Brian37 vs Ciarin

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 vs Ciarin

As I stated in the other thread, I do not, and hope that you dont either, take this brawl personally, if you chose to partisipate. It is not aimed at you the person, but merely the claims you put forth.

So, if you would start off by giving me a discription of what your position is, we can start from there.

Keep in mind it will get bloody(metephorically speeking). But please understand that after the match is over, we can still have a beer together(meaning we can agree on other issues and be friends outside this dissagreement).

IN THIS CORNER, IT'S THE SULTAIN OF SILLYNISS, THE EINSTIEN OF IDOCY, THE MASTER OF MORONICNESS.......BRIAN37!

IN THE OTHER CORNER, ITS THE DEFENDER OF DEITIES, THE CYBORG OF THEISM ........."CIARIN"

LETS GET READY TO MUMBLE!

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote: Wow,

butterbattle wrote:

 

Wow, they mentioned God in public, I'm going to sue them blind.

 

 

 


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

 

Wow, they mentioned God in public, I'm going to sue them blind.

 

PETA vs Church... thats perfect! 2 birds with 1 stone!

Then again, thats signs from Canada, so PETA will win out

 

What Would Kharn Do?


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Nikolaj wrote:Oh, and

Nikolaj wrote:

Oh, and Doomy:

 

Khorne, Slaanesh, Nurgle, Tzeensh

 

Oooohhhh yeeeaaarhh Smiling

 

You cannot deny the power! hehe

They're still more believable then modern day gods >.>

 

i've been thinking about converting

What Would Kharn Do?


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:Christos

RatDog wrote:

Christos wrote:

Your religion disappeared for a reason.......it's wrong. Completely wrong.

I don't see how it is any less likely then your religion.  In fact in many ways it seems more likely because it doesn't involve an all powerful being that constantly contradicts itself.

What religion do I have RatDog? I'm not religious. Sorry.

Oh and you're totally right. Polytheism does seem more likely. Making up more gods to solve theological problems is super logical.

Here is my theory explaining the existence of neo-paganism.

-A young rebellious person is pissed at their parents and thus the Christian beliefs of their parents

-So, to maximize their rebellion, this person starts a neo-pagan cult to bring back Jupiter and make their parents uber-pissed.

-Young people actually start following this ridiculous religion out of rebellion, or a need to belong, or a fascination with Zeus and his bis ass lightning bolts.

 

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
I don't put much stock in

RatDog wrote:

Ciarin wrote:

Well, the evidence is mostly UPG(in other words, it's anecdotal), so it'll do nothing for you.

Do you believe that all people's UPG are equally valid?

 

I don't put much stock in other people's UPG. I'm not saying they're lying or anything like that, but I'm not going to add their experience as evidence of my beliefs. Nor would I expect others to use my UPG in their beliefs.


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Finally,

butterbattle wrote:

Finally, Ciarin, if your beliefs are based mostly on personal experiences, and you accept that personal experiences are unreliable, then how do you know you are right, especially when/if your belief contradict science? Is there anything that makes your personal experiences more valid than anyone else's personal experiences other than the fact that your personal experiences are yours? If not, do you take your beliefs with a pinch of agnosticism?   

 

My personal experiences are only valid to me. Others are only valid to them. None of our experiences are more valid than the other.

 

I don't know for a fact I'm right. I guess a bit agnostic.


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Quoting Seneca the Roman

Quoting Seneca the Roman philosopher...."One man cuts off his male organs: another gashes his arms. If this is the way they earn the favour of the gods, what happens when they fear their anger? The gods do not deserve any kind of worship, if this is the worship they desire......Men gash themselves in the temples, and offer their wounds and their blood as a supplication. If anyone had the time to notice what these people do and what they have done to them, he would discover things so unbecoming of men of honour, so unworthy of freemen, so incongruous for men of sane mind, that no one would hesitate to call them mad, if there were not so many sharing the same frenzy. As it is, their title to sanity rests on the multitude of the appartently insane."

Here is my question Ciarin: Why would you want to bring this religion back from the grave? I know you probably aren't practicing self-mutilation, but this is an abhorrent religious tradition. It's not a religion worth resurrecting.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote:Quoting

Christos wrote:

Quoting Seneca the Roman philosopher...."One man cuts off his male organs: another gashes his arms. If this is the way they earn the favour of the gods, what happens when they fear their anger? The gods do not deserve any kind of worship, if this is the worship they desire......Men gash themselves in the temples, and offer their wounds and their blood as a supplication. If anyone had the time to notice what these people do and what they have done to them, he would discover things so unbecoming of men of honour, so unworthy of freemen, so incongruous for men of sane mind, that no one would hesitate to call them mad, if there were not so many sharing the same frenzy. As it is, their title to sanity rests on the multitude of the appartently insane."

Here is my question Ciarin: Why would you want to bring this religion back from the grave? I know you probably aren't practicing self-mutilation, but this is an abhorrent religious tradition. It's not a religion worth resurrecting.

