Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Belief in Pagan Gods

Belief in Pagan Gods (Page 2)
Thread Tools
voyageur
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2004, 10:04 AM
 
Originally posted by Sven G:
Sabato = something related to Sabbath (probably) = Saturday
Some rather interesting differences with the nordic weekdays, BTW...
In English, Saturday = Saturn's Day
How'd that get in there?
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2004, 10:06 AM
 
Originally posted by voyageur:
In English, Saturday = Saturn's Day
How'd that get in there?
They must have traded with Spain and Italy
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2004, 10:09 AM
 
Originally posted by Mastrap:
Stonehenge wasn't built to please some vague 'Santa Claus' figure, it was built with a concrete goal in mind.
Yes, but it wasn't a religious one.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2004, 10:15 AM
 
Originally posted by - - e r i k - -:
Yes, but it wasn't a religious one.
It is a bit too old to know what it was. Like many things of the day it had astronomical significance. Whoever made Stonehenge made it for a very important reason. Probably to measure the time and seasons. Fertility and harvest. Practical and religious reasons. Religions have always been used to explain natural phenomena.

Regardless Stonehenge is far too old to know it's exact purpose and value to the people that made it.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2004, 10:16 AM
 
Originally posted by Logic:
L�rdag = sort of Bath Day(IIRC) = Saturday
L�rdag is from Laugardag - which you have recalled correctly is indeed the "bathing day". Saturday in English is from Saturn Day (southern Europe / roman) as it bears the least resemblance to the old norse word (as it was probably the hardest one to pronounce for the anglo-saxons.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2004, 10:20 AM
 
Originally posted by voodoo:
Regardless Stonehenge is far too old to know it's exact purpose and value to the people that made it.
It's an astronomical calendar, made by the scientists of the day. It may have had some religious significance but it's scientific purpose is clear and proven - it's religious' not.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2004, 10:21 AM
 
Lorday?

Lerday?

Larday?

.. just thinking out loud.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2004, 10:22 AM
 
Originally posted by - - e r i k - -:
It's an astronomical calendar, made by the scientists of the day. It may have had some religious significance but it's scientific purpose is clear and proven - it's religious not.
Only in your opinion. You have nothing to prove it with or disprove it with.

That makes your argument scientifically invalid
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2004, 10:25 AM
 
Originally posted by voodoo:
Only in your opinion. You have nothing to prove it with or disprove it with.

That makes your argument scientifically invalid
No, that's exactly what makes my argument scientific. Stonehenge has a proven purpose. Attaching religious meaning to it is unproven theories and best left to new age nuts.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2004, 10:31 AM
 
Originally posted by - - e r i k - -:
No, that's exactly what makes my argument scientific. Stonehenge has a proven purpose. Attaching religious meaning to it is unproven theories and best left to new age nuts.
Err.. whatever your argument is it certainly isn't scientific.

Hypothesis: Stonehenge was not used in a religous context.

Can you test that? Do you have information that would support or undermine the hypothesis above?

Of course you don't. => That hypothesis is not scientific. It cannot be tested in any way.

Until you can disprove my hypothesis above you'd be a lot wiser to accept that Stonehenge could well have been used in religous context.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Cipher13
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2004, 10:41 AM
 
Originally posted by - - e r i k - -:
No, that's exactly what makes my argument scientific. Stonehenge has a proven purpose. Attaching religious meaning to it is unproven theories and best left to new age nuts.
Your argument is purely conjecture.
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2004, 10:45 AM
 
Originally posted by voodoo:
Err.. whatever your argument is it certainly isn't scientific.

Hypothesis: Stonehenge was not used in a religous context.

Can you test that? Do you have information that would support or undermine the hypothesis above?

Of course you don't. => That hypothesis is not scientific. It cannot be tested in any way.

Until you can disprove my hypothesis above you'd be a lot wiser to accept that Stonehenge could well have been used in religous context.
That's a non sequitur. Your hypothesis should be: Stonehenge was used in a religious context.

Notice the subtle difference? Science isn't about undermining and disproving. You can't base a scientific theory on "I state this, now you disprove me!". The burden of the proof is on the one making the claim. This is tactic number one from people wanting to proving the existence of God: "How can you prove God does not exist?". If anybody presents the "you-prove-me-wrong" tactic, the debate ends there. You just can't argue with fruitcakes like that.

