Bible Contradictions

forlife · January 20, 2011, 3:07pm

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
What a stupid argument, as though Christianity is validated by the selflessness of one man in an act not predicated on being a Catholic. [/quote]

Hey, that sounds like Jesus. And the reason I brought up a Catholic Martyr is because you were talking about the Catholic Church.

Are we egotistical or are we humble. And you were talking about the Catholic Church, I showed you a Catholic man. And he is a martyr, because unlike all other religious martyrs, Catholic martyrs are the only ones that die for something instead of killing themselves and others around them for something. [/quote]

To be fair, there are martyrs in religions other than Catholic who were equally sincere, selfless, and committed to doing what they felt was right.

Brother_Chris · January 20, 2011, 4:44pm

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
What a stupid argument, as though Christianity is validated by the selflessness of one man in an act not predicated on being a Catholic. [/quote]

Hey, that sounds like Jesus. And the reason I brought up a Catholic Martyr is because you were talking about the Catholic Church.

Are we egotistical or are we humble. And you were talking about the Catholic Church, I showed you a Catholic man. And he is a martyr, because unlike all other religious martyrs, Catholic martyrs are the only ones that die for something instead of killing themselves and others around them for something. [/quote]

To be fair, there are martyrs in religions other than Catholic who were equally sincere, selfless, and committed to doing what they felt was right.
[/quote]

No doubt, but within the different religions (as I know of) Christian Martyrs and Muslim Martyrs are the only ones who have some reward for their martyrdom. The numbers of both religions’ martyrs are, by far, the most numerous out of other religions; however, if you look at the motivation of the two different martyrs you can see a large difference.

I would not deny the motivation of martyrs of other religions who were sincere and selfless in their accepting of death especially when those that were martyred took the place of another. That is the biggest show of love one can give to another, their life.

forlife · January 20, 2011, 4:58pm

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
What a stupid argument, as though Christianity is validated by the selflessness of one man in an act not predicated on being a Catholic. [/quote]

Hey, that sounds like Jesus. And the reason I brought up a Catholic Martyr is because you were talking about the Catholic Church.

Are we egotistical or are we humble. And you were talking about the Catholic Church, I showed you a Catholic man. And he is a martyr, because unlike all other religious martyrs, Catholic martyrs are the only ones that die for something instead of killing themselves and others around them for something. [/quote]

To be fair, there are martyrs in religions other than Catholic who were equally sincere, selfless, and committed to doing what they felt was right.
[/quote]

No doubt, but within the different religions (as I know of) Christian Martyrs and Muslim Martyrs are the only ones who have some reward for their martyrdom. The numbers of both religions’ martyrs are, by far, the most numerous out of other religions; however, if you look at the motivation of the two different martyrs you can see a large difference.

I would not deny the motivation of martyrs of other religions who were sincere and selfless in their accepting of death especially when those that were martyred took the place of another. That is the biggest show of love one can give to another, their life.[/quote]

Completely agree. My kids have heard that “all Muslims are evil”, and just recently I was telling them that there are good and evil people in every religion. I think it’s sad when a particular religion is so demonized that people literally think every member of that religion is a bad person.

Brother_Chris · January 20, 2011, 5:32pm

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
What a stupid argument, as though Christianity is validated by the selflessness of one man in an act not predicated on being a Catholic. [/quote]

Hey, that sounds like Jesus. And the reason I brought up a Catholic Martyr is because you were talking about the Catholic Church.

Are we egotistical or are we humble. And you were talking about the Catholic Church, I showed you a Catholic man. And he is a martyr, because unlike all other religious martyrs, Catholic martyrs are the only ones that die for something instead of killing themselves and others around them for something. [/quote]

To be fair, there are martyrs in religions other than Catholic who were equally sincere, selfless, and committed to doing what they felt was right.
[/quote]

No doubt, but within the different religions (as I know of) Christian Martyrs and Muslim Martyrs are the only ones who have some reward for their martyrdom. The numbers of both religions’ martyrs are, by far, the most numerous out of other religions; however, if you look at the motivation of the two different martyrs you can see a large difference.

