the dominance of religion in the ancient world

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 11:41 pm

You have to make a distinction between "ancient" and "pre-historic" art.
In this instance, by pre-historic I mean even a modern culture which has not managed to create writing and thus which cannot use anything but art to express itself.

Arguing about whether the frieze of the Parthenon is religious art seems pretty pointless.

ReneDescartes · Post by **ReneDescartes** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 1:54 am

Arch I thinkyou misunderstand the word evolution in this context .I am not talking darwin here but evolution of humanity or progress through history ,starting with hunters-food gatherers and evolving to agraric societies ,leading even further along the timeline into modern age .
Can you please agree that the word evolution existed before Darwin used it and still has different meanings .
How can you expect me to talk about the interpretation modern archaeologists give to items discovered if you refuse to understand the mental framework the ancients lived in .THis leads you to presume that every ancient civilisation believed in creation .Do not take that for granted please .If course every religion was confronted with the problem of a beginnig for everything .The only way one can ever be able to understand them is to mentally project you into their shoes and imagine from the gathered knowledge we accumulated over those thousands of years how they percieved the world .Furthermore they were living in organised societies with rules and rites which had different functions such as to enforce laws and beheviour of its members .
No need to waiste anymore time on all this ,just make clear what you want to say and kindly spread out the arguments for us .We will take it from there .

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 1:59 am

Can you please agree that the word evolution existed before Darwin used it and still has different meanings

yes and the word has many uses but you did mention darwin and you were relating it to the theory.

THis leads you to presume that every ancient civilisation believed in creation

since ancient documents only talk about a creation story you better come in with good links to demonstrate your point

No need to waiste anymore time on all this ,just make clear what you want to say and kindly spread out the arguments for us .We will take it from there

i think i have been clear on the mainthrust of this topic which is why do modern archaeologists paint everything religius when there is no need to but we are not talking about orgins of ancient religion nor ancient religion pr se but the application of what we now of their beliefs.

ReneDescartes · Post by **ReneDescartes** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 2:58 am

quote Arch : but we are not talking about orgins of ancient religion nor ancient religion pr se but the application of what we now of their beliefs
unquote
You will excuse me for not answering to the previous questions you stated in your last post pertaining to this topic .But since you made clear the boundaries of this topic now we sould limit our efforts to the subject you described ,Or rather you should as for the moment i agree with you that there is no need to attribute a religious connotation to every item unearthed as too many archaeologists do for their personnal glorification .

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 11:41 am

Arch said:

christianity didn't come into being until Cghrist and His ressurrection

JC's gonna be plenty pissed that you misspelled his name.

Why does everything have to be backed up with links? Hell at least half of the info found on the internet is bogus anyway. And why would a person need a link to back up his own opinion? There are some, not just arch, who insist on having links to back up what people say. Hell I get a lot of my info from memory. I don't remember where I heard it, but I do know what I heard and I can form my own opinion. I think the insistance on links is just a way to dodge the issue sometimes. It's a stall tactic. Ya'll cut it out. Damn!

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 12:13 pm

We live in a world that demands documentation, Frank.

And then dismisses it when it does not suit our prejudices!

Leona Conner · Post by **Leona Conner** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 12:27 pm

Bravo, Frank. When I first found this thread I was thrilled to think that finally we had something where we could all just discuss our personal opinions whithout all the fuss. But alas it was not to be. People want links. Since most of us (I think) are pretty well educated adults, we have more than likely formed our ideas over years of reading, tv, etc. If I had to post links to all that has formed my belief system over the years, it would take more room than this site could hold. I have read everything from Albright to Velikovsky, they have all given me something to think about and add to my collection.

I've been looking for [u]substantial[/u] links on this particular subject and guess what, nada, zilch, zero.

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 1:31 pm

In law the concept is stare decisis...the thing has been decided, Leona. The magical properties of cave art have been decided and it would take some compelling evidence to overturn that verdict. One cannot imagine finding such evidence. It couldn't be written because these people did not write. Artifacts that were used to create the paintings would prove nothing more than that. So the notion that cave art is related to religion (or at least, 'magic') may well be correct and even if it were just a pre-historic Boy's Club where the men got together to drink beer and fart, the idea that any sort of evidence of that exists is fairly bizarre.

I recall reading once that the whole notion of metaphysics began when our ancestors began wondering what happened when an animal died. What force was there making it alive that disappeared when it was dead?
From that grew the concept of animism....that living things have a soul (for want of a better word.) This does not get you to the kind of religion with a paternalistic father figure: For that you need an actual civilization based on agriculture, or so it seems.

So, really, where arch was coming from with this was the idea that archaeology tends to ascribe every artifact that it can not immediately ascribe to certain categories ( weapons, tools, etc) as ritualistic. I think there is some truth to that.

Once before I posted this example.

Archaeology calls this a ritual mask.

What will they make of this in 5,000 years?

ReneDescartes · Post by **ReneDescartes** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 2:10 pm

Et voila Arch ,look what the cat brought in :http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/hig ... 245956.stm

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 2:12 pm

the reason i asked for links is that there are those who throw wild statements on a post and expect people to take them seriously when they are just making thingsup.

i don't want to waste my time discussing a point only to find out that it was posted to screw the thread. i understand and agree with frank's point about memory but he and others can be trusted to post credible things.

i put links and sources in my posts , most of the time, because i want others to realize that i am not making things up and i want them to see i am not the only one with such a view.

when i started this thread i was hoping to track down some reasons why this trend takes place, something with meat so we could discuss it. i have no problem with opinion but it would be nice to separate the speculation from the fact, which is another reason for links.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 2:26 pm

I ain't got time to be chasing down a buncha links that just say what I'm already saying just so people will know I ain't making it up. Believe me if you want or blow it out your ass. You won't see many links from me.

Also; Links are just a way of forcing others to read what you are too lazy to bother explaining to them. (I'm not referring to anyone in particular so don't take it personally.)

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 2:35 pm

i put links and sources in my posts , most of the time, because i want others to realize that i am not making things up and i want them to see i am not the only one with such a view.

most of your links are from extremely dubious sources written by "true believers" witha clear agenda
should i start a thread saying that the illuminati are actually zeta reticulans then i could provide plenty of references
wouldn't mean it was valid though
the reason you actually demand links Arch is because you won't believe the truth when you are told it
when it is presented with links you just make up some crap and pretend they aren't valid anyway
the forum equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and going " LALALALALALA i can't hear you"

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 2:38 pm

Yeah he does that a lot. Min/Bob has said those exact same words.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 2:40 pm

Yeah he does that a lot. Min/Bob has said those exact same words.

must have been before my time
i just formed that opinion from talking to Arch
at the end of the day its completely pointless
i don't have a problem with him being a religious dumbass thats up to him and each to their own i say but when he buts in to decent scientific discussions with religious mumbo jumbo and derails threads it gets a little annoying

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 2:41 pm

I don't even bother to read most of the links ya'll post. I'll look at it and see what it's about, but I seldom have time for that much reading during the day anyway so if it looks really interesting I'll save it and check it out later. Most of the time the excerpts posted on the forum tell me as much as I need to know.