The great and all powerful religion thread!
- Thread starter cookiecutter
- Start date
AchrisK, I once read a book about a man that lead his people on an exodus following the destruction of their homeland. He was often hurt and helped by the divine but ultimately reached the land promised to him by destiny. Sounds familiar and believable right?
It was the Aeneid, and a fictional epic poem written by Virgil about the religious mythology of ancient Rome. We have that story in its original language, it was never parsed and never had stuff added to it later so it is even more valid than the Bible. Details in it have been validated by archeology. It really can't be exploited for power, beyond minor nationalistic propaganda for a long dead empire. Why do you not believe the Aeneid is fact when you use those standards to believe the Bible is fact?
It was the Aeneid, and a fictional epic poem written by Virgil about the religious mythology of ancient Rome. We have that story in its original language, it was never parsed and never had stuff added to it later so it is even more valid than the Bible. Details in it have been validated by archeology. It really can't be exploited for power, beyond minor nationalistic propaganda for a long dead empire. Why do you not believe the Aeneid is fact when you use those standards to believe the Bible is fact?
Thoth-Amon
Hypochondriac
- Apr 4, 2006
- 6,821
- 8
- 38
Krigloch the Furious
Pants full of poo
Thoth-Amon
Hypochondriac
- Apr 4, 2006
- 6,821
- 8
- 38
I love the part where Thor is in drag at the marriage feast and he's eating and drinking everything like crazy and the giant is like "Damn! This woman can eat!"
Krigloch the Furious
Pants full of poo
Thoth-Amon
Hypochondriac
- Apr 4, 2006
- 6,821
- 8
- 38
Loki rules. I love the one where he's having dinner with the gods and he's exposing all of their faults and hypocrysies and they can't do anything about it.
I remember being really sad when Baldur(I think, he was the God of love and happiness and other gay things), died and Loki wouldn't allow him to be resurrected. I also remember Ragnarok being really sad when Odin and company died.
That story about Those is one of the newer ones, made after the christians had started getting a foothold in Skandinavia. Scholars think they probably made it up to give the Old Religion a less serious front, making it easier to convert the remaining pagans.
Thoth-Amon
Hypochondriac
- Apr 4, 2006
- 6,821
- 8
- 38
You mean in regards to the story I mentioned? I've heard that also. Though from what I've read the jury was out as to whether or not it was pre or post Christian.
Krigloch the Furious
Pants full of poo
Faint
Sheep Worrier
Yay, religious thread.
Empirical claims made in the Bible or by Christians interpreting the Bible (e.g. young earth creationism, geocentricism, historical accounts of the Jewish people, historical account of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, etc.) are blatantly false. Theoretical models proposed in the Bible or by Christians interpreting the Bible (e.g. soul-spirit-body hypothesis dealing with human physiology and psychology, free will behavioral choice model, dualist interpretation of cognition, explanation for social success of the Christian religion, almost anything non-sociologist Christians believe about sociological behavior, etc.) are contradicted by empirical evidence. Logical arguments for theism (e.g. ontological argument, cosmological argument, transcendental argument) are based on false or nonsense premises. Practical arguments for theism (e.g. moral argument, purpose argument) are based on non-cognitive or irrational premises, Christianity relies heavily on moral realist philosophy, which is fallacious.
The bible really shouldn't be taken literally, I don't understand how people who believe in creationism can possibly think that everything the bible says it 100% true. If you did you would be saying the earth is flat and set on pillars and is immovable (1 Chronicals 16:30, Psalms 93:1, Psalms 96:10, 1 Samuel 2:8, Job 9:6) and the sun moves around the earth, not that the earth moves around the sun. (Josh 10:12-13). Are they insane?
Oh and the teleological argument, more like the teLOLogical argument.
Empirical claims made in the Bible or by Christians interpreting the Bible (e.g. young earth creationism, geocentricism, historical accounts of the Jewish people, historical account of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, etc.) are blatantly false. Theoretical models proposed in the Bible or by Christians interpreting the Bible (e.g. soul-spirit-body hypothesis dealing with human physiology and psychology, free will behavioral choice model, dualist interpretation of cognition, explanation for social success of the Christian religion, almost anything non-sociologist Christians believe about sociological behavior, etc.) are contradicted by empirical evidence. Logical arguments for theism (e.g. ontological argument, cosmological argument, transcendental argument) are based on false or nonsense premises. Practical arguments for theism (e.g. moral argument, purpose argument) are based on non-cognitive or irrational premises, Christianity relies heavily on moral realist philosophy, which is fallacious.