I would not deny the motivation of martyrs of other religions who were sincere and selfless in their accepting of death especially when those that were martyred took the place of another. That is the biggest show of love one can give to another, their life.[/quote]

Completely agree. My kids have heard that “all Muslims are evil”, and just recently I was telling them that there are good and evil people in every religion. I think it’s sad when a particular religion is so demonized that people literally think every member of that religion is a bad person.[/quote]

I can concur. I love my Muslim people and my only complaint is that their BBQ will never be good as mine because they don’t eat pork.

However, anecdote time:

My freshman year I moved into my third dorm in one year. I was depressed because it seemed like everyone hated (I had been falsely accused by two people I thought were my friends) me. So, I get moved into my room and I find out my neighbor was a Muslim and he kind of blows me off but is still cordial (he later told me he saw the crucifix and figured I would be prejudice. I decided that I would just keep to myself and make it through the rest of the year so I wouldn’t be kicked out of school.

Well, the next day I roll out of bed to chant my morning prayer. I heard someone praying in Arabic, and was like WTF? And, figured that it was my neighbor. Later that day he thanked me, and I was like…what you talkin’ about Willis? And, he explained to me that he slept through his alarm clock and I had woke him up with my chant. After that we hung out more and he eventually pulled me out of my funk and general distrust of everyone on campus. I was planning on dropping out of school and everything. See, not all Muslims are bad.

ZEB · January 20, 2011, 5:43pm

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
What a stupid argument, as though Christianity is validated by the selflessness of one man in an act not predicated on being a Catholic. [/quote]

Hey, that sounds like Jesus. And the reason I brought up a Catholic Martyr is because you were talking about the Catholic Church.

Are we egotistical or are we humble. And you were talking about the Catholic Church, I showed you a Catholic man. And he is a martyr, because unlike all other religious martyrs, Catholic martyrs are the only ones that die for something instead of killing themselves and others around them for something. [/quote]

To be fair, there are martyrs in religions other than Catholic who were equally sincere, selfless, and committed to doing what they felt was right.
[/quote]

No doubt, but within the different religions (as I know of) Christian Martyrs and Muslim Martyrs are the only ones who have some reward for their martyrdom. The numbers of both religions’ martyrs are, by far, the most numerous out of other religions; however, if you look at the motivation of the two different martyrs you can see a large difference.

I would not deny the motivation of martyrs of other religions who were sincere and selfless in their accepting of death especially when those that were martyred took the place of another. That is the biggest show of love one can give to another, their life.[/quote]

Completely agree. My kids have heard that “all Muslims are evil”, and just recently I was telling them that there are good and evil people in every religion. I think it’s sad when a particular religion is so demonized that people literally think every member of that religion is a bad person.[/quote]

I agree, sort of like what your brothers on the left do to Christians. I wonder how long that Christians will be demonized by people like you before people start to think that all Christians are bad - Oh wait…that IS the plan.

forlife · January 20, 2011, 7:38pm

Cool story, Chris

Brother_Chris · January 20, 2011, 7:52pm

[quote]forlife wrote:
Cool story, Chris :)[/quote]

Plus he took the occasional Muslim joke without any sweat, but like any respectful person we kept sacred things sacred.

RyuuKyuzo · January 20, 2011, 8:25pm

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
“Psychohistory is the controversial study of the psychological motivations of historical events.[1] It combines the insights of psychotherapy with the research methodology of the social sciences to understand the emotional origin of the social and political behavior of groups and nations, past and present. Its subject matter is childhood and the family (especially child abuse), and psychological studies of anthropology and ethnology.”

“There are no departments dedicated to psychohistory in any institution of higher learning, though some history departments have run courses in it.”

Just a couple quotes from that wikipedia article. A brief reading of that psychohistory babble really makes one realize that it is as you say “bunk” or what I would call a pseudo-science.

Just something for you… If you want people to talk to you about their religion you really ought to change your approach.

