Creation Myths Of The World

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

boagie
 
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 06:18 pm
@Wizzy,
Wizzy,Smile

:)Historically myths have served the function of orienting the individual to his environment, to ground him in the realities of life as they were known at the time. I have a feeling this process has begun, though science will prove the most vital aspect, universal humanism will play a large role. Wonder maybe the vehicle that brings us to final understanding. For the most part what is desired by the herd is to believe in a myth, such that it is nolonger necessary to think for oneself. Myths are for the majority, not for a free thinking individual. All myths of the past has asked or demanded that you leave reason behind, perhaps the new mythology if open to wonder, will not insist upon this negative aspect.

:)PS: I have found it best not to inquire as to the other party, that way it is hard to have to many preconceptions or biases, you really have to go on what is stated in their own words.
 
Wizzy
 
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 06:26 pm
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Wizzy,Smile

:)Historically myths have served the function of orienting the individual to his environment, to ground him in the realities of life as they were known at the time. I have a feeling this process has begun, though science will prove the most vital aspect, universal humanism will play a large role. Wonder maybe the vehicle that brings us to final understanding. For the most part what is desired by the herd is to believe in a myth, such that it is nolonger necessary to think for oneself. Myths are for the majority, not for a free thinking individual. All myths of the past has asked or demanded that you leave reason behind, perhaps the new mythology if open to wonder, will not insist upon this negative aspect.

Boagie

But as you said, all myths of the past has asked or demanded that you leave reason behind, which is also the major reason why they have worked on the majority, if you start questioning any known mythologi and religion it falls apart just by logical solutions and if you're talking about somekind of realistic-mythologi absent from any supernatural beeings and forces, is that really a mythologi? Isn't that just the way people should think? (should is cursive because once again: what do I know?)
 
boagie
 
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 08:28 pm
@Wizzy,
Wizzy wrote:
Boagie

But as you said, all myths of the past has asked or demanded that you leave reason behind, which is also the major reason why they have worked on the majority, if you start questioning any known mythologi and religion it falls apart just by logical solutions and if you're talking about somekind of realistic-mythologi absent from any supernatural beeings and forces, is that really a mythologi? Isn't that just the way people should think? (should is cursive because once again: what do I know?)


Wizzy,Smile

:)Mythology seems essential to the human condition, perhaps it is to feel we understand and/or to create meaning where there is no apparent meaning. Every people on the face of the earth has some kind of mythology, and as Joseph Campbell once said, mythology is the other man's religion. If there is to arise a new mythology it will have to promise what past mythologies have promised. Perhaps not quite as child like as the origins accordding to Christianity.
 
Wizzy
 
Reply Sun 3 Feb, 2008 04:38 am
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Wizzy,Smile

:)Mythology seems essential to the human condition, perhaps it is to feel we understand and/or to create meaning where there is no apparent meaning. Every people on the face of the earth has some kind of mythology, and as Joseph Campbell once said, mythology is the other man's religion. If there is to arise a new mythology it will have to promise what past mythologies have promised. Perhaps not quite as child like as the origins accordding to Christianity.

Boagie

Yes ofcourse it would have to promise what earlier mythologies have promised and that's the problem when you're talking about "creating meaning where there is no apparent meaning" due to the fact that there's no real reason why anybody should belive in anything that can't be even proven as far as a theory (like you said about the christian "creationism" that they belive in, there's no proof for it at all yet the insist upon calling it a theory..) yet people do belive in things that's totaly un-logical and stupid, Religion have to be outgrown when the human race becomes advanced egnouth as Dr. Sigmund Freud said. And shouldn't we be advanced egnouth about now? We have answers that can be proven by evidence to most of the questions religion answers with the exception of what happens after death and since we can't prove anything about this it's a win for religion.. I belive atleast that humans doesn't need religion any longer while I'm constantly proven wrong on this due to "belivers" proving to me how hard alot of people have to accept logic I might be wrong and maybe so wrong that we will NEVER be advanced egnouth... And that would be nothing short of a tragedy...

