The Science Of Myth

[Lux Arbuckle]

If you've ever question beliefs that you hold you're not alone. But you oughtta realize that every myth is a metaphor. In the case of Christianity and Judaism there exist the belief that spiritual matters are enslaved to history. The Buddhists believe that the functional aspects override the myth while other religions use the literal core to build foundations with. See, half the world sees the myth as fact while it's seen as a lie by the other half and the simple truth is that it's none of that and somehow no matter what the world keeps turning. Somehow we get by without ever learning somehow no matter what the world keeps turning. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. In fact, for better understanding we take the facts of science and apply them and if both factors keep evolving then we continue getting information, but closing off possibilities makes it hard to see the bigger picture.

 

Consider the case of the woman whose faith helped her make it through when she was raped and cut up left for dead in a trunk her beliefs held true. It doesn't matter if it's real or not cause some things are better left without a doubt and

if it works then it gets the job done.

 

Somehow no matter what the world keeps turning.

[Doom Shepherd]

Perception can matter more than reality.

 

This is one of the truths behind a great many things, from religion to politics to economics to psychology.

[Eedo Baba]

What's the point of living if you're doing so with eyes closed? That's always been my opinion. We only have a series of decades in which to experience the world in which we live, why make up stories, giving up your only opportunity to see the truth?

I get it when people seriously believe these things, that's a different issue, but I think most religious people understand that their beliefs aren't true, they're just a fun way to pass the time.

[Blue]

Science and Religion have never been mutually exclusive.

Biblical accounts or their ideals often simply do not conform to the standards of the scientific method or scientific practice.

[ProHypster]

I believe I did say on the forum before in many sections that science and religion will reach a compromise soon, their definitions of life, origin and etc.. might seem different to some but in reality they are more similar to each other then they ever were now.

 

I thought about this and this is my theory made since 3-4 years ago maybe, now I don't really think about it anymore, it's kindoff obvious to me personally:

 

[attachment=0]Truth Graph.jpg[/attachment]

 

@Eedobaba

 

Sometimes I think this philosophical question can counter argument that:

 

"Are we wasting all life, studying it, when we really should just live? Is the sole purpose of life, questioning life itself?"

 

It basically means that even though studying life isn't a bad thing to do, living life for the purpose to study it seems like a paradox purpose (Existing to find out why you are existing)

 

I believe life should be at least a mix of enjoying it (Art, Friendship, Love, Playing) and studying/questioning it.

 

EDIT: Blue kind of ninjad me in the middle of editing but it probably is my fault editing it for too long...

Edited September 23, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[Blue]

If there is no meaning to the universe, how would we have known that?

[ProHypster]

I don't fully understand you with the "HAVE known that?" Do you mean: "how we would know that?"

 

If so, you can prove that if you prove that "there is no possibility of a meaning in the universe" which would mean we would have to prove all possibilities of a meaning in the universe wrong. (Not only is that hard, it is against the scientific formula, proving negatives, so science can't help us on this)

There might be a way if we imagine the opposite of our world or something, I have that idea in the mind that if we use a hypothetical anti-world instead of ours it would be easier to prove a meaning.

 

Seems the chances of us ever proving that is unlikely...

[Eedo Baba]

@Eedobaba

 

Sometimes I think this philosophical question can counter argument that:

 

"Are we wasting all life, studying it, when we really should just live? Is the sole purpose of life, questioning life itself?"

 

It basically means that even though studying life isn't a bad thing to do, living life for the purpose to study it seems like a paradox purpose (Existing to find out why you are existing)

 

My opinion is that if you die not understanding anything about your own existence, what have you actually accomplished? Trivial achievements based on life itself have no proportional meaning if you don't understand the medium therein.

[ProHypster]

An accomplishment is worthless for someone who does not exist.

 

EDIT for better understanding.

 

We would need two lives to benefit from such an "actual" accomplishment.

 

One for achieving this accomplishment.

The other for enjoying life knowing the facts, therefore living a right life.

 

Since we don't have such a choice, or do not know that we have two lives, (to those that claim/decided they do know ignore this statement) you can only really do three things:

 

1. Try to understand life, purpose, humans.... etc all life.

2. Live off of the moment.

3. A mix between those two.

[Blue]

Christianity is provisionary for option 3, btw

[Doom Shepherd]

Christianity is provisionary for option 3, btw

But not solely.