[/quote]

Psycho-history isn’t the only source that points toward early man being dumber than his contemporary counterpart, but it’s the first one to organize these inter-subjective trends into classes. It’s a relatively new field of study (especially relative to psychiatry anthropology) which is why there are no departments dedicated to psychiatry in any institution of higher learning.

I implore you to look into psychohistory in at least a little more detail than a brief overview on wikipedia before dismissing the entire study as “pseudo-science”. It’s not as though I did that for Christianity. Believe it or not, I’ve spent more than a few minutes looking into Christianity and exactly what it is. =p

RyuuKyuzo · January 20, 2011, 8:28pm

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
all information is borrowed. I could of written out the arguments outlined in the video[/quote]

I’m sure the great debaters use the same excuse. [/quote]

Excuse? Are you actually criticizing my argument because it ISN’T made up? The information was already organized into this video long before even this thread was started, why would I not use it as opposed to saying the same thing in text? What difference would it make other than filling up this thread with needless posts and killing vast amounts of time?
You’re merely obfuscating the issue again.

jakerz96 · January 20, 2011, 9:31pm

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
“Psychohistory is the controversial study of the psychological motivations of historical events.[1] It combines the insights of psychotherapy with the research methodology of the social sciences to understand the emotional origin of the social and political behavior of groups and nations, past and present. Its subject matter is childhood and the family (especially child abuse), and psychological studies of anthropology and ethnology.”

“There are no departments dedicated to psychohistory in any institution of higher learning, though some history departments have run courses in it.”

Just a couple quotes from that wikipedia article. A brief reading of that psychohistory babble really makes one realize that it is as you say “bunk” or what I would call a pseudo-science.

Just something for you… If you want people to talk to you about their religion you really ought to change your approach.

[/quote]

Psycho-history isn’t the only source that points toward early man being dumber than his contemporary counterpart, but it’s the first one to organize these inter-subjective trends into classes. It’s a relatively new field of study (especially relative to psychiatry anthropology) which is why there are no departments dedicated to psychiatry in any institution of higher learning.

I implore you to look into psychohistory in at least a little more detail than a brief overview on wikipedia before dismissing the entire study as “pseudo-science”. It’s not as though I did that for Christianity. Believe it or not, I’ve spent more than a few minutes looking into Christianity and exactly what it is. =p[/quote]
So, I looked into it on this site: http://www.psychohistory.com/index.html and nothing, I mean nothing, changed my mind about it being pseudo-science. There may be some things to learn from it, but it is not a science.

Plus, I really don’t understand how you can even ascertain that ‘early man’ was ‘dumber’ than modern man. Do you mean their respective cognitive abilities? Or are you talking about the difference in knowledge base that they have to draw on?

Brother_Chris · January 20, 2011, 9:39pm

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
all information is borrowed. I could of written out the arguments outlined in the video[/quote]

I’m sure the great debaters use the same excuse. [/quote]

Excuse? Are you actually criticizing my argument because it ISN’T made up? The information was already organized into this video long before even this thread was started, why would I not use it as opposed to saying the same thing in text? What difference would it make other than filling up this thread with needless posts and killing vast amounts of time?
You’re merely obfuscating the issue again. [/quote]

Actually I am not. If I wanted to debate the author of the video I would click onto YouTube, log on, and debate. Debaters, like the one who created the video, take in vast amounts of data and put it into a short and concise argument. You just posted someone else’s debate.

RyuuKyuzo · January 20, 2011, 9:56pm

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
“Psychohistory is the controversial study of the psychological motivations of historical events.[1] It combines the insights of psychotherapy with the research methodology of the social sciences to understand the emotional origin of the social and political behavior of groups and nations, past and present. Its subject matter is childhood and the family (especially child abuse), and psychological studies of anthropology and ethnology.”

“There are no departments dedicated to psychohistory in any institution of higher learning, though some history departments have run courses in it.”

Just a couple quotes from that wikipedia article. A brief reading of that psychohistory babble really makes one realize that it is as you say “bunk” or what I would call a pseudo-science.

Just something for you… If you want people to talk to you about their religion you really ought to change your approach.