Anyway, Stonehenge might have been used in a religious context, but current evidence points to the fact that - if so - it must have been secondary.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2004, 10:52 AM
 
Originally posted by Cipher13:
Your argument is purely conjecture.
Au contraire mon fr�re. The notion that Stonehenge has a religious purpose is just that - guesswork and popularized myths.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2004, 10:55 AM
 
Originally posted by - - e r i k - -:
That's a non sequitur. Your hypothesis should be: Stonehenge was used in a religious context.

Notice the subtle difference? Science isn't about undermining and disproving. You can't base a scientific theory on "I state this, now you disprove me!". The burden of the proof is on the one making the claim. This is tactic number one from people wanting to proving the existence of God: "How can you prove God does not exist?". If anybody presents the "you-prove-me-wrong" tactic, the debate ends there. You just can't argue with fruitcakes like that.

Anyway, Stonehenge might have been used in a religious context, but current evidence points to the fact that - if so - it must have been secondary.
I was saying that your claim was not scientific. No matter how you twist and turn your claim and my hypothesis you cannot prove or disprove a thing.

Seriously, barring time-travel there is no way to discern what the primary purpose of prehistorical monuments like Stonehenge is. We just don't know. Astronomy was almost certainly one of the purposes. Stonehenge seems to have a function in that area. I still have my doubts that it was built by a prehistoric culture just to measure the stars.

I think it is much more likely that Stonehenge was built to measure the changing of seasons and used by a shaman or a tribal leader that told the people when to plant crops and when to harvest them. That leads directly to fertility gods.

I'm just thinking out loud again.

Those are awfully big stones to move 200 miles thousands of years ago just to look at the stars. If the monument would increase your well being and had a practical and even religous purpose then I think people might have been easier to convince to make a Stonehenge
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
gadster
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2004, 10:55 AM
 
Originally posted by Cipher13:
Your argument is purely conjecture.
Care to elaborate? I'm interested.
e-gads
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2004, 10:56 AM
 
Originally posted by - - e r i k - -:
Au contraire mon fr�re. The notion that Stonehenge has a religious purpose is just that - guesswork and popularized myths.
That the primary function if Stonehenge is astronomy is just guesswork as well I fear.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Cipher13
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2004, 11:02 AM
 
Originally posted by gadster:
Care to elaborate? I'm interested.
All I'm saying is that we really don't know...

We have theories as to the purpose of Stonehenge, but those are hardly set in stone (har har). It could have been a ritualistic site; it could have been astronomical; it could have been artistic.

There are many theories, and evidence to support each.

Erik is saying that, without a doubt, Stonehenge is an astronomical site; he may well be right, but we don't know.

His opinion is based more upon conjecture than anything else... I'm not gonna pretend to have the slightest clue as to what the real purpose of Stonehenge was, because I simply do not know.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2004, 11:03 AM
 
Originally posted by Cipher13:
All I'm saying is that we really don't know...

We have theories as to the purpose of Stonehenge, but those are hardly set in stone (har har). It could have been a ritualistic site; it could have been astronomical; it could have been artistic.

There are many theories, and evidence to support each.

Erik is saying that, without a doubt, Stonehenge is an astronomical site; he may well be right, but we don't know.

His opinion is based more upon conjecture than anything else... I'm not gonna pretend to have the slightest clue as to what the real purpose of Stonehenge was, because I simply do not know.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2004, 11:18 AM
 
Originally posted by Cipher13:
All I'm saying is that we really don't know...

We have theories as to the purpose of Stonehenge, but those are hardly set in stone (har har). It could have been a ritualistic site; it could have been astronomical; it could have been artistic.

There are many theories, and evidence to support each.

Erik is saying that, without a doubt, Stonehenge is an astronomical site; he may well be right, but we don't know.
No. I'm saying that based on the current evidence (as I linked to way up there) Stonehenge is an astronomical calendar (it's actually working too as you can study from the second site). It seems like a primary purpose and the other theories about it's religious meaning is just guesswork. Likely guesswork (it takes a strong community will to build such a tool - though it was build over a span of two millennia), but theories about druids and such have been long shot down.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2004, 11:59 AM
 
So many claims of 'facts' and 'proofs'. Yet no facts or proofs provided.

If there was a religion that worshipped the stars and the Sun then an astronomical tool like Stonehenge would have a very religious purpose.

