Only one option.....

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Myself, twhitehead, voidspirit are discussing whether mythology, which I take to mean the result of early human effort at collection of inspired stories about the strange world around them, is useful in making sense of the Ultimate Reality/ Truth / God or not. Where does astrology come into this ? Or phrenology or scientology ?

Like myths, astrology is thought by some to be useful in making sense of the "Ultimate Reality/ Truth / God" too. Are you one of them?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Myself, twhitehead, voidspirit are discussing whether mythology, which I take to mean the result of early human effort at collection of inspired stories about the strange world around them, is useful in making sense of the Ultimate Reality/ Truth / God or not. Where does astrology come into this ? Or phrenology or scientology ?

Why should early human efforts at making wild guesses be any more successful than more modern efforts? How do you separate such early human efforts from early human religions, con jobs, fiction, delusional rambling, etc?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Myself, twhitehead, voidspirit are discussing whether mythology... etc. etc.

Well I was trying to discuss it with you too, but all you seemed to have was that mythology is the closest thing we have to truth because someone called Ananda Coomaraswamy said so. And you thought so too. You even tried to simply brush aside an alternative, psychological reason why cultures embrace mythology that undermines plucked-from-nowhere assertions that it is the closest thing humans have to truth.

Originally posted by FMF
Like myths, astrology is thought by some to be useful in making sense of the "Ultimate Reality/ Truth / God" too. Are you one of them?

No, because astrology does not help me reach God.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
No, because astrology does not help me reach God.

So it should be ignored?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why should early human efforts at making wild guesses be any more successful than more modern efforts? How do you separate such early human efforts from early human religions, con jobs, fiction, delusional rambling, etc?

Scientific thinking is highly necessary in the advancement of science. A-logical thinking may help us in the area of supernatural. Human right brain is well equipped with capability of a-logical thinking. Many thinkers like Aldous Huxley,Walt Whitman, Thomas De Quincey and numerous others experimented with drugs precisely for this. The shamans and dervishes were getting drugged for the same purpose. Anything that gets humanity closer to the Ultimate Reality should be welcome.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Anything that gets humanity closer to the Ultimate Reality should be welcome.

So astrology, phrenology and scientology don't help you reach God but you "welcome" them because perhaps they might be "the nearest approach to absolute truth that can be stated in words" along with mythology and experimenting with drugs?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
A-logical thinking may help us in the area of supernatural.

That is obvious. The supernatural is by definition illogical. But illogical thinking only leads to illogical results which can not reasonably called 'truth'.

Human right brain is well equipped with capability of a-logical thinking. Many thinkers like Aldous Huxley,Walt Whitman, Thomas De Quincey and numerous others experimented with drugs precisely for this.
You certainly seem good at illogical thinking. First you tell us we are well equipped then point out that mind damaging substances are required.

The shamans and dervishes were getting drugged for the same purpose. Anything that gets humanity closer to the Ultimate Reality should be welcome.
Calling drug induced illogical thinking "Ultimate Reality" is laughable, but not surprising considering that you are probably loaded with drugs as you type. Or does drug induced illogical thinking not work for Chess Forums?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Myself, twhitehead, voidspirit are discussing whether mythology, which I take to mean the result of early human effort at collection of inspired stories about the strange world around them, is useful in making sense of the Ultimate Reality/ Truth / God or not.

I think if you want to look into mythology you'd be better off starting off doing so by way of anthopology and psychology, rather than treating it as something you will use selectively to bolster your theology and superstition.

Originally posted by Dasa
After you take away all the mumbo jumbo science talk............and present what the science people are teaching to our children in plain english - then this is what they are saying.....

There was an explosion a long time ago and nothing became something - and this something created a cosmos with gravity, universes, solar systems, suns, moons and a planet ca ...[text shortened]... lain life/origins.

Vedic teachings/knowledge/religion/spirituality are eternal and perfect.

Dasa - I like every thing you said especially the part where you mentioned "absolute height of child abuse", however, you had the ending totally wrong... which was...

OH......*and the option to all this - is not Christian Creationism which is just as absurd as the science folly.
Vedic knowledge/teachings is the only option to explain life/origins.
Vedic teachings/knowledge/religion/spirituality are eternal and perfect.

...this can also be seen as child abuse according to me to learn children that God does exist, but He will reincarnate us eternally, now our souls will never be with Him - so, live the life you want - good or bad. Do you see what is wrong here?

1. I still would like for you to answer me this...With which bigger part do you agree in the Bible?
a. Old Testament
b. New Testament
c. Neither

2. Do you believe the God of Christianity is the same God you serve?

Originally posted by Nicksten
Dasa - I like every thing you said especially the part where you mentioned "absolute height of child abuse"...

You especially liked that part?

Originally posted by FMF
You especially liked that part?

Yes - cause evolutionists are putting a lot of effort in to having evolution learned in schools. This will be child abuse as children are forced to accept evolution instead of religion. Religion has been taken out from school because of the same principle (atheist not wanting their children to be learned religion) so how does this differ?

Originally posted by Nicksten
Yes - cause evolutionists are putting a lot of effort in to having evolution learned in schools. This will be child abuse as children are forced to accept evolution instead of religion. Religion has been taken out from school because of the same principle (atheist not wanting their children to be learned religion) so how does this differ?

At science, children should be taught about science, not religion.
At religion, children should be taught about religion, every religion.

You see, creationism isn't science, it's religion.

Originally posted by Nicksten
Yes - cause evolutionists are putting a lot of effort in to having evolution learned in schools. This will be child abuse as children are forced to accept evolution instead of religion. Religion has been taken out from school because of the same principle (atheist not wanting their children to be learned religion) so how does this differ?

There aren't many things worse than "child abuse". What should be done about the "child abusers"?

Originally posted by Nicksten
Yes - cause evolutionists are putting a lot of effort in to having evolution learned in schools. This will be child abuse as children are forced to accept evolution instead of religion. Religion has been taken out from school because of the same principle (atheist not wanting their children to be learned religion) so how does this differ?

Where do the countless religious people who accept the evidence for evolution fit into your scheme of things?