What's The Difference Between Religion & Myth/Superstition

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Why do people believe 1 fiction but not others?
How can they mock what they call superstition while believing things which make no sense & have no evidence?

What's the difference between a religion & a cult?

[ylooshi]

Humans are very good at creating a sense of the "other." In doing so, they can naturally and unconsciously create solidarity with their own group (i.e. kin, clan, tribe, cult, etc.) thereby increasing their odds of survival and passing on their genes to off-spring.

This sense of the "other" creates an illusion that your own in-group's beliefs, traditions, and norms are legitimate while those of out-groups are illegitimate. When a group gets too big, sub-cultures develop and the extremes of these are either re-assimilated or marginalized. The marginalized sub-cultures become cultures unto themselves creating new out-groups.

When it comes to superstitions, those superstitious beliefs of the in-group are considered legitimate and never as "superstition," while the superstitious beliefs of out-groups are more easily looked down upon as "superstition," heresy, apostasy, quaint, myth, etc.

A good example is in another thread in this forum where a member of a Christian cult states "transubstantiation is a Catholic belief. Not a Christian one. I'm a Christian..."

This cult member has full belief that his own superstitions are legitimate while those of other cults, even ones that are Christian, are myth, allegory, or otherwise illegitimate. Indeed, this cult follower is so deluded by his own cult's dogma and doctrine, that he refuses to accept Catholicism, the very base cult of all Christianity, as Christian!

Such ignorance and denial is common when comparing and contrasting religious cults and base superstitions, however, there are many base/core myths and superstitions that are shared between religious cults and other in-groups. The belief that Jesus was born of a virgin (a scientific improbability in the Iron Age, to say the very least) is one such myth. The belief that silent or oral utterances are heard by a deity who is loving and caring and will answer or respond (another scientific improbability) is one such superstition.

In short, the believers in religious cults are deluded by the doctrines and dogma for which they create elaborate psychological barriers and "spells" which legitimize their own myths and superstitions whilst minimizing and rejecting competing or contrary myths and superstitions of other cults.

[swarm]

ylooshi:The belief that Jesus was born of a virgin (a scientific improbability in the Iron Age, to say the very least) is one such myth.

Hey. They had invented virgins by the iron age. ;)

[cosmictraveler]

Why do people believe 1 fiction but not others?
How can they mock what they call superstition while believing things which make no sense & have no evidence?

Some people are very gullible while others are fearful but even more are just uneducated.

[Simon Anders]

Just wanted to point out that there is a bit of apples and oranges about the terms superstition and myth.

su·per·sti·tion
–noun 1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
Like if you break a mirror you get bad luck. A custom around relating to things. In a sense magic.

Whereas myth....

myth
–noun 1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

[my emphasis in both definitions]

IOW superstitions are practices, generally involving things and myths are stories, generally involving gods or other entities with personalities.

I realize that this is not the issue you want to focus on but I felt like the waters were very muddy because of your terms right from the start.

[OilIsMastery]

Myth is false religion.

[swarm]

OilIsMastery:Myth is false religion.

Religion is false myth.

[Simon Anders]

So if one judges Christianity or Buddhism, for example, without having
studied, analyzed, examine, experimented
with the practices of these religions
one's opinion about these religions would be a myth?

[swarm]

Simon Anders: So if one judges Christianity or Buddhism, for example, without having
studied, analyzed, examine, experimented with the practices of these religions one's opinion about these religions would be a myth?

Not necessarily. It could just be your (possibly ill informed) opinion. The mythic quality would depend on how your opinion was structured. Here is a good example of a mythic structuring of an opinion about xtianity (and well worth the read): http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php

Luckily I have a good solid background in both Xtianity and Buddhism.

[Simon Anders]

Simon Anders: So if one judges Christianity or Buddhism, for example, without having
studied, analyzed, examine, experimented with the practices of these religions one's opinion about these religions would be a myth?

Not necessarily. It could just be your (possibly ill informed) opinion.
Which generally comes with a narrative 'explanation'. I realize I am pushing myth to the edge here, but I was working it from his rather bald dichotemy.
With philosophers I think I would have an easier time with the line I am taking by using Buddhism, but I'll stick with both for the challenge. If you have a Christian who says that they felt terrible, life sucked and they found themselves calling out to God one night who it seemed responded. They heard a voice and felt a presence. At first they were shocked and somewhat skeptical, but they followed the advice of this voice and felt good in the presence of this, whatever it was, and so continued this calling out to God and realized this was a form of prayer. This experience led them to read a lot of the New Testement, which also gave them a sense of peace. They decided that reading the NT and praying made them feel better - which was reflecting in their relationships and could even be verified objectively - ie. via third person, even non-religious subjective accounts of the changes in the person. They have now become Christian.

If one decides they are irrational without pursuing similar practices under some double blind research study conditions
and simply judges this person as irrational from the outside
isn't one essentially guessing - and if one adds some narrative

such as 'just like all Christians he was afraid of death and is gullible and thus irrationally latched onto something that may give some comfort but is actually just hallucination.'

isn't this myth?

Alcholics Anonymous has a fairly good success rate even compared with psychiatric approaches - another line I could take.

[swarm]

Not to say we have to stay here, but let's try to disambiguate myth a bit...

The first group of usages refer to myth as a means of conveying information in a non literal way:

1. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.

2. A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia.

The second group focuses more on the fictional aspect:

3. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.

4. A fictitious story, person, or thing: "German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth" (Leon Wolff).
===

So are you trying to say that an uninformed opinion on a subject requires a non literal approach or that an uninformed opinion is fictitious?

Of course on the Buddhist side an uninformed attitude (beginner's mind) is the approach to remedy the uninformed opinion (ignorance).

Simon Anders: Alcholics Anonymous has a fairly good success rate even compared with psychiatric approaches - another line I could take.

Last I checked AA is no better than just deciding to quit or any other approach for that matter. They all hover about 10%. The most successful person I know at that sort of thing just decided to quit, did, and hasn't looked back. She isn't "recovering." She just doesn't bother with it at all. No big deal. There are times when I wish I could put "no big deal" in a pill for people.

[OilIsMastery]

Religion is false myth.
Your religion is. Not mine.

[Carico]

Why do people believe 1 fiction but not others?
How can they mock what they call superstition while believing things which make no sense & have no evidence?

Myths don't happen in reality nor are they witnessed. So myths are lies. The truth on the other hand can be supported by reality.;)

[swarm]

OilIsMastery: Your religion is. Not mine.

My religion's rubber, yours is glue. Bounce off me and stick to you!

Can we grow up now? Or should I say: your myth is. Not mine?

[swarm]

Carico: Myths don't happen in reality nor are they witnessed. So myths are lies. The truth on the other hand can be supported by reality.

No. Myths may be non literal and they may be fictitious, but a lie is a deliberate attempt to deceive, something lacking in a myth.

So it is easy to show xtianity is a myth, but it is much harder to make the case that it is a lie, though you could make the case that for some one like Ted Haggard, it is a lie.

[Norsefire]

Simple: concept. Religion, as ridiculous as it may seem, has a basis in the core concept of intelligence.

Therefore religion isn't even ridiculous, let alone comparing it to no basis myth.

[fadingCaptain]

Religion is myth with popular support. Old religions that lose popularity are relegated to "myths".

[nova900]

Myths don't happen in reality nor are they witnessed. So myths are lies. The truth on the other hand can be supported by reality.;)

The story of Exodus in the OT was a myth ,so by your own admission the Old Testament is a lie.

[spidergoat]

Myths don't happen in reality nor are they witnessed. So myths are lies. The truth on the other hand can be supported by reality.;)

There can be some truth in myths, but they aren't literally true. They could originate in a true event.

[Medicine*Woman]

Myths don't happen in reality nor are they witnessed. So myths are lies. The truth on the other hand can be supported by reality.;)
*************
M*W: I actually agree with you on this one.

[Carico]

There can be some truth in myths, but they aren't literally true. They could originate in a true event.

:bugeye: If myths are true, then they wouldn't be myths. :rolleyes:

[JDawg]

:bugeye: If myths are true, then they wouldn't be myths. :rolleyes:

He didn't say myths were true. He said some myth have some truth to them.

Do you not know how to read, or is it that you're intentionally ignorant?

[lightgigantic]

Why do people believe 1 fiction but not others?
How can they mock what they call superstition while believing things which make no sense & have no evidence?
Basically one is accepted as being connected to a transcendent personality called god and the other is not.

Kind of like heliocentric models were accepted as science for as long as they were connected to an empirical world view.