We just don't know. Face it. It is silly to project like you do.

Well it is.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
James Christ
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2004, 12:19 PM
 
All deities evolved from palaeolithic worship of the celestial bodies, the forces of nature and anything else primitive man did not understand.

But the truth is, if there is a truth, that 'you are that' - tat tvam asi.

Joseph Campbell demolished monotheism for it bound men in chains and made them worship an external force whose characteristics were man-made. The worship of life and nature, the careful tending of the garden we are born in, is the only respectful way of living. Look after the world and you look after your fellow humans.

We need new poets and seers who can write about the world through the modern scientific lense. Not to create new dogmas or religions but to make the scientific view of the universe sound beautiful to the ear, read beautifully on the page and to tickle the religious nerve within many who are predisposed to the need for religion.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2004, 02:32 PM
 
Originally posted by Cipher13:
Says the guy who believes in the big old dude in the sky, to the guy that doesn't. Great.
You've studied physics, math, etc. and still hold such a simplistic view of the universe? C'mon, you can aspire to more than that.

You know as well as anyone that (currently) science can neither objectively prove or disprove the existence of "God". Anyone who's studied and has even a basic understanding of such things will say "I don't know", at the very least. To do otherwise is just being ignorant and foolish.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
skio
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Preparing to fight against an American invasion.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2004, 02:35 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
You've studied physics, math, etc. and still hold such a simplistic view of the universe? C'mon, you can aspire to more than that.

You know as well as anyone that (currently) science can neither objectively prove or disprove the existence of "God". Anyone who's studied and has even a basic understanding of such things will say "I don't know", at the very least. To do otherwise is just being ignorant and foolish.
True, but, after all this time, is there any benefit in worshipping Gods? Individual spirituality maybe, but those who profess a faith don't seem to have any better a clue as to the world, than those who don't For those that find comfort in faith, fair dues, but many find comfort in believbing in nothing. So what's the advantage in believing in the invisible?
     
Logic
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2004, 02:37 PM
 
What the benefit in not believing?

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
     
skio
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Preparing to fight against an American invasion.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2004, 02:39 PM
 
Originally posted by Logic:
What the benefit in not believing?
That's the thing. Belief, or disbelief is about the same, except, why not run society without belief, seems more logical.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2004, 02:41 PM
 
Originally posted by - - e r i k - -:
That's a non sequitur. Your hypothesis should be: Stonehenge was used in a religious context.

Notice the subtle difference? Science isn't about undermining and disproving. You can't base a scientific theory on "I state this, now you disprove me!". The burden of the proof is on the one making the claim. This is tactic number one from people wanting to proving the existence of God: "How can you prove God does not exist?". If anybody presents the "you-prove-me-wrong" tactic, the debate ends there. You just can't argue with fruitcakes like that.

Anyway, Stonehenge might have been used in a religious context, but current evidence points to the fact that - if so - it must have been secondary.
Asserting that God exists does lie in the hands of the people making the assertions, I agree. I'll also say, confidently, that it can be done. However, it requires a great deal of effort, time, and work. That said, no, there is no "quick and dirty" proof... no, "look this is God". Just doesn't work that way.

However, by the same token, individuals who say there isn't a "God" have the same burden of proof, as they're making just as much of an assertion.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2004, 02:42 PM
 
Originally posted by - - e r i k - -:
Science isn't about undermining and disproving. You can't base a scientific theory on "I state this, now you disprove me!". The burden of the proof is on the one making the claim. This is tactic number one from people wanting to proving the existence of God: "How can you prove God does not exist?". If anybody presents the "you-prove-me-wrong" tactic, the debate ends there. You just can't argue with fruitcakes like that.
Amen!

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2004, 02:51 PM
 
Originally posted by skio:
True, but, after all this time, is there any benefit in worshipping Gods? Individual spirituality maybe, but those who profess a faith don't seem to have any better a clue as to the world, than those who don't For those that find comfort in faith, fair dues, but many find comfort in believbing in nothing. So what's the advantage in believing in the invisible?
I agree, and hold very little, if any, value in dogma or organzied religion. If a person desires that, then so be it. If a person feels comfortable in believing there's no "God", then that's their choice and I wish them well with it.