[/quote]

Psycho-history isn’t the only source that points toward early man being dumber than his contemporary counterpart, but it’s the first one to organize these inter-subjective trends into classes. It’s a relatively new field of study (especially relative to psychiatry anthropology) which is why there are no departments dedicated to psychiatry in any institution of higher learning.

I implore you to look into psychohistory in at least a little more detail than a brief overview on wikipedia before dismissing the entire study as “pseudo-science”. It’s not as though I did that for Christianity. Believe it or not, I’ve spent more than a few minutes looking into Christianity and exactly what it is. =p[/quote]
So, I looked into it on this site: http://www.psychohistory.com/index.html and nothing, I mean nothing, changed my mind about it being pseudo-science. There may be some things to learn from it, but it is not a science.

Plus, I really don’t understand how you can even ascertain that ‘early man’ was ‘dumber’ than modern man. Do you mean their respective cognitive abilities? Or are you talking about the difference in knowledge base that they have to draw on? [/quote]

What makes you say this isn’t science?

Obviously they didn’t have the knowledge base we have today to draw on, what I’m talking about is their cognitive ability. Early man was prone to “waking dreams” aswell as several forms of Psychosis and neurosis (though, it wasn’t considered psychotic or neurotic behavior back then as it was the norm) that impaired their cognitive ability.

Whereas today persons kinda-sorta “hear” God in their heart if they “believe” hard enough, early man actually heard voices in their heads and it was much more common than today. Psycho-history makes the connection between different forms/frequency of psycho/neuro-sis with their relative class.

This is what lead to the early polytheistic religions. As man advanced through psychoclasess and became more “aware”, a more logical (and humane) monotheistic religion had to be put in place if the ruling class wished to remain in power. Where polytheistic religions comes from heavy psychosis and neurosis (multiple voices, multiple Gods), monotheistic religions come into play via parental projections (Our Father in heaven).

RyuuKyuzo · January 20, 2011, 10:03pm

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
all information is borrowed. I could of written out the arguments outlined in the video[/quote]

I’m sure the great debaters use the same excuse. [/quote]

Excuse? Are you actually criticizing my argument because it ISN’T made up? The information was already organized into this video long before even this thread was started, why would I not use it as opposed to saying the same thing in text? What difference would it make other than filling up this thread with needless posts and killing vast amounts of time?
You’re merely obfuscating the issue again. [/quote]

Actually I am not. If I wanted to debate the author of the video I would click onto YouTube, log on, and debate. Debaters, like the one who created the video, take in vast amounts of data and put it into a short and concise argument. You just posted someone else’s debate.[/quote]

Posted someone else’s debate? Is this going to be your excuse for not addressing the argument? “Oh, well, you didn’t invent it, so it’s not even worth addressing!”

Last time I checked, YOU didn’t write the bible. Should I immediately disregard your arguments because they are rooted in a book you didn’t write? Does that sound logical to you?

Stop being such a baby. My argument is laid out, you can come up with a million and one excuses to ignore it (like this childish attempt here), but at the end of the day both you and me know it is merely an excuse to avoid the reality that your bible is a mere fiction novel with an astounding array of continuity errors.

Either address the argument, or stop pretending that you can.

forlife · January 20, 2011, 10:05pm

I’m not sure our capacity for “waking dreams” has really changed. Look at all the apparitions, near death experiences, out of body experiences, etc. that people report.

Still, I agree with the premise that people have evolved as our tools for differentiating fact from fiction have evolved. We still have a long way to go though. Despite all the advances of science, we are an amazingly superstitious bunch.

jakerz96 · January 20, 2011, 10:46pm

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
“Psychohistory is the controversial study of the psychological motivations of historical events.[1] It combines the insights of psychotherapy with the research methodology of the social sciences to understand the emotional origin of the social and political behavior of groups and nations, past and present. Its subject matter is childhood and the family (especially child abuse), and psychological studies of anthropology and ethnology.”

“There are no departments dedicated to psychohistory in any institution of higher learning, though some history departments have run courses in it.”

