It's the 21st century CE, why do people still believe in ancient myths?

*************
M*W: Christianity is declining worldwide. There is no proof that Jesus existed. Bible errancy has been proven beyond the shadow of doubt. There is conflict and corruption in the Christian religion. Yet, people still believe. These same people don't seem to grow or advance. They hold onto ancient myths. Their reasoning is fantastic. Why do they refuse to see the truth?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

what you are asking couold be asked of any one, christian, anti-christ, theist, atheist, scientist or beggar.
your question equates to; why do people not identify reality in a way which is a true representation of reality?

i ask of you this question and it will answer for me your question? why do you ask your question only of the religious and choose to ignore those who are not religious and still fail to accurately identify reality?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i doubt it.

it doesnt matter. there's no need proof for everything. in fact, some things are true and you can't find proof of them. atlantis and lemuria perhaps.

not really, there's just a few errors in that book.

not for all people.

you can't affect the whole world just like that. it takes hundreds of years.

myths include truth.

they have seen their personal truth.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

*************
M*W: Good point. My question is that I don't understand the religious who still believe in ancient myths. For the others, whatever their beliefs may be, may not be reality to me, but it is to them. I specifically didn't ask the question of everyone, only the religious who believe in fantasies. There are those who may or may not be religious but who live outside of reality. Although I have sympathy for them, I didn't expect to solicit their answers. I'm only interested in those who profess Christianity in the 21st century CE after being informed that there is no evidence for Jesus' existence, and that the bible is grossly errant, etc. (And they most definitely HAVE BEEN informed here on sciforums).

 

It rather seemd to me that MW was asking "why do people not identify reality in a way which matches my perception of reality?"
The answer then becomes self evident and no reply is necessary.

 

*************
M*W: My reality of religion is that it is just a fantasy people hold on to for whatever their reasons may be. I'm an atheist. I'm not looking for atheist's replies. Religionists may have many reasons they hold on to religion. I'm not looking for replies that agree with my idea of reality. I'm looking for replies from religionists, mostly Christians.

 

I've thought about this a lot. I have no definitive conclusions but I do have some observations and ideas.

The human brain has not really evolved for logic or scientific thought. It has evolved largely to make real-time quick and dirty decisions regarding survival. Emotional impetus, generalizations, quick and imprecise pattern recognition, and correlation recognition are its primary tools. These can lead to imprecise and inaccurate but often useful survival strategies.

In other words, our brains evolved to survive. Whether or not our conclusions are truthful and accurate was not nearly as important as how well they affect the odds of our survival. The problem is that as our capacity to acquire and measure information has increased, our ability to accurately process this data properly on a daily basis has not.

Case point:

Q: Which is more dangerous for a child for you to have at home; a gun or a swimming pool?

A: A typical survey reveals that the average American believes that guns are a much larger threat to children than swimming pools. However, the statistics reveal that the average American child is 100 times more likely to die in a swimming pool than by gunshot. Not only that but 1 child dies annually per every 11,000 swimming pools while only 1 child dies annually for every million guns. Clearly swimming pools are FAR more dangerous to own than guns. So why do most people believe exactly the opposite of the truth?

Emotion: Guns are scarier than swimming pools. Guns are designed to kill, swimming pools are not. Guns also kill because of a deliberate act or a mistake in judgment. Pools deaths are almost entirely accidental.

Reliance on testimonial evidence / Inaccurate reporting of data: Due to its emotional content, gun deaths are broadcast much more thoroughly than pool deaths. Everyone with a television, newspaper, or radio has heard testimonial evidence about many gun deaths. How many times have you heard about a child dieing in a swimming pool, particularly on the national news? This unbalanced data gives a gross misrepresentation of the facts. People then found their beliefs on such extremely biased data.

Correlation: Correlation in the two cases is perceived differently. Because guns require a human act to be dangerous the correlation between the gun and the death is perceived as being linked much more directly. Pools are perceived more as existing hazards, more often it is the failure to act (such as watching a child or closing a gate) that is seen as being in immediate correlation. That the swimming pool itself is the causative agent tends to be neglected. How many parents have you heard of starting a nationwide campaign to eliminate swimming pools? How many for guns?

I really can't stress correlation enough. It is the fulcrum on which the whole process swings. When it is off-center the decision will swing in a particular direction no matter how much factual weight is on the other side. (e.g. One believed anecdote of a miraculous healing will offset a mountain of contrary medical evidence.) It is the foundation for all superstitious and magical thinking.