But my question is still: if you have a realist-mythology of some sort that can be changed as times changes (you can eat anything, you should masturbate to avoid decieses, circumcision serves no apparent reason and is brutal, anybody can wear anything they want, there is no god, just mother nature and her different energy-forces working the earth!) is that really a mythology? Isn't that just realism? is that really mythology at all?
 
boagie
 
Reply Sun 3 Feb, 2008 12:48 pm
@Wizzy,
Wizzy wrote:
Boagie

Yes ofcourse it would have to promise what earlier mythologies have promised and that's the problem when you're talking about "creating meaning where there is no apparent meaning" due to the fact that there's no real reason why anybody should belive in anything that can't be even proven as far as a theory (like you said about the christian "creationism" that they belive in, there's no proof for it at all yet the insist upon calling it a theory..) yet people do belive in things that's totaly un-logical and stupid, Religion have to be outgrown when the human race becomes advanced egnouth as Dr. Sigmund Freud said. And shouldn't we be advanced egnouth about now? We have answers that can be proven by evidence to most of the questions religion answers with the exception of what happens after death and since we can't prove anything about this it's a win for religion.. I belive atleast that humans doesn't need religion any longer while I'm constantly proven wrong on this due to "belivers" proving to me how hard alot of people have to accept logic I might be wrong and maybe so wrong that we will NEVER be advanced egnouth... And that would be nothing short of a tragedy...

But my question is still: if you have a realist-mythology of some sort that can be changed as times changes (you can eat anything, you should masturbate to avoid decieses, circumcision serves no apparent reason and is brutal, anybody can wear anything they want, there is no god, just mother nature and her different energy-forces working the earth!) is that really a mythology? Isn't that just realism? is that really mythology at all?


Wizzy,Smile

:)Mythologies of the past, before the written word, were oral traditions and as such, they could and did change with the changeing circumstances that people had to live with. I stated previously that there is no such thing as a close system, there is only degrees of being closed. A closed system is relative to nothing and while Christianity cannot be said to be a closed system, it is to a high degree closed. It also has no ability to change, being the word of god and all, so it could not possiably be up to giving guidence to the individual in the modern concept of reality, thus we are in freefall until another mythology/religon arises that can speak to a modern world.
 
Wizzy
 
Reply Sun 3 Feb, 2008 03:40 pm
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Wizzy,Smile

:)Mythologies of the past, before the written word, were oral traditions and as such, they could and did change with the changeing circumstances that people had to live with. I stated previously that there is no such thing as a close system, there is only degrees of being closed. A closed system is relative to nothing and while Christianity cannot be said to be a closed system, it is to a high degree closed. It also has no ability to change, being the word of god and all, so it could not possiably be up to giving guidence to the individual in the modern concept of reality, thus we are in freefall until another mythology/religon arises that can speak to a modern world.

Yeah ofcourse there's nothing I have to dissagree with you in this statement but my question to you is: assume that you would like to create a mythology/religion without a single or several god/s, is that even possible to get people to follow when fear is the main reason why religions work? And a follow question on that is this: if you have a mythology or religion without a god, is that even a mythology/religion?
 
boagie
 
Reply Sun 3 Feb, 2008 08:00 pm
@Wizzy,
Wizzy wrote:
Yeah ofcourse there's nothing I have to dissagree with you in this statement but my question to you is: assume that you would like to create a mythology/religion without a single or several god/s, is that even possible to get people to follow when fear is the main reason why religions work? And a follow question on that is this: if you have a mythology or religion without a god, is that even a mythology/religion?


Wizzy,Smile

Excellent points. Science is not so advanced as to be able to state that there is no room for the concept of a god. I think it does state however that it cannot be the child like story of Christianity. A mythology must deal with those things that are of universal concern, my place in the cosmos, my place on earth, immortality, mortality, my place in nature, my place within society, and where do we come from and where are we going. I think any system dealing with these things, and professing no god, is indeed not a religion, but a philosophical way of life. Ultimately though a philosophy which has its function in fulfilment of the basic needs of humanity, will never out popularize eturnity in bliss, which is what Christianity promises its obedient. It will still need to be somewhat irrational but not as irrational as Christianity.
 