 

because it's cool and that's how I roll.

 

 

Seriously though none of that is part of my belief system. what cultus was he referring to? there was more than one religion of Rome btw.


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:No we are not

Brian37 wrote:

No we are not going to keep going around in a circle, because it is quite obvious you don't like challenges.

that would be true if by "don't like" you really mean "like".

Quote:

You are stuck in the same pollitically correct "whatever floats your boat".

I guess it's politcally correct, don't care if it though. Better than being an asshole who think his way is the only way.

Quote:

I agree that if you are not harming me that you can do what you like.

I am not interested in that.

 

K.

 

Quote:

YOU claim that you believe, beyond merely "liking it"

I am telling you that it is merely liking it.

 

YOU claim that I believe because I merely like it.

I am telling you I believe beyond merely liking it.

 

Quote:

You think the challenge is to me, which is your mistake. Your challenge is to yourself, not me. I am simply trying to open the door for you so that you can see that.

 

I don't think there's a challenge here, merely a discussion. You want to debate evidence, and I give you none so you can't really find something to argue about other than "you believe it cause you like it".

 

Is there anything else about my faith you want to talk about other than trying to somehow prove it wrong(which you can't do), or make me think it's just silly(which you also can't do). If you have no other point for this thread then I guess we're done.

 

Maybe you've learned that not all theists are the same and you can't use the same tired arguments against paganism as you do for christianity, judaism, or Islam. Maybe next time you make a remark about theists you'll remember this thread and phrase your remark in a way that applies to all of us, not just christians.

 

One could only hope.


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote:RatDog

Christos wrote:

RatDog wrote:

Christos wrote:

Your religion disappeared for a reason.......it's wrong. Completely wrong.

I don't see how it is any less likely then your religion.  In fact in many ways it seems more likely because it doesn't involve an all powerful being that constantly contradicts itself.

What religion do I have RatDog? I'm not religious. Sorry.

Oh and you're totally right. Polytheism does seem more likely. Making up more gods to solve theological problems is super logical.

Here is my theory explaining the existence of neo-paganism.

-A young rebellious person is pissed at their parents and thus the Christian beliefs of their parents

-So, to maximize their rebellion, this person starts a neo-pagan cult to bring back Jupiter and make their parents uber-pissed.

-Young people actually start following this ridiculous religion out of rebellion, or a need to belong, or a fascination with Zeus and his bis ass lightning bolts.

 

 

that may be true for some young folks today, but you seem to not know or remember that the resurgence of paganism came about from hippies and occultists.


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote: RatDog

Christos wrote:

 

RatDog wrote:

 

Christos wrote:

 

Your religion disappeared for a reason.......it's wrong. Completely wrong.

 

 

I don't see how it is any less likely then your religion.  In fact in many ways it seems more likely because it doesn't involve an all powerful being that constantly contradicts itself.

 

 

What religion do I have RatDog? I'm not religious. Sorry.

 

 

You are right I don't know enough about you to know if you are religious or not.  I do know that I disagree with your definition of religion which you used in another thread.  

 

Christos wrote:

 

Oh and you're totally right. Polytheism does seem more likely. Making up more gods to solve theological problems is super logical.

 

 

I don't know if your being sarcastic or not but I seriously thing that her religion is more logical then Christianity.  Perhaps it would be better to say that I think her religions is less illogical then Christianity (I’m going to use the words more logical for the rest of this paragraph because the words less illogical sound stupid).  There are two reasons why I believe that her religion is more logical then Christianity neither of which has anything to do with it being polytheism.  One reason her religion is more logical then Christianity is because its god/gods aren't all powerful and all knowing.  Those two quantities create all kinds of paradoxes that have never really been resolved.  Another reason it is more logical is that it doesn't have the bible which frankly contradicts itself in several places.  I know that Christians feel that people are just misinterpreting what it say, but that is bull shit.  If you believe in an all powerful all knowing god, and if you take the bible seriously then I don't think you are in a position to criticize her beliefs.  

 [edit: grammar]

Christos wrote:

 

Here is my theory explaining the existence of neo-paganism.

 

-A young rebellious person is pissed at their parents and thus the Christian beliefs of their parents

 

-So, to maximize their rebellion, this person starts a neo-pagan cult to bring back Jupiter and make their parents uber-pissed.

 

-Young people actually start following this ridiculous religion out of rebellion, or a need to belong, or a fascination with Zeus and his bis ass lightning bolts.

 

 

Religions have to start some time.  Think about Mormonism, and Scientology both of which started relatively recently.  In regards to your theory you may wish to do a little research before you start make assumptions.  Try looking up a man names Gerald Gardner for starters.  

 

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote: My personal

Ciarin wrote:

My personal experiences are only valid to me. Others are only valid to them. None of our experiences are more valid than the other.

I always think of this vendiagram.