In that sense, what may be accepted as religion (or science) in one sense can later turn out to be false. Indicating that because one person got it wrong, everyone gets it wrong is not sufficient however.

If it was, empirical investigation would have sapped out years ago.

:o

[swarm]

spidergoat: There can be some truth in myths, but they aren't literally true. They could originate in a true event.

A myth could be wholly true, wholly fictitious or as usually the case, bit of both.

But the point of a myth isn't its veracity. Its point is to carry specific concepts and examples in an easy to remember and compelling manner. The point of Romeo and Juliet is not to be an accurate depiction of some actual families. Its point is to convey understanding of life, revenge and love via an entertaining story.

By trying to pretend the bible is true, fundies actually destroy its purpose. Ironically fundies are the worst thing ever to happen to the bible and it probably won't survive their assault.

[swarm]

Carico: If myths are true, then they wouldn't be myths.

True is not directly correlated to mythic quality.

[PsychoticEpisode]

Religion became a myth the minute man penned God's thoughts.

[lightgigantic]

Religion became a myth the minute man penned God's thoughts.
And why would you assume that there is something about the nature of god that makes it impossible for a man to indicate a single truthful phrase ?

[PsychoticEpisode]

And why would you assume that there is something about the nature of god that makes it impossible for a man to indicate a single truthful phrase ?

Have you forgotten I'm an atheist? Can you word that a little differently?

I don't wish to infect this thread with another scripture war, I just offered my two cents, that's all.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php
=====I wish I'd remembered that! Thanks for posting it here!

Just wanted to point out that there is a bit of apples and oranges about the terms superstition and myth.
Like if you break a mirror you get bad luck. A custom around relating to things. In a sense magic.
Whereas myth....
IOW superstitions are practices, generally involving things and myths are stories, generally involving gods or other entities with personalities.
I realize that this is not the issue you want to focus on but I felt like the waters were very muddy because of your terms right from the start.

I appreciate the definitions. It should help.
My intent wasn't that they are the same thing but different aspects of religion & didn't want the title too long. Maybe I should've explained a bit more in initial comments.

Which generally comes with a narrative 'explanation'. I realize I am pushing myth to the edge here, but I was working it from his rather bald dichotemy.
With philosophers I think I would have an easier time with the line I am taking by using Buddhism, but I'll stick with both for the challenge. If you have a Christian who says that they felt terrible, life sucked and they found themselves calling out to God one night who it seemed responded. They heard a voice and felt a presence. At first they were shocked and somewhat skeptical, but they followed the advice of this voice and felt good in the presence of this, whatever it was, and so continued this calling out to God and realized this was a form of prayer. This experience led them to read a lot of the New Testement, which also gave them a sense of peace. They decided that reading the NT and praying made them feel better - which was reflecting in their relationships and could even be verified objectively - ie. via third person, even non-religious subjective accounts of the changes in the person. They have now become Christian.

If one decides they are irrational without pursuing similar practices under some double blind research study conditions
and simply judges this person as irrational from the outside
isn't one essentially guessing - and if one adds some narrative

such as 'just like all Christians he was afraid of death and is gullible and thus irrationally latched onto something that may give some comfort but is actually just hallucination.'

isn't this myth?

Alcholics Anonymous has a fairly good success rate even compared with psychiatric approaches - another line I could take.

If such a thing happened to me, I would logicly consider several possible explanations which would make much better sense than a god.
1 doesn't need to go thru the same things they claim to experience when : 1 - Their beliefs impel them to force/coerce it on others, views others as evil, etc. 2 - All it should take to convince anyone that christianity is BS is to read the bible.

I've known & read of many people AA did not work well for.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Myths don't happen in reality nor are they witnessed. So myths are lies. The truth on the other hand can be supported by reality.;)

How is your truth supported by reality?

Do you preach to animals?

[Medicine*Woman]

:bugeye: If myths are true, then they wouldn't be myths. :rolleyes:
*************
M*W: Some myths may be proven to be true. Some truths may be proven to be a myth. It depends on who believes it and why they believe it to be the truth, and who believes it and why they believe it to be a myth. One requires logic and reason. The other requires the belief in faith.

[lightgigantic]

PsychoticEpisode
Have you forgotten I'm an atheist?
that would be difficult

Can you word that a little differently?

I don't wish to infect this thread with another scripture war, I just offered my two cents, that's all.
You said
Religion became a myth the minute man penned God's thoughts.

This suggests that there is something about the nature of god that is completely unknowable by another person.

Rather than speculate why your arguments rests on such an absurd premise, I gave you the opportunity to explain how you came to understand this

[PsychoticEpisode]

This suggests that there is something about the nature of god that is completely unknowable by another person.

Nothing like that at all. I was merely suggesting that the end of parol discussion took place at that moment. I believe that the written word is much more intoxicating. That's all but continue seeing whatever it is you wish to see because I'm used to it from you.

[Leo Volont]

Religion can be studied.

The problem with most Atheists is that very darn few of them have Degrees in Comparative Religious Studies.

While very ancient Religions may have foundations in almost pre-historic mythologies, and while the vagueness of almost pre-historic accounts may lend to the Mythologicalization of events, still, the Doctrines and Theologies of Religions, the Moral Instructions and such are all current and matters of record... well, of the Major Established Religions.

Then, even concerning the Supernatural... while the Dead Religions depend upon ancient memories, the Authentic Religions can point to Supernatural Events well into the Historical Period... even into the Modern Period. If one can refer to Primary Source Historical Documents in the support of certain Events, then they are hardly a matter of Mythology or Superstition any longer.

Typically Atheists point to the shakiness of the Original Ancient Documentations of Religion... convenient for them that all the primary sources had long since rotted away. Or they appeal to ancient Philosophies which were not really very sophisticated. What Atheists stay away from is Modern Documented Supernatural Events and current Metaphysical Philosophies. Atheists like to pick battles that they can win, but it should be seen as something somewhat Intellectually disingenuous to argue against Institutions based on their condition 2000 years ago, while ignoring everything that happened since the Rise of Christian Civilization or even since the invention of the Printing Press.

Really, one should not listen to any Atheist who does not have a degree in Comparative Religious Studies... and even then, it should be an Ivy League Degree. Recently I read a book by this Canadian Professor.... it seemed like he must have gotten his Doctorate from his local Community College.

[(Q)]

Really, one should not listen to any Atheist who does not have a degree in Comparative Religious Studies... and even then, it should be an Ivy League Degree.

Comparative religions would suggest multiple religions with multiple messages, somewhat making the ideal of one god, moot.

And, since scriptures can be interpreted to mean a great many things, one would be unable to "study" them without some form of consistency, considering many scriptures contradict themselves.

[PsychoticEpisode]

Religion can be studied.

The problem with most Atheists is that very darn few of them have Degrees in Comparative Religious Studies.

Really, one should not listen to any Atheist who does not have a degree in Comparative Religious Studies... and even then, it should be an Ivy League Degree.

Thank you Leo. You keep right on studying. Please continue the Religious Apartheid platform that both you and LG promote.

This religious caste system is a product of the minds of the deeply devouted (the so-called Professors of Ideology). Are they incapable of a thought of their own as they continue to deluge us with the wit and witticisms of ancient texts?

This is what the atheist is up against. Arrogant, ignorant, biased & prejudicial proclaimers of the truth in the guise of Comparative Religion degree holders.:D

[Medicine*Woman]

Religion can be studied.

The problem with most Atheists is that very darn few of them have Degrees in Comparative Religious Studies.

While very ancient Religions may have foundations in almost pre-historic mythologies, and while the vagueness of almost pre-historic accounts may lend to the Mythologicalization of events, still, the Doctrines and Theologies of Religions, the Moral Instructions and such are all current and matters of record... well, of the Major Established Religions.

Then, even concerning the Supernatural... while the Dead Religions depend upon ancient memories, the Authentic Religions can point to Supernatural Events well into the Historical Period... even into the Modern Period. If one can refer to Primary Source Historical Documents in the support of certain Events, then they are hardly a matter of Mythology or Superstition any longer.

Typically Atheists point to the shakiness of the Original Ancient Documentations of Religion... convenient for them that all the primary sources had long since rotted away. Or they appeal to ancient Philosophies which were not really very sophisticated. What Atheists stay away from is Modern Documented Supernatural Events and current Metaphysical Philosophies. Atheists like to pick battles that they can win, but it should be seen as something somewhat Intellectually disingenuous to argue against Institutions based on their condition 2000 years ago, while ignoring everything that happened since the Rise of Christian Civilization or even since the invention of the Printing Press.