Just a couple quotes from that wikipedia article. A brief reading of that psychohistory babble really makes one realize that it is as you say “bunk” or what I would call a pseudo-science.

Just something for you… If you want people to talk to you about their religion you really ought to change your approach.

[/quote]

Psycho-history isn’t the only source that points toward early man being dumber than his contemporary counterpart, but it’s the first one to organize these inter-subjective trends into classes. It’s a relatively new field of study (especially relative to psychiatry anthropology) which is why there are no departments dedicated to psychiatry in any institution of higher learning.

I implore you to look into psychohistory in at least a little more detail than a brief overview on wikipedia before dismissing the entire study as “pseudo-science”. It’s not as though I did that for Christianity. Believe it or not, I’ve spent more than a few minutes looking into Christianity and exactly what it is. =p[/quote]
So, I looked into it on this site: http://www.psychohistory.com/index.html and nothing, I mean nothing, changed my mind about it being pseudo-science. There may be some things to learn from it, but it is not a science.

Plus, I really don’t understand how you can even ascertain that ‘early man’ was ‘dumber’ than modern man. Do you mean their respective cognitive abilities? Or are you talking about the difference in knowledge base that they have to draw on? [/quote]

What makes you say this isn’t science?

Obviously they didn’t have the knowledge base we have today to draw on, what I’m talking about is their cognitive ability. Early man was prone to “waking dreams” aswell as several forms of Psychosis and neurosis (though, it wasn’t considered psychotic or neurotic behavior back then as it was the norm) that impaired their cognitive ability.

Whereas today persons kinda-sorta “hear” God in their heart if they “believe” hard enough, early man actually heard voices in their heads and it was much more common than today. Psycho-history makes the connection between different forms/frequency of psycho/neuro-sis with their relative class.

This is what lead to the early polytheistic religions. As man advanced through psychoclasess and became more “aware”, a more logical (and humane) monotheistic religion had to be put in place if the ruling class wished to remain in power. Where polytheistic religions comes from heavy psychosis and neurosis (multiple voices, multiple Gods), monotheistic religions come into play via parental projections (Our Father in heaven). [/quote]
What makes me say this isn’t science is the huge amount of conjecture involved. It reads like history with someone’s bent on personalities and their interplay. I’m not saying it has no value, just that it isn’t science. Where does this evidence of ‘early man’ being prone to waking dreams come from? It doesn’t seem like something we can know about really.

“Whereas today persons kinda-sorta “hear” God in their heart if they “believe” hard enough, early man actually heard voices in their heads and it was much more common than today.”
How in the hell could we possibly know that ‘early man’ heard voices in their heads?

haney1 · January 20, 2011, 10:53pm

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
all information is borrowed. I could of written out the arguments outlined in the video[/quote]

I’m sure the great debaters use the same excuse. [/quote]

Excuse? Are you actually criticizing my argument because it ISN’T made up? The information was already organized into this video long before even this thread was started, why would I not use it as opposed to saying the same thing in text? What difference would it make other than filling up this thread with needless posts and killing vast amounts of time?
You’re merely obfuscating the issue again. [/quote]

Actually I am not. If I wanted to debate the author of the video I would click onto YouTube, log on, and debate. Debaters, like the one who created the video, take in vast amounts of data and put it into a short and concise argument. You just posted someone else’s debate.[/quote]

Posted someone else’s debate? Is this going to be your excuse for not addressing the argument? “Oh, well, you didn’t invent it, so it’s not even worth addressing!”

Last time I checked, YOU didn’t write the bible. Should I immediately disregard your arguments because they are rooted in a book you didn’t write? Does that sound logical to you?

Stop being such a baby. My argument is laid out, you can come up with a million and one excuses to ignore it (like this childish attempt here), but at the end of the day both you and me know it is merely an excuse to avoid the reality that your bible is a mere fiction novel with an astounding array of continuity errors.

Either address the argument, or stop pretending that you can. [/quote]

No one wants to debate your weblink because it is a full all out argument. As soon as they respond to point one, you will prevent them from addressing the rest by continually arguing that one point. So it is impossible to ever make any progress.

