What's The Difference Between Religion & Myth/Superstition

[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.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

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

 

[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

1. you make negative absolutes
   
2. 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.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

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.