Really, one should not listen to any Atheist who does not have a degree in Comparative Religious Studies... and even then, it should be an Ivy League Degree. Recently I read a book by this Canadian Professor.... it seemed like he must have gotten his Doctorate from his local Community College.
*************
M*W: Religion should be studied not just believed. Most atheists do more reading and research far beyond any degree in Comparative Religions.

We don't approach atheism blindly. Atheism is logical, understandable and reasonable. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

Atheism cannot be forced on anyone. It is a personal knowing of what is truth and what are lies. Atheists always question. Theists try not to. If theists find themselves questioning any part of their religion, they suddenly have an attack of guilt, then question their very own existence!

Theists are content to believe what they've been told is the absolute the truth. It is up to every individual to find his/her own path, to pursue that path, to learn that path, to believe in that path, and to live that path, and the truth will emerge... or it won't.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Atheism cannot be forced on anyone. I wish I'd said that!
Religion can be & is forced or coerced on nearly everyone who becomes a theist.

[lightgigantic]

Atheism cannot be forced on anyone. I wish I'd said that!
Religion can be & is forced or coerced on nearly everyone who becomes a theist.
what the hell do you suppose is going down in china or went down in communist russia?

[lightgigantic]

Nothing like that at all. I was merely suggesting that the end of parol discussion took place at that moment. I believe that the written word is much more intoxicating. That's all but continue seeing whatever it is you wish to see because I'm used to it from you.
so you think that anything truthful simply confounds expression in the written medium?
:confused:

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

what the hell do you suppose is going down in china or went down in communist russia?

There may be severe restrictions on religious practices but no 1 is forced to be an atheist.

[lightgigantic]

Psychotic episode
Thank you Leo. You keep right on studying. Please continue the Religious Apartheid platform that both you and LG promote.
Its not apartheid
Imagine how bogged down scientific disciplines would be if they were forbidden to pursue issues further than what your average taxi driver can manage

This religious caste system is a product of the minds of the deeply devouted (the so-called Professors of Ideology). Are they incapable of a thought of their own as they continue to deluge us with the wit and witticisms of ancient texts?
Religiousity is primarily owned by those who practice it - its the same for any field of knowledge. Certainly explains why geologists generally don't find their way onto board discussions of issues pertinent to astronomy

This is what the atheist is up against. Arrogant, ignorant, biased & prejudicial proclaimers of the truth in the guise of Comparative Religion degree holders.:D
Try reading some criticisms by academic atheists - generally you will see that they don't try and confound the premises of theism (ie they don't begin from the premise that "god doesn't exist. this is a fact" .... of course they might wholeheartedly accept that, by they wouldn't include it as a integral premise for their argument)

[lightgigantic]

There may be severe restrictions on religious practices but no 1 is forced to be an atheist.
dude, Marx (including his complete absolute rejection of god)) is accepted as a valuable contributor to national identity (and national identity gets drummed in to you from day one)
:o

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

It hasn't been drummed into me.

What makes you think I'm a dude???

[lightgigantic]

It hasn't been drummed into me.Then I guess you don't owe your heritage to china, eh?

What makes you think I'm a dude???
the demographics at sci
apologies
:o

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

It hasn't been drummed into me.


Then I guess you don't owe your heritage to china, eh?

(and national identity gets drummed in to you from day one)

======

[greenberg]

It hasn't been drummed into me.

Ideology of one kind or another is drummed into everyone. The difference is whether you are in the winning group or in the losers group.

If you are born into a family that ideologically complies with those in rule and as such, you have a privileged social and economical position, you probably won't feel that the ideology has been drummed into you; instead, the ideology will seem to you as something perfectly normal, natural and desirable.

If, however, you are born into a family of dissidents or misfits of one kind or another, then the ideology of those in rule will still be drummed into you, except that you will see it as something imposed on you, something negative - but not that you would be free from its influence.

[Leo Volont]

Again, someone deciding what will be known after getting a degree in Comparative Religious Studies.

If only it were that easy.

However, stupid first assumptions are often just that... stupid first assumptions.

Think about the possibility that Comparative Religious Studies might actually find that many of the World's Religions come to a consensus? But ignorant and uninformed people probably would never arrive to that insight, would they? Ergo, the need to enroll in schools... or at least do a little bit of homework... instead of just assuming and guessing through life.

Comparative religions would suggest multiple religions with multiple messages, somewhat making the ideal of one god, moot.

And, since scriptures can be interpreted to mean a great many things, one would be unable to "study" them without some form of consistency, considering many scriptures contradict themselves.

[swarm]

Wow you sure are into the degree in Comparative Religious Studies thing.

[Medicine*Woman]

Wow you sure are into the degree in Comparative Religious Studies thing.
*************
M*W: I went to a Baptist University, because of its close proximity to my home. I took a bunch of religious sudies and comparative religous courses, because they were required. I can tell you those who were getting degrees in comparative religions were biased in favor of christianity as the only true religion. A degree in comparative religions means absolutely nothing. Where one goes to school has a lot more to do with it.

[PsychoticEpisode]

Its not apartheid
Imagine how bogged down scientific disciplines would be if they were forbidden to pursue issues further than what your average taxi driver can manage

Funny, the last time I was picked up at the airport the taxi driver had a pharmaecology degree. His biggest problem was going to a foreign school not recognized by his peers in my country. Same for religion. Would a Southern Baptist church allow a Muslim to preach to its congregation? Would they let an atheist stand before them and lecture his tenets to the faithful? Why are the churches not mixed if its all the same god?

Religiousity is primarily owned by those who practice it - its the same for any field of knowledge. Certainly explains why geologists generally don't find their way onto board discussions of issues pertinent to astronomy
Get your head out of the sand my friend. A lot of collaborative science is going on. Religion seems to be falling behind in that regard. Let's send people to Mars and only consult rocket scientists:D

[(Q)]

However, stupid first assumptions are often just that... stupid first assumptions.

So, when claims of gods are offered, we are to leap to the assumption they do in fact exist, especially when observational evidence of their existence is not available?

Think about the possibility that Comparative Religious Studies might actually find that many of the World's Religions come to a consensus?

One can simply read the great variety of scriptures purporting the absoluteness of their doctrines and their gods existence, and that whomsoever should worship other gods, eternal damnation will be your destiny. Could you first decipher these comparisons, please?

But ignorant and uninformed people probably would never arrive to that insight, would they? Ergo, the need to enroll in schools... or at least do a little bit of homework... instead of just assuming and guessing through life.

Leo, you know as well as I, those members here who are skeptical of religions go to far more lengths and breadths to do their homework then the theists they question.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Ideology of one kind or another is drummed into everyone. The difference is whether you are in the winning group or in the losers group.

If you are born into a family that ideologically complies with those in rule and as such, you have a privileged social and economical position, you probably won't feel that the ideology has been drummed into you; instead, the ideology will seem to you as something perfectly normal, natural and desirable.

If, however, you are born into a family of dissidents or misfits of one kind or another, then the ideology of those in rule will still be drummed into you, except that you will see it as something imposed on you, something negative - but not that you would be free from its influence.

You are so freaking full of it. Don't tell me something's been drummed into me.

[lightgigantic]

Psychotic episode

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Its not apartheid
Imagine how bogged down scientific disciplines would be if they were forbidden to pursue issues further than what your average taxi driver can manage
”
Funny, the last time I was picked up at the airport the taxi driver had a pharmaecology degree.
... kind of makes you wonder why aspiring pharmacists as a whole don't take the fast track to the field via taxi driving .....


His biggest problem was going to a foreign school not recognized by his peers in my country. Same for religion. Would a Southern Baptist church allow a Muslim to preach to its congregation?
there's only one religion - devotion to god

Would they let an atheist stand before them and lecture his tenets to the faithful?
probably not

Why are the churches not mixed if its all the same god?
differences in approach to god reflects different conditioning- much like differences to approach to a tree as subject matter reflects different conditioning.

For instance, do you seriously think these following images are depicting absolutely different subjects?

http://www.sito.org/id/pug/Tree_painting_copy.jpg

http://www.stolaf.edu/courses/2004sem2/Art/260/Brit/Bamboo_and_Plum_Tree.jpg

“
Religiousity is primarily owned by those who practice it - its the same for any field of knowledge. Certainly explains why geologists generally don't find their way onto board discussions of issues pertinent to astronomy
”
Get your head out of the sand my friend. A lot of collaborative science is going on.
yet some how suggest a dearth of information that surrounds inter-faith dialogue
:confused:
Religion seems to be falling behind in that regard. Let's send people to Mars and only consult rocket scientists
fine
be my guest
but don't expect that to actually uplift society or provide any long lasting satisfaction to anyone

[lightgigantic]

There may be severe restrictions on religious practices but no 1 is forced to be an atheist.