Wizzy
 
Reply Sun 3 Feb, 2008 08:26 pm
@boagie,
Boagie, Smile
boagie wrote:
Wizzy,Smile

Excellent points. Science is not so advanced as to be able to state that there is no room for the concept of a god. I think it does state however that it cannot be the child like story of Christianity.

and most other world religions with possibly the exception of buddhism (spelling?)..

boagie wrote:
A mythology must deal with those things that are of universal concern, my place in the cosmos, my place on earth, immortality, mortality, my place in nature, my place within society, and where do we come from and where are we going.

and lets not forget what most mythologies/religions seem to focus on, morality and what we shouldn't do, what we are not allowed to do and what we will be punished for doing..

boagie wrote:
I think any system dealing with these things, and professing no god, is indeed not a religion, but a philosophical way of life.

my point exacley

boagie wrote:
Ultimately though a philosophy which has its function in fulfilment of the basic needs of humanity, will never out popularize eturnity in bliss, which is what Christianity promises its obedient. It will still need to be somewhat irrational but not as irrational as Christianity.

No but isn't that the problem? that people seem to be drawn to outrageous ideas and "theorys" for their way of life, some how it seems like we are living in a world full of followers that want no responsibility (god's plan etc.), no freedom for own thinking (the bible) and no free thought (the moral laws in the bible) yet in order to become advanced egnouth or atleast to live to our full potential we have to be leaders and start thinking for our self while at the same time accepting the responsibility our actions will bring us...
 
boagie
 
Reply Sun 3 Feb, 2008 09:10 pm
@Wizzy,
Wizzy wrote:
Boagie, Smile

and most other world religions with possibly the exception of buddhism (spelling?)..


and lets not forget what most mythologies/religions seem to focus on, morality and what we shouldn't do, what we are not allowed to do and what we will be punished for doing..


my point exacley


No but isn't that the problem? that people seem to be drawn to outrageous ideas and "theorys" for their way of life, some how it seems like we are living in a world full of followers that want no responsibility (god's plan etc.), no freedom for own thinking (the bible) and no free thought (the moral laws in the bible) yet in order to become advanced egnouth or atleast to live to our full potential we have to be leaders and start thinking for our self while at the same time accepting the responsibility our actions will bring us...


Hi Wizzy!Smile

SmileI think the secret to undestanding this appeal to the fantastic is the preferential modes people function out of. Different personality types chose different modes of function. The major one to be considered here would be the difference between people who chose to function on a rational level as apposed to those who function on an emotional level. If one was not programed early in life to follow the Christian faith, and that individual's preferential mode was of a rational nature, then it is highly unlikely he would become a believer. Relgion is an emotional appeal, and it maybe that the emotional level is our real life, but one knows instinctively, that thinking should be at the helm, particulary if we find ourselves in unfamilar waters, it is the thinking or the thoughts which determine the emotional content. The believer as usurped this function and turned it around, so as to control ones thinking with ones emotions---bad news!!:eek:
 
Wizzy
 
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 08:55 am
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Hi Wizzy!Smile

SmileI think the secret to undestanding this appeal to the fantastic is the preferential modes people function out of. Different personality types chose different modes of function. The major one to be considered here would be the difference between people who chose to function on a rational level as apposed to those who function on an emotional level. If one was not programed early in life to follow the Christian faith, and that individual's preferential mode was of a rational nature, then it is highly unlikely he would become a believer. Relgion is an emotional appeal, and it maybe that the emotional level is our real life, but one knows instinctively, that thinking should be at the helm, particulary if we find ourselves in unfamilar waters, it is the thinking or the thoughts which determine the emotional content. The believer as usurped this function and turned it around, so as to control ones thinking with ones emotions---bad news!!:eek:

Boagie

Well, yeah sure if you are raised by christian parents odds are that you'll be a christian and so on so how you're raised should have a direct impact on what "mode of function" (as you called it) you are going to function on but here I would like to claim that the world would be a better place if everybody used rational thinking instead of what you called emotional, since for example it's never rational to harm anybody because the way they look...
 
boagie
 
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 10:02 am
@Wizzy,
Wizzy wrote:
Boagie

Well, yeah sure if you are raised by christian parents odds are that you'll be a christian and so on so how you're raised should have a direct impact on what "mode of function" (as you called it) you are going to function on but here I would like to claim that the world would be a better place if everybody used rational thinking instead of what you called emotional, since for example it's never rational to harm anybody because the way they look...