Truth be told, I've never been one for "worshipping" any aspect of divinity. I look at it more as a partnership (of course, I'm the lesser partner) and exploring what's possible. Personally, I don't see the benefit of pleading, prostration, and begging. IMO, "God" wants us to stand on our own feet and work with "Him", not necessarily for "Him".
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
James Christ
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2004, 03:15 PM
 
Originally posted by Logic:
What the benefit in not believing?
So that no more of these are created:









But you're probably too proud and vain to see what destruction your beliefs in boogey woogey can bring to our children in the future. Or you probably don't give a sh!t about those children because you'll be long gone by then.

But some of us do care.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2004, 03:32 PM
 
Originally posted by James Christ:
So that no more of these are created:

:SNIP:

But you're probably too proud and vain to see what destruction your beliefs in boogey woogey can bring to our children in the future. Or you probably don't give a sh!t about those children because you'll be long gone by then.

But some of us do care.
Congrats, your intolerance, ignorance, and bigotry makes you just as bad as any of them.

Of course, the Atheists have Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot, Mao, etc.. Great role models on their side of the fence, to be sure.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Xeo
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Austin, MN, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2004, 05:52 PM
 
Originally posted by Logic:
What the benefit in not believing?
Because if it's not true, the believing is illogical.
     
tae667
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2004, 07:15 PM
 
I've noticed that many young people in here are interested in paganism again. They read Finnish mytology but they do not "worship" anything, because that wasn't part of our tradition. Wasn't christmas a traditional pagan celebration all over the Europe, which date christians stole for populistic reasons?

As an atheist I like pagans better that christians, because they doesn't try ty convert me to believe Jewish fairytales, or as my father said: childish fiction which is less real than Santa Claus.
     
James Christ
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2004, 07:29 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:


Of course, the Atheists have Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot, Mao, etc.. Great role models on their side of the fence, to be sure.
Hardly. They all followed the papal/mullah model.

A true atheist doesn't want to rule anyone nor wished to be ruled over. That's why he/she rejects ideology. The above examples were people who wanted people to follow rules.

What's more - the above guys lasted very little time. They didn't create any system that could imprison people for generations and make them follow myths and stories and turn them into idiots.

But religious fundamentalists have been sending people to the graves for hundreds of years.
     
Logic
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2004, 07:35 PM
 
Originally posted by Xeo:
Because if it's not true, the believing is illogical.
Who will look more foolish in the end?

The man who didn't believe and then found out that he was wrong, or the man who believed and found out he was wrong(or didn't find out)?

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
     
Xeo
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Austin, MN, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2004, 07:57 PM
 
Originally posted by Logic:
Who will look more foolish in the end?

The man who didn't believe and then found out that he was wrong, or the man who believed and found out he was wrong(or didn't find out)?
Looking foolish? To whom?

If you mean society, then it depends on how much of society believes/disbelieves. Wherever the majority lies is the side that will look less foolish if proven wrong.

If you mean between individuals, the non-believer already looks foolish to the believer, and vice-versa.

IMO, believing out of fear that non-belief is wrong just proves that the religion is working. Take Christianity. Your soul is damned for not believing. The objective is to scare people into believing. That just shows me that if person A thinks EVERYTHING else about Christianity is wrong, he might still believe because of the final stipulation. It's certainly the last thing that held me before I finally gave up on it.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2004, 11:34 PM
 
Originally posted by James Christ:
Hardly. They all followed the papal/mullah model.

A true atheist doesn't want to rule anyone nor wished to be ruled over. That's why he/she rejects ideology. The above examples were people who wanted people to follow rules.

What's more - the above guys lasted very little time. They didn't create any system that could imprison people for generations and make them follow myths and stories and turn them into idiots.

But religious fundamentalists have been sending people to the graves for hundreds of years.
Stalin, Mao, and Castro lasted "very little time"? You're deluded. Stalin had more people murdered than any other figure in recorded history, Mao I'd say, is a close second. Now, add in what happened in Cambodia, an estimated 300-500K in Cuba, and it really adds up. Probably more than all the evil religious leaders combined.

There is no true form associated with the function of Atheism, it's simply the belief that there is no God. Those men don't/didn't believe in a deity of any kind. However, they firmly believed in the strength of Man and his ability to be more. Their methods were what was and is wrong. And THAT is the fundamental difference, method and means. It doesn't matter if you believe in a God or not, not in that respect. Wrong is simply wrong. There are evil people who claim to be Theists and evil people who claim to be Atheists, neither side is cornering the market on ethical and moral behavior. It depends completely on the individual; as a true Humanist will strive to do what's right, so will a true Christian, true Muslim, etc.. Regarding the treatment of others, the core beliefs are the same. Anyone who says or believes otherwise, is a fool.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
James Christ
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2004, 11:38 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
Stalin, Mao, and Castro lasted "very little time"? You're deluded. Stalin had more people murdered than any other figure in recorded history, Mao I'd say, is a close second. Now, add in what happened in Cambodia, an estimated 300-500K in Cuba, and it really adds up. Probably more than all the evil religious leaders combined.
Y.A.W.N.

You'll defend anything or anyone if they believe whatever makes you comfy.

How many people died or were/are persecuted by Christians in the 1600 years since it became a power?

How many from Islam in 1400 years?

And in how many countries?

And for how much longer?
     
ghost_flash
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2004, 11:38 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
Stalin, Mao, and Castro lasted "very little time"? You're deluded. Stalin had more people murdered than any other figure in recorded history, Mao I'd say, is a close second. Now, add in what happened in Cambodia, an estimated 300-500K in Cuba, and it really adds up. Probably more than all the evil religious leaders combined.

There is no true form associated with the function of Atheism, it's simply the belief that there is no God. Those men don't/didn't believe in a deity of any kind. However, they firmly believed in the strength of Man and his ability to be more. Their methods were what was and is wrong. And THAT is the fundamental difference, method and means. It doesn't matter if you believe in a God or not, not in that respect. Wrong is simply wrong. There are evil people who claim to be Theists and evil people who claim to be Atheists, neither side is cornering the market on ethical and moral behavior. It depends completely on the individual; as a true Humanist will strive to do what's right, so will a true Christian, true Muslim, etc.. Regarding the treatment of others, the core beliefs are the same. Anyone who says or believes otherwise, is a fool.
...
     
Cipher13
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2004, 01:07 AM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
You've studied physics, math, etc. and still hold such a simplistic view of the universe? C'mon, you can aspire to more than that.

You know as well as anyone that (currently) science can neither objectively prove or disprove the existence of "God". Anyone who's studied and has even a basic understanding of such things will say "I don't know", at the very least. To do otherwise is just being ignorant and foolish.
Simplistic view of the universe? No... but I don't believe in God.

That doesn't mean I do not believe in a supreme entity - one that may exist in more dimensions than us, one that is more advanced than us (one that is to us as we are to robots), etc; but no, I do not believe in this "God" who sent his "Son" down to earth to be crucified to "save us all". For many reasons. Logical fallacies, historical incongruencies, you name it.

Sure, I don't know for a fact; but everything I've ever seen has suggested otherwise.
     
Ozmodiar
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Quetzlzacatenango
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2004, 01:42 AM
 
For the record, I'm agnostic and I'm delighted to read the various viewpoints presented in this thread.

Originally posted by fireside:
i've been thinking for the last couple of days that since there have been so many gods worshipped in the past (romans, greeks, etc), and they thought they were as real as the Christians and Jews and Muslims today, how come (if they were really real) they don't get angry and start attacking us? how come they don't do anything to make us believe in them again. i mean, at one point in time (in a Greek myth) the gods were worried that if all the humans were to die, they would have no believers, and they would get really pissed. well, i doubt many people still believe in the Greek pagan gods, so how come they don't come down here and kill us for not believing in them (if they're really real)?
What if they stopped existing because people stopped believing? Maybe we aren't smote by Zeus because he's no longer there to smite. Maybe the same thing will happen to God in a thousand years.


Originally posted by Cipher13:
Same delusions, different details.
I do love incisive pessimism.


Originally posted by James Christ:
All deities evolved from palaeolithic worship of the celestial bodies, the forces of nature and anything else primitive man did not understand.

But the truth is, if there is a truth, that 'you are that' - tat tvam asi.

Joseph Campbell demolished monotheism for it bound men in chains and made them worship an external force whose characteristics were man-made. The worship of life and nature, the careful tending of the garden we are born in, is the only respectful way of living. Look after the world and you look after your fellow humans.