All of our experiences are equally valid, but the beliefs that we derive partly from our experiences, ah, that's a different matter entirely. Unfortunately, with our limited knowledge, we can never be completely sure about the correct belief on most issues; truth is absolute, of course, but finding it is hard. If, from a neutral perspective, all personal experiences are equally valid, then they all have a good chance of being wrong. Someone at a Pentacostal Church might see people in wheelchairs stand up and walk, leading them to follow Christianity. Someone will feel uplifted through auditing sessions and strengthen their belief in Scientology. This kind of basis is always prone to error, which is why I try to base my beliefs on objective, verifiable evidence as much as possible. Evidence is equally valid for everyone.

Anyways......Ciarin, if your personal experiences were shown to have plausible natural explanations, would you reject these gods?

Christos wrote:
Why would you want to bring this religion back from the grave?

Huh? This is a weird accusation. She follows this religion because she believes in it. What does bringing it back from the grave have to do with it?

Christos wrote:
I know you probably aren't practicing self-mutilation, but this is an abhorrent religious tradition. It's not a religion worth resurrecting.

I obviously agree with you, but, at the same time, I don't see how this is worse than any other religion. The OT commands us to stone our own family members for things like working on Sunday. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote: Quoting

Christos wrote:

Quoting Seneca the Roman philosopher...."One man cuts off his male organs: another gashes his arms. If this is the way they earn the favour of the gods, what happens when they fear their anger? The gods do not deserve any kind of worship, if this is the worship they desire......Men gash themselves in the temples, and offer their wounds and their blood as a supplication. If anyone had the time to notice what these people do and what they have done to them, he would discover things so unbecoming of men of honour, so unworthy of freemen, so incongruous for men of sane mind, that no one would hesitate to call them mad, if there were not so many sharing the same frenzy. As it is, their title to sanity rests on the multitude of the appartently insane."

Here is my question Ciarin: Why would you want to bring this religion back from the grave? I know you probably aren't practicing self-mutilation, but this is an abhorrent religious tradition. It's not a religion worth resurrecting.

If you beliefs are based on the bible you don't have any room to talk.  Also I would like to remind you of something you have said in another thread.  

Christos wrote:

Hey Hammer, if you read this come back. We need more theists around here.

 

What happened to wanting more theists around joining together to fight the atheist horde?  Is her theism not good enough for you?  Exactly which branches of theism meet with your approval?  This seem a little hypocritical to me. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  No

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  No offense to either party participating in this thread but wow, this debate...was....really, ugh, you know...sort of pointless .  

I agree, arguing with people that define their own evidence is pointless. The funny thing is that this is merely one of billions of people who do this and think they are doing things differently.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Zymotic
Superfan
Zymotic's picture
Posts: 171
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote:Quoting

Christos wrote:

Quoting Seneca the Roman philosopher...."One man cuts off his male organs: another gashes his arms. If this is the way they earn the favour of the gods, what happens when they fear their anger? The gods do not deserve any kind of worship, if this is the worship they desire......Men gash themselves in the temples, and offer their wounds and their blood as a supplication. If anyone had the time to notice what these people do and what they have done to them, he would discover things so unbecoming of men of honour, so unworthy of freemen, so incongruous for men of sane mind, that no one would hesitate to call them mad, if there were not so many sharing the same frenzy. As it is, their title to sanity rests on the multitude of the appartently insane."

 

I don't know what kind of "theist" you are (I just know you are one by your tag), but if you're a christian, it's extremely ironic that you quoted Seneca-- he is one of the most damning pieces of evidence for the case that Jesus was a historical person.

My Brand New Blog - Jesu Ad Nauseum.
God of the Gaps: As knowledge approaches infinity, God approaches zero. It's introductory calculus.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"Colonel Jessup, did you

"Colonel Jessup, did you make up your own evidence?"

"YOU WANT THE EVEDENCE, YOU CANT HANDLE THE EVIDENCE! In theism we use words like, anacdotal, personal experiance, you use them as a punch line. I'd rather you leave me with my delusion and say, thank you."

"Colonel Jessup, DID YOU MAKE UP YOUR OWN EVIDENCE?"

"YOUR GODDAMNED RIGHT I DID!"

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

Anyways......Ciarin, if your personal experiences were shown to have plausible natural explanations, would you reject these gods?

 

They already have plausible natural explanations. I would only reject these gods if it were proven they weren't real, or that they were unworthy of honoring.


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  No offense to either party participating in this thread but wow, this debate...was....really, ugh, you know...sort of pointless .  

I agree, arguing with people that define their own evidence is pointless. The funny thing is that this is merely one of billions of people who do this and think they are doing things differently.

 

Umm.. I said  have no evidence for you and you'r bitching about it? Want me to make up some evidence just so you can argue about it?

 

Here you go:

 

"the Gods are real!! Just look at nature all around you!"

 

"have you ever seen a banana? it's perfectly shaped for our hands and mouths, that must mean the god of bananas exists!"

 

"Science can't explain everything so the gods MUST be real"

 

Seriously though, figure out that not all theists