If you find the argument compelling why not pick a point or two, lay them out and then ask for an answer.

Have you ever even looked to see if there is a response to some of the problems that are outlined in that video?

I found online sources in a matter of seconds for the first couple. I don’t neccessarily accept them, but you don’t have to debate someone to find out if your conclusion is correct.

Argument by web link is considered by most people that I know a complete waste of time, and very unrewarding.

RyuuKyuzo · January 21, 2011, 2:10am

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
“Psychohistory is the controversial study of the psychological motivations of historical events.[1] It combines the insights of psychotherapy with the research methodology of the social sciences to understand the emotional origin of the social and political behavior of groups and nations, past and present. Its subject matter is childhood and the family (especially child abuse), and psychological studies of anthropology and ethnology.”

“There are no departments dedicated to psychohistory in any institution of higher learning, though some history departments have run courses in it.”

Just a couple quotes from that wikipedia article. A brief reading of that psychohistory babble really makes one realize that it is as you say “bunk” or what I would call a pseudo-science.

Just something for you… If you want people to talk to you about their religion you really ought to change your approach.

[/quote]

Psycho-history isn’t the only source that points toward early man being dumber than his contemporary counterpart, but it’s the first one to organize these inter-subjective trends into classes. It’s a relatively new field of study (especially relative to psychiatry anthropology) which is why there are no departments dedicated to psychiatry in any institution of higher learning.

I implore you to look into psychohistory in at least a little more detail than a brief overview on wikipedia before dismissing the entire study as “pseudo-science”. It’s not as though I did that for Christianity. Believe it or not, I’ve spent more than a few minutes looking into Christianity and exactly what it is. =p[/quote]
So, I looked into it on this site: http://www.psychohistory.com/index.html and nothing, I mean nothing, changed my mind about it being pseudo-science. There may be some things to learn from it, but it is not a science.

Plus, I really don’t understand how you can even ascertain that ‘early man’ was ‘dumber’ than modern man. Do you mean their respective cognitive abilities? Or are you talking about the difference in knowledge base that they have to draw on? [/quote]

What makes you say this isn’t science?

Obviously they didn’t have the knowledge base we have today to draw on, what I’m talking about is their cognitive ability. Early man was prone to “waking dreams” aswell as several forms of Psychosis and neurosis (though, it wasn’t considered psychotic or neurotic behavior back then as it was the norm) that impaired their cognitive ability.

Whereas today persons kinda-sorta “hear” God in their heart if they “believe” hard enough, early man actually heard voices in their heads and it was much more common than today. Psycho-history makes the connection between different forms/frequency of psycho/neuro-sis with their relative class.

This is what lead to the early polytheistic religions. As man advanced through psychoclasess and became more “aware”, a more logical (and humane) monotheistic religion had to be put in place if the ruling class wished to remain in power. Where polytheistic religions comes from heavy psychosis and neurosis (multiple voices, multiple Gods), monotheistic religions come into play via parental projections (Our Father in heaven). [/quote]

What makes me say this isn’t science is the huge amount of conjecture involved. It reads like history with someone’s bent on personalities and their interplay. I’m not saying it has no value, just that it isn’t science. Where does this evidence of ‘early man’ being prone to waking dreams come from? It doesn’t seem like something we can know about really.

“Whereas today persons kinda-sorta “hear” God in their heart if they “believe” hard enough, early man actually heard voices in their heads and it was much more common than today.”
How in the hell could we possibly know that ‘early man’ heard voices in their heads?[/quote]

This is a critic of the “soft sciences” in general, not of psychohistory exclusivley. There will always be a level of conjecture when speaking of the mind. I’m not a psychohistorian, so their exact methods are beyond me, but from the articles I’ve read published by Lloyd DeMause, it seems he studies a lot of ancient “diaries” so to speak, as well as general observation of history and contemperary societies that exemplify the same attriutes and seem with early man in different psychohistorical stages.