We need new poets and seers who can write about the world through the modern scientific lense. Not to create new dogmas or religions but to make the scientific view of the universe sound beautiful to the ear, read beautifully on the page and to tickle the religious nerve within many who are predisposed to the need for religion.
This was an outstanding post, but then you had to keep typing and ruin it.


Originally posted by MacNStein:
You've studied physics, math, etc. and still hold such a simplistic view of the universe? C'mon, you can aspire to more than that.

You know as well as anyone that (currently) science can neither objectively prove or disprove the existence of "God". Anyone who's studied and has even a basic understanding of such things will say "I don't know", at the very least. To do otherwise is just being ignorant and foolish.
It's not the goal of science to prove or disprove the existence of God, it's to examine common phenomena and try to find correlations and patterns. Therefore I submit that those have studied science would not say "I don't know," but rather "I don't care." Any scientist who says they don't know or gives a more definitive answer isn't just examining the phenomena, but looking for an ethereal "why," which is - to say the least - bad science.
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2004, 04:37 AM
 
Originally posted by Logic:
Who will look more foolish in the end?

The man who didn't believe and then found out that he was wrong, or the man who believed and found out he was wrong(or didn't find out)?
( Last edited by - - e r i k - -; Mar 16, 2004 at 04:53 AM. )

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
Logic
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2004, 07:35 AM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
Stalin, Mao, and Castro lasted "very little time"? You're deluded. Stalin had more people murdered than any other figure in recorded history, Mao I'd say, is a close second. Now, add in what happened in Cambodia, an estimated 300-500K in Cuba, and it really adds up. Probably more than all the evil religious leaders combined.

There is no true form associated with the function of Atheism, it's simply the belief that there is no God. Those men don't/didn't believe in a deity of any kind. However, they firmly believed in the strength of Man and his ability to be more. Their methods were what was and is wrong. And THAT is the fundamental difference, method and means. It doesn't matter if you believe in a God or not, not in that respect. Wrong is simply wrong. There are evil people who claim to be Theists and evil people who claim to be Atheists, neither side is cornering the market on ethical and moral behavior. It depends completely on the individual; as a true Humanist will strive to do what's right, so will a true Christian, true Muslim, etc.. Regarding the treatment of others, the core beliefs are the same. Anyone who says or believes otherwise, is a fool.
: golf clap :




(we agree more and more often )

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
     
gadster
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2004, 09:17 AM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
Stalin, Mao, and Castro lasted "very little time"? You're deluded. Stalin had more people murdered than any other figure in recorded history, Mao I'd say, is a close second. Now, add in what happened in Cambodia, an estimated 300-500K in Cuba, and it really adds up. Probably more than all the evil religious leaders combined.

There is no true form associated with the function of Atheism, it's simply the belief that there is no God. Those men don't/didn't believe in a deity of any kind. However, they firmly believed in the strength of Man and his ability to be more. Their methods were what was and is wrong. And THAT is the fundamental difference, method and means. It doesn't matter if you believe in a God or not, not in that respect. Wrong is simply wrong. There are evil people who claim to be Theists and evil people who claim to be Atheists, neither side is cornering the market on ethical and moral behavior. It depends completely on the individual; as a true Humanist will strive to do what's right, so will a true Christian, true Muslim, etc.. Regarding the treatment of others, the core beliefs are the same. Anyone who says or believes otherwise, is a fool.
While I agree with the second paragraph of you post entirely (although you could have mentioned that there are good people who claim to be Theists, and good people who claim to be atheists).

Elaborating on what you said in the first par, I suggest that the leaders you mentioned had historically unique opportunities to eliminate their enemies. Give good Christian Adolph Hitler the same opportunity and circumstances as Mao had, and the outcome would have been no different. Or worse.

These people were modern figures with historically unprecedented command and control structures plus modern weapons and a pragmatically industrial attitude to suppression of dissent. Apart from that, atheism is relatively new as a legitimate belief system. But that's a whole other topic.