There are two things to note:

One is that being afraid of guns even when the belief that they are more dangerous than pools is inaccurate does improve the odds of survival even if it doesn't help as much as knowing that pools are more dangerous. The strategy works on an individual family level. The problem is that when we act on a broad scale it doesn't work. If our goal is to prevent children from dying, then we should be more concerned at this point with swimming pools than guns.

The second is that in a small tribal society, testimonial evidence is far more accurate. If you know every individual in your tribe of 40 or so people, you will hear every story. Even if the story about the one child dieing by gun death is repeated more often you will still have heard about the 10 others who drowned. This was our environment for the bulk of our evolution. And again, it worked in that environment as a survival strategy.

That's enough to read. I'll leave it here for now and we'll see how the discussion proceeds.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

~Raithere

 

To you Jesus didn't exist however there are over 1 billion humans who believe he did. No matter how anyone interperts the Bible, there are always those who will believe in Jesus no matter how much can be "proven" he didn't exist.

I think he did but he was a great medicine man of his time and humans then thought such powers were god like so they worshiped him as a diety and it just grew into the mess it has become, run by con men/ women to make a living.

 

i can agree with this definitely. it seems that there is a desperate need to have this perception validated in someway. those perceptions that do not validate
this particular perception must be invalidated at all cost.

 

raithere i keep wondering how you pronounce raithere is it like;

rayt here / right here / rayth here / ryth here or something else? help!
it is so frustrating arrgh!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Sorry...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It's wraith-here. Just a made-up name from my gaming days.

~Raithere

 

There's still so much we don't know, so religion and myths etc will be around for a while yet... One minute there's nothing then I'm typing here, there has to be a creator right?

Well maybe... But I believe religion has a distorted view of this. Luckily, even though I was raised and could be called a 'Christian' I grew up to think it's the biggest load of old cobblers. And new generations are thinking that also which possibly explains that consistently falling church attendances in this country.

 

Keep on doubting then. It doesn't change the fact that people are starting to remove the wool from over their eyes.

You cannot come to the conclusion that something is inherently true unless you have some sort of 'proof'. What the hell are you mumbling about?

Really, just a few? I can name a few off the top of my head, and I haven't even read the whole damn thing. I am almost certain that there are more than the few that I can rattle off though. From what I have read, the Bible has pretty much been refuted. Sorry.

I can't really respond to this, but I have to point out that you think it only takes a few hundred years for thinking, society, and a species to evolve. Do you have any concept of how long this sort of thing takes? Are you mad?

Myth: A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology. I am not too sure how that includes truth....but keep on telling yourself that.

Please don't use the term truth in that context. Truth cannot be personal. When you speak of truth and fiction you are speaking of something that is unchangeable, someones personal OPINION or BELIEF is NOT truth.

 

Your perspective of reality is just one among countless others. It is no more right than anyone elses. The wool people are removing over their eyes, I removed ages ago. I realized that this wool was nothing but a new alternate perspective, and it only seemed to be the "truth" because I didn't understand everything.

I also saw many errors in the Bible before I understood it. Lastly, it starts to seem that there are no "errors", anywhere. Errors start to seem just like a different form (negative aspect) of truth.

How do you know what I think? Just because I wrote it?

Maybe you misunderstood it.
Maybe I was lying.
Maybe I've changed my mind.
Maybe not.
Who knows, except one who is omniscient?

Not from my own perspective, but I might seem, to those who are on a different level of consciousness.

Myth: 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.

I have free will to use it in any way I want.

Is that truth, or a personal truth. If it was truth, I would agree.

Is there an absolute truth? If there was, why would people argue? Everything is relative. Everything I have ever said is merely my opinion, my perspective of reality. It is not any kind of truth, except for me if I choose so.

"Nothing" is true. That's the only thing I could imagine that might be "true". But in nothing, there is no truth, because there is nothing.

 

However you want to look at it my friend. It is much easier to make the logical deduction that God does not exist, based on scientific theories, and multiple natural laws that science has come across. I simply cannot fathom how someone can believe in a diety whose existance cannot be proven.

Before we really get into this, I want you to understand that you are not speaking to someone who does not know the Bible, or has a limited knowledge of it. I may not have read the book in it's entirety, but that is because I believe it is a load of shit.

I did however go to an evangelical Christian high school, and am well versed in Christian Dogma, and rhetoric.

And as to you saying there are no "errors": Doesn't the Bible tell us to love everyone as we love our God? Then why does it also tell us to condemn gays, or to stone prostitutes to death, or the other numerous contradictions to that world view?

