religion and mythology.

[Tamhansen]

Basically, when taking the standard definition of these two terms, they seem rather interchangable.

Mythology:
a. A body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes.

1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

Now to me as an agnostic religion and mythology are the same. In this I do not say that I know them to be false, as i cannot prove any mythology to be false. Maybe Jesus did walk on water, or perhaps the godess Athena really was born out of Zeus's splitting headache. I was not there. My question is merely how we can safely call many of these belief systems not just ancient ones, but also modern ones like hinduism, buddhism or Wicca false and treat them as fairy tales, but once we do the same to Christianity, Judaism and Islam, we are treated as savages and insensitive. Basically, there is not a shred more evidence of the existence of God/JHVH/Allah, than there is of Zeus or Krisjna or the mother goddess. It's all about faith and belief.

Personally I tend to take the babel fish approach when considering the existence of god or gods. I do not wish to hinder anyone in believing what they wish to believe, what they feel is truth, or at least something probable, but if people really have this faith, why do they get upset if others question the truth of those beliefs? Is their faith not strong enough, or is it something else?

[Vanity Evolved]

That's because they're one and the same. The difference between mythology and religion is that one of them just fell out of favour; remember, before we were writing comic books and stories about men throwing thunder at giant's in the North, and trickster gods turning into women to give birth to six-legged horses, people believed and worshipped this stuff.

I mean, if I told you that once upon a time, a witch made a house out of gingerbread, would that sound more or less plausable than the entire world flooding and an old man and his wife saved all the animals from dying? Both sound like kid's bedtime stories. The difference is, a disturbing majority of the world believe the second is real, and scoff at the first as 'child's fiction'. Or, to put it another way, just because I love the quote...

"We are all Atheists in regard to every other god but our own. I just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins.

[Stattick]

This one time, God got angry at all the sinful people. So he sent a great flood to kill everyone. However, one faithful man and his family escaped the fate of the world. Then God talked to the man, and promised never to do that again. Then the water retreated, and the man and his family went and built a new home to start repopulating the Earth. And our God, Zeus, has kept his word, and never flooded the entire world again.


Yeah, religion is the supernatural stuff your religion preaches, and mythology is the supernatural stuff that some other group of people believe.

[DarklingAlice]

Well, if we are splitting hairs it seems that they should be split this way:
Myth: Ideology presented in a narrative form.
Religion: A personal or institutionalized system grounded in belief in a myth.

E.g. to take the above example: the myth of the flood is a primary, archetypal narrative expressing a particular idea. It has been reflected in the religions of many peoples around the world including (off the top of my head) the Greeks, Babylonians, Jews, Christians, and Japanese.

Looking at Jung, Joseph Campbell, and James Frazer it becomes clear that a myth is the universal underpinning upon which religions are built. And even agnostics and atheists have myths, myths are the foundation of fiction, literature, film, and culture. It is the systematization itself that constitutes the religion.

[Stattick]

Well, if we are splitting hairs it seems that they should be split this way:
Myth: Ideology presented in a narrative form.
Religion: A personal or institutionalized system grounded in belief in a myth.

E.g. to take the above example: the myth of the flood is a primary, archetypal narrative expressing a particular idea. It has been reflected in the religions of many peoples around the world including (off the top of my head) the Greeks, Babylonians, Jews, Christians, and Japanese.

Looking at Jung, Joseph Campbell, and James Frazer it becomes clear that a myth is the universal underpinning upon which religions are built. And even agnostics and atheists have myths, myths are the foundation of fiction, literature, film, and culture. It is the systematization itself that constitutes the religion.

The question remains: Did everyone base their Great Flood myth off of Gilgamesh, was it an ancestral memory of a big flood in the Middle East... or is there some truth yet in the mostly discounted theories of Joseph Campbell?

[tozhma]

Well, if we are splitting hairs it seems that they should be split this way:
Myth: Ideology presented in a narrative form.
Religion: A personal or institutionalized system grounded in belief in a myth.

In discussions like these it's always fun to bring up Durkheim's theory on religion which is far more broad than most people are used to. It can lead to some interesting ways of looking at culture, i.e. The Superbowl as a religious festival. I have a friend who actually pointed out that with Durkheim's characterization you could even squeeze D&D into that category.

[Vanity Evolved]

The question remains: Did everyone base their Great Flood myth off of Gilgamesh, was it an ancestral memory of a big flood in the Middle East... or is there some truth yet in the mostly discounted theories of Joseph Campbell?

Well, a lot of things were based off other religions, just like the Ten Commandments and a lot of the backstory and feats performed by Jesus. And considering the lack of evidence that ninety eight percent of the world's population was killed and came back from two people... ;D I'm going more with Gilgamesh.

[DarklingAlice]

The question remains: Did everyone base their Great Flood myth off of Gilgamesh, was it an ancestral memory of a big flood in the Middle East... or is there some truth yet in the mostly discounted theories of Joseph Campbell?

I don't think it is any of the three. Mere cultural cryptomnesia defies the statistics and practicality of the situation, ancestral memory has no basis in reality, and Campbell did a far better job of sussing out the structure of the Hero's journey than he did of explaining the transmission and evolution of myth.

Rather, the acausal parallelism of myth across culture is perhaps the single best example of that oft neglected phenomenon of synchronicity: coincidental occurrences that arise from a larger framework of meaning with no causal connection between individual occurrences. It's closely related to the faculty of insight (another acausal phenomenon) and an inherent side effect of human phenomenology (how we apply objective meaning to subjective experience). E.g. it is a natural phenomenon that societies of a certain stage of development create flood narratives 'spontaneously' because our capacity for deriving meaning is such that those conditions are more favorable for the formation of such a narrative than the formation of any other narrative. You can think of it like proteins folding to their native conformation by following the lowest trough of an energy surface, or epigenetic factors guiding the expression of genes.

[Ironwolf85]

there is actually evidence of a massive post glacial flood that happened in the middle east, and may have been the spark that lit that legend.

to me Religion and  Myth are seperate.
Religion is where one has faith, combined with philophy & theology, and a way of live, usually attempting to understand his place in the world.
Myths are a type of cultural fable often connected to religon, but not nessary.

A norseman can belong to the Aser faith, and believe in Odin or Thor and worship them. but he might not believe the Myth of the Drauger, or that there is a troll in the mountians named Suifenerr or somthing.

[Tamhansen]

Ok. As far as I can trace it back, every single world religion of today (I.e those with major world wide following) seems to originate in some form or another in the same place, iraq and Iran. Or Mesopotamia and Persia if you will. Judaism claims it's roots from Abraham of Ur (modern day Iraq) And Islam and Christianity sprang from Judaism.

Hinduism comes from the west of India bordering Persia, and Buddhism, although not technically a religion came out of Hinduism.

So the fact that all these religions have a flood story isn't strange, nor is it strange for all of these religions to share the same bad guy. The Lie

The same can be said for the religions forming around the Mediterranean earlier (e.g. Hellenistic, Egyptian, Babylonian, phoenician) They all seem to originate from Sumerian religious beliefs. Now in theory, the other European religions of olden times (Celtic, Germanic, Norse ) evolved in the Danube region, so it is very likely they carry myths over from the "Caucasian" people that were the first to settle there.

So basically, all these religions stem from the same place, and just evolved along different paths. Most religions that cannot be linked to Mesopotamia and Persia are ancestor or spirits of nature worship. Although many of the earlier named religions do include some of either of these two is probably due to assimilation. Kind of like how the feast of Christmas has many traditions taken from the German Yule or midwinter feast, and in more recent times has even begun to include an idol that was originally from the elusive Cocacola tribes in America.

The only exception to this seems to be the meso and meri American organized religions, which bare many similarities to Akkadian and Babylonian rites, as well as Egyptian, however the people's of South America are said to have been isolated from the rest of the world since long before any of the Mesopotamian religions evolved.

[doodasaurus]

Basically, when taking the standard definition of these two terms, they seem rather interchangable.

Mythology:
a. A body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes.

1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

Now to me as an agnostic religion and mythology are the same. In this I do not say that I know them to be false, as i cannot prove any mythology to be false. Maybe Jesus did walk on water, or perhaps the godess Athena really was born out of Zeus's splitting headache. I was not there. My question is merely how we can safely call many of these belief systems not just ancient ones, but also modern ones like hinduism, buddhism or Wicca false and treat them as fairy tales, but once we do the same to Christianity, Judaism and Islam, we are treated as savages and insensitive. Basically, there is not a shred more evidence of the existence of God/JHVH/Allah, than there is of Zeus or Krisjna or the mother goddess. It's all about faith and belief.

Personally I tend to take the babel fish approach when considering the existence of god or gods. I do not wish to hinder anyone in believing what they wish to believe, what they feel is truth, or at least something probable, but if people really have this faith, why do they get upset if others question the truth of those beliefs? Is their faith not strong enough, or is it something else?

People get upset when you question their religious faith because it is often the most important thing in the universe to them and their faith teaches those who try to sway them from their faith are agents of a cosmic evil.  This was the first thing, really, that made me an atheist -- that *so many* religions condemn all outsiders to eternal torment and attribute to them infinite evil.

Also, not all ideas are equally true or valid.  Someone says that they are against gay rights, women's rights, they want to introduce anti-reason into science education, they are vicious racists and promote war against other faiths because they said their god made them do it -- I'm gonna judge that religious faith pretty hard, because all of those things are crazy.  It's never the abstract belief in some god or another that I find objectionable, maybe a little weird, like an adult believing in Santa, but that religion is used so often to defend the morally indefensible.  You look at any regressive cause and you find a whole bunch of shrieking religious guys behind it.  And a whole bunch of "moderate" or "liberal" co-religionists behind them who do nothing to prevent the racist, sexism, bigotry, homophobia and war mongering of their "fundamentalist" brethern.  It's enough to make me altogether suspicious of religion.

[doodasaurus]

The question remains: Did everyone base their Great Flood myth off of Gilgamesh, was it an ancestral memory of a big flood in the Middle East... or is there some truth yet in the mostly discounted theories of Joseph Campbell?

I think plagiarism is a sufficient explanation.  ;D

[tozhma]

Ok. As far as I can trace it back, every single world religion of today (I.e those with major world wide following) seems to originate in some form or another in the same place, iraq and Iran. Or Mesopotamia and Persia if you will. Judaism claims it's roots from Abraham of Ur (modern day Iraq) And Islam and Christianity sprang from Judaism.

Hinduism comes from the west of India bordering Persia, and Buddhism, although not technically a religion came out of Hinduism.

So the fact that all these religions have a flood story isn't strange, nor is it strange for all of these religions to share the same bad guy. The Lie

The same can be said for the religions forming around the Mediterranean earlier (e.g. Hellenistic, Egyptian, Babylonian, phoenician) They all seem to originate from Sumerian religious beliefs. Now in theory, the other European religions of olden times (Celtic, Germanic, Norse ) evolved in the Danube region, so it is very likely they carry myths over from the "Caucasian" people that were the first to settle there.

So basically, all these religions stem from the same place, and just evolved along different paths. Most religions that cannot be linked to Mesopotamia and Persia are ancestor or spirits of nature worship. Although many of the earlier named religions do include some of either of these two is probably due to assimilation. Kind of like how the feast of Christmas has many traditions taken from the German Yule or midwinter feast, and in more recent times has even begun to include an idol that was originally from the elusive Cocacola tribes in America.

The only exception to this seems to be the meso and meri American organized religions, which bare many similarities to Akkadian and Babylonian rites, as well as Egyptian, however the people's of South America are said to have been isolated from the rest of the world since long before any of the Mesopotamian religions evolved.

My biggest problem with our deference to the "major" world religions is that we're in many ways then resorting to argumentum ad populum. If you look at the history of Christianity, and Constantine's influence on its dissemination (and its form) it seems to me that the major religions are major not so much because of any internal consistency (Constantine called the first council of Nicea to resolve a few those) or veracity, but because of a set of social advantages which allow for a culture to spend time and resources considering things like divinity and eventually spreading these either by force, proselytizing, or both.

[doodasaurus]

Heck, the idea of spreading a religion *at all* was an innovation of the Christians.  People like the Greeks and Romans believed in syncretic religions -- they would just say, "Hey, your sky god and our sky god are the same guy, yay Zeus and Jupiter!" -- or were tribal religions that didn't seek followers (Judiasm, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism).  The idea of conversion as desirable on a large scale was an innovation of the Christians.  Some religions, like Mithraism and the mystery cults (and modern Masons), would accept initiates, but never bothered to go out and convert people.  That was a Christian innovation, the idea that everyone, everywhere should be your religion.

[Tamhansen]

Actually zoroastrianism was very much about spreading. As was hinduism and confusianism.

Hellenistic religion spread under Alexander, by allowing only those of that faith into high positions.

But yes, Christianity and Islam are the religions that used the most violent means to spread.

[Vanity Evolved]

And that's the point; religion is all based on argumentum ad populum.

Why do people believe in Christ and him walking on water, and yet Thor beating down the ice giants in the North with his thundering Mjolnir is relegated to fiction? Because the amount of people who seriously believe in the Aesir is hugely tiny. Not to mention, you don't get a tax cut and respect for being a 'good Viking' in our times. ;D

[doodasaurus]

I think you've got that pretty wrong, there.

Zoroastrianism, *to this day*, does not seek converts.  It's a religious *crime* to seek converts.  To the extent it spread, it spread because the Persians were successful conquerors and displaced populations.

Hellenistic religion spread because people were introduced to the ideas of the Greeks -- but the Greeks never said, "Worship in this fashion or die."  Additionally, Alexander's Macedonian army was hella pissed off that he allowed non-Greeks -- specifically Persians -- into high station in his army.  Many people started to worship in the Hellenic way because a certain number of the conquered sought to curry favor with their conquerors or because they honestly preferred Greek religion, but there was no coercion, simply improved opportunity to practice the faith.  If anything, Alexander, personally, was sucked into Asian religion.  Like I said, it caused a big problem in the core of his army.

After Alexander, the Seleucids briefly tried to force Greek religion on the Jews, who of course rebelled, but they never managed to touch religion outside of the cities, anyway -- and bear in mind that in those days, ninety percent or more of the population was rural.  And the Seleucid attempts to force their religion on people was a brief aberration to Hellenic religion, which was generally very accepting.  (Just in the same way that Akhenaten's attempts to force religion on the Egyptians were a short lived aberration in Egyptian religion.)

In Egypt, the Ptolomies became "more Egyptian than the Egyptians" and adopted the Egyptian mode of doing pretty much everything.  The rest of the Alexandrian generals ruled in lands that were already Greek and aren't important to the conversation.

[Ironwolf85]

actually if we are talking sheer volume of violence in the name of faith christanity and islam have nothing on some of the big pagan cults prior to their existance, some of which practiced human sacrifice, not all mind you, but the meso american faiths were incredibly violent and bloody. The Culr of the Warrior is believed to have contriubuted to the distruction of the Mayan empire having developed from ritualistic warfare into slash, burn, and sacrifice tactics.

the diffrence is that christanity and islam have had their bloody history recorded for all to see, and were the first religons to dominate entire contnants, and with a massive, united, flock, came strengh. So that when they went to war they did so with an organization and resource pool that dwarfed their predicessors. It wasn't that it was any more bloody than any other inter-faith brawl, but the scale was much larger.

And that's the point; religion is all based on argumentum ad populum.

Why do people believe in Christ and him walking on water, and yet Thor beating down the ice giants in the North with his thundering Mjolnir is relegated to fiction? Because the amount of people who seriously believe in the Aesir is hugely tiny. Not to mention, you don't get a tax cut and respect for being a 'good Viking' in our times. ;D

Because christanity has a generally coheisive theology and philophy to back up it's doctrine, and genrally believes in doing good deeds, and selfless sacrifice.

Had the vikings had more philophers thinking about the world, and less guys with axes smashing people's faces in, there might be a Aesir church.
Axe smashing and burning villages, while cool, does not get you any brownie points with the people you rob and pillage.

[doodasaurus]

Just sayin', there is an Aesir church.  The Asatru religion is growing in popularity in Scandinavian countries.  ;)

[Vanity Evolved]

actually if we are talking sheer volume of violence in the name of faith christanity and islam have nothing on some of the big pagan cults prior to their existance, some of which practiced human sacrifice, not all mind you, but the meso american faiths were incredibly violent and bloody. The Culr of the Warrior is believed to have contriubuted to the distruction of the Mayan empire having developed from ritualistic warfare into slash, burn, and sacrifice tactics.

the diffrence is that christanity and islam have had their bloody history recorded for all to see, and were the first religons to dominate entire contnants, and with a massive, united, flock, came strengh. So that when they went to war they did so with an organization and resource pool that dwarfed their predicessors. It wasn't that it was any more bloody than any other inter-faith brawl, but the scale was much larger.

Because christanity has a generally coheisive theology and philophy to back up it's doctrine, and genrally believes in doing good deeds, and selfless sacrifice.

Had the vikings had more philophers thinking about the world, and less guys with axes smashing people's faces in, there might be a Aesir church.
Axe smashing and burning villages, while cool, does not get you any brownie points with the people you rob and pillage.

I'm sorry, but that's just wrong; the Bible contradicts itself on many points, and is distinctly not moral. The Bible says that killing (not murder - so, it's already pretty vague) is wrong, and then proceeds to go into telling you to kill your family for not embracing Jesus, to stone your wife if you find out she's not a virgin, to stone your neighbour for working on Sundays, to stone a man who has sex with men among other things. The closest I can think to 'good deeds' that the Bible promotes was the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus tells Christians to give up all their stuff, sell it, give it to the poor and let go provide for you.

Where do you think the ideas behind the Aesir came from? It was, surprise surprise, a bunch of guys pondering on what was happening in the world. In their lack of understanding, thunder became a giant man in the sky throwing lightning bolts at ice giants.

And if your arguement is that Viking beliefs were brutal, have a look at the Bible. With it's rules for owning slaves, genocide and mass murder as tools of good and how rape victims should be forced to marry their rapist. ;D

And eh. To me, Asatru is to Norse belief, what Wicca is to Paganism. ;D

[doodasaurus]

Yo, I'm an atheist.  There's no way I'm gonna get involved in the beef between Asatru and other pagan beliefs. That's for y'all to settle out.  ;D

[Vanity Evolved]

Hehe, I'm an Atheist too. xD You've got a point that there is a resurging movement towards the Norse ideals.

[HurriSbezu]

Ooo, neat thread.

Question: Where would a religion like Discordianism fall? Is it excluded from the category of religion due to not being organized?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordianism

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/

I'm curious, being a Discordian myself. ...and possibly a Derpy Hooves worshiper, but that would just complicate the discussion further than necessary.

[doodasaurus]

Discordians usually complicate things towards having more fun.  If I had it in me to be religious, I'd probably be Discordian.  Maybe I am and don't know it.

[Tamhansen]

Because christanity has a generally coheisive theology and philophy to back up it's doctrine, and genrally believes in doing good deeds, and selfless sacrifice.

Adam and Eve, adam's second wife btw had two children, Cain and Abel. Cain slew Abel and was forced to wander in the desert alone for eternity.

If Christianity had cohesive theology, that would have been the end of the human race.

Christianity says god would never intentionally harm his people, yet he let's one of his most loyal followers (Job) suffer the most horrible things, because of a bet with the beast (i refuse to call him the devil, because until the Cathar rebellion Christianity did not encompass a devil, or a hell. Merely purgatory. Which is kinda like Detroit on a good day.)

The bible states god is infallible, yet also quotes him as feeling he'd made a mistake with creation, hence the flood. Afterwards, he feels the flood had been an overreaction and promises never to do it again, creating rainbows in the process.

Christianity is not even based on the life or teachings of Jesus Christ. It is based on what the council of Nicea decided which parts they liked from stories written about the guy, most of them by people who weren't actually there.

What Christianity had was a good PR machine, combined with the force of empire backing them up.

[HurriSbezu]

Discordians usually complicate things towards having more fun.  If I had it in me to be religious, I'd probably be Discordian.  Maybe I am and don't know it.

You probably are. Just eat a hot dog on, say, Friday, with a hot dog bun around it, and you're pretty much a Pope of our religion.

Feel free to change the church entirely upon your stay.

[doodasaurus]

Hurri, yeah, but then I'd mess it all up by trying to talk about the significance of humor and absurdity in human spirituality.  I am, alas, essentially a dour guy.

[Vanity Evolved]

If I had to follow a religion, I think it would be Norse, for me. C'mon, what do you want to believe - That some old guy got a bunch of animals on a boat and repopulated the entire human race and animalkind on a boat on a mountain, or that a guy with a giant magic hammer is having epic battles with ice giants in the North while his father disguises himself as a human, going on epic quests to fight monsters with a spear which never misses? ;D (At least, I think it was Odin who had Gungnir)

[doodasaurus]

Vanity, I would rather laugh, to tell you the truth.  :D

[HurriSbezu]

Hurri, yeah, but then I'd mess it all up by trying to talk about the significance of humor and absurdity in human spirituality.  I am, alas, essentially a dour guy.

I am not really sure we need to be smiling all the time! I am very interested in that sort of thing.

And in whether new innovations in religion can be done consciously. A church of My Little Pony is very much on my mind at the moment, though that is probably another thread.

Anyway. I don't think mythology is really the same thing as religion, or the simple base for it. Back in Socrates's day, speculation on the origin of the universe had nothing at all to do with the pagan ceremonies they attended. They were separate. At least, according to G. K. Chesterton.

[Vanity Evolved]

I am not really sure we need to be smiling all the time! I am very interested in that sort of thing.

And in whether new innovations in religion can be done consciously. A church of My Little Pony is very much on my mind at the moment, though that is probably another thread.

Anyway. I don't think mythology is really the same thing as religion, or the simple base for it. Back in Socrates's day, speculation on the origin of the universe had nothing at all to do with the pagan ceremonies they attended. They were separate. At least, according to G. K. Chesterton.

New innovations in religion are done all the time, especially conciously. How do you think we get so many off-shoots? It's like the show I saw yesturday on Creationism. Woman believed in the idea that homosexuals were sinners - until she had a son, who turned out to be gay. She then decided that part must be wrong, because "God loves all of us, so he must love homosexuals too". Concious decision that what your belief system tells you is wrong, and needs changing.

[HurriSbezu]

New innovations in religion are done all the time, especially conciously. How do you think we get so many off-shoots? It's like the show I saw yesturday on Creationism. Woman believed in the idea that homosexuals were sinners - until she had a son, who turned out to be gay. She then decided that part must be wrong, because "God loves all of us, so he must love homosexuals too". Concious decision that what your belief system tells you is wrong, and needs changing.

Yes, but she doesn't start believing in a God she saw while tripping on mushrooms. She believes in one she read about in a book given to her by someone in a venerable church.
Authority and tradition often dominate nowadays. But now in the days of the Internet, we might be approaching a new spiritual awakening.

By which I mean a bunch of kids will get high or play stupid games and pretend this bullshit is significant. Like those people who believe they are part-webcomic character.

[doodasaurus]

Bun-Bun is my soul animal!

[Tamhansen]

In that case. this Chesterton fellow needs to redo history 101

It is true that in Greek times philosophy was seperate from religion. however the creation myth in greek times is as follows

In the beginning there was an empty darkness. The only thing in this void was Nyx, a bird with black wings. With the wind she laid a golden egg and for ages she sat upon this egg. Finally life began to stir in the egg and out of it rose Eros, the god of love. One half of the shell rose into the air and became the sky and the other became the Earth. Eros named the sky Uranus and the Earth he named Gaia. Then Eros made them fall in love.

Uranus and Gaia had many children together and eventually they had grandchildren. Some of their children become afraid of the power of their children. Kronus, in an effort to protect himself, swallowed his children when they were still infants. However, his wife Rhea hid their youngest child. She gave him a rock wrapped in swaddling clothes, which he swallowed, thinking it was his son.

Once the child, Zeus, had reached manhood his mother instructed him on how to trick his father to give up his brothers and sisters. Once this was accomplished the children fought a mighty war against their father. After much fighting the younger generation won. With Zeus as their leader, they began to furnish Gaia with life and Uranus with stars.

Soon the Earth lacked only two things: man and animals. Zeus summoned his sons Prometheus (fore-thought) and Epimetheus (after-thought). He told them to go to Earth and create men and animals and give them each a gift.

Prometheus set to work forming men in the image of the gods and Epimetheus worked on the animals. As Epimetheus worked he gave each animal he created one of the gifts. After Epimetheus had completed his work Prometheus finally finished making men. However when he went to see what gift to give man Epimetheus shamefacedly informed him that he had foolishly used all the gifts.

Distressed, Prometheus decided he had to give man fire, even though gods were the only ones meant to have access to it. As the sun god rode out into the world the next morning Prometheus took some of the fire and brought it back to man. He taught his creation how to take care of it and then left them.

When Zeus discovered Prometheus' deed he became furious. He ordered his son to be chained to a mountain and for a vulture to peck out his liver every day till eternity. Then he began to devise a punishment for mankind. Another of his sons created a woman of great beauty, Pandora. Each of the gods gave her a gift. Zeus' present was curiosity and a box which he ordered her never to open. Then he presented her to Epimetheus as a wife.

Pandora's life with Epimetheus was happy except for her intense longing to open the box. She was convinced that because the gods and goddesses had showered so many glorious gifts upon her that this one would also be wonderful. One day when Epimetheus was gone she opened the box.

Out of the box flew all of the horrors which plague the world today - pain, sickness, envy, greed. Upon hearing Pandora's screams Epimetheus rushed home and fastened the lid shut, but all of the evils had already escaped.

Later that night they heard a voice coming from the box saying,

"Let me out. I am hope."

Pandora and Epimetheus released her and she flew out into the world to give hope to humankind.

mythology is a part of religion. The basis for it really. Philosophy is a seperate art, except for theological philosopy, which of course is part of religion.

Is it coincidence that during the eigth hundred years philosophy was beholden to the catholic church was also the time progress in science, medicine and ideology came to a grinding halt? They don't call them the dark ages because it was dark outside.

[HurriSbezu]

In that case. this Chesterton fellow needs to redo history 101

It is true that in Greek times philosophy was seperate from religion. however the creation myth in greek times is as follows

*snip*

mythology is a part of religion. The basis for it really. Philosophy is a seperate art, except for theological philosopy, which of course is part of religion.

Is it coincidence that during the eigth hundred years philosophy was beholden to the catholic church was also the time progress in science, medicine and ideology came to a grinding halt? They don't call them the dark ages because it was dark outside.

I think Chesterton was claiming that the Creation Myth wasn't considered a RATIONAL explanation to the existence of the universe. He would argue that combining real-world philosophy with mythology is religion, and that before that point, mythology was just an emotional aesthetic response to the world around us. Of course, this is mostly nitpicking over terminology, but I find that sort of thing fun.

Bun-Bun is my soul animal!

My soulbond is Ducky, from what I THOUGHT was a crossover between Gravity Falls and Princess Tutu, but turned out to be REAL and in my HEART. :D

...People take this SERIOUSLY. And that is why Eris laughs at Tumblr.

[doodasaurus]

Actually, no historian called the Middle Ages the Dark Ages, anyway.  Huge leaps in all manner of technology were made during that time as were any number of social advances.  Just sayin'.

Hurri, maybe they take it with an equal dose of humor!  But I believe that people talk more about that kind of thing than it really *happens*.  A certain number of people have always had beliefs that are radically, even comically, different than the norm, it's just now we can find them with the power of Google.  ;)

[HurriSbezu]

Hurri, maybe they take it with an equal dose of humor!  But I believe that people talk more about that kind of thing than it really *happens*.  A certain number of people have always had beliefs that are radically, even comically, different than the norm, it's just now we can find them with the power of Google.  ;)

:3 Ha. ...you think people can laugh at tumblr. I assume you have not met the Social Justice radicals. Or an actual otherkin.

Some laugh, yeah... But they're more serious than is healthy. And now that the Internet exists, they can group together, they can spread their word.

I hope that they can prove religion to be, at the least, entirely arbitrary, and dissolve the modern idea of cohesive mythologies, and go back to the comic book continuity snarls of the old times. People will pick and choose their beliefs... And atheists will just scream that they need to grow up and stop believing in bullshit from the Internet, instead of having to cry at people voting for someone based on how often they mention God.

[Tamhansen]

Actually, in the period between 500 and 1300 Western Europe had a distinct lack of technilogical advancement. One major exception being the field of war.
Even discoveries made outside the Catholic sphere of influence took very long to be accepted inside it. It wasn't until the renaissance, a movement fought tooth and nail by the church that europe began to assimilate the technology from other realms, and they did so with a vengeance.

[Oniya]

:3 Ha. ...you think people can laugh at tumblr. I assume you have not met the Social Justice radicals. Or an actual otherkin.

Actually, I've met several.  Some of them are quite well adjusted, and do a collective facepalm at the antics of the others on tumblr.  One thing about the Internet - the crazy gets distilled, even among the sanest of groups.  I've even seen flamewars on cross-stitch boards.  'Struth.

[Ironwolf85]

*sigh* I know where that arguement is going, and that nobody is going to listen.
I faces a simmilar problem on Nationstates with not being able to present my point properly.

Suffice to say I prefer to try to live according to christ's teachings and worship god, not the bible. which as been edited by men at least three times. But there is a diffrence between religion and mythology. even if the two are cousins.

Also science didn't come to a griding halt in the dark ages, it continued to advance, but slowly and sporadicly. The collapse of rome and of all learning instutions in the west, as rome had no public schools, was not solely the fault of the Roman Church. While unordained fantaics burned books and lead mobs trying to find somthing to eat, monks from the same church saved many books, and copied them down for future generations.

[doodasaurus]

Kataban, you've been sucked into an untrue belief about history.  Windmills, manufacture of paper, the spinning wheel, magnetic compass, eyeglasses, astrolabes, stern mounted rudders, the horse collar, horseshoes, the wine press, rib vault, chimney, segmental bridge arch, treadwheel crane, stationary harbor crane, floating crane, hourglass and mechanical clocks, water hammers, horizontal loom, hard liquor, glass mirrors, compound crank, blast furnace, rolling mill . . . that doesn't even count the things that they did better than before, like metallurgy and agricultural advances like the 2/3rds field rotation system.

All of these things were invented during the Middle Ages.  There was, in fact, nothing like a technological stagnation during the period.  Which is why historians have stopped calling it the “Dark Ages”.  The "nothing happened during the Middle Ages" was a conceit developed by the Renaissance humanists who wanted to attribute everything good in civilization to the Greeks and Romans.  It's just a historical canard that's stuck around for a while.

[HurriSbezu]

Actually, I've met several.  Some of them are quite well adjusted, and do a collective facepalm at the antics of the others on tumblr.  One thing about the Internet - the crazy gets distilled, even among the sanest of groups.  I've even seen flamewars on cross-stitch boards.  'Struth.

Sorry, didn't mean to insult your friends. I tried to hedge my bets, but...yeah.

Anyway. Modern-day mythology could use a continuity reboot at the very least. We could use an Old Testament that's more consistent with the New Testament. Or maybe slide in some Gnosticism (that's what the kids are into these days, yeah?)

[Ironwolf85]

Basicly what Dood said.
There is a lot of crap like that during the rennisance, where the church was depicted as "the enemy of reason" and as many of the guys were writing the history books, the coloring is skewed.

For example Gallilaeo is commonly thought to have been the father of modern astrology, he was not, he was a bit of a plagerist, but in history got the credit as the inquisiton's persicution made him famious for those theories.

Oddly he wasn't in trouble for poublishing a book saying the world was round, he was in trouble for publishing a book saying the world is round and the pope can screw off if he doesn't believe me. In rennisance italy, you didn't talk badly of el'papa in the public forum unless you were powerful, Galleo was not.

[HurriSbezu]

Oddly he wasn't in trouble for poublishing a book saying the world was round, he was in trouble for publishing a book saying the world is round and the pope can screw off if he doesn't believe me. In rennisance italy, you didn't talk badly of el'papa in the public forum unless you were powerful, Galleo was not.

You mean his heliocentric theory, right? World going around the sun instead of vice versa? It's another common error to assume that there was a controversy over the world being round.

The mythology for that dates back to Washington Irving, the writer behind The Headless Horseman and Rip Van Winkle. In the real world, we've settled the roundness of the world for thousands of years.

Still, other than that flub, you're basically right.

[Ironwolf85]

sorry I'm kinda crashing from lack of caffine and flubing my data.

[Tamhansen]

Kataban, you've been sucked into an untrue belief about history.  Windmills, manufacture of paper, the spinning wheel, magnetic compass, eyeglasses, astrolabes, stern mounted rudders, the horse collar, horseshoes, the wine press, rib vault, chimney, segmental bridge arch, treadwheel crane, stationary harbor crane, floating crane, hourglass and mechanical clocks, water hammers, horizontal loom, hard liquor, glass mirrors, compound crank, blast furnace, rolling mill . . . that doesn't even count the things that they did better than before, like metallurgy and agricultural advances like the 2/3rds field rotation system.

All of these things were invented during the Middle Ages.  There was, in fact, nothing like a technological stagnation during the period.  Which is why historians have stopped calling it the “Dark Ages”.  The "nothing happened during the Middle Ages" was a conceit developed by the Renaissance humanists who wanted to attribute everything good in civilization to the Greeks and Romans.  It's just a historical canard that's stuck around for a while.

Windmills exist in one form or another since egypt, maybe even before
paper was invented in China
the segmented arch bridge was already used by romans, chimneys were already present in houses in the middle east and as such is an import as well

If I was really interested I guess i could take at least 75% of those inventions out of the equation.

Yes there were some genuine inventions during the dark ages even in Christian Europe, but the pace of progress was significantly reduced, not to mention how much advancement was destroyed for being heretical knowledge.

My only point is that all in all, very little in this world has hindered progress as much as religion has.

[doodasaurus]

Kataban, yeah, did you know that all knowledge is not contained in Wikipedia?  But, it is impossible to discuss things with a wiki-scholar.  It cannot be done. I  could go on about Carolingian Renaissance this, Ottonian Renaissance that, 12th Century Renaissance this other thing, but eventually a dood just has to acknowledge it won't really mean much.   Exhaustion achievement unlocked.

[Tamhansen]

Bad arguments followed by bad conjecture.

I do not get my knowledge from ze wikipedia or googol,  I could argue the  the Carolingian renaissance only rehashed on old philosophy and knowledge, without actually adding anything serious. It's kinda like holywood bringing back all those 80 movies and tv shows with new actors.

You can try to moot my point by avoiding it and showing relatively small advances and rediscoveries. They were there, and there wasn't a complete stop on all technilogical advancement, but the pace and significance were much lower than in the period before or after.

But I guess it all comes down to a point of what one finds significant, which is in all fairness subjective.

[tozhma]

Adam and Eve, adam's second wife btw had two children, Cain and Abel. Cain slew Abel and was forced to wander in the desert alone for eternity.

If Christianity had cohesive theology, that would have been the end of the human race.

Christianity says god would never intentionally harm his people, yet he let's one of his most loyal followers (Job) suffer the most horrible things.

Well, here you're running toward the problem of theodicy here which nobody has ever completely resolved in any religion with a kind and loving god. Christianity was cohesive enough, and at Nicea they settled some of the more technical internal disputes.

[Tamhansen]

Well, here you're running toward the problem of theodicy here which nobody has ever completely resolved in any religion with a kind and loving god. Christianity was cohesive enough, and at Nicea they settled some of the more technical internal disputes.

The problem with Christianity is that it has two gods. the god in the first movie was definitely another actor than the second movie.

Part 1 or the old testament has a vengeful god, bent on dooming people with fire and brimstone, rampant floods, killing firstborn locust and frogs if you didn't follow his commands. He refused Moses entry into the holy land for saving one of the Jews god says he loves so much.

Then in the sequel suddenly we have this loving hippy god who is all about forgiving and forgetting, who'd apparently embrace you after you raped his mommy, if only you said you were sorry.

No wonder they sold the bible as non fiction. If it was fiction people would laugh it off as way too ridiculous.

And then your second argument the council of Nicea settled technical disputes? The Arian heresy was a technical dispute, hell I'd even go so far as agreeing the reformation was a dispute about mere details.
The council of Nicea discarded six of the ten gospels as far as we know, could have been more, removed any passages of mary magdalena as jesus' lover or wife, because his status as the son of god would be better to sell, and they turned her into a whore for the sole reason of further portraying women as the evil purpretrators of the original sin.Not to mention the apocrypha. And that's just what's been proven.
Technical internal disputes, hmmm.


Cohesive. meh. The history of the discworld makes more sense.

Now I'm not saying that god doesn't exist or that Jesus never existed. I wasn't there, but based on simple historical facts I can be fairly certain that the bible has very little connection to them anymore

[tozhma]

My point is that Nicea got everyone moving in lockstep on certain issues, so there wouldn't have been as much infighting. We can argue sematics all day, and I'll certainly concede on this point, but you have to understand that while there are holes and inconsistencies, the Bible is littered with contradictions from Gospel to Gospel, they are either justified properly enough, or obfuscated well enough to move the masses. I'm sure you've met people who will tell you how perfect the Bible is that it is GOD'S WORD, but of course they never care to look at the galring differences in the number of angles present at Jesus' tomb during the resurrection, etc.

Humans are really good at cognitive dissonance etc. dude.

[Ironwolf85]

The problem with Christianity is that it has two gods. the god in the first movie was definitely another actor than the second movie.

Part 1 or the old testament has a vengeful god, bent on dooming people with fire and brimstone, rampant floods, killing firstborn locust and frogs if you didn't follow his commands. He refused Moses entry into the holy land for saving one of the Jews god says he loves so much.

Then in the sequel suddenly we have this loving hippy god who is all about forgiving and forgetting, who'd apparently embrace you after you raped his mommy, if only you said you were sorry.

Read it in context next time.
Also I like kinda how lewis black explained it. he's no theologian, but it makes a bit of sense if you look at it from the era it was written.

The purpose of the old testiment was to give the anchent hebrews rules to live by.
Because those guys at work who are morons, would still be morons.

This is where myths come from.

"Sodom was whiped off the face of the earth with salt and fire because the entire city was doing stuff like you are concidering."
"But... why?"
"Because they were total assholes, God even sent angels to make sure because abraham asked for mercy on their behalf. You know what happened..."
"what?"
"the people there formed a freaking rape mob, and went after the angels because they were beautiful. The guys had to throw a holy flashbang and run for it with the only four people nice enough to take them in."
"oh shit"
"yeah, so when they reported back what do you think happened?"
"damn..."
"exactly, now do you now understand why you can't fuck camels?"
"yes... um... are donkies okay"
"NO you cannot fuck donkies either. The only person you can fuck is your wife."
"can I mary the..."
"NO!"

joking aside... that is where I think many myths come from. and they are meant to teach moral lessons.
in the OT, those lessons are interwoven with the history of the people who wrote the book.

Now what happenes when even divine law stagnates, when the piles and piles or orders and laws are all immutable as they are handed down by god, or his peiests?
God changes the rules and writes a new book. since the old one wasn't working out so well being all focused on punishment, law, and smiting.

Christans like myself believe he came down in flesh, lived a life as a mortal, got some perspective, taught his virtues of kindness and forgiveness. Then exploited his own loophole along the lines of "well someone still has to be punished for all the sins... Well no point in preaching love and virtue if you don't lead by example. I'll take it all, I'll let these pissed off priests & romans nail me to 2X4's and die in the most horrifficly painful way imaginable."
He got back up after three days, finished his teaching his followers, and went back home looked around and said "okay if everyone's coming I gotta make this place bigger."

of course saying that right there would likely get me lynched by far right fundies. because I didn't include the mythological lightningbolts, cherubs, and talk about hating gays.
If I'm reading some of these dead sea scrolls right, one of his followers (not an aposle, but one of the entourage surrounding him.) might've been gay.
I think the guy who broke bread with whores, thieves, ect, treated them with basic human respect, and forgave them all would probably not approve of a lot of crap that's been done by people using his book to justify what they were going to do anyways.


Phew ranty bit done.

[DarklingAlice]

Now why the hell did a nice conversation about nature of myth and the development and codification of belief systems have to turn into a discussion based on pseudo-history and pro/anti Christianity? I don't know if your are aware, but there are other religions and far more important matters.

[Ironwolf85]

*pants, then exhales, regaining his composure*
Because that is the religion most americans and europeans are fimilar with being involved in their daily lives, and fimilarity breeds contempt, or at least dissillousionment.
This is the reason that people are not afraid to bash christans on forums or hold them up as examples of religous stupidity.
Yet many hesitate or feel guilty if they were to bash various Druidic, Neo-Pagan, Native, Buddist, Hindu, ect. groups.

This is because christanity is the largest religious instution in the western world, and thus, because most religious people are Christans, it follows that most stupid religious people are also Christans.

[tozhma]

*pants, then exhales, regaining his composure*
Because that is the religion most americans and europeans are fimilar with being involved in their daily lives, and fimilarity breeds contempt, or at least dissillousionment.
This is the reason that people are not afraid to bash christans on forums or hold them up as examples of religous stupidity.
Yet many hesitate or feel guilty if they were to bash various Druidic, Neo-Pagan, Native, Buddist, Hindu, ect. groups.

This is because christanity is the largest religious instution in the western world, and thus, because most religious people are Christans, it follows that most stupid religious people are also Christans.

It's pretty easy to find connections between blatant hate groups and a claim to follow the teachings of Christ (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/christian-identity) Furthermore, in the West we're only used to hearing about rich, white hippies adopting Buddhism, and aren't familiar with its adherent who promote genocide (http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/plight-rohingya-0022301) Basically, I think a lot of it has to do with what we're exposed to in terms of socially unpopular attitudes etc. In the West we've come to embrace multiculturalism which has nudged a lot of the conservative end of religion to the side. Atheism is on the rise now, and most of those who embrace multiculturalism though are still religious for some reason seem to be latching on to New Age and Eastern faiths which at least appear more compatible with their values.

[Sabby]

Isn't there some law that says if people talk long enough Hitler will always get name dropped? In all my time in these volatile topics, I've never seen Hitler show up but the Christianity train is never late. Can we make a law for that?

[doodasaurus]

Yet many hesitate or feel guilty if they were to bash various Druidic, Neo-Pagan, Native, Buddist, Hindu, ect. groups.

This is because christanity is the largest religious instution in the western world, and thus, because most religious people are Christans, it follows that most stupid religious people are also Christans.

That's not the only reason.  The other reason is when discussing people of from cultures not your own, it's easy to slip into a racist element.  So, if you're criticizing Islam or Hinduism, a really good question to ask is your critique driven from good faith or from racism towards another group.  So people don't do it unless they get tarred with the brush of racism, justified or not.  (If you go to pretty much any politically conservative forum, you will find people criticizing Islam with great energy and little knowledge, in ways so utterly racist it hurts.  Even I, who am an atheist who is generally critical of religion, wince at their hatred and ignorance.)

However, for most English speaking people, Christianity is the dominate religion of their own country.  It is practiced by people who look, talk and act like them, even if they are not, themselves, Christian.  One can criticize Christianity or use it as an example of religion without fear of being branded (or being) a racist.

And if you're an American or, say, Italian, there's the additional impetus that Christianity intrudes into your life even if you're not Christian.  It has such political power that it's always there as a relevant political idea.  Not a day goes by that I don't read a news story about some religious politician doing or saying something utterly outrageous (for instance, yesterday, Arkansas state rep Loy Mauch was reported as saying, "If slavery were so God-awful, why didn't Jesus or Paul condemn it, why was it in the Constitution and why wasn't there a war before 1861?"  This was just says after another Arkansas politician, Charlie Fuqua, was reported saying that children who was disrespectful to their parents should be executed, legally, as per Biblical law.  This doesn't even go into, of course, the persistent religious backing of serious limitations to women's rights, gay rights, and scientific education.)  It's always there, doing things.

That said, I largely agree vis-a-vis this particular thread.  I come down on the narratives of religion being mythology regardless of the size of the religion and when people make the distinction, otherwise, I get a slight whiff of racism -- because it's my experience people have little trouble calling Hindu religious narratives or Chinese animism's religious narratives mythology.

[Tamhansen]

Wait. Which bible law says to execute disrespectful children? I know the line that says honor thy father and mother, guess the 'or you shall be stoned to death' bit is missing in my copy.

And yes the bible does portray the good guys holding slaves, but also polygyny so could we have that one back instead?

[doodasaurus]

Deut 21: 18-21

If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid

[Tamhansen]

Yup missed that one. Isn't it great, such a loving and forgiving religion.

[Beguile's Mistress]

We all live with myth and religion of some sort in our daily lives.  The myth is the fact that you team has won every time you wear a certain pair of socks.  From the myth comes the belief or faith that wearing those socks is going to help your team win.  Out of that belief comes the religion, the wearing of the socks when your team plays.

Here in Pittsburgh we have the religion or cult of the Terrible Towel.  Some years ago one of our local sports casters asked Steeler fans to show their support during a play-off game by waving a yellow or gold towel at the game.  The Steelers won and the myth was born.  From the myth came the belief that showing support for the team, in particular waving a yellow or gold towel, helped them win.  Yes, it's a belief widely held that positive energy is always a good thing.  Anyway, more and more fans brought their towels to play-off games and the Steelers won more and more games.  This created the foundation for the religion of the Terrible Towel.

Now, to show how religions can grow and take over parts of our lives look at the current times.  The Terrible Towel is a fixture in Pittsburgh Steelers game day preparations and rituals.  Every sporting goods store sells them and you can buy them online.  Other cities have explored the concept with less success than here in Pittsburgh.  The man who invented the Terrible Towel trademarked the concept and licensed the rights for Official Terrible Towel production.  The proceeds go to the support of a school for disabled children.  His son is a resident of the school.

Myth is a cultural exponent of an answer to the age-old question "Why?"  Keep in mind that myth is often based on fact, sometimes documented and sometimes handed down by word of mouth.

Faith is the belief that the myth is true, beneficial, good and will work for me.

Religion, which has nothing to do with any supernatural/divine/higher being except tangentially, is a construct of humans to promote a structure or form of ritual or worship to give them power.  The number of believers, the size of the temple/church/worship venue, the amount of money involved are all signs of power and as we know power corrupts.  Greed, jealousy, avarice, envy; these are all at the root of religion whether as a cause of it or as a result of them being used against a group that just want the peace to worship as they choose.

My own philosophy is very simple.  Study the myth, question the faith and beware of the religion but never confuse religion for faith for that only leads to misunderstanding.

[DarklingAlice]

I think my point has been missed. I am not only asking about the focus on Christianity, but more importantly asking why we are having a pro/anti Christianity discussion at all? I mean it would seem apropos to maybe talk about why Christians believe what they believe and how this relates to myth structure, or even to poke a bit of fun at Christianity for believing it has a monopoly on its myths or is somehow unique. But how is a positive or negative value judgement relevant to the nature of myth and religion? In addition to being a gridlock topic, whether or not we like any given religion doesn't matter to the way myths and religions form or the distinction between the two.

E.g. Why not talk about -why- ancient Christians had the recommendation to stone disobedient children, and -why- modern Christians have a selective relationship with their holy text instead of going 'that's evil' 'nuh uh' 'uh huh', etc.

[Oniya]

I think I may offer some insight on why 'stoning' is such a popular punishment, at least in the Old Testament.  The thing about a stoning is that, with a few exceptions that require a certain degree of accuracy, a single thrown rock is not going to kill anyone.  As a result, any one person throwing a rock isn't 'the one that killed' the person.  The death (and the guilt of killing) is, instead, distributed over the whole community.  The community has deemed this person unworthy of living, and has enacted sentence.  The community takes part in the punishment, and therefore the whole community also gets the message of what can happen if they break the law.  At the same time, however, they can salve their individual consciences by saying 'It wasn't my stone that killed them.'

[Beguile's Mistress]

This is the same reason a firing squad has one gun loaded with blanks and some death chambers require three people to push the button but only one works.  No one knows who really did it and there is always the belief you were the one who didn't.

[Tamhansen]

Actually questioning where beliefs come from is always a prickly situation. Taking the focus to Judaism and Islam for a sec, why is pig's meat considered haram/ not kosher?

My theory is that it has two reasons. Hygiene and economics.

1) hygiene: Pig's are genetically closer to humans than other livestock. There for pig illnesses crossed over easier. Ergo pig farmers got sick more often as did people eating pig's meat, especially since pig's meat spoils real quickly.

2) economics: chickens lay eggs, cows give milk, sheep give wool. Pigs don't. Pigs are a waste of space until they get slaughtered. Especially considering the lack of truffles in the dessert. So ancient people would discourage the holding of pigs, and what better excuse than, god says it's wrong.


I placed this hypothesis before my proto history class, and got rather good critique, except for the Muslims in my class, who accused me of ridiculing their religion and holy texts. The point for me is that many people on either side of the fence don't like their beliefs challenged, but does that make it a reason not to challenge them?

[doodasaurus]

I like #2 quite a bit, though my guess is still some dude got sick or died after improperly prepared pork and they made a rule "no more pork".  You can see the same sort of invented-in-my-head reasoning with shellfish -- certain mussels are poisonous to eat some parts of the year.  It was just easier to say "no seafood" than it was figure out which non-finned critters of the sea were edible during what parts of the year.

But, yeah, that kind of reasoning is always specious.  We weren't there to see what really happened, so it smacks of inventing narratives that fit the way you see the world.  Sorta like evolutionary psychology.  ;D

[Beguile's Mistress]

Pigs and shellfish are considered scavengers and garbage eaters and are therefore unclean.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The same thought process and disdain can be seen for modern types of food such as catfish which is considered a “bottom feeder” in some parts of the United States.  People in the South enjoy eating catfish while I have gone to places in the North and Mid-West where there was obvious disdain and a refusal to serve the food.  While not codified into religious doctrine against the much beloved catfish, there is an easy parallel to see.

[Tamhansen]

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I was just using it as an example, but I guess by elaborating I made it the focus. I apologize.

What I was trying to get at is that many religious people view any questioning of these religious traditions as an attack on their religion, while in fact it is mere scientific curiosity.

As a side note: proto history is indeed based on conjecture, but considering there are very few reliable written sources conjecture and hypothesis is our best route to understanding. By testing hypothesis we find plausible answers which we can build on.

[Beguile's Mistress]

A lot depends on how the curiosity is expressed.  Genuine interest in how certain practices have come about and why they are incorporated in the belief system and seldom hurtful.

Snide comments, sarcasm and derision are usually seen as an attack because that is what they are. 

If you don't want to be seen as attacking a person's beliefs or rituals be respectful, polite and back off if you see people are becoming irritated.


And by "you" I mean the general you and not a specific person because that is how I roll.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Well, I don’t think that this type of questioning simply ruffles the feathers of the religious.  Such questions and inquiries also make others anxious when say their political ideology is questioned, their cultural beliefs and any part of what they hold as their identity.  I dare say atheists get prickly as well when their rational and reasons for lack of belief in a God are questioned.  Any view or belief held by someone that is considered part of themselves and is held close is going to cause them to become defensive when questioned.  People do not like being wrong.

[doodasaurus]

Unfortunately, with social constructs that no longer exist, how does one test them?  Historical and archaeological studies grapple with this all the time.

But -- and this might be getting afield -- it is my experience with historical inquiries that religious institutions are quite willing to draw attention away from information that doesn't align with it's religion.  It is a constant burden with history and archaeology in the Western Mediterranean, in particular.

[Beguile's Mistress]

As a friend of mine who teaches History and Social Studies observed history is constantly being revised; it all depends on who is telling the story.

We can only try to have faith in our own beliefs and respect those of others.  Comment and question with respect and an attitude that communicates a desire to learn and not one that can be seen as an attempt to undermine or convert the other person.  Treat the beliefs and opinions of others as you would have yours treated. 

You are not right and you are not wrong.  You just are.  So is the other person. 

[doodasaurus]

I dare say atheists get prickly as well when their rational and reasons for lack of belief in a God are questioned.  Any view or belief held by someone that is considered part of themselves and is held close is going to cause them to become defensive when questioned.  People do not like being wrong.

As a vocal atheist, mostly, no, we don't.  It pretty much happens all the time, too.  One of the things I have found about atheists is most of them are better educated about religion than the people who challenge them and they have strong, well-thought out reasons for being atheists.

Atheists are far, far more likely to get frothing at the mouth upset over people who defend why they're religious.  It just makes no sense at all to a great many atheists -- sometimes I lose sight of why people are religious, myself -- so it drives them bananas.  On the other hand, atheists are pretty knowledgeable about why they're atheists and most of us are extremely confident in those reasons.

Also, probably because, as an atheist, you have to routinely go through that gauntlet of "why are you an atheist?" so you get used to it.  The conversation is so *predictable*.  It's lost it's zing.

[Sabby]

I dare say atheists get prickly as well when their rational and reasons for lack of belief in a God are questioned.  Any view or belief held by someone that is considered part of themselves and is held close is going to cause them to become defensive when questioned.  People do not like being wrong.

Really now? How many Atheists have you met? Because if we had so much as a sigh every time we were questioned we all would have died from stress induced heart attacks before the age of 30 >.> If anything, I'm annoyed at constant assertions that my lack of faith is somehow bad, instead of, ya know... the default mindset every person is born with. But being asked why I think that doesn't make me recoil lest my fragile reality be threatened.

[Vanity Evolved]

*pants, then exhales, regaining his composure*
Because that is the religion most americans and europeans are fimilar with being involved in their daily lives, and fimilarity breeds contempt, or at least dissillousionment.
This is the reason that people are not afraid to bash christans on forums or hold them up as examples of religous stupidity.
Yet many hesitate or feel guilty if they were to bash various Druidic, Neo-Pagan, Native, Buddist, Hindu, ect. groups.

This is because christanity is the largest religious instution in the western world, and thus, because most religious people are Christans, it follows that most stupid religious people are also Christans.

In my case? It's because those other groups, at least at the moment, are not causing problems for the rest of the world.

The majority of people in the West are Christian. The majority of people who're in power are Christian. What happens when those two combine? You get people trying to push their theological beliefs onto the rest of the world via laws and mandates. Luckily, where I am (the UK), this isn't much of a problem; you hear about it now and then, but the worst Christianity has caused over here in recent years is the warring between Protestants and Catholics in Ireland. You compare this to America, especially the Bible belt, where Christian groups have tried (and succeeded, in some cases) to force Creationism into science classes, have excluded entire groups of people from being able to do what they want in life (Refusal to allow homosexuals to adopt or get married) and still end up killing people en mass in other countries through their own selfish wants (The Pope willfully telling Africans that condoms are a sin leading to further spreading of HIV, teaching a bunch of impoverished people a belief system where 'suffer not the witch to live' is still totally believed).

I still don't take Hindus, Wiccans, Asatru, Scientologists, Islamics, etc. any more seriously than Christians when it comes to their religious beliefs. However, I'll only have a problem with those religions once Wiccans are able to force Three-Fold Law as part of a physics clas, or when Scientologists start writing up their own science journals so they can claim Thetans are a scientific fact (something which Christians have done; writing their own peer review journals with no backing to try and sneak their beliefs into science).

[doodasaurus]

We can only try to have faith in our own beliefs and respect those of others.  Comment and question with respect and an attitude that communicates a desire to learn and not one that can be seen as an attempt to undermine or convert the other person.  Treat the beliefs and opinions of others as you would have yours treated. 

You are not right and you are not wrong.  You just are.  So is the other person.

I don't buy this.  Some ideas are better than others.  If a person has a bigoted, homophobic, woman hating, war-mongering ideology, I'm real comfortable saying my beliefs are better.

[Beguile's Mistress]

As a vocal atheist, mostly, no, we don't.  It pretty much happens all the time, too.  One of the things I have found about atheists is most of them are better educated about religion than the people who challenge them and they have strong, well though out reasons for being atheists.

This is true of most of the atheists I know.  They come in all shapes and sizes and as several of them say non-belief systems.  They all have their reasons and their idiosyncratic points but none of them are defensive when approached in a reasonable way.

[Vanity Evolved]

I don't buy this.  Some ideas are better than others.  If a person has a bigoted, homophobic, woman hating, war-mongering ideology, I'm real comfortable saying my beliefs are better.

This. A hundred times this.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I respectfully disagree.  Most atheists in my opinion are woefully ignorant of religion, science and philosophy or at least give that impression from the antagonism in their words.  There are of course exceptions, but in large part my experience with atheists has been one of misinformation and anger.  I do not find confidence in their words, but rather a desperate need for other people to agree with them and intolerance for others not to.  More than likely why I find myself disagreeing with them more often than not. 

Still though, I feel as if the defensive nature of the atheist philosophy has been sufficiently shown that the proposition of only the religious being defensive when their beliefs are questioned can be disputed.

[Tamhansen]

From an objective viewpoint, they are not.

Any viewpoint, no matter how egalitarian or how bigoted is created by it's owner's frame of reference. Just as you feel your viewpoints are better, the bigoted sexist warmonger feels the same about his.

You cannot say with absolute certainty who is right and who is wrong.

All you can say is that you are more comfortable with your viewpoint, and try to convince the other person of them. Personally my viewpoint lies very close to yours, and I challenge other viewpoints and cherish having mine challenged.

But none of us is infallible, so none of us have claim on right or wrong.

[Beguile's Mistress]

I don't buy this.  Some ideas are better than others.  If a person has a bigoted, homophobic, woman hating, war-mongering ideology, I'm real comfortable saying my beliefs are better.

Then say it with a polite and respectful attitude if you are saying it here.  Don't make mountains out of mole hills or take extreme examples to demonstrate a point when that isn't the discussion on the table because the more extreme you become the more like that person you described you become.  Keep on topic for the thread you are in and if you aren't finding it fitting for your needs start another always keeping in mind Elliquiy's rules and guidelines regarding respect for others and civility toward those you disagree with and who disagree with you.

[doodasaurus]

From an objective viewpoint, they are not.

Any viewpoint, no matter how egalitarian or how bigoted is created by it's owner's frame of reference. Just as you feel your viewpoints are better, the bigoted sexist warmonger feels the same about his.

You cannot say with absolute certainty who is right and who is wrong.

All you can say is that you are more comfortable with your viewpoint, and try to convince the other person of them. Personally my viewpoint lies very close to yours, and I challenge other viewpoints and cherish having mine challenged.

But none of us is infallible, so none of us have claim on right or wrong.

Still don't buy it.  Sure, that bigoted, sexist, warmongerer no doubt feels the same about me.  So, we should just sit back and politely discuss things while they're out there making bigoted, sexist laws and engaging in murderous, horrible wars?  If they would table their push to make the world the way they want, I'd happily engage them in discourse -- but that's not what's happening.  They're not engaging, they're on the move.

[Vanity Evolved]

I respectfully disagree.  Most atheists in my opinion are woefully ignorant of religion, science and philosophy or at least give that impression from the antagonism in their words.  There are of course exceptions, but in large part my experience with atheists has been one of misinformation and anger.  I do not find confidence in their words, but rather a desperate need for other people to agree with them and intolerance for others not to.  More than likely why I find myself disagreeing with them more often than not. 

Still though, I feel as if the defensive nature of the atheist philosophy has been sufficiently shown that the proposition of only the religious being defensive when their beliefs are questioned can be disputed.

This is, in part, to a lot of religions (mainly Christianity; it's one of the ones I'm most familiar with, and one of the biggest religions to do this) having the Big Book of Multiple Choice. Quite a large proportion of Atheists I know are very well informed on religion, usually moreso than the people whol follow them. The problem is, we can only point to the Bible and quote that. Which of course, every Christian and their mother either has their own interpretation, or simply -ignores- huge chunks of the Bible, leading to a constant shifting of goalposts.

"What about this part here, where it says about selling your raped daughter to her rapist?"
"Oh, no, -our- church doesn't believe that. We believe x, y and z."

Every church, and every believer picks and chooses what parts they want to follow and which bits already fit their moral compass. The Bible states homosexuality is wrong, but not every Christian believes that and even homosexuals I've known ignore that part and claim themselves Christian. The Bible states you should kill your kids for being unrulely, but a vast proportion of Christians don't follow that. We can only argue from the source; it's an impossible notion to expect that every Atheist knows every religion and every subsect within that religion and every persons individual opinons on those subsects opinions.

[Tamhansen]

I respectfully disagree.  Most atheists in my opinion are woefully ignorant of religion, science and philosophy or at least give that impression from the antagonism in their words.  There are of course exceptions, but in large part my experience with atheists has been one of misinformation and anger.  I do not find confidence in their words, but rather a desperate need for other people to agree with them and intolerance for others not to.  More than likely why I find myself disagreeing with them more often than not. 

Still though, I feel as if the defensive nature of the atheist philosophy has been sufficiently shown that the proposition of only the religious being defensive when their beliefs are questioned can be disputed.

You're using circular reasoning and logical fallacy. You say because atheists claim not to be defensive, that proves they are defensive. Also you claim we are ignorant of religion, which is an opinion not a fact, but then use it as a fact to support your circular reasoning.

I am not ignorant of the bible, or of religious beliefs, nor am I all knowing. But I dare say I have more knowledge of religion than many Christians I encountered. For example I know many Christians that can not name the Ten Commandments or five of Jesus twelve apostles. Most religious ferments, especially in the Judaic faiths seem to believe that he who disagrees must be ignorant. Because if they understood it, they could only believe it.

It's like this Islamic issue. Me: who wrote the Quran? Imam: Allah did Me: How do you know? Imam: It says so in the Quran. Me: how do you know the Quran speaks truth. Imam: because Allah wrote it.   

Many Christians do the same.

As an atheist I simply say, please prove me wrong, prove the existence of god to me. I just believe no one can, as I do not believe he existed so there is no proof. But if you have it, please share.

[Tamhansen]

Still don't buy it.  Sure, that bigoted, sexist, warmongerer no doubt feels the same about me.  So, we should just sit back and politely discuss things while they're out there making bigoted, sexist laws and engaging in murderous, horrible wars?  If they would table their push to make the world the way they want, I'd happily engage them in discourse -- but that's not what's happening.  They're not engaging, they're on the move.

Again subjective reasoning. You believe discussion is the way to get your point across. They do not. Look philosophically I agree with your viewpoint, however, until you can objectively prove your ways are right, you cannot lay the claim of being right, only of believing to be. I believe you are right in your social viewpoints, but I too can not prove them to be universally right.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The definition of how someone views “best” or “better” would be the only method of determining if one viewpoint is superior to another.  Even utilizing outcome based evidence would call the criteria for the outcome into question.  For instance, persecution of the Jewish people is something that most would feel is abhorrent and wrong.  A view point that is inferior, but such a view point could be said to have allowed the unification of the German people from a position of poverty to one of military superiority.  Slavery is quite useful to any nation due to the cheap labor, so an argument could be made over the usefulness of slavery when considering outcome.

Most of our “beliefs” are held up without true cause or reason for their existence that would stand up to scientific scrutiny.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

You're using circular reasoning and logical fallacy. You say because atheists claim not to be defensive, that proves they are defensive. Also you claim we are ignorant of religion, which is an opinion not a fact, but then use it as a fact to support your circular reasoning.

No, I am using the example of three posters rushing forward over a single sentence within a post to all scream “no we’re not” along with parading a sense of superiority.  Also, the statement “in my opinion” would mean that I am not declaring my statement as fact.

[Vanity Evolved]

The definition of how someone views “best” or “better” would be the only method of determining if one viewpoint is superior to another.  Even utilizing outcome based evidence would call the criteria for the outcome into question.  For instance, persecution of the Jewish people is something that most would feel is abhorrent and wrong.  A view point that is inferior, but such a view point could be said to have allowed the unification of the German people from a position of poverty to one of military superiority.  Slavery is quite useful to any nation due to the cheap labor, so an argument could be made over the usefulness of slavery when considering outcome.

Most of our “beliefs” are held up without true cause or reason for their existence that would stand up to scientific scrutiny.

I'm a bit confused there. Are you saying that more people support the idea that enslaving and killing Jews? Because... I'm pretty certain that isn't true.

Slavery is useful. But it doesn't make a group who uses slavery as a standard right. Logically, stealing is good in that sense, because taking other peoples stuff and keeping it for yourself is good, because you now have more stuff? And your own survival is more important than others? Which is distinctly not true. Humans thrive on groups, and stealing, while it helps you, doesn't help the group - once you allow that, everyone is stealing from everyone. What is best for people is that I agree not to kill you, you agree not to kill me, you keep your stuff, I'll keep my stuff and we all work together.

Enslaving people does nothing of the sort. It breeds resentment, it's a barbaric practice which most people in the civilized world finds abhorrant. Once you open the door to 'We can do this', you open the door for everyone else.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Discussing the benefits or disadvantages of a system is not the same as condoning it and you know that. 

Please don't make remarks for the sake of argument and please read through the post you wish to comment on, formulate your comment then read the post again before posting your reply.

[Sabby]

1. There are of course exceptions, but in large part my experience with atheists has been one of misinformation and anger. 

2. I do not find confidence in their words, but rather a desperate need for other people to agree with them and intolerance for others not to. 

3. More than likely why I find myself disagreeing with them more often than not. 

This is my last response to you, as I see no where else this can go but a Mod stepping in to quiet the topic. I'll leave my opinion, and you are welcome to continue the discussion in PM, but consider this my official exit from the public discussion.

1. Honestly, I think you're misunderstanding the reaction. It's not 'anger' and 'misinformation', it's offence and confusion at your circular reasoning and constant catfish-across-the-face slapping of reason. Just based on my interactions with you over the last few days, I really believe you are an Apologist.

2. No, a desperate need to be heard, as we should be, and have a damn right to. You can ignore us, as is your right as well, but please do not handwave all Atheists opinions as 'attention seeking' or 'bigotry' simply because they clash with your own world view. You are not special, and neither are we.

3. Oh! Right. Rude. Yes, a perfect excuse to just ignore things you don't like. If I told you that the Earth gravitates about the sun but I did so in an offensive, obnoxious manner, does that make this planet the universes centre? No. Have I been rude? If so, I apologize. Have many Atheists been rude? Yes. And I at least apologize for them, as I sympathize with their frustrations. I'm feeling them right now as I respond to you :/ This is a very heated topic and both sides get a bit out of line, this I will freely admit, but one side being 'rude' does not invalidate them and allow the other to hand wave them.

You are free to disagree with anything I've said, and I'd actually welcome it, as long as it is in PM. Don't mistake this for having the last say and running, as I'm not. I just see no good result coming from this discussion remaining public, or partaking in this topic at all. We've hit that loop again where we will all just retrace the same point until the Mods see fit to remind us not to rustle our Jimmies.

My Jimmies are being removed for a much needed unrustling, and you're quite welcome to send you're own Jimmies after mine if you feel so strongly.

Have a good day guys. When the discussion manages to realign itself, I'll be back :3

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Not certain how my statement that “persecution of the Jewish people is something that most would feel is abhorrent and wrong” can be taken to mean “saying that more people support the idea that enslaving and killing Jews.”  That would be an almost a purposeful misreading of my post.

Given that start to the post, I will not respond further to that post.

[Vanity Evolved]

Pretty much what Sabs said. :/ It's hard to really discuss much of anything when slavery is being brought up as some sort of arguement within a religious debate. So, yeah. Have a good one, guys.

[Cyrano Johnson]

I respectfully disagree.  Most atheists in my opinion are woefully ignorant of religion, science and philosophy or at least give that impression from the antagonism in their words.  There are of course exceptions, but in large part my experience with atheists has been one of misinformation and anger.  I do not find confidence in their words, but rather a desperate need for other people to agree with them and intolerance for others not to.  More than likely why I find myself disagreeing with them more often than not. 

Still though, I feel as if the defensive nature of the atheist philosophy has been sufficiently shown that the proposition of only the religious being defensive when their beliefs are questioned can be disputed.

Really, "atheist" is a pretty narrow shingle on which to hang a common identity. It is the mere lack of belief in something, and tells you relatively little about someone's positive beliefs. There are plenty of ideologies that can describe themselves as "atheist," from Objectivism to Communism, and everything in between. There are also plenty of mindsets that can be described as "atheist," from the informed and educated right down to the lumpen-atheist who imagines Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Chris Hitchens to be "scholars" of the subject matter, and who thereby have not the remotest idea of how little they know. Atheism can be an expression of healthy skepticism, or it can be a pseudo-liberal stalking horse for the popular prejudices of the moment (in our current moment, especially, Islamophobia). Atheism can be the simple lack of the need to believe in Deity, or it can manifest as the rather more insecure need to believe that theism is inherently stupid and evil.

Thanks to the popularity of the so-called "Four Horsemen" authors (and to figures like PZ Meyers), the under-informed and hate- or anger-based variants of atheism have acquired an obnoxious fanbase that has really only read a few slanted polemics about the issue in question, but nevertheless fancies itself as "rational," even-handed and intellectually superior. This was always a part of atheism -- especially characteristic of recent conversos from one or another religious tradition -- but it assumes a disproportionate profile in the present day. It's understandable to be unimpressed by it, as it's little different from the theists who imagine themselves to know everything based on a few years of Sunday school, but I would hesitate even now to characterize it as "most" of atheism. That most atheists are more educated about religion than most professed believers, for instance, is actually true, not withstanding the tends toward lumpen-atheism.

[tozhma]

A lot of those criticisms can be applied to theists as well you know. I think almost any ideology can be bent to fit any prejudice.

[Ironwolf85]

A lot of those criticisms can be applied to theists as well you know. I think almost any ideology can be bent to fit any prejudice.

stupid+anything = stupid²

my formula still holds true!

[tozhma]

lol

[Pumpkin Seeds]

As entertaining as this discourse has become, please do not let things get too of course from the topic of the thread.

[TaintedAndDelish]

Basically, when taking the standard definition of these two terms, they seem rather interchangable.

Mythology:
a. A body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes.

1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

Now to me as an agnostic religion and mythology are the same. In this I do not say that I know them to be false, as i cannot prove any mythology to be false. Maybe Jesus did walk on water, or perhaps the godess Athena really was born out of Zeus's splitting headache. I was not there. My question is merely how we can safely call many of these belief systems not just ancient ones, but also modern ones like hinduism, buddhism or Wicca false and treat them as fairy tales, but once we do the same to Christianity, Judaism and Islam, we are treated as savages and insensitive. Basically, there is not a shred more evidence of the existence of God/JHVH/Allah, than there is of Zeus or Krisjna or the mother goddess. It's all about faith and belief.

Personally I tend to take the babel fish approach when considering the existence of god or gods. I do not wish to hinder anyone in believing what they wish to believe, what they feel is truth, or at least something probable, but if people really have this faith, why do they get upset if others question the truth of those beliefs? Is their faith not strong enough, or is it something else?

"but if people really have this faith, why do they get upset if others question the truth of those beliefs? "

What happens when you tell a child that Santa Clause isn't real? They freak out. Why? Because they believe that Santa will give them toys if they are good. No Santa means no toys. A child will just kick and cry over the loss of their Santa, while an adult will terrorize and force people to believe, rape women, and blow up buildings.


"Is their faith not strong enough, or is it something else?"

No, its not. If it was, they wouldn't need to make everyone else participate in their delusion.

[WildCat]

As entertaining as this discourse has become, please do not let things get too of course from the topic of the thread.

"Religion and Mythology"

Obviously, I am qualified to speak only for myself.

I think the tendency to get up in arms about the two lies not in denotation but in connotation. 'Mythology' tends to be associated with 'false' in a way 'religion' isn't. I am Christian. Personally, I don't object to Christianity being referred to as a mythology because I know that 'mythology' and 'false' are not synonyms. (For that matter, I'm not going to get up in arms with people telling me my faith is 'false', I just don't agree with them.)

Meanwhile, living in a secular world--it does irritate me when Muslims or Wiccans or practitioners of whatever faith are denied the rights and privileges that I as a Christian enjoy.

[Tamhansen]

"Religion and Mythology"

Obviously, I am qualified to speak only for myself.

I think the tendency to get up in arms about the two lies not in denotation but in connotation. 'Mythology' tends to be associated with 'false' in a way 'religion' isn't. I am Christian. Personally, I don't object to Christianity being referred to as a mythology because I know that 'mythology' and 'false' are not synonyms. (For that matter, I'm not going to get up in arms with people telling me my faith is 'false', I just don't agree with them.)

Meanwhile, living in a secular world--it does irritate me when Muslims or Wiccans or practitioners of whatever faith are denied the rights and privileges that I as a Christian enjoy.

I am really glad to hear such a viewpoint. Even though i believe many Christians share it, I seldom hear or see it expressed. And indeed. Myth has somehow become synonymous with fairy tales in modern days, which is why I placed the definition in the first post. the bible is Christian mythology, while the practices of Christian congregations are it's religion. I think that that would be the best way to phrase my viewpoint.

[Beguile's Mistress]

What happens when you tell a child that Santa Clause isn't real? They freak out. Why? Because they believe that Santa will give them toys if they are good. No Santa means no toys. A child will just kick and cry over the loss of their Santa, while an adult will terrorize and force people to believe, rape women, and blow up buildings.

If you allow the child to come the realization independently and answer their question about the existence of Santa with the question "What do you think?" a dialogue can develope where the idea of Santa isn't destroyed but morphed into a philosophy of giving.  Children being the instinctively clever little beings they are come to the conclusion that parents are Santa. 

I was taught a concept of Santa being a feeling that I can hold onto that lets me see need and try to fulfill it.  I still like to imagine the North Pole and elves but I relish the ability and opportunities to be the Santa for someone when I can.  The myth can become the religion that way.

[Oniya]

If you allow the child to come the realization independently and answer their question about the existence of Santa with the question "What do you think?" a dialogue can develope where the idea of Santa isn't destroyed but morphed into a philosophy of giving.  Children being the instinctively clever little beings they are come to the conclusion that parents are Santa. 

I was taught a concept of Santa being a feeling that I can hold onto that lets me see need and try to fulfill it.  I still like to imagine the North Pole and elves but I relish the ability and opportunities to be the Santa for someone when I can.  The myth can become the religion that way.

I'm a big fan of the 'Yes, Virginia' letter, myself.

[Ironwolf85]

If you allow the child to come the realization independently and answer their question about the existence of Santa with the question "What do you think?" a dialogue can develope where the idea of Santa isn't destroyed but morphed into a philosophy of giving.  Children being the instinctively clever little beings they are come to the conclusion that parents are Santa. 

I was taught a concept of Santa being a feeling that I can hold onto that lets me see need and try to fulfill it.  I still like to imagine the North Pole and elves but I relish the ability and opportunities to be the Santa for someone when I can.  The myth can become the religion that way.

I like this, and it illustrates the relationship pretty well.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I agree.  That was a touching way to put the concept Beguile.