Nice to see we have some common ground.
e-gads
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2004, 11:52 AM
 
Originally posted by Ozmodiar:
It's not the goal of science to prove or disprove the existence of God, it's to examine common phenomena and try to find correlations and patterns. Therefore I submit that those have studied science would not say "I don't know," but rather "I don't care." Any scientist who says they don't know or gives a more definitive answer isn't just examining the phenomena, but looking for an ethereal "why," which is - to say the least - bad science.
It's also not the place of science to making absolute statements. A so-called person of science who states that there "is no God" is an oxymoron. There's nothing wrong with "I don't know", however, "I don't care" just isn't good enough when it comes to certain sciences.
but no, I do not believe in this "God" who sent his "Son" down to earth to be crucified to "save us all".
Truth be told, I don't believe that either.
( Last edited by Shaddim; Mar 16, 2004 at 11:58 AM. )
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2004, 11:54 AM
 
Originally posted by Logic:
(we agree more and more often )
When it comes to Theological issues, I'd say we agree 9/10 times... If I weren't so cynical, I'd probably be a sufi.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Logic
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2004, 12:18 PM
 
Originally posted by Cipher13:
I do not believe in this "God" who sent his "Son" down to earth to be crucified to "save us all".
Neither do the +1 billion muslims of the world. I'm one of them.

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
     
Logic
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2004, 12:19 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
When it comes to Theological issues, I'd say we agree 9/10 times... If I weren't so cynical, I'd probably be a sufi.
Cool

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2004, 01:17 PM
 
Originally posted by Logic:
Who will look more foolish in the end?

The man who didn't believe and then found out that he was wrong, or the man who believed and found out he was wrong(or didn't find out)?
Ah, this old argument. I dunno, who will more look foolish in the end when some deity of a minor extinct race in the Middle East turns out to be the true god, and the Christian, Muslim, and Jew get sent to hell for following gods that he's pissed at for killing off all his followers while the agnostic gets off with just a few years or purgatory or something for at least not joining his enemies?

Lessee... there are... how many religions in the world? Okay... and if one of them is correct, I have what odds of picking the right one and avoiding hell, especially since there's, like, no evidence whatsoever for any of them? So it's not 50/50 odds, it's more like one in thousands. Your argument would only work if there were only Islam or only Christianity and no other options to believe in. But that's not the case. So if there is a god out there somewhere, I think I've got better chances as an agnostic. At least then the odds are 50/50 rather than as impossibly low as they are if you follow any religion.

I know people who are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and Buddhist, all of whom are good people. But depending on what doctrine you believe in, most of them are going straight to hell. I just don't believe it. Like I've said before, I think religion is just another thing to make people that normally would get along to hate each other for no really good reason.
( Last edited by CharlesS; Mar 16, 2004 at 01:24 PM. )
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2004, 01:45 PM
 
Originally posted by CharlesS:
Ah, this old argument. I dunno, who will more look foolish in the end when some deity of a minor extinct race in the Middle East turns out to be the true god, and the Christian, Muslim, and Jew get sent to hell for following gods that he's pissed at for killing off all his followers while the agnostic gets off with just a few years or purgatory or something for at least not joining his enemies?

Lessee... there are... how many religions in the world? Okay... and if one of them is correct, I have what odds of picking the right one and avoiding hell, especially since there's, like, no evidence whatsoever for any of them? So it's not 50/50 odds, it's more like one in thousands. Your argument would only work if there were only Islam or only Christianity and no other options to believe in. But that's not the case. So if there is a god out there somewhere, I think I've got better chances as an agnostic. At least then the odds are 50/50 rather than as impossibly low as they are if you follow any religion.

I know people who are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and Buddhist, all of whom are good people. But depending on what doctrine you believe in, most of them are going straight to hell. I just don't believe it. Like I've said before, I think religion is just another thing to make people that normally would get along to hate each other for no really good reason.
Again, for the record, anyone who says that their religion is "right" and everyone else's is "wrong", is an idiot. There is no wrong in terms of religion and spirituality, it's simply where you are at that time. Hopefully, someday "the truth" (some would call it Tao) will be all that matters, not some silly label marking their religious belief different from another's. IMO, you're better off picking your nose than trying to hand-pick a religion, you'll get more out of it. In the endless cycle of life and death, everyone and everything will return to completion. It's inevitable. So, be the best person you can be, learn all you can along the way, and try to enjoy the ride.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
James Christ
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2004, 01:49 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:


Truth be told, I don't believe that either.
Why did you lump me with atheists (so-called) like Mao and Stalin when I'm spiritual but not deist? Then you encourage ghostguy and his 'God who sent his son to be crucified'.

Spiritual people just use a different term to 'God'. Some call it force, some call it order, some like me just think it is better to not talk about it because...there are better things to do...like love.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:51 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,