to be what I perceive God wants me to be.

[Jim H]

I think most people embrace spirituality in one form or another. It is part of the human condition, the human spirit, if you will. I am of the firm belief that people on the extremes of atheism and piousness have plenty of arrogance, obstinance, and ignorance, but neither spirit nor substance. They are empty. I say they are arrogant because they have the audacity to claim to know the Universe. I say they are obstinate because they refuse to open their hearts. I say they are ignorant because only people of such extreme can see things in the world around them that are contrary to their stolid "belief," yet refuse to believe they exist, let alone be touched by them.

Can you not see the hypocrisy of your own position here? 

[AndyC]

It's interesting (and perhaps timely for this discussion) that one of the most "religious" friends I have just within the past week told me that he is basically done with 'church' and 'organized religion.'  I'm not sure what prompted that, but there you go.

He said that his is still strongly Christian, but that he and his family will now pursue 'self-study' at home and that sort of thing.

Our church is probably splitting up - we are having a vote next month whether or not to stay with the national organization or leave it (to possibly join a new one that was just founded last year), and the congregation is basically split along some line not too far from 50-50. 

All this drama within the church is certainly distracting from the 'mission' of the church in the community.  And it's so unnecessary.

One of the problems that I see with 'organized church' is what I call an 'external focus.'  They DO become very focused on what they tell others, and how they do that telling, whereas I think a BIG part of the action should be internal - within ME (not in a selfish "I'm all that matters" sense, but in a "I'm at my best in the community when I have my own ducks in order" sense).  I've had a number of conversations with pastors about this over the years - that my fight is my own struggle to be what I perceive God wants me to be.

I believe "job one" for any church is maintaining a healthy community. Regardless of your specific beliefs, worshipping as a community is very valuable for bringing people together, creating connection, and providing opportunities for personal growth in addition to spiritual growth. That is something that does get lost if you choose to go in your own direction.

What messes up a church, for me, is pride, politics and pettiness. That, and status - the focus on keeping up appearances, having all the facilities, programs and whatnot that people think a church should have, even if they aren't particularly wanted or needed. And inflexibility when it comes to changing or trying anything new. I think it's mostly this crap that leads people of faith to give up organized religion.

To me, a church should strive to be a community that is welcoming and something people like to be part of (within the bounds of its particular denomination; it shouldn't try to be everything to everyone). A church's next priority is looking to the larger community, not for the purpose of spreading a message or showing off or drawing people in with guilt or gimmicks, but to be a valuable part of the community outside its doors.

I believe it, and I think it might be the only option. These days, a church has to be relevant to its members and its community. There was a time when a church could just be what it is, and people would attend the church they grew up in because they were supposed to. That's not true anymore. If people feel that church isn't relevant to them, that it isn't enjoyable, or that their presence means nothing more than a bum in a seat and money in the plate, they won't go. And even if they are determined church-goers, people are more mobile and far more likely to shop around than they were in the past, and jump denominations if necessary.

[Flick James]

I think most people embrace spirituality in one form or another. It is part of the human condition, the human spirit, if you will. I am of the firm belief that people on the extremes of atheism and piousness have plenty of arrogance, obstinance, and ignorance, but neither spirit nor substance. They are empty. I say they are arrogant because they have the audacity to claim to know the Universe. I say they are obstinate because they refuse to open their hearts. I say they are ignorant because only people of such extreme can see things in the world around them that are contrary to their stolid "belief," yet refuse to believe they exist, let alone be touched by them.

Can you not see the hypocrisy of your own position here?  

No. Would you point it out please?

hy·poc·ri·sy 

1.  the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc, contrary to one's real character or actual behaviour, esp the pretence of virtue and piety 
2.  an act or instance of this 

At what point was I guilty of that?