Never underestimate fools claiming to know things they have no way of knowing.
What's The Difference Between Religion & Myth/Superstition
- Thread starter StrangerInAStrangeLand
- Start date
if you think you are beyond issues of ideology, you have just weighed in as heavier on the scales ...
its not even an issue of religion.I'd question whether that is true. Do religious philosophers really know anything other than each other's philosophy?
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.
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.
Perhaps you should give more thought to what has been drummed into you.
Last edited by a moderator:
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?
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.
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?
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)
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
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.
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?
Last edited:
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)
There is no difference between them, except momentum.