any mythologists here

[Kochagasht]

i have an interest in comparative religion and religious history

are there any mythologists here, or is that outside the area of this forum? (please forgive a newbie if it is) ...i'm not a believer and have no interest in talking to any quran-as-history enthusiasts

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Neither do we have any interest in talking to "i hang out with whitepoeple I am awesome" type of people.

[Kochagasht]

i barely even try to classify or categorize you, let alone argue with you

but seldom do we get what we wish for

[IvNoName]

What is your question(s)?



And no underhanded sneaky comments allowed. Ok.

[Kochagasht]

ok


one major question, philosophy and religion are not the same, agree?

[IvNoName]

Philosophy = questions.

Religion = answers.

In case you're religious you have already bought into a system of reality based on a belief system. If you're a philosopher you keep questioning the reality. Of course philosophers also end up believing in their ideas but at least its their ideas.

[Kochagasht]

that is a fallacious false-dilemma

i am one individual who believes that you need supplemental evidence to support philosophy and religious ideas. i'd say that philosophy has been the most effective way in piecing together the past

[IvNoName]

that is a fallacious false-dilemma

i am one individual who believes that you need supplemental evidence to support philosophy and religious ideas. i'd say that philosophy has been the most effective way in piecing together the past

Is it a false-dilemma to approach reality through religion or philosophy? Yes, it is.

To the rest of your comment about philosophy and history, one can analyze history through philosophy, but one can also analyze history through religion. But then the problem is not history or religion, the problem is with analyzing.

We analyze by using our memory, our memory is the past and therefore by analyzing we're trying to create a future based on the past. Of course this is silly. The future is in the now, not in the past; the past is now.

[Kochagasht]

Is it a false-dilemma to approach reality through religion or philosophy? Yes, it is.

To the rest of your comment about philosophy and history, one can analyze history through philosophy, but one can also analyze history through religion. But then the problem is not history or religion, the problem is with analyzing.

We analyze by using our memory, our memory is the past and therefore by analyzing we're trying to create a future based on the past. Of course this is silly. The future is in the now, not in the past; the past is now.

my assertion is that there is no contemporary evidence for the historicity of prophets. that the evidence presented simply does not meet the criteria for evidence within the discipline of history

my question is whether ancient history has or should have lower standards of evidence. to me this is a question of methodology. my position is that the same high standards should apply to all history

[IvNoName]

my assertion is that there is no contemporary evidence for the historicity of prophets. that the evidence presented simply does not meet the criteria for evidence within the discipline of history

my question is whether ancient history has or should have lower standards of evidence. to me this is a question of methodology. my position is that the same high standards should apply to all history

Are you saying prophets did not exist in history?

Or you're saying why historical evidence for ancient history is not treated rigorously?

In both cases the question arises, who cares?

Jesus was a historical figure, although was he really a prophet is another question. Muhammad was definitely a historical figure, I'm not going to be blasphemous and question his prophet-ness because this is a Muslim forum; however, he was a military leader, a politician, a preacher and also a trader. He also never said he was the son of God, unlike Jesus, and secondly he never said spread Islam all over the world with the sword, that is something that happened after he passed away.

The worst thing that happen to any religion is that it gains followers, and followers will destroy even God itself if it comes to earth with its teachings. That is the only historical fact about the history of religion.

[Kochagasht]

Are you saying prophets did not exist in history?

Or you're saying why historical evidence for ancient history is not treated rigorously?

In both cases the question arises, who cares?

Jesus was a historical figure, although was he really a prophet is another question. Muhammad was definitely a historical figure, I'm not going to be blasphemous and question his prophet-ness because this is a Muslim forum; however, he was a military leader, a politician, a preacher and also a trader. He also never said he was the son of God, unlike Jesus, and secondly he never said spread Islam all over the world with the sword, that is something that happened after he passed away.

The worst thing that happen to any religion is that it gains followers, and followers will destroy even God itself if it comes to earth with its teachings. That is the only historical fact about the history of religion.

[یاسمینه]

that is a fallacious false-dilemma

i am one individual who believes that you need supplemental evidence to support philosophy and religious ideas. i'd say that philosophy has been the most effective way in piecing together the past

Was the dillema defined? I think that you've used wrong term


BTW, what mythology are you interested in? If it comes to general overview, you can read something relevant by Mircea Eliade.

[Kochagasht]

Was the dillema defined? I think that you've used wrong term


BTW, what mythology are you interested in? If it comes to general overview, you can read something relevant by Mircea Eliade.

it's an unavoidable fact that for the vast majority of humanity, their choice of religion comes down to the culture they're born into and their parentage. people around the world didn't choose their religion through in-depth study, there's no comparison of different holy books and seeing which ones have the best scriptures, ethics; that for the vast majority of believers, parentage and country of birth dictate just what their belief is

there is nothing I could point my finger to and say this is why islam is true, and this is why x, y, z and all the thousands of other religions aren't true

religion is mythology, do you agree?

[IvNoName]

religion is mythology, do you agree?

Religion is based on mythology. Islam is based on many levels on Shamanistic religion of the Arabs. For instance Mecca used to house the status of Arab mythology before Islam, and then those statues were removed when Islam took over. So, when people are praying to Allah and facing Mecca, they're praying to the Arab God. If they wanted to pray to God, why would they have to face any direction, I mean, that is just stupid.

[Kochagasht]

Religion is based on mythology. Islam is based on many levels on Shamanistic religion of the Arabs. For instance Mecca used to house the status of Arab mythology before Islam, and then those statues were removed when Islam took over. So, when people are praying to Allah and facing Mecca, they're praying to the Arab God. If they wanted to pray to God, why would they have to face any direction, I mean, that is just stupid.

i know, for example who was the true founder of judaism? was it a general idea around a vast area that slowly began to form together under one religion or was it sort of like islam in that one guy decided one day that this was the religion and then had his friends go out and spread the influence? who was the founder and how did they spread their influence so far?

history cannot help us there unfortunately