Every religious story ypu hear of God/Satan talking to a person, that’s an example of early man “hearing voices”. This sort of psychosis is a suprisingly well documented phonomenon; so long as you aren’t under the assumption that all these stories of “talking to God” are true.

jakerz96 · January 21, 2011, 2:18am

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
“Psychohistory is the controversial study of the psychological motivations of historical events.[1] It combines the insights of psychotherapy with the research methodology of the social sciences to understand the emotional origin of the social and political behavior of groups and nations, past and present. Its subject matter is childhood and the family (especially child abuse), and psychological studies of anthropology and ethnology.”

“There are no departments dedicated to psychohistory in any institution of higher learning, though some history departments have run courses in it.”

Just a couple quotes from that wikipedia article. A brief reading of that psychohistory babble really makes one realize that it is as you say “bunk” or what I would call a pseudo-science.

Just something for you… If you want people to talk to you about their religion you really ought to change your approach.

[/quote]

Psycho-history isn’t the only source that points toward early man being dumber than his contemporary counterpart, but it’s the first one to organize these inter-subjective trends into classes. It’s a relatively new field of study (especially relative to psychiatry anthropology) which is why there are no departments dedicated to psychiatry in any institution of higher learning.

I implore you to look into psychohistory in at least a little more detail than a brief overview on wikipedia before dismissing the entire study as “pseudo-science”. It’s not as though I did that for Christianity. Believe it or not, I’ve spent more than a few minutes looking into Christianity and exactly what it is. =p[/quote]
So, I looked into it on this site: http://www.psychohistory.com/index.html and nothing, I mean nothing, changed my mind about it being pseudo-science. There may be some things to learn from it, but it is not a science.

Plus, I really don’t understand how you can even ascertain that ‘early man’ was ‘dumber’ than modern man. Do you mean their respective cognitive abilities? Or are you talking about the difference in knowledge base that they have to draw on? [/quote]

What makes you say this isn’t science?

Obviously they didn’t have the knowledge base we have today to draw on, what I’m talking about is their cognitive ability. Early man was prone to “waking dreams” aswell as several forms of Psychosis and neurosis (though, it wasn’t considered psychotic or neurotic behavior back then as it was the norm) that impaired their cognitive ability.

Whereas today persons kinda-sorta “hear” God in their heart if they “believe” hard enough, early man actually heard voices in their heads and it was much more common than today. Psycho-history makes the connection between different forms/frequency of psycho/neuro-sis with their relative class.

This is what lead to the early polytheistic religions. As man advanced through psychoclasess and became more “aware”, a more logical (and humane) monotheistic religion had to be put in place if the ruling class wished to remain in power. Where polytheistic religions comes from heavy psychosis and neurosis (multiple voices, multiple Gods), monotheistic religions come into play via parental projections (Our Father in heaven). [/quote]

What makes me say this isn’t science is the huge amount of conjecture involved. It reads like history with someone’s bent on personalities and their interplay. I’m not saying it has no value, just that it isn’t science. Where does this evidence of ‘early man’ being prone to waking dreams come from? It doesn’t seem like something we can know about really.

“Whereas today persons kinda-sorta “hear” God in their heart if they “believe” hard enough, early man actually heard voices in their heads and it was much more common than today.”
How in the hell could we possibly know that ‘early man’ heard voices in their heads?[/quote]

This is a critic of the “soft sciences” in general, not of psychohistory exclusivley. There will always be a level of conjecture when speaking of the mind. I’m not a psychohistorian, so their exact methods are beyond me, but from the articles I’ve read published by Lloyd DeMause, it seems he studies a lot of ancient “diaries” so to speak, as well as general observation of history and contemperary societies that exemplify the same attriutes and seem with early man in different psychohistorical stages.

Every religious story ypu hear of God/Satan talking to a person, that’s an example of early man “hearing voices”. This sort of psychosis is a suprisingly well documented phonomenon; so long as you aren’t under the assumption that all these stories of “talking to God” are true. [/quote]
You say soft I say pseudo. Semantics I suppose.

RyuuKyuzo · January 21, 2011, 2:22am

[quote]haney1 wrote: