• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What would falsify your paradigm?

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I just did.
And you didn't provide a counter argument, you just repeated your dogma. Try to follow the argument and tell me which step isn't logical and why.
1. Morality is a set of rules (A, B, C, ...) that one regards as "good".
2. If, for different people or in different cases, you, in case X, apply rule A and in case Y you don't, you have broken rule A in case Y.
3. From 2. follows that, independent of what your rule set is, equality is always moral.
4. Equality is objectively moral and we found that using logic.

It seems to me that you are making the assumption that the rules treat everyone the same.

For example, suppose that rule A says
"If you are a noble, then you have to do P"

while rule B says
"If you are a commoner, then you have to do Q"

In that case, if X is a noble, then X must do P, while if Y was a commoner, then Y must do Q.

Neither rule is broken, they just apply to different classes of people.

So, your conclusion that equality is objectively moral, no matter what the rules are, is shown not to follow from your premises.

In order to arrive at your conclusion, you need to assume the rules apply to all equally, but that is, in essence, assuming your conclusion.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
It's not fiction like Indian or Greek mythologies. Where we can test for truth, we find truth.
Even mythologies have history behind them. RigVeda is the most excellent record of history of Indo-European people. Hindus had 'Dashagwahas' (priests who completed their ritual cycle in ten months), and ancient Roman calendar had ten months until it was changed in 700 BCE by Emperor Numa by adding the months of January and February.
Most therevada does not accept the concept of a creator. Sorry
And some (like me) who discard even the creation. "Brahma satyam, jagan-mithya, jeevo Brahmaiva na parah" - Sankaracharya (Brahman alone is truth, the world is untruth. A living being is none other than Brahman).
 
Last edited:

dfnj

Well-Known Member
I wonder why Prue Phillip is so besotted about the Jews. He is not one. And Jews have nothing to do with Jesus.
Of course, Not. I am a strong atheist and I do not believe in any God or Goddess. I do not believe in most things that the theists believe in, like soul, heaven, hell, judgment, deliverance, rebirth or even creation. These are "very clearly" mythologies, nice stories, especially for children. Generally people grow out of them, but some don't.

You seem to be besotted with the idea mythologies are children's stories. The purpose of mythology is to provide us with a map on how to live our lives. Often this includes how to define our place in the Universe, how to find meaning and purpose in our lives, and a context to our lives much bigger than our just being self-centered in focus.

I think you are ignoring why mythology and religion exists in the first place. I would love to your personal rational atheistic explanation as to why something exists as opposed to nothingness. Every major religion has a creation myth. A story on how all the matter and energy came into existence from nothingness. I don't think it really matters or not if the story is true or provable. I'm not sure it is possible to make rational decision based on evidence on how the Universe came into existence since we are part of it. We can't go back in time and be an objective observer so we can make decision based on facts and experience. Despite being unacceptable to you, most people choose some form of a creation myth to believe in.

Another part or purpose of mythology and religion is to answer the four great existential questions:
1. Who am I?
2. Why am I here?
3. What does it all mean?
4. What is going to happen to me when I die?

Some of these questions do not have easy answers. Some people have said these questions are unanswerable questions. Many people are uncomfortable without having a concrete answers for these questions. So people invent religions and mythologies to provide the concrete answers. Sure it's kind of made up BS but it who cares if people live a more meaningful lives instead of nihilism. And from the theist perspective what they believe in is absolute truth.

As an atheist, you probably have a set of answers you think are logical, rational, and common sense. And from your perspective, I'm sure you think your way of thinking is the best. I would love to your objective proof for why your way of thinking is better than any other one that is based on theism. Also, what is your simple answer for how everything was created in the first place? What is your objective evidence for the basis of your belief?
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
So you have chosen an interpretation to suit society.
Even though most Jews don't agree with this guy.
And Greeks don't' agree either.
And you would have been killed during bible times
for doing these things.
Fair enough - but don't say it's "biblical" just say it's
"liberalism."

Of COURSE I'd be dead if the Bible is the Rule Of The Land: I'm not a Hebrew! If I had not simply been killed outright, I'd be a Slave, as per Exodus 21.

It was even WORSE during the Dark Ages, when Christianity Ruled: I'd have been tortured first, then killed.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
I sort of, really don´t care about the historic age of any cultural Story of Creation. The fact is, if you study Comparative Religion or Comparative Mythology and Creation Myths, you´ll soon find significant similarities all over the World.
I agree that the biblical Story of Creation could be somewhat twisted by interpreters, writers and later scholars, but the very basic contents looks very much as in other cultural creation stories.
The genuine biblical content of the Creation Story isn´t plagiarized as such, but it may have got some local Mediterranean mix up from migration exchanges, but initially it just was the Jewish example of the creation story.
As the different local cultures meets each others religious stories, they discovered similarities of "divine beings" which looked very much as their own story.
This is very natural and logic since the global Creation Stories deals with the same creation conditions for all humans all over the world - as I points out in my profile signature below here.

Well, sure: Creation Stories abound all around the world. Once humans developed the ability to ask "Why are we Here?" then creation myths begin to emerge, as clever Story Tellers invented even more Clever Stories to 'answer' these Age Old Questions.

Doesn't mean any are accurate by any measure, of course. Campfire Stories being what they are, and Oral Tradition isn't very good at preserving accuracy, as each generation needs to Embellish The Story.

That being said, the similarity of Creation Myths only says that Humans Are Alike. Moreover, the farther you go from a given area, the more the stories shift.

Compare Native American Creation Myths, for example, with Greek ones, or Chinese Creation Myths. Or even New Zealanders or Aborigines of Australia.

Humans seem to have a need to be From A Greater Thing, and so imagine Gods and Beasts and Magic and other things to satisfy this need.

The single common thread in all these Creation Myths? Humans.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
You seem to be besotted with the idea mythologies are children's stories. The purpose of mythology is to provide us with a map on how to live our lives. Often this includes how to define our place in the Universe, how to find meaning and purpose in our lives, and a context to our lives much bigger than our just being self-centered in focus.

I think you are ignoring why mythology and religion exists in the first place. I would love to your personal rational atheistic explanation as to why something exists as opposed to nothingness. Every major religion has a creation myth. A story on how all the matter and energy came into existence from nothingness. I don't think it really matters or not if the story is true or provable. I'm not sure it is possible to make rational decision based on evidence on how the Universe came into existence since we are part of it. We can't go back in time and be an objective observer so we can make decision based on facts and experience. Despite being unacceptable to you, most people choose some form of a creation myth to believe in.

Actually, if you read them, most ancient creation myths do NOT show how things came *from nothing*. They uniformly assume there was *something*, whether it be waters, some deity, or chaos.

Personally, I think the question itself is misguided: to talk about causality automatically puts one inside the universe, so a cause for the universe is non-sense.

Another part or purpose of mythology and religion is to answer the four great existential questions:
1. Who am I?
2. Why am I here?
3. What does it all mean?
4. What is going to happen to me when I die?

And the way I see it, most myths are made to give answers to these questions that satisfy the human ego, as opposed to being true.

Who am I?
Well, my handle here is Polymath257. No other answer seems to be necessary.

2. Why am I here?
Because my parents had sex. Again, the simplest answer is clearly correct. Anything else seems to be playing to human ego.

3. What does it all mean?
Why do you think it means anything? As I see it, meaning is something *we*, as conscious entities, give to things.

4. What is going to happen to me when I die?
Well, the simple truth is that you will rot. As far as I can see, your consciousness dissipates, just like a candle flame when it is blown out.

Again, these answers may not be satisfying to human ego, but there is no reason truth needs to satisfy our egos.

That is why we invent myths: to satisfy ourselves that we are important in the universe. They are fictions created to satisfy our egos.

At least, that's how i see it.

Some of these questions do not have easy answers. Some people have said these questions are unanswerable questions. Many people are uncomfortable without having a concrete answers for these questions. So people invent religions and mythologies to provide the concrete answers. Sure it's kind of made up BS but it who cares if people live a more meaningful lives instead of nihilism. And from the theist perspective what they believe in is absolute truth.

I think the problem is more that the easy answers are rejected because they don't play to our demands to be important.

As an atheist, you probably have a set of answers you think are logical, rational, and common sense. And from your perspective, I'm sure you think your way of thinking is the best. I would love to your objective proof for why your way of thinking is better than any other one that is based on theism. Also, what is your simple answer for how everything was created in the first place? What is your objective evidence for the basis of your belief?

See above.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Lol, I did and it offers no quotes to your claim
On the other hand I can provide many sources to back mine. Therevada buddhism has no belief in a creator
Obviously you´re having troubles understanding the term "cosmology" since you fails to understand the buddhist implications in the Creation Story.
You´ve already made the Therevada Buddhism derailed statement three times now.

I really don´t care if the Buddhists did have a god or not at all! This is NOT my topical question here.

I haven´t claimed anything other regarding the Buddhists thoughts about how the buddhists thinks of how the creation took place. The fact is that the creation took place and the Buddhists described this in different cosmological ways.

This is my last reply to you as I don´t take it to be my task to entertain your lack of understanding a topic.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Well, sure: Creation Stories abound all around the world. Once humans developed the ability to ask "Why are we Here?" then creation myths begin to emerge, as clever Story Tellers invented even more Clever Stories to 'answer' these Age Old Questions.
It´s both more complicated and simple at the same time. Ancient "creation story tellers" did not "invent" anything. They just observed what already was and is "invented", namely the general facts in the day. and night Sky i.e. the cosmology and cosmogony.
Doesn't mean any are accurate by any measure, of course. Campfire Stories being what they are, and Oral Tradition isn't very good at preserving accuracy, as each generation needs to Embellish The Story.
Of course each generation needs to Embellish The Story and look at the same genuine and factual observations which was the basics in ancient Creation Stories.
That being said, the similarity of Creation Myths only says that Humans Are Alike. Moreover, the farther you go from a given area, the more the stories shift.
Not at all since the global/cultural Stories of Creation isn´t dependent of anything else but local natural and celestial observations.

Compare Native American Creation Myths, for example, with Greek ones, or Chinese Creation Myths. Or even New Zealanders or Aborigines of Australia.
Fine. If you get the common causes to these myths you´ll find they all fits nicely together.
The single common thread in all these Creation Myths? Humans.
Of course it is humans in the first place since we are the discoverers, but the next common thread is what is written in my profile signature below. Just read it :)
 

dfnj

Well-Known Member
Of COURSE I'd be dead if the Bible is the Rule Of The Land: I'm not a Hebrew! If I had not simply been killed outright, I'd be a Slave, as per Exodus 21.

It was even WORSE during the Dark Ages, when Christianity Ruled: I'd have been tortured first, then killed.

Even if Christianity did not exist at all during the Dark Ages people would still have been tortured and killed for their beliefs. Christianity was just the use of language. The problem was authoritarianism and having lords and slaves.
 

dfnj

Well-Known Member
That is why we invent myths: to satisfy ourselves that we are important in the universe. They are fictions created to satisfy our egos.
I think the problem is more that the easy answers are rejected because they don't play to our demands to be important.

Most religions try to teach people how to not be selfish, that is ego-centric, and be more selfless in the service of God and others.

I think your answers are fine. Yes, people may answer these questions so human beings have more worth. But is that a problem? Why is nihilism better than theism?

If everything we attribute as being sacred and divine is just our ego inflating self-importance, then why does it matter if everything is just meaningless anyway. If everything is meaningless as your rationale way of thinking seems to suggest, then isn't it meaningless that it is meaningless? Then why not choose to pretend it is meaningful since it doesn't really matter anyway?

I prefer any religion and mythology that somehow avoids nihilism. I prefer to choose to pretend my life as more meaning than I can rationally defend. I admit it. My question to you is why do you think it's such a big deal that I'm pretending? Why is it such a big deal if it is to satisfy our egos? Why is having an ego so wrong? What is your alternative?
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
It seems to me that you are making the assumption that the rules treat everyone the same.

For example, suppose that rule A says
"If you are a noble, then you have to do P"

while rule B says
"If you are a commoner, then you have to do Q"

In that case, if X is a noble, then X must do P, while if Y was a commoner, then Y must do Q.

Neither rule is broken, they just apply to different classes of people.
It's not about the rules having to treat people the same, it's about you having to treat people the same.
Not "If I am a noble, I have to treat people with dignity" but "I have to treat people with dignity, if they are noble." You may have two rules for treating nobles and commoners but then I like to ask you if "treating people with dignity" is a "Good Thing" in your set of morals or if it isn't.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
It's not about the rules having to treat people the same, it's about you having to treat people the same.
Not "If I am a noble, I have to treat people with dignity" but "I have to treat people with dignity, if they are noble." You may have two rules for treating nobles and commoners but then I like to ask you if "treating people with dignity" is a "Good Thing" in your set of morals or if it isn't.

I am trying to give an example of a 'rule' that does not lead to equality. I would agree that such rules are NOT good, but that is not an objective, logical thing.

So, in my example, there *rules themselves* have inequality built into them. You can say they are 'not good rules', but they are rules and they show that it is false that equality follows from all rule systems.

So, even in your example, if we have one rule that says 'nobles should be treated with respect' and another rule that says 'commoners should be treated with contempt', those rules are *logically* consistent and have inequality as an outcome.

Again, you can say the rules themselves are 'not good', but that means you have some overarching rule that says such. And that is the rule that says we should demand equality in our rules.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Most religions try to teach people how to not be selfish, that is ego-centric, and be more selfless in the service of God and others.

I think your answers are fine. Yes, people may answer these questions so human beings have more worth. But is that a problem? Why is nihilism better than theism?

If everything we attribute as being sacred and divine is just our ego inflating self-importance, then why does it matter if everything is just meaningless anyway. If everything is meaningless as your rationale way of thinking seems to suggest, then isn't it meaningless that it is meaningless? Then why not choose to pretend it is meaningful since it doesn't really matter anyway?

I prefer any religion and mythology that somehow avoids nihilism. I prefer to choose to pretend my life as more meaning than I can rationally defend. I admit it. My question to you is why do you think it's such a big deal that I'm pretending? Why is it such a big deal if it is to satisfy our egos? Why is having an ego so wrong? What is your alternative?

And I don't see it as being so much nihilism and saying we need to take responsibility to make meaning for ourselves. Since *we* are the ones that give meaning, *we* are the ones that have to decide what is important *to us*. I don't see this as something 'given' to us by the cosmos as opposed to *created* by us for our purposes.

One aspect of this is that many people see temporary aspects of existence as meaningless. i do not. In fact, if anything, it is the fleeting moments that can be the most meaningful. The candle flame has meaning because it gives heat and light even if it is eventually extinguished.
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
I sort of, really don´t care about the historic age of any cultural Story of Creation. The fact is, if you study Comparative Religion or Comparative Mythology and Creation Myths, you´ll soon find significant similarities all over the World.
I agree that the biblical Story of Creation could be somewhat twisted by interpreters, writers and later scholars, but the very basic contents looks very much as in other cultural creation stories.
The genuine biblical content of the Creation Story isn´t plagiarized as such, but it may have got some local Mediterranean mix up from migration exchanges, but initially it just was the Jewish example of the creation story.
As the different local cultures meets each others religious stories, they discovered similarities of "divine beings" which looked very much as their own story.
This is very natural and logic since the global Creation Stories deals with the same creation conditions for all humans all over the world - as I points out in my profile signature below here.

Also, to help correct a common misconception that often gets put on religious insights/stories we can additionally point out the obvious difference (or obvious in hindsight) between an invention and a fact of nature:

An original work of art is created/invented -- a unique invention of a new thing -- and therefore it could be copied/plagiarized....

But, a law of nature is simply discovered.
(not at all trivial here, because homo sapiens share a fixed set of natural characteristics(!) :) )

So, when 2 scientists discover something quickly one after the other, the question of plagiarism is fully irrelevant, for instance -- a mistake to even speculate about. They are both merely discovering what already exists. In fact, ideally, they'd be collaborating, though we have the simple limits of human time and attention that often prevent that.

So, if one person discovers it, and another, and a 3rd and 4th read about those discoveries and then restate them, none of the 4 is plagiarizing, even if they don't attribute anything, because it is not a unique invention they are describing, but an absolute fact that preexisted anyone's seeing it.

E.g. -- if I tell you about classic gravity, I'm not plagiarizing Newton. I'm conveying fact.

So, myths/relgion:

Since human nature has general fixed characteristics we all share, objective characteristics of humans from our genome, therefore there are fixed rules for humans that are the best rules for living together in peace and prosperity and progress of technologies/arts, before anyone discovers them in part. Fixed laws that preexist discovery.

Therefore, a person discovering or realizing or re-conveying a discovery of them is never copying a unique invention, but only conveying a fact, even tantamount to a fixed law of nature.

Ergo, if many traditions have a Flood Story...it might even be that a big regional flood happened -- one that extended as far around as people were aware, covering local hills that they call mountains, etc. One shouldn't worry about that side of it though(!), but instead investigate it if one even cares about when and how large, etc. (personally the extent of a ancient flood is only of minor interest to me).

But I'm far more interested in the reasons given for the Flood.

@Bob the Unbeliever
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
An original work of art is created/invented -- a unique invention of a new thing -- and therefore it could be copied/plagiarized....
I see what you mean but my reply on "plagiarizing" dealt with similar cultural discoveries which constitutes the very similar and basic religious stories of creation.
So, myths/relgion:

Since human nature has general fixed characteristics we all share, objective characteristics of humans from our genome, therefore there are fixed rules for humans that are the best rules for living together in peace and prosperity and progress of technologies/arts, before anyone discovers them in part. Fixed laws that preexist discovery.
The human "general and fixed characteristics" are much more than the human genome. The very creation - or formation if you will - of the Earth, the planets, the Solar system and the Milky Way are all embedded in the human "general and fixed characteristics". This creation/formation is the very basics in all cultural Stories of Creation, which also is why different cultures have very similar stories. These conditions are "general and fixed characteristics".
Ergo, if many traditions have a Flood Story...it might even be that a big regional flood happened -- one that extended as far around as people were aware, covering local hills that they call mountains, etc. One shouldn't worry about that side of it though(!), but instead investigate it if one even cares about when and how large, etc. (personally the extent of a ancient flood is only of minor interest to me).
Yes, even the "Flood Myth" is a common discovery in all cultures and it is very simple to explain since this myths belongs to a celestial matter which resembles the Milky Way which was seen as a huge river in the Sky, thus running OVER all hills and mountains and the entire Earth.
But I'm far more interested in the reasons given for the Flood.
Subsequently this "Flood" never ran ON the Earth at all and there was NO reason for such a "flood of divine revenge". This flood myth is simply a cosmological describing part of the creation stories all over the world.
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
Subsequently this "Flood" never ran ON the Earth at all and there was NO reason for such a "flood of divine revenge". This flood myth is simply a cosmological describing part of the creation stories all over the world.

There's a lot of parallels in our views it seems like, though of course different details.

One of the more interesting things to me personally is the particulars of the reason for the Flood in the common bible -- something pretty profound, and challenging.... It's in the prelude, in the verses before the disaster is set up. What is says about us isn't something we'd always like to know or admit, but it's wiser to recognize. And that's not all. But, first to look --

5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.

These are 2 of the most shocking verses in the bible I think. That total evil could take over a nation or region, that's shocking in a way. It's not a partial evil.

Look at the words: "every" ... "only evil"...."continually" (or "all the time" in some translations). !

At first we (or at least myself) don't want to quite accept the words just exactly what they say. We tend to want something more like this: "The people were pretty bad, with quite a bit of evil going on, and not many good things" -- but it doesn't say something even slightly like that! It says a radically different thing: it says they got into a situation with zero love. Not simply little love, but none at all. No compassion. No mercy. None.

We don't like that kind of possibility (or I certainty don't).

But it's quite real.

Humanity really can get into situations like this one, and a couple of examples that came to mind are the sudden genocide in Rwanda, or the increasing evil in Germany in the 1930s and early 40s, for example, and there are many more examples. The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, and on and on. We find archaeological sites where a huge number of bodies have been violently killed. It's a lot more common than we'd like to think.

And then the next verse: God simply regrets entirely that we exist.

It's just not how many imagine God, in churches, because they just haven't read the real text, as it really is.

The prelude continues:

7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”
...(Noah is the exception) ...
11 Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth."

Here it's a basic reality we find later in the collection called the bible: our evil is too much to be acceptable in the end: we are not fit to live forever, like this.

Ready to suddenly become a lynch mob, or a genocide, or murder our neighbor....

Peace one month, murders the next.

We just aren't ready for an eternal life.

We need profound change. And this is why the cross was necessary, and the way it changes us, if we really see it as it is, and that God himself suffered our evils, our slanders and vile hatreds and murder. That's how much it takes to break our evil, to destroy our hatreds of each other.
 

Ayjaydee

Active Member
Obviously you´re having troubles understanding the term "cosmology" since you fails to understand the buddhist implications in the Creation Story.
You´ve already made the Therevada Buddhism derailed statement three times now.

I really don´t care if the Buddhists did have a god or not at all! This is NOT my topical question here.

I haven´t claimed anything other regarding the Buddhists thoughts about how the buddhists thinks of how the creation took place. The fact is that the creation took place and the Buddhists described this in different cosmological ways.

This is my last reply to you as I don´t take it to be my task to entertain your lack of understanding a topic.
Lol. No creator and nothing needing creation. That's quite creationyth you got going on there
No wonder no ones ever heard of ot!!
 

Ayjaydee

Active Member
"The therevadan universe is cyclic with no beginning and no end". Something that had no beginning having a creation,!!! Pretty tough sell but dont give up@ lol

Well well, there you have it: They really had a story of the creation as such which was my claim for all cultures long long time ago in this thread.
Something that had no beginning being created by no creator!!! Excuse me if I chuckle at that vision for a bit! Hehehehe! I would love to see how the sangha explains that to the layman. Never seen them
try that one in 35 years of study!
 

Ayjaydee

Active Member
"The therevadan universe is cyclic with no beginning and no end".

Well well, there you have it: They really had a story of the creation as such which was my claim for all cultures long long time ago in this thread.
Lol! Here we go again. Not having a concept of creation, a interest in a creation or seeing any relevance in the idea of creation is actually having a creation myth. Just like the folks on here trying to say that lacking a belief in god or pink unicorns us actually faith they dont exist!! Playing this silly game with is a total waste of time. So carry on with your exercises in semantics, I got interesting things to examine elsewhere! Buh-bye
 
Top