It hasn't been drummed into me.



===========
;)

[lightgigantic]

You are so freaking full of it. Don't tell me something's been drummed into me.
ideology affects everyone
even high school students

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

ideology affects everyone
even high school students

So another ignorant arrogant knowitall weighs in.

[PsychoticEpisode]

So another ignorant arrogant knowitall weighs in.

I'd question whether that is true. Do religious philosophers really know anything other than each other's philosophy?;)

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

No 1 knows me better than I do.

[greenberg]

You are so freaking full of it. Don't tell me something's been drummed into me.

Like they say - Never underestimate the power of denial.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Never underestimate fools claiming to know things they have no way of knowing.

[lightgigantic]

So another ignorant arrogant knowitall weighs in.
if you think you are beyond issues of ideology, you have just weighed in as heavier on the scales ...
:(

[lightgigantic]

I'd question whether that is true. Do religious philosophers really know anything other than each other's philosophy?;)
its not even an issue of religion.

Try mentioning to someone who is even vaguely connected to social studies/soft science and tell them you are beyond issues of social ideology. Measure their response in a peer reviewed, empirically defined manner.
;)

[swarm]

Medicine*Woman
Where one goes to school has a lot more to do with it.

No doubt. And the person's purposes play a big role too.

I'm just surprised he is so into it as a panacea.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

The FACTS are that YOU DON'T KNOW ME & YOU DON'T KNOW THOSE THINGS about me & you are making unproven assinine assumptions & showing yourself even more to be a fool appealing to authority & generalizations rather than evidence.
Perhaps you should give more thought to what has been drummed into you.

[PsychoticEpisode]

PsychoticEpisode “ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
So another ignorant arrogant knowitall weighs in. ”

I'd question whether that is true. Do religious philosophers really know anything other than each other's philosophy?

its not even an issue of religion.

Try mentioning to someone who is even vaguely connected to social studies/soft science and tell them you are beyond issues of social ideology. Measure their response in a peer reviewed, empirically defined manner.
;)

My remark was not intended to raise that issue for which you speak. I do not expect that you, a religious philosopher by my book anyway, would know everything. Same goes for anybody. Your understanding of god however is culled from many books on the subject. Seeing how many atheists think those books are strictly mythology then I see no problem with what I wrote, something not meant to be taken literally.

LG, are you prepared to make the statement that the religious texts you derive your understanding of God from are, or do not contain in any way, a single myth or superstition?

[lightgigantic]

LG, are you prepared to make the statement that the religious texts you derive your understanding of God from are, or do not contain in any way, a single myth or superstition?

You miss the point

Understanding of god is derived from application of religious text - hence the term "revealed" scripture. One could memorize every sloka from every religious text in the world, but until one gets out of their philosopher's armchair and actually comes to the platform of action, such knowledge amounts to nil.

[PsychoticEpisode]

Originally Posted by PsychoticEpisode

LG, are you prepared to make the statement that the religious texts you derive your understanding of God from are, or do not contain in any way, a single myth or superstition?

Understanding of god is derived from application of religious text - hence the term "revealed" scripture. One could memorize every sloka from every religious text in the world, but until one gets out of their philosopher's armchair and actually comes to the platform of action, such knowledge amounts to nil.

So you're saying that none of what was ever written about the Greek or Roman Gods contained any mythology? I'm just using those gods since people identify them with mythology. You're answer seems evasive.

You cannot give me a straight yes or no and thus you resort to the standard answer that knowledge of god is dependent on my acceptance of God beforehand, thus only then do scriptures start to make sense. Next you will tell me that it is like a layperson who must accept that gravity exists before making sense of Einstein's general theory.

[lightgigantic]

So you're saying that none of what was ever written about the Greek or Roman Gods contained any mythology? I'm just using those gods since people identify them with mythology. You're answer seems evasive.

You cannot give me a straight yes or no and thus you resort to the standard answer that knowledge of god is dependent on my acceptance of God beforehand, thus only then do scriptures start to make sense. Next you will tell me that it is like a layperson who must accept that gravity exists before making sense of Einstein's general theory.

you asked

LG, are you prepared to make the statement that the religious texts you derive your understanding of God from are, or do not contain in any way, a single myth or superstition?

Did you mean to ask something more like

LG, are you prepared to make the statement that some religious texts contain myth or superstition?

[PsychoticEpisode]

Did you mean to ask something more like

LG, are you prepared to make the statement that some religious texts contain myth or superstition?

You're so smart. That will do. No trap, honest. But if you do say yes then I'm sure you're aware that all text will then come under scrutiny and become suspect. Not an enviable position to start an argument about religious text from if it does contain myth or superstition.

[lightgigantic]

You're so smart. That will do. No trap, honest. But if you do say yes then I'm sure you're aware that all text will then come under scrutiny and become suspect. Not an enviable position to start an argument about religious text from if it does contain myth or superstition.
basically your argument is "because some (religious) people get it wrong, all (religious) people get it wrong" ...... as if there is any discipline of knowledge that doesn't ... (you could just as easily substitute "religious" with "stamp collecting", "scientific", etc etc)

[PsychoticEpisode]

basically your argument is "because some (religious) people get it wrong, all (religious) people get it wrong" ...... as if there is any discipline of knowledge that doesn't ... (you could just as easily substitute "religious" with "stamp collecting", "scientific", etc etc)

But I'm talking about religion. Does religious text contain myth or superstition? Just a yes or no.

[lightgigantic]

But I'm talking about religion. Does religious text contain myth or superstition? Just a yes or no.
sure
just as science texts contains fallacies, just as stamp collecting texts contain fallacies, etc etc ..... all because some people some times get it wrong

[swarm]

lightgigantic
all because some people some times get it wrong

Myth isn't a matter of "getting it wrong." Myth can get it right, wrong and inbetween depending on the quality of the tale. But the point of myth is that it is a non literal approach to information, as opposed to a discription which is a literal approach to infomation. So the garden of Eden, for example is a myth. Only an idiot would try to take that as a literal description of what happened.

Superstition is something else entirely from myth, though myths can take advantage and even propogate superstitions. A superstition actually is a case of getting it wrong. Like if some one thought snakes are evil just because one is featured in the myth of the garden of Eden.

[lightgigantic]

Myth isn't a matter of "getting it wrong." Myth can get it right, wrong and inbetween depending on the quality of the tale. But the point of myth is that it is a non literal approach to information, as opposed to a discription which is a literal approach to infomation. So the garden of Eden, for example is a myth. Only an idiot would try to take that as a literal description of what happened.

Superstition is something else entirely from myth, though myths can take advantage and even propogate superstitions. A superstition actually is a case of getting it wrong. Like if some one thought snakes are evil just because one is featured in the myth of the garden of Eden.
yes, but it is still a fallacy. I mean you could get all technical and describe scientific fallacies of anthropology from 200 years ago being driven by eurocentric social pressure etc etc, but it still remains a fallacy.

[PsychoticEpisode]

What kind of social pressure were the writers of biblical text under? Surely there was pressure on them to pacify the society in which they lived. Of course that all depends on whether you believe God was actually dictating. So if it isn't good for anthropology then why is religion exempt from similar reasoning?

[lightgigantic]

What kind of social pressure were the writers of biblical text under? Surely there was pressure on them to pacify the society in which they lived. Of course that all depends on whether you believe God was actually dictating. So if it isn't good for anthropology then why is religion exempt from similar reasoning?
I think you missed my point

I was suggesting that some people some times getting it wrong is part of the furniture of any field of knowledge (eg, science, religion, stamp collecting etc etc)

[swarm]

lightgigantic
yes, but it is still a fallacy.

Which?

Myth can be fallacious or not. Its like saying "descriptions are fallacious," some are, some aren't.

I would agree superstition is inherently fallacious though.

[Cellar_Door]

There is no difference between them, except momentum.

[swarm]

Cellar_Door
There is no difference between them, except momentum.

On the off chance you are commenting on my post...there is significant difference.

In particular, the superstition pretends to be factual whereas the myth is known just to be a story.

[Carico]

Such ignorance and denial is common when comparing and contrasting religious cults and base superstitions, however, there are many base/core myths and superstitions that are shared between religious cults and other in-groups. The belief that Jesus was born of a virgin (a scientific improbability in the Iron Age, to say the very least) is one such myth. The belief that silent or oral utterances are heard by a deity who is loving and caring and will answer or respond (another scientific improbability) is one such superstition.

