Please correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that eschatology dealt with THE "end times", as in universal armageddon, not simplt teh end of YOUR life, but the end of all LIFE.
Should Myth have its own sub-forum?
- Thread starter Medicine*Woman
- Start date
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that eschatology dealt with THE "end times", as in universal armageddon, not simplt teh end of YOUR life, but the end of all LIFE.
Kill 2 birds with one stone. How about calling it Delusional Sports .
I would indeed disagree with such a notion.
But not because Confucianism doesn't deal with life after death, but simply because Confucianism is philosophically void of deific references.
Glaucon:
What of Buddhism? Do you consider that a religion?
What of Buddhism? Do you consider that a religion?
You are correct.
Strictly speaking, eschatology is the study of the end of all life.
However, given that, the end of all, does necessarily include the end of an individual. Naturally, the end of each individual is of great importance to that particular individual.....
Not at all.
The primary goal of Buddhism is to achieve personal perfection; to overcome oneself. While this may lead oneself to attain a 'deific' state, the primary concern is not contingent upon a deity, but upon behaviour.
not really - it would be a free forum for atheists to congregate on and their posts can be redirected there - sounds like a good idea to me - although perhaps not a very scientific one - best suited for the pseudo science forum since there is no scientific means held by atheists to determine whether religion is a myth or not (although their faith that it is tends to be come more aroused when they participate in such tentative discussions)
?????
While I agree that the discussion of myth isn't scientific per se, it's ridiculous to maintain that atheists have no scientific means of determining
whether or not religion is a myth.
Clearly, as evidenced by those (deluded) people who do claim to be religious, religion can be no myth.
Now, as to whether or not the various tenets held to be true by these various religions can be said to be remotely valid or not, is another question entirely....
you will find that the basis for commonly held views of science (namely empiricism) is myth, since the tenets of science are constantly being re-established.
For instance how many mythical characters have appeared in the canons of archeology?
and how many persons have dismissed claims that don't tally with what have later been established (by the very means that established the claims in the first place, namely empiricism) as mythical?
Last edited:
*************
M*W: A Myth forum would include atheists' and theists' posts but would not be specifically a forum for atheists only. Atheists don't believe in myth, so why would you say something like you did?
Speak for yourself. If one understands, to a certain extent, what a particular myth, or even a fragment of a myth, or even the origin or conclusion of a myth, represents to one' s own psyche in relation to one's own self, no goddamn boring atheist will come within a breath's hair to describing the drama and challenge of Being. There.
*************
M*W: What does myth have to do with "Being?" Are you sure you know what you're talking about. Sounds like a load of crap.
I stand by my statement. "Atheists don't believe in myth." Atheists are well aware that there are many myths in the world, but they see them as what they are -- myth! I did not say that "atheists believe that myths do not exist." I also did not say that "atheists believe myths are real and, therefore, not myths." Atheists know the difference between myth and reality, and we choose to believe in reality, but entertain ourselves with myth.
If that were true, you would know that was a myth.
Often times no one knows where the line between myth and reality lies, and never will.
To believe anything else is deluding yourself.
Look at "history" and see how much of it is verified, and how much is supposition.
Hell, just watch Fox news daily, and tell me what is myth and what is reality.
"History is the propaganda of the victors." - Ernst Toller, German poet and dramatist (1893-1939).
Again, I bring up Casey Jones and John Henry (and they lived not very long ago).
Did Marie Antoinette really say, "Let them eat cake."?
Was she being cruel, or was she that sheltered?
Was Cleopatra a beautiful woman?
Was Don Juan a great lover?
Did Jesus exist?
Did Homer exist?
How many "Shakepearean" plays werw written by Shakepeare?
How many of Æsop's fables did Æsop actually write?
Did Æsop exist?
Was Atlantis a real place?
Tell me, Medicine*Woman, do you have the answers to these questions?
You are an atheist who obviously must know very well the line between myth and reality.
The line between history and legend is thin and blurry.
The line between legend and myth is thin and blurry.