What do you not want me to make assumptions based on what you type here? How else am I supposed to carry on this conversation, if I cannot trust that you mean what you are saying.

How does this prove that a myth involves truth? I still see the word supernatural which tells me that myth does not necessarily include truth, if ever.

Thats true, you do.

That is exactly the point that I was trying to make to you. I simply dislike it when people use the word truth the way that you did. It implies that what you are saying is absolute, when it is simply an opinion. And as we all know: Opinions are like assholes: everyone's got em'.

 

Yeah, it's very hard, but not anymore, since I have understood that God is a representation of the self within us. Buddhism doesn't teach that we should follow "God", but only ourselves. The people at that country were able to understand the concept of the self, so there was no need to invent a separate, personal entity called God. Hinduism also teaches that the self is equal with God. And it is easy to see even in Western religions, once you know and understand it.

The existence of the self cannot be proven, but there is no reason to doubt it.

I usually use the word God when I talk with people since it is the word which they understand best and are familiar with.

Why did you go to an evangelical Christian high school? Was that what you personally wanted?

It also says: love others as yourself.

I didn't say that there are NO errors, I said that there aren't so many errors.

It is easy to recognize which parts are true (which parts come from God). Jesus never said anything about stoning prostitues or condemning gays, such ideas were created by people's egoism.

God gives everything to us, even himself, but people, because of their selfish minds, make a curse of everything, even their holy scriptures.

If there's something I don't believe in the Bible I simply don't believe it. It's like any other thing in this world. God says in the Bible that he originally didn't want to write his law in a dead book, but in man's living and changing heart, where it would always be up to date.

People who are for their thoughts are against other thoughts and it leads to war. Don't take my words so seriously, as though if I was trying to make you believe me. I don't want you to believe me, if you don't believe me. Just follow your personal way.

I wasn't trying to 'prove' that myths involve truth. I was just giving a different description of the word myth. I understand myths, so I believe in them. Before I understood them, when I only saw the outer core, they sounded incredibly ridiculous.

If you know that there are no absolutes, there's no need for you to get upset for what people say, since you know that it's just an opinion. BTW, you also sounded like you believed that the things you say were absolute (that's why I was implying that you should be neutral) Usually it's very hard to not sound like that.

 

Ah, so you're a Buddhist? If the Self is equal with God, then why is he there? If he created beings that are as glorious as he, what fun could he have?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

See, I dont think that Christianity shares that in common at all. Christians have this self-loathing 'we are all sinners, and there is nothing we can do about it' nonsense, which can be very detremental to a person. I couldn't imagine going around worshipping a diety while thinking that I was 'as dirty as a tampon' (I cant remember, but there is a verse that says that in there somewhere).

I think that is where Buddhism actually differs from Christianity. You do not worship a diety, but you recognize that all life is important, and therefore it should be cherished, and that brings you to happiness. You essentially worship life. Or am I wrong?

It was not for me. I got into a little too much trouble at public school, so I was sent there, in hopes it would straighten me out. But you know what, I really believe that the environment at that school: intolerance, judgement, hatred, etc....is what led me to atheism. It really messed with me for a long time.

But Christians also believe the Bible is infallible. So how do you take some and leave some? That in-itself kinda says to me: "It's all bullshit"!

I dont think you're trying to make me believe anything, I just like to argue.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No, I have no religious belief

... what? where?

beings... the bodies... are instruments for God/self. the self clothes itself in all kinds of bodies. human bodies are more advanced than animal bodies, so god, the self, can express himself more precisely. but humans can also go against themselves and serve the spirit of matter.

Only through someone like Jesus, God can express himself as he really is. Only someone who has found himself can be himself... otherwise they will mix the Self with outer things (instruments)

god isn't... a conscious being..... only through a body, it is possible to become conscious (limited)

4000 years ago some people were really egoistical, so instead of saying that the self within them is "god", they were told that there is an all-powerful separate god who created them all and owns them all and they're nothing in comparison...

But... even though people honor a being which they call God, it is still the same self, they are just not conscious of it... ex. when religious people say: "I have found Jesus", a normal person would say "I have found myself", and they would say "I hope God forgives me", and the ordinary would say "I hope I can forgive myself".....

I don't think buddhists "worship" anything.

 

The dryland is not a myth, I've seen it! Kevin Costner, Waterworld

 

It's wraith-here. Just a made-up name from my gaming days.

The thing is, after looking at that avatar for a few years now, I can't help but think that is actually you.