The bible really shouldn't be taken literally, I don't understand how people who believe in creationism can possibly think that everything the bible says it 100% true. If you did you would be saying the earth is flat and set on pillars and is immovable (1 Chronicals 16:30, Psalms 93:1, Psalms 96:10, 1 Samuel 2:8, Job 9:6) and the sun moves around the earth, not that the earth moves around the sun. (Josh 10:12-13). Are they insane?
Oh and the teleological argument, more like the teLOLogical argument.
Hatebreeder
Pizzicato Heartstrings
Yeah, so I'm basically agnostic now. I've come to a lot of realizations in the past few weeks that have made me caused me to lose any faith I may have had left regarding Christianity. I am bordering on being atheist, but I do not really believe that a "supernatural force" cannot exist in some way.
AchrisK
Weakling
Yay, religious thread.
Empirical claims made in the Bible or by Christians interpreting the Bible (e.g. young earth creationism, geocentricism, historical accounts of the Jewish people, historical account of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, etc.) are blatantly false. Theoretical models proposed in the Bible or by Christians interpreting the Bible (e.g. soul-spirit-body hypothesis dealing with human physiology and psychology, free will behavioral choice model, dualist interpretation of cognition, explanation for social success of the Christian religion, almost anything non-sociologist Christians believe about sociological behavior, etc.) are contradicted by empirical evidence. Logical arguments for theism (e.g. ontological argument, cosmological argument, transcendental argument) are based on false or nonsense premises. Practical arguments for theism (e.g. moral argument, purpose argument) are based on non-cognitive or irrational premises, Christianity relies heavily on moral realist philosophy, which is fallacious.
The bible really shouldn't be taken literally, I don't understand how people who believe in creationism can possibly think that everything the bible says it 100% true. If you did you would be saying the earth is flat and set on pillars and is immovable (1 Chronicals 16:30, Psalms 93:1, Psalms 96:10, 1 Samuel 2:8, Job 9:6) and the sun moves around the earth, not that the earth moves around the sun. (Josh 10:12-13). Are they insane?
Oh and the teleological argument, more like the teLOLogical argument.
Wow! Thanks for coming in and saving the day!
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,270
- 770
- 113
Welcome to the club. Please, have a seat, grab a beer, and enjoy your stay in the amoral, meaningless void.Yeah, I'm in roughly the same position as you at the moment. Atheism does seem like a bit too hasty an assumption given how irrational and inexplicable our whole existence seems, but I guess that's really just an argument from ignorance, and that inference to the best explanation would lead to there being no god(s), since every natural phenomenon we can explain suggests nothing supernatural whatsoever.
That's about as far as I've gotten in my 'spiritual wanderings'.
How are yours going, AchrisK?
AchrisK
Weakling
Yeah, I'm in roughly the same position as you at the moment. Atheism does seem like a bit too hasty an assumption given how irrational and inexplicable our whole existence seems, but I guess that's really just an argument from ignorance, and that inference to the best explanation would lead to there being no god(s), since every natural phenomenon we can explain suggests nothing supernatural whatsoever.
That's about as far as I've gotten in my 'spiritual wanderings'.
How are yours going, AchrisK?
Well, I'm a bit bogged down in that TalkOrigins.com site at the moment. Reading through "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution". I was not aware that the idea of common descent/macroevolution had been moved to the status of fact, and that the mechanism by which it happened is the main thing being researched. I was thinking about making an "Evolution" thread to discuss it specifically. But I am not sure I am ready to start discussing it since I am in the middle (ok, closer to the beginning, finishing up transitional forms) of these evidences. This stuff is very complex and hard to fully grasp, though I think I am grasping enough to kinda understand what's going on so far.
I am also reading "A Case for Easter" by Lee Strobel. It's like a mini-book (may even be taken from his book "A Case For Chirst", though I am not sure) about the (mostly historical) evidence for the ressurection of Christ. One thing I find very interesting is the contrast between the disciplines of history and science, and the types of things used as evidence, and how they are evaluated.
There is something going on. I happen to think the Roman Catholic religion is right thing. I dont know if its 100% percent true. I do understand the bible was wrote by men but was inspired by god. There have been to many miracles that can not be explained by science or disproved by science. Maybe its Christianity or its not but there is something going on. I do think nihilism not liberation but is the opposite of morals and still is slavery in its own form. It was either Plato or Socrates that wrote about the dangers in nihilism in life and the political situation.
I am though strictly anti-evangelical.
I am though strictly anti-evangelical.