Belief or non-belief in God(s) makes no difference in that fact.
Was she being cruel, or was she that sheltered?
Was Cleopatra a beautiful woman?
Was Don Juan a great lover?
Did Jesus exist?
Did Homer exist?
How many "Shakepearean" plays werw written by Shakepeare?
How many of Æsop's fables did Æsop actually write?
Did Æsop exist?
Was Atlantis a real place?
Tell me, Medicine*Woman, do you have the answers to these questions?
You are an atheist who obviously must know very well the line between myth and reality.
The line between history and legend is thin and blurry.
The line between legend and myth is thin and blurry.
Belief or non-belief in God(s) makes no difference in that fact.
*************(
M*W: I see your point. The line is definitely blurry. I wasn't thinking about the minutia of history (who said this, who said that...). I was thinking more along the lines of Zeus, Hera, Jesus, Mary, Apollo, Paul of Tarsus, etc. Who said what to whom may always be 'hearsay,' and does it really matter in the greater scheme of things? I doubt it.
Allow me to look at your individual points:
Marie Antoinette - I guess we really don't know if she said that or if that was written by the victors at Bastille. What do we know about MA? What was her personality like. Did MA actually exist? That would first need to be determined. History says she existed, and it's pretty well documented, so then I would want to check out her personality to see if she was a mean person or just socially inept.
Cleopatra - History would have us believe she was a world class beauty, but recent discoveries make her out to be a hag. History claims she existed and wielded much power, especially over men. But was that power in her beauty or in her political strength?
Don Juan - Existed according to his story, but was he a great lover or just a busy one? I really don't know if he was a myth of literature or was real.
Jesus - History has not yet proven he existed, so anything he might have said or done is irrelevant.
Homer - Assuming he existed and wrote The Iliad, but I've never come across anything that doubted his existence. I really don't know. I haven't read into Homer's existence.
Shakespeare - Now that's a question. History says he existed, but we don't know if everything he's credited with he actually wrote. There could have been many writers under the name/pseudonym of Shakespeare. That myth still needs more proving.
Aesop - Could be myth. Could be real. What does history say? I tend to think he existed, but I really don't know. These are all questions that could be addressed and researched in a myth sub-forum.
Atlantis - The blurry line of myth/reality exists here. I think Atlantis existed at one time, but where, I don't know. I'm sure many researchers are on the trail of Atlantis, so I'm inclined to believe Atlantis existed.
Being an atheist does not ensure the knowledge between myth and reality. I would say atheists tend to be more skeptic. I think atheists strive more toward the truth, but we still know that myth exists. I'm not saying that all myth can be proven. It can't. We wouldn't even want all myth to be proven.
A complete myth. Plato concocted it for a philosophical dialog. For those that have studied philosophy or even taken an intro class, they understand that the dialog is a common tool of the philosopher (probably, in part, due to Plato). It allows them to create fictitious and completely hypothetical situations and conditions to and to engage in hypothetical discussion to address the pros and cons of a philosophical issue or problem. Many think that the dialogs of Critias and Timeaus, the only texts that "Atlantis" is actually named (all other mentions were post-Plato and because of Plato), were a way of criticizing Athens without actually mentioning the city itself and, thus, risking the fate of his mentor, Socrates. Socrates was put to death after being found guilty of impiety.
I didn't know that!
I agree with everything else you said, but that last bit was news to me.
What was the specific offense?
Was it one of his lectures?
I forget the specifics. I only just recall it from a class in Greek/Aegean Archaeology that I attended. I found the information fascinating then as well. Apparently Socrates was well-known for his sense of humor and, just before drinking the hemlock which was to be his method of execution, he asked if he could pour a libation -a very pious thing to do for one guilty of impiety and allowing him to dispose of the poison as well! They said, "no," of course. A google search for "socrates impiety" returns this link. I haven't read it yet, but a quick look at doesn't mention the libation joke, so I don't know if this is accurate. Its still funny, however.
*************
M*W: That makes sense to me. I thought it was Socrates who drank the hemlock -- or is that too a myth?