Wizzy,Smile

:)One does not function on an emotional level as first preference necessarily because he has been indoctrinated into the faith, the individual's preference still might be towards the rational. This however, it would seem to me, to cause a rather troubleing split of the psyche. There is no reason to believe that humanity will become entirely rational, indeed the majority it seems are irrational. The path of least resistence perhaps, belief without thought, or, the emotions are running the show----keep the faith baby, and just wait for the second coming of the bosses son.Wink
 
Wizzy
 
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 10:36 am
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Wizzy,Smile

:)One does not function on an emotional level as first preference necessarily because he has been indoctrinated into the faith, the individual's preference still might be towards the rational. This however, it would seem to me, to cause a rather troubleing split of the psyche. There is no reason to believe that humanity will become entirely rational, indeed the majority it seems are irrational. The path of least resistence perhaps, belief without thought, or, the emotions are running the show----keep the faith baby, and just wait for the second coming of the bosses son.Wink

Boagie

Does it acctually matter which the person would prefer to use when he have to be thought or used to using one form of thinking and questioning? If you have been driving a automatic gearbox you whole life, can you start using a manual gearbox all of a sudden without beeing though how to first? Even though you might prefer the manual one after you know both? To me it seems as you have the mental funktion you've been thought to use, although you might know OF the other funktions you don't know how to use them and say a emotionally controlled person will allways have trubble learning a new way of thinking due to the fact that this requires that he starts from nothing, ignoring everything you have ever known to be "the truth"...
 
boagie
 
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 10:46 am
@Wizzy,
Wizzy wrote:
Boagie

Does it acctually matter which the person would prefer to use when he have to be thought or used to using one form of thinking and questioning? If you have been driving a automatic gearbox you whole life, can you start using a manual gearbox all of a sudden without beeing though how to first? Even though you might prefer the manual one after you know both? To me it seems as you have the mental funktion you've been thought to use, although you might know OF the other funktions you don't know how to use them and say a emotionally controlled person will allways have trubble learning a new way of thinking due to the fact that this requires that he starts from nothing, ignoring everything you have ever known to be "the truth"...


Wizzy,Smile

:)Your point is well taken about being conditioned to function in a certain way, no doubt it has some crediability, that would fall under being defined by your environment, a very real possiablity. PS: Most people do not stay in the same mode of function all the time, but, the preferential mode will be the one most relied upon for making sense of the world around them.
 
Wizzy
 
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 11:30 am
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Wizzy,Smile

:)Your point is well taken about being conditioned to function in a certain way, no doubt it has some crediability, that would fall under being defined by your environment, a very real possiablity. PS: Most people do not stay in the same mode of function all the time, but, the preferential mode will be the one most relied upon for making sense of the world around them.

Boagie

I agree with you fully and there's not doubt in my mind that people do have several ways for their mind to function, but, when you are talking about two opposites such as rational thinking and whatever you want to call what christians have to use inorder to belive in their fairytale reality it's hard to combine then even if there's two completley different scenarios if you are talking about the same person because even beeing able to use rational thinking should make christianity fall together like a house of cards, if you ask me atleast... There for I'm allways shocked and amazed when I find reasonable people who seems to be able to think critacly and rational who still belive in the bible, this must require a strong sense of denyile (spelling?) and acceptance when you should question everything you ever hear...
 
boagie
 
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 12:25 pm
@Wizzy,
Wizzy,Smile

:)It is difficult to understand sometimes the behaviour of the believer, one can be under the impression that they are functioning in the same mode as yourself. This is particularly true of people who keep their beliefs pretty much to themselves. With my limited experience, I would still conclude that most believers are functioning on an emotional level. People of this nature tend to find the intuitive thinker to be pretty much a cold fish, while the intuitive thinker finds it difficult to respect the other individual due to this emotional functioning, where emotion defines the quality of thought.
 