A myth is a manufactured belief that no one has witnessed in reality either in the past or present such as apes turning into people. ;) for that reason, the theory of evolution actually fits the definition of an hallucination. ;)

Jesus's life, on the other hand, was witnessed in outside reality and we have his words in print. So it doesn't fit the definition of a myth, superstition or hallucination. So as usual, unbelievers have it backwards because Satan entices you to believe that a lie is the truth and the truth is a lie. ;)

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

In particular, the superstition pretends to be factual whereas the myth is known just to be a story.

Known by who?

A myth is a manufactured belief that no one has witnessed in reality either in the past or present such as apes turning into people. ;) for that reason, the theory of evolution actually fits the definition of an hallucination. ;)
Jesus's life, on the other hand, was witnessed in outside reality and we have his words in print. So it doesn't fit the definition of a myth, superstition or hallucination. So as usual, unbelievers have it backwards because Satan entices you to believe that a lie is the truth and the truth is a lie. ;)

You don't know that you haven't been enticed into believing the lie.

[(Q)]

Jesus's life, on the other hand, was witnessed in outside reality and we have his words in print. So it doesn't fit the definition of a myth, superstition or hallucination.

It does in as much as Hercules was witnessed in outside reality and we have his words in print, too. :shrug:

[Cellar_Door]

On the off chance you are commenting on my post...there is significant difference.

In particular, the superstition pretends to be factual whereas the myth is known just to be a story.

No, not in particular - I was replying to the OP.

What we consider to be Roman/Greek/Norse/Egyptian/Mayan/Aztec etc. mythologies now where once polytheistic religions in their own rights. Superstitions often accompany a larger religion or nod back to a former belief system. An example would be the celebration of the originally Pagan festivals of Halloween and May Day despite the fact Britain for centuries was a Christian country.

You say we 'know' them to be stories now - because there is no-one left to argue they are true?
Like I said: there is no difference between them, except momentum.

[lightgigantic]

Which?

Myth can be fallacious or not. Its like saying "descriptions are fallacious," some are, some aren't.

I would agree superstition is inherently fallacious though.
The moment a myth is no longer fallacious it is no longer a myth - I mean suppose we were discussing "the myths of science" .... would you expect to encounter things that were not fallacious ... similarly, to coin something as a "myth" is simply a means to deem its knowledge content highly suspect.

[PsychoticEpisode]

sure
just as science texts contains fallacies, just as stamp collecting texts contain fallacies, etc etc ..... all because some people some times get it wrong

But not the scribes? They are not the someones who sometimes get things wrong? What if they only thing they got wrong was God's existence? One error like that can be costly for most religions, one mistake away from being total nonsense.

Its ok for science to be wrong and admittedly it has. Hardly acceptable for god's existence to be erroneously proclaimed in some dusty old papyra. Here's a question for you.... are religious people, including religious philosophers, who take biblical text literally more apt to be wrong than those who don't?

[lightgigantic]

But not the scribes? They are not the someones who sometimes get things wrong? What if they only thing they got wrong was God's existence? One error like that can be costly for most religions, one mistake away from being total nonsense.

Its ok for science to be wrong and admittedly it has. Hardly acceptable for god's existence to be erroneously proclaimed in some dusty old papyra. Here's a question for you.... are religious people, including religious philosophers, who take biblical text literally more apt to be wrong than those who don't?
errors are determined by application and not papyrus
:D

[swarm]

lightgigantic
The moment a myth is no longer fallacious it is no longer a myth - I mean suppose we were discussing "the myths of science" ....

You are trying to use a different meaning of the term myth...

I'm using: 1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

You seem to be trying to use either: 4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person. or 5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

The story of Marie Currie or Pasteur would be examples of scientific myths in the usage I am referring to.

[lightgigantic]

You are trying to use a different meaning of the term myth...

I'm using: 1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

.

so if the determinable basis of a given claim of knowledge can swing either way, how credible does that sound to you?

IOW determining religion as a sub category of myth is using far from neutral terminology.

[swarm]

For a myth it is entirely credible, as a myth. Its only if you try to pretend the myth isn't a myth, like some do with the bible, that the lack of credibility should be a problem. Yet the faithful swollow the most astounding fabrications hook line and sinker. Talking snakes, parting seas, no tall tale is too tall for the faithful.

The terminology is both accurate and neutral.

[lightgigantic]

For a myth it is entirely credible, as a myth. Its only if you try to pretend the myth isn't a myth, like some do with the bible, that the lack of credibility should be a problem. Yet the faithful swollow the most astounding fabrications hook line and sinker. Talking snakes, parting seas, no tall tale is too tall for the faithful.

The terminology is both accurate and neutral.
interestingly enough, the feats of modern science today would also sound mythical 2000 years ago .....
;)

[swarm]

And yet the actual events of the past don't sound mythical at all. Funny how that works.

[lightgigantic]

And yet the actual events of the past don't sound mythical at all. Funny how that works.
actual events?
you were actually there?
(funny, indeed)

[PsychoticEpisode]

swarm
And yet the actual events of the past don't sound mythical at all. Funny how that works

actual events?
you were actually there?
(funny, indeed)

I knew you would jump on that. Remove the word 'actual' and respond to it. Anyway a slight diversion was necessary for you to deflect Swarm's statement, which 'actually' speaks volumes.

lightgigantic

interestingly enough, the feats of modern science today would also sound mythical 2000 years ago .....

I'm not allowed to speak in absolutes yet this general conclusive statement is making a direct inference without anyway of checking validity. It is a totally bogus tactic designed to throw off the reader.

When Swarm facetiously said that it was funny how events of the past, which by the way include the writing of every biblical text you've ever laid eyes on, were not considered mythical..... it was preceded by a classic painting oneself into a corner statement from you. LG, please dig deep and give us the explanation as to why Swarm's logic is flawed and yours is not.

[lightgigantic]

I knew you would jump on that. Remove the word 'actual' and respond to it. Anyway a slight diversion was necessary for you to deflect Swarm's statement, which 'actually' speaks volumes.
its begging the question
the whole issue of what is "actual" is the precise topic of discussion



I'm not allowed to speak in absolutes
for two reasons

you make negative absolutes

you have empiricism as your foundation



yet this general conclusive statement is making a direct inference without anyway of checking validity. It is a totally bogus tactic designed to throw off the reader.
there's a difference between a conclusive statement and an absolute one ...

When Swarm facetiously said that it was funny how events of the past, which by the way include the writing of every biblical text you've ever laid eyes on, were not considered mythical..... it was preceded by a classic painting oneself into a corner statement from you. LG, please dig deep and give us the explanation as to why Swarm's logic is flawed and yours is not.
my point is that simply because something "seems" like a myth from a certain standard in no way confirms that it is.

For instance, one reason that the feats of contemporary life would seem like myths to persons from the previous millennium is because they are not privy to a certain knowledge (or quite possibly, ignorance )base that makes the modern day what it is

[PsychoticEpisode]

lightgigantic “
interestingly enough, the feats of modern science today would also sound mythical 2000 years ago .....

If the feats of modern science proved the ancients were mythical then the truth about ancients would sound like a myth to them?:shrug: If the ancients believed the Earth was flat and I was able to go back in time and take them into space to view the planet then you are saying that despite all my best efforts the ancients would consider the evidence garnered from such an excursion as totally mythical?



my point is that simply because something "seems" like a myth from a certain standard in no way confirms that it is.

Oh, like the moon is made of cheese or a god created the universe.:D

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

You mean the moon isn't made of cheese???

[swarm]

lightgigantic
actual events?

Yep, actual events.

you were actually there?

The events were there and left evidence of their existence.

Why is your god so useless that you need bronze age sheep herders to find him?

[greenberg]

The events were there and left evidence of their existence.

And you have unwavering confidence in the qualification and truthfulness of
1. the people who processed particular artifacts and put them in a particular context
2. the principle of inference
-?

[greenberg]

If the feats of modern science proved the ancients were mythical

Modern science does not deal with absolutes. It therefore cannot really prove anything.


If the ancients believed the Earth was flat and I was able to go back in time and take them into space to view the planet then you are saying that despite all my best efforts the ancients would consider the evidence garnered from such an excursion as totally mythical?

Could be. Unless they would also develop proper understanding of space travel (which would probably have to include understanding that the Earth is round), they probably could not make much sense of the space adventure you would take them on and would not see it as evidence or proof that the Earth is flat.

[swarm]

greenberg
And you have unwavering confidence in the of
1. the people who processed particular artifacts and put them in a particular context
2. the principle of inference

The qualification and truthfulness of the various scientists involved has been proven sufficiently over time that I do have reasonable confidence in their findings. Also there is this process called peer review and verification which has proven very effective at refining our understanding and ferreting out those who are lacking.

