What's The Difference Between Religion & Myth/Superstition

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Or future science.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Then please use it, instead of presuming it.

 

Probably, yes.

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

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

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."

 

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.

A great reason for such an experience to be mythical to the ancients

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

 

You are being deliberately obtuse.

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?

Good.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Didn't.

 

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.

Are you sure about that?

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

 

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

 

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

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.

 

Sure.

That's your thing.

A very young man? Okay. He he.

What's your point?

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.

 

I wish you luck in improving.

 

Psychoticepisode

proved?
excuse me?

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)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

 

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

 

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