Wizzy
 
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 12:33 pm
@boagie,
Boagie

And yet again I can say: I agree with you, personally I compare belivers to people who belive in santa clause or the easter bunny at an adult age, in other words crazy.

Yet I can't help myself from beeing amazed and curious of how their minds work but in you explaination on how their feelings run their thoughts I would like to hear an example of how one of their feelings can create one of their thoughts before I even dare to comment on it cause I feel like you have the same idea as me, just want to know what kind of feeling you are talking about..
 
boagie
 
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 01:57 pm
@Wizzy,
Wizzy wrote:
Boagie

And yet again I can say: I agree with you, personally I compare belivers to people who belive in santa clause or the easter bunny at an adult age, in other words crazy.

Yet I can't help myself from beeing amazed and curious of how their minds work but in you explaination on how their feelings run their thoughts I would like to hear an example of how one of their feelings can create one of their thoughts before I even dare to comment on it cause I feel like you have the same idea as me, just want to know what kind of feeling you are talking about..


Wizzy,Smile

:)The most striking example would be the believers denial of evolutionary biology and their distaste of rationality itself. I am sure there are plenty of people who are not religious, yet function on the emotional level. It has been my experience, that many believers are threaten by new knowledge. Thus they do not like to discuss the big questions outside of their circle of believers. New knowledge may arise to further make it obvious the falsehood of the Christian story.

:)You might consider religion as a functional illusion, it may have benifits for the health of the believer but they live within a comforting delusion/fantasy, which is anti-intellectual in its form as Christianity. Believers are told what to believe and many of them are now told how to vote, it is group thought, and contary to the focus in the United States on the importance of the individual. If this does not satisfy, just remain aware they are in a different reality. PS. Many would be book burners given the slack.
 
Wizzy
 
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 02:16 pm
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Wizzy,Smile

:)The most striking example would be the believers denial of evolutionary biology and their distaste of rationality itself. I am sure there are plenty of people who are not religious, yet function on the emotional level. It has been my experience, that many believers are threaten by new knowledge. Thus they do not like to discuss the big questions outside of their circle of believers. New knowledge may arise to further make it obvious the falsehood of the Christian story.

:)You might consider religion as a functional illusion, it may have benifits for the health of the believer but they live within a comforting delusion/fantasy, which is anti-intellectual in its form as Christianity. Believers are told what to believe and many of them are now told how to vote, it is group thought, and contary to the focus in the United States on the importance of the individual. If this does not satisfy, just remain aware they are in a different reality. PS. Many would be book burners given the slack.

Boagie

What you just explained doesn't strike me as "emotional thinker", it strikes me as a "no thinker". A emotional thinker to me should be somebody who lets their emotions come in the way of desitions and their guilt and empathy rule their actions while what you just explained is just somebody who in the case of the evolution reads the bible, are told that it's true and goes with it while in the second case of the voting, listen to a man, doesn't question his suggestion or motive and just goes with him, much like a sheep goes with the herd led by the shepard...
 
boagie
 
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 02:57 pm
@Wizzy,
Wizzy,

:)There is no point to abuse the believer, but, the believer must realize that his belief does not in and of itself warrant respect. The political power Christianity seeks is not dissimilar to the power enjoyed in Muslim countries. In Muslim countries tolerance of the disbeliever is non-existent and there is no separation of church and state. These world religions have a totalitarian character, they are quite simply, dangerous.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Mon 11 Feb, 2008 05:31 pm
@boagie,
Have I truly read posts here where people claim this religion or that religion has some nasty tendency and is therefore dangerous? Did I really read that belief is emotional, as opposed to rational, and that believers are, in short, deluded by their emotional responses?

The totalitarian bent of some Christians and Muslims (and people of every other faith on the planet, including those without faith, and everything in between) is a reflection on those particular Christians and Muslims. That some X's are Y does not mean all X's are Y. Especially when those X's are as different as any two people - oh, that's right, we are talking about people.

Whatever you may think of various spiritual notions, many (if not most) have a rich history of serious consideration. You might claim that Christian belief (whatever that is) is irrational, founded in some emotional need or response and not founded on good reason. Thomas Aquinas would disagree.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/03/2021 at 01:08:12