If you are into absolute "certainty" you will find me absolutely frustrating because I've neither need nor desire for such nonsense. Reasonable certainty is just fine when coupled with reasonable verification and error correction processes.

[swarm]

greenberg
Modern science does not deal with absolutes. It therefore cannot really prove anything.

Science does not prove, it fails to disprove.

It does not give you the "right" answer. It gives you an answer which has not been shown to be wrong.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Modern science does not deal with absolutes. It therefore cannot really prove anything.

Could be. Unless they would also develop proper understanding of space travel (which would probably have to include understanding that the Earth is round), they probably could not make much sense of the space adventure you would take them on and would not see it as evidence or proof that the Earth is flat.

Someone taken off Earth would probably have to understand Earth is round to see that it's round???

[PsychoticEpisode]

Modern science does not deal with absolutes. It therefore cannot really prove anything.

I understand that but the conclusion reached by LG was that the feats of modern science would be considered mythical by the ancients. This would imply some method of venturing into the past to pass on information from the future, or our now. Actually when I think of it, LG is giving credence to Von Daniken's work and by doing so has unwittingly offered the suggestion that God could be us, I find that amusingly intriguing. If we do communicate with the ancients, the truth may actually reveal that the chrononauts are the god(s) referred to in all biblical texts.

Therefore it would be in LG's best interest to retract his statement because what it does is provide a vehicle by which all religion is driven to falsehood. Of course it all hinges on modern science being capable of such a feat.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Or future science.

[PsychoticEpisode]

LG...I just can't see how, upon the arrival of modern man to the ancient world, that our ancestors would consider everything they see as mythical. You mean to tell me that they wouldn't even write about it or if they did, the actual events would be mythical even though they really happened.

[greenberg]

Someone taken off Earth would probably have to understand Earth is round to see that it's round???

Perhaps that too. But they would certainly need to understand what space travel means, so as to make sense of being put into a rocket and launched up into the atmosphere. - And for this, they would have to have some understanding that the Earth is round.
If they wouldn't know what a rocket is, what space travel is, and so on - even if they did find themselves up in space - they probably wouldn't know what they are looking at to begin with, and might tend to think the whole thing is a hoax. That is, if they somehow managed not die of panic and fear.

[greenberg]

Reasonable certainty is just fine when coupled with reasonable verification and error correction processes.

Then please use it, instead of presuming it.

[greenberg]

I understand that but the conclusion reached by LG was that the feats of modern science would be considered mythical by the ancients.

Probably, yes.


This would imply some method of venturing into the past to pass on information from the future, or our now.

No, it implies no such thing. You are forcing this. It was a simple thought experiment.


Actually when I think of it, LG is giving credence to Von Daniken's work and by doing so has unwittingly offered the suggestion that God could be us, I find that amusingly intriguing. If we do communicate with the ancients, the truth may actually reveal that the chrononauts are the god(s) referred to in all biblical texts.

Therefore it would be in LG's best interest to retract his statement because what it does is provide a vehicle by which all religion is driven to falsehood. Of course it all hinges on modern science being capable of such a feat.

All you have said is that perhaps God does not really exist.


LG...I just can't see how, upon the arrival of modern man to the ancient world, that our ancestors would consider everything they see as mythical. You mean to tell me that they wouldn't even write about it or if they did, the actual events would be mythical even though they really happened.

To keep with the speculation: The ancients could only write about anything in their own, ancient way.
An ancient would not say: "And then I saw a man wearing a Hugo Boss suit with a blackberry in his hand, sending messages to his personal assistant who was 10.000 miles away in New York, USA."
Upon seeing modern man, an ancient would probably say only "And then I saw a wondrous creature that looked like a man, but I am not sure if it was. I spoke to it, but it didn't seem to understand me."

[PsychoticEpisode]

interestingly enough, the feats of modern science today would also sound mythical 2000 years ago .....
;)

Green: the above is not a probably.

The reciprocal of such a statement would be 'the feats of the ancients sound true today'.

Well, Holy Hanna, ain't that the truth when it comes to religion. No matter how we treat the ways of the ancients, no matter that they were wrong in many endeavors, their religious texts are accepted by believers as gospel.

To keep with the speculation: The ancients could only write about anything in their own, ancient way.......Upon seeing modern man, an ancient would probably say only "And then I saw a wondrous creature that looked like a man, but I am not sure if it was. I spoke to it, but it didn't seem to understand me."

A great reason for such an experience to be mythical to the ancients:rolleyes: Let's say the visit became religious text. Modern man upon his return would be able to recognize it in surviving text, does fact become fiction? No, the truth becomes known. The mythical visitors are no longer mythical. Being able to visit the past would probably change religion forever.

[greenberg]

Green: the above is not a probably.

The reciprocal of such a statement would be 'the feats of the ancients sound true today'.

You are being deliberately obtuse.


Well, Holy Hanna, ain't that the truth when it comes to religion. No matter how we treat the ways of the ancients, no matter that they were wrong in many endeavors, their religious texts are accepted by believers as gospel.

So?
How many times have you been told that you are wrong? Many times. Did you change your mind? No. But others should change their mind, just because they were told they are wrong?


Let's say the visit became religious text. Modern man upon his return would be able to recognize it in surviving text, does fact become fiction? No, the truth becomes known. The mythical visitors are no longer mythical.

Good.


Being able to visit the past would probably change religion forever.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Didn't.

[PsychoticEpisode]

You are being deliberately obtuse.

I guess your not questioning my sensitivity. If you tell someone you know nothing about that they're being deliberately obtuse then ....aww.... never mind.

So?
How many times have you been told that you are wrong? Many times. Did you change your mind? No. But others should change their mind, just because they were told they are wrong?

Are you sure about that?

Being able to visit the past would probably change religion forever. ”

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Didn't.

Didn't you know? Everything would be a myth anyway, like moon landings and holocausts.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Perhaps that too. But they would certainly need to understand what space travel means, so as to make sense of being put into a rocket and launched up into the atmosphere. - And for this, they would have to have some understanding that the Earth is round.
If they wouldn't know what a rocket is, what space travel is, and so on - even if they did find themselves up in space - they probably wouldn't know what they are looking at to begin with, and might tend to think the whole thing is a hoax. That is, if they somehow managed not die of panic and fear.

Some people of that time & place would react that way & some wouldn't.

[greenberg]

I guess your not questioning my sensitivity. If you tell someone you know nothing about that they're being deliberately obtuse then ....aww.... never mind.

I do know something about you. You are someone who said:

Originally Posted by PsychoticEpisode

I've adopted the psychotic approach as an experiment. I couldn't act psychotic in the real world if I tried. What am I testing? Now I can't give that away because I need to keep it kind of hush hush for now. Then again, maybe I am psycho.

You have thereby forfeited all privileges for the regard for your sensitivity.

Hence it is perfectly okay for people to call you on it when you are being deliberately obtuse.

[PsychoticEpisode]

I do know something about you. You are someone who said:

Originally Posted by PsychoticEpisode

I've adopted the psychotic approach as an experiment. I couldn't act psychotic in the real world if I tried. What am I testing? Now I can't give that away because I need to keep it kind of hush hush for now. Then again, maybe I am psycho.

You have thereby forfeited all privileges for the regard for your sensitivity.

Hence it is perfectly okay for people to call you on it when you are being deliberately obtuse.

Hahahaha! I think we were talking internet persona with that one. I intimated that you can be anyone you want to be and you've taken it to heart. Good for you.

For all we know, we are all mythical beings here. I could be a disgruntled holy man, a religious philosopher, Satanist or just playing the devil's advocate for all you know. There's a myriad of possibilities for me and you for that matter. Am I really an atheist?

You come across as a very young man to me, perhaps you're not but IMO you haven't seen much of the real world. Perhaps that's the image you want, so be it. The thing is, we have to leave personality out of everything discussed here because there is no real corroborating evidence to pass judgment on anyone despite what they say.

I try not to discuss my private life but occasionally I do slip up. Still I don't think I've coughed up too much real hard evidence of who I really am or what I do. Even if I did, it wouldn't mean anything. So Greener....I don't mind the insults, the calling out or any trash thrown my way. I consider such acts as proof people are prone to be gullible. That gullibility factor is important in this subforum at least. People will believe what they believe based on written text, here or in book form, again relevant to this section. People will judge, again because of what they read, and this subforum is no different.

[greenberg]

For all we know, we are all mythical beings here. I could be a disgruntled holy man, a religious philosopher, Satanist or just playing the devil's advocate for all you know. There's a myriad of possibilities for me and you for that matter.

