catholic guilt (2 Viewers)

[Vinnie]

But all historical accounts carry some form of bias, which will render them factually inaccurate... and some of them almost fictional, if not actually works of fiction loosely based in a historical context.

The existence of biased historical works does not lend factual weight to works of fiction

 

[Moods For Mallards]

Squiggle, are you denying the Holocaust yet?

 

[snakybus]

I was taught about the vikings, Normans, brits and eventually prods taking our land in History class, so I was. aaaaaargh!

 

[Squiggle]

We were read those stories too, but I don't think that was in history class. It was primary school, just teaching us the aul Gaelic folklore. I don't think it was presented as fact.
EVEN THOUGH IT IS!!!

We were taught it in history, as fact, which was nuts. Even at the age of 4 I knew it couldn't be true.

The existence of biased historical works does not lend factual weight to works of fiction

That wasn't my argument. I'm not arguing in defence of Catholic, or any other religious group's, dogma/belief/tradition. I'm merely stating that if creation was included as a section in history it wouldn't be any more misleading or mis-representative of fact as some of the other "facts" presented in that class.

 

[Vinnie]

That wasn't my argument. I'm not arguing in defence of Catholic, or any other religious group's, dogma/belief/tradition. I'm merely stating that if creation was included as a section in history it wouldn't be any more misleading or mis-representative of fact as some of the other "facts" presented in that class.

Tell me some of these facts - and not from celtic mythology. Any teacher that teaches mythology as fact should probably consider a new profession. I cant think of a single thing that I learned in history that would sit alongside the creation as a comparable fabrication

 

[snakybus]

Don't argue with Squiggle, Vinnie, you can't win. It's like trying to spar with a mister wobbly man.

 

[Froog]

Tell me some of these facts - and not from celtic mythology. Any teacher that teaches mythology as fact should probably consider a new profession. I cant think of a single thing that I learned in history that would sit alongside the creation as a comparable fabrication

come on now, no one believes the holocaust right?

 

[taubstumm]

That wasn't my argument. I'm not arguing in defence of Catholic, or any other religious group's, dogma/belief/tradition. I'm merely stating that if creation was included as a section in history it wouldn't be any more misleading or mis-representative of fact as some of the other "facts" presented in that class.

it'd fit fine into, say, a comparative literature class, or civics or the like; and called "creation myths of various major religions and worldviews" or something along those lines

we've been through this before, right?

 

[Diddles]

We were never asked HMB's religion when signing him up for the Gaelscoil. He will have to get blessed by Martin McGuinness in first class though.

 

[Squiggle]

Tell me some of these facts - and not from celtic mythology. Any teacher that teaches mythology as fact should probably consider a new profession. I cant think of a single thing that I learned in history that would sit alongside the creation as a comparable fabrication

The mythology as fact was in the approved syllabus History book. I don't think teacher was specifically to blame.

I'm not sure that this thread is the place for this discussion. Accounts of any historical event vary greatly depending on the experience/bias/political or religous beliefs of the person writing the account. They cannot all be accurate as they are frequently contradictory. Therefore, it wouldn't be inaccurate to say that history tends to be written in a way that makes the writer/his or her nation/political/religious grop or whatever look better than they were and the enemy look worse - which makes it a fictional account, loosely based in fact. This is true even in the case of events that happened in the last century.

Serious case of deja vu here.

 

[egg_]

Don't argue with Squiggle, Vinnie, you can't win. It's like trying to spar with a mister wobbly man.

I burst the inflatable wobbly Muhammad Ali I got for my birthday once. I was delighted "I BURSTED MUHAMMAD ALI"

 

[Lili Marlene]

The mythology as fact was in the approved syllabus History book. I don't think teacher was specifically to blame.

I'm not sure that this thread is the place for this discussion. Accounts of any historical event vary greatly depending on the experience/bias/political or religous beliefs of the person writing the account. They cannot all be accurate as they are frequently contradictory. Therefore, it wouldn't be inaccurate to say that history tends to be written in a way that makes the writer/his or her nation/political/religious grop or whatever look better than they were and the enemy look worse - which makes it a fictional account, loosely based in fact. This is true even in the case of events that happened in the last century.

Serious case of deja vu here.

sorry, my fault.

Isn't mythology deadly though?

 

[Squiggle]

Don't argue with Squiggle, Vinnie, you can't win. It's like trying to spar with a mister wobbly man.

Hey! That's not true. Nobody. ever. argue. with. Ro. Seriously.

it'd fit fine into, say, a comparative literature class, or civics or the like; and called "creation myths of various major religions and worldviews" or something along those lines

we've been through this before, right?

 

[taubstumm]

I'm not sure that this thread is the place for this discussion. Accounts of any historical event vary greatly depending on the experience/bias/political or religous beliefs of the person writing the account. They cannot all be accurate as they are frequently contradictory. Therefore, it wouldn't be inaccurate to say that history tends to be written in a way that makes the writer/his or her nation/political/religious grop or whatever look better than they were and the enemy look worse - which makes it a fictional account, loosely based in fact. This is true even in the case of events that happened in the last century.

all true, and an eternally-ongoing debate amongst historians

none of which makes any kind of a convincing case for including creation myths of any sort on any history syllabus, ever

Serious case of deja vu here.

heheheh

 

[Vinnie]

Edit: What S said. Ish.

 

[Moods For Mallards]

Hmmm. Massive hmmmmm.

Very dubious relativism, revisionism and discrediting of the entire discipline of history going on here.
Comparing historians en masse to creationists is ludicrous, in my opinion. There is no doubt that history is skewed by perspective and political opinion and nationality and doubt, etc., etc., but usually within parameters where a person can still maintain a reasonably good idea, given different accounts, of what happened, and sometimes why or how.
The creation myth falls way, way outside these parameters.
It's just not the same as a debate about whether, say, the firebombing of German cities in 1944 was necessary or who shot JFK - we're talking about the invention of the world and everything currently living in it in 7 days here.

 

[egg_]

You don't argue to win, snakes, you argue to learn

 

[Vinnie]

You don't argue to win, snakes, you argue to learn

Oh no you dont!

 

[Squiggle]

all true, and an eternally-ongoing debate amongst historians

none of which makes any kind of a convincing case for including creation myths of any sort on any history syllabus, ever

My original comment was tongue in cheek, and my argument since has been in defence of my allegation that History can be pretty inaccurate, and often fictional.

You don't argue to win, snakes, you argue to learn

So true.

 

[Moods For Mallards]

I argue to waste time.