Sure.


Am I really an atheist?

That's your thing.


You come across as a very young man to me, perhaps you're not but IMO you haven't seen much of the real world. Perhaps that's the image you want, so be it.

A very young man? Okay. He he.


The thing is, we have to leave personality out of everything discussed here because there is no real corroborating evidence to pass judgment on anyone despite what they say.

What's your point?


I try not to discuss my private life but occasionally I do slip up. Still I don't think I've coughed up too much real hard evidence of who I really am or what I do. Even if I did, it wouldn't mean anything.

And you think I care whether and how much actual personal stuff you've posted here or not?

This forum is to me a training ground for argumentation, discussion, not for getting to know people, not for getting to know "who they really are".

I have an axe to grind with Spiritual Universalism, atheism, Christianity and impersonalism, so when someone argues for these philosophies (whether they genuinely believe them or not is beside the point for me), I want to test my argumentation skills against them.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

I wish you luck in improving.

[lightgigantic]

Psychoticepisode

lightgigantic “
interestingly enough, the feats of modern science today would also sound mythical 2000 years ago .....
”
If the feats of modern science proved the ancients were mythical then the truth about ancients would sound like a myth to them?
proved?
excuse me?

If the ancients believed the Earth was flat and I was able to go back in time and take them into space to view the planet then you are saying that despite all my best efforts the ancients would consider the evidence garnered from such an excursion as totally mythical?
you are trying to suggest that all ancients in all times believed that the earth was flat?

.... if we want to apply "because some people get somethings wrong, all people get all things wrong", we also have sufficient means to turf out science (as well as ethics, philosophy, medicine, art, literature, law, etc etc .... which would leave us with maybe grunting)
:o

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic

my point is that simply because something "seems" like a myth from a certain standard in no way confirms that it is.
”
Oh, like the moon is made of cheese or a god created the universe.
more like say the state of the entire earth's populations 2 000 000 years ago based upon an a selection of evidence one could fit on a pool table.

[JDawg]

Just how freakin' big are the pool tables in your neck of the woods??

[lightgigantic]

LG...I just can't see how, upon the arrival of modern man to the ancient world, that our ancestors would consider everything they see as mythical. You mean to tell me that they wouldn't even write about it or if they did, the actual events would be mythical even though they really happened.
I mean something more like


"[To Robert Fulton:] What, sir, would you make a ship sail against the wind and currents by lighting a bonfire under her deck? I pray you excuse me. I have no time to listen to such nonsense."
-- Napoleon I

[lightgigantic]

Just how freakin' big are the pool tables in your neck of the woods??
let me reiterate

more like say the entire state of the entire earth's populations 2 000 000 years ago based upon an a selection of evidence one could fit on a pool table.

[lightgigantic]

Or future science.
no matter how deeply we immerse ourselves into star trek, there remains two inherent limitations to (empirical) science.



There is an epistemological great divide that separates all knowable things into two categories –those things we can control and those things we cannot control.

Some things we cannot control simply because we don’t have the technology or knowledge to control them yet (as one bumper sticker reads “Earth First. We can mess up the other planets later”). So in principle we could control them. But there are some things we cannot control even in principle.

more (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1934111&postcount=1)

[PsychoticEpisode]

no matter how deeply we immerse ourselves into star trek, there remains two inherent limitations to (empirical) science.

There is an epistemological great divide that separates all knowable things into two categories –those things we can control and those things we cannot control.

Some things we cannot control simply because we don’t have the technology or knowledge to control them yet (as one bumper sticker reads “Earth First. We can mess up the other planets later”). So in principle we could control them. But there are some things we cannot control even in principle.[/I]

Could you cut to the chase please?

Psychology is a science. One of the things we can control is the ideology of the masses. You are under a spell and you've lived most of your entire life not realizing it. Being under control gives you the opportunity, and for some the power to control others, no principles involved whatsoever.

[lightgigantic]

Could you cut to the chase please?

OK ...... (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1997286&postcount=1)

[PsychoticEpisode]

OK ...... (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1997286&postcount=1)

Why not? Insofar as all we know, this is it.

The only thing I struggle with is life itself. But it is here. I can't touch it but I can't touch gravity either. There is currently enough mystery in the universe for a god to exist as a thought. A thought is a natural product of the material brain. I don't see what the problem is, can you elaborate?

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

lightgigantic
Go! Run! GAAAAAAAHHHHHH! (8,278 posts)
09-04-08, 09:28 PM #1

Here’s a curious statement which tends to under-ride practically all atheist claims.

“There cannot be certain occurrences that cannot be explained by natural laws (granted that new information and revision of natural law definitions proceeds).”

Is this a statement of belief or is it impervious to issues of incredulity?

Stranger =========== I've never heard that from an atheist.
Everything does have an explanation. Many things we don't yet have the explanation for. Some things we may never have the explanation for.

[PsychoticEpisode]

If we don't know or have an explanation for everything then how do we know God exists?

[swarm]

lightgigantic
more like say the entire state of the entire earth's populations 2 000 000 years ago based upon an a selection of evidence one could fit on a pool table.

Only in your dreams.

[swarm]

StrangerInAStrangeLa
There cannot be certain occurrences that cannot be explained by natural laws.

I would say that claim is over stated.

Science can only directly explain things which can be observed and verified (which usually requires their being subject to measurement of some kind and their being replicable). It is possible to speculate about somethings which are not subject to observation and verification, like strings, but they cannot be known as being actual until there exists a way to at least indirectly observe and verify their existence.

Natural laws are just derived from observation of nature. If something "violates" one it just means the "law" was miss formulated. There can be any number of things which we didn't yet know from which we might need to reformulate "natural law." The theory of relativity being a famous example.

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic
Go! Run! GAAAAAAAHHHHHH! (8,278 posts)
09-04-08, 09:28 PM #1

Here’s a curious statement which tends to under-ride practically all atheist claims.

“There cannot be certain occurrences that cannot be explained by natural laws (granted that new information and revision of natural law definitions proceeds).”

Is this a statement of belief or is it impervious to issues of incredulity?

Stranger =========== I've never heard that from an atheist.
Everything does have an explanation. Many things we don't yet have the explanation for. Some things we may never have the explanation for.
strange that you can post this above pschotic's contribution ...

[lightgigantic]

If we don't know or have an explanation for everything then how do we know God exists?
you think that empiricism accounts for everything knowable?

[lightgigantic]

A thought is a natural product of the material brain.
given that classical empiricism is your modus operandi, that is actually a thought
:D

[PsychoticEpisode]

you think that empiricism accounts for everything knowable?

Except everything there is to know about nothing, but I think that's where you come in.

[flameofanor5]

The story of Exodus in the OT was a myth ,so by your own admission the Old Testament is a lie.

Exodus isn't one story, it's actually quite a few stories. Before you start saying lies like that get your facts right.

[lightgigantic]

Except everything there is to know about nothing, but I think that's where you come in.
now would be a good time to explain how you know that consciousness is a materially reducible phenomena ..... that god doesn't exist .... etc etc
:D

[PsychoticEpisode]

more like say the state of the entire earth's populations 2 000 000 years ago based upon an a selection of evidence one could fit on a pool table.

I can't find enough evidence of God to fit on a microscope slide.

[lightgigantic]

I can't find enough evidence of God to fit on a microscope slide.
if you also took an extended detour whenever you encountered the means of practical lab work, you probably wouldn't even find a microscope
:D

[PsychoticEpisode]

now would be a good time to explain how you know that consciousness is a materially reducible phenomena ..... that god doesn't exist .... etc etc
:D

Good Lord!!! Not again. This will accomplish nothing.

As far as I can tell, without me being here there is no consciousness. To be conscious of my existence I have to exist. Since I exist there is a good possibility of me being conscious of it, and in my own case I am. I have yet to bump into any disembodied consciousnesses.

[PsychoticEpisode]

if you also took an extended detour whenever you encountered the means of practical lab work, you probably wouldn't even find a microscope
:D

You are a condescending little minx tonight.:cool: I love it. Oh LG, there you go again, making claims without any evidence. A very common theistic trait.

If our ancestors saw lab work then it would only be mythical as you've claimed. Just what did the ancients see that convinces you they were on the fast track to God?

[greenberg]

Oh LG, there you go again, making claims without any evidence. A very common theistic trait.

Can you tell the difference between philosophy and empiricism??

[lightgigantic]

Good Lord!!! Not again. This will accomplish nothing.

As far as I can tell, without me being here there is no consciousness. To be conscious of my existence I have to exist. Since I exist there is a good possibility of me being conscious of it, and in my own case I am. I have yet to bump into any disembodied consciousnesses.
that's fine but when you make claims that your consciousness is materially reducible and that empiricism has the monopoly on anything knowable you have just shot yourself in the foot
:D

[lightgigantic]

Just what did the ancients see that convinces you they were on the fast track to God?
in short, the ability to control themselves, was a primary requisite ... much like acquisition of a microscope is the primary requisite for claims about how much evidence can fit on a microscope slide
:D

[PsychoticEpisode]

that's fine but when you make claims that your consciousness is materially reducible and that empiricism has the monopoly on anything knowable you have just shot yourself in the foot
:D

Philosopher shot through head...bullet in critical condition:D

I wouldn't expect you to say otherwise. Do you believe humans have a monopoly on consciousness? If so is that why we are special in your mind, thus deserving of a god or at least a recipient of His generosity?

[PsychoticEpisode]

in short, the ability to control themselves, was a primary requisite ... much like acquisition of a microscope is the primary requisite for claims about how much evidence can fit on a microscope slide
:D

Not what I asked:shrug: ....... what did they see or experience?

[PsychoticEpisode]

Can you tell the difference between philosophy and empiricism??

Actually a philosopher senses more than he experiences.

[lightgigantic]

Do you believe humans have a monopoly on consciousness?
not at all

If so is that why we are special in your mind, thus deserving of a god or at least a recipient of His generosity?
the specialness of humanity is that we have a good opportunity to spend time understanding issues of god, spirituality. It is possible for us to organize our societies so that we don't have to spend 24/7 involved in issues of eating, sleeping, mating and defending

the specialness of this contemporary age is that we have made our societies so unnecessarily complex that we are practically engaged in issues of sleeping, eating, mating and defending 24/7.

this indicates that we, as a whole, are not so happy with what the human form of life actually affords, so we will inevitably pursue desires more easily afforded in forms of life other than human.

Through out it all, god is directing the wandering the soul through various forms of life through the agencies of remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness

[lightgigantic]

Not what I asked:shrug: ....... what did they see or experience?
that's my point
their experience begins from the experience of controlling their senses ... much like the experience of determining what evidence a microscope slide holds involves acquiring a microscope - IOW they are both the very means of "seeing" the issue at hand

[lightgigantic]

Actually a philosopher senses more than he experiences.
you have experience of consciousness being materially reducible, of god not existing etc etc?
;)

[PsychoticEpisode]

you have experience of consciousness being materially reducible, of god not existing etc etc?
;)

We, all life forms, are machines. Maybe not composed of metal and plastic, but machines nonetheless. If God is anything, He is a mechanic.

[PsychoticEpisode]

Originally Posted by PsychoticEpisode
Do you believe humans have a monopoly on consciousness?

not at all

“ If so is that why we are special in your mind,

the specialness of humanity is that we have a good opportunity to spend time understanding issues of god, spirituality.

Then we have a monopoly on the specialness? So if consciousness is not special to us, then its importance in understanding God is belittled. Perhaps we are the only creature in the universe conscious of themselves that thinks there's a God to understand. And not even all of humanity can agree to that.

Along with consciousness we have imagination. We have to be careful not to combine the two. I can understand the concept of God but only as an idea, because that's what it is. I can understand God is real to some people and they don't really need to see Him to believe it but its only link to this reality is as a thought because that's all it is. Imagination can supplant the true reality.

[lightgigantic]

We, all life forms, are machines. Maybe not composed of metal and plastic, but machines nonetheless. If God is anything, He is a mechanic.
something like that

BG 8.61 The Supreme Lord is situated in everyone's heart, O Arjuna, and is directing the wanderings of all living entities, who are seated as on a machine, made of the material energy.

[lightgigantic]

Then we have a monopoly on the specialness?
You bet!

It's not aardvarks that are contributing to world climate change

So if consciousness is not special to us, then its importance in understanding God is belittled.
I'm not sure I follow ....

Perhaps we are the only creature in the universe conscious of themselves that thinks there's a God to understand. And not even all of humanity can agree to that.
hence there is the practical application of spiritual discipline to take one from "perhaps" to certainty

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

let me reiterate
more like say the entire state of the entire earth's populations 2 000 000 years ago based upon an a selection of evidence one could fit on a pool table.

No 1 knows what the population was more than 12,000 years ago. How's that related to religion, myth or superstition??

swarm
Registered User (469 posts)
Yesterday, 04:35 AM #129

“ StrangerInAStrangeLa
There cannot be certain occurrences that cannot be explained by natural laws. ”

I would say that claim is over stated.

Science can only directly explain things which can be observed and verified (which usually requires their being subject to measurement of some kind and their being replicable). It is possible to speculate about somethings which are not subject to observation and verification, like strings, but they cannot be known as being actual until there exists a way to at least indirectly observe and verify their existence.

Natural laws are just derived from observation of nature. If something "violates" one it just means the "law" was miss formulated. There can be any number of things which we didn't yet know from which we might need to reformulate "natural law." The theory of relativity being a famous example.
---------------------------------
Stranger =============== This (“ StrangerInAStrangeLa
There cannot be certain occurrences that cannot be explained by natural laws. ” ) was from someone else's post I was quoting & replying to.

I said there is an explanation for everything not that science can currently explain everything.

strange that you can post this above pschotic's contribution ...

Do you think you have a point?

[PsychoticEpisode]

It's not aardvarks that are contributing to world climate change

Belonging to the mammalian segment of Earth's population kind of makes them at least guilty by association

there is the practical application of spiritual discipline to take one from "perhaps" to certainty

How do you know your disciplined enough? How would you know if I'm not more disciplined than you? 'Perhaps' sounds more disciplined than belief in a 'certainty' don't you think?

[lightgigantic]

Belonging to the mammalian segment of Earth's population kind of makes them at least guilty by association
I would have thought the complete absence of opposable thumbs might have got them off the hook ....



How do you know your disciplined enough? How would you know if I'm not more disciplined than you? 'Perhaps' sounds more disciplined than belief in a 'certainty' don't you think?
its kind of like the way how a little bit of application to any field enables one to quickly assess how another is situated in a generally accurate fashion - for instance a person who has been driving a heavy rigid vehicle for 30 years can easily recognize someone who has only spent less than 10 hours behind the wheel

[PsychoticEpisode]

its kind of like the way how a little bit of application to any field enables one to quickly assess how another is situated in a generally accurate fashion - for instance a person who has been driving a heavy rigid vehicle for 30 years can easily recognize someone who has only spent less than 10 hours behind the wheel

Assumption is synonymous with 'perhaps'. I don't know how you can be certain about internet personalities.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
its kind of like the way how a little bit of application to any field enables one to quickly assess how another is situated in a generally accurate fashion - for instance a person who has been driving a heavy rigid vehicle for 30 years can easily recognize someone who has only spent less than 10 hours behind the wheel ”

That person might be right more often than wrong but I wouldn't bet much on him being right any 1 certain time.

1111

[lightgigantic]

Assumption is synonymous with 'perhaps'. I don't know how you can be certain about internet personalities.
I guess there is the possibility that a pro-driver could be pretending to display the aptitude of a rookie .....

[lightgigantic]

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
its kind of like the way how a little bit of application to any field enables one to quickly assess how another is situated in a generally accurate fashion - for instance a person who has been driving a heavy rigid vehicle for 30 years can easily recognize someone who has only spent less than 10 hours behind the wheel ”

That person might be right more often than wrong but I wouldn't bet much on him being right any 1 certain time.

1111
persons who have a livelihood that depends on the logistics of the transport industry have different opinions ...

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

That certainly wouldn't surprise me. Most people have different opinions from me on most issues. Most people think much more of themselves & their abilities than is logicly justified.
I've experienced exactly the situation you described hundreds of times & read of hundreds more.
I skipped this before but to reach even the level of it that I agree to takes much more than a LITTLE BIT of application to a field.
1111

[lightgigantic]

That certainly wouldn't surprise me. Most people have different opinions from me on most issues. Most people think much more of themselves & their abilities than is logicly justified.
I've experienced exactly the situation you described hundreds of times & read of hundreds more.
I skipped this before but to reach even the level of it that I agree to takes much more than a LITTLE BIT of application to a field.
1111
a little bit is quite an immense contribution when compared to absolutely nothing

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

a little bit is quite an immense contribution when compared to absolutely nothing

Absurdity piled upon absurdity.
1111

[greenberg]

Absurdity piled upon absurdity.
1111

You sure got spunk, I give you that.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

You've got ideas that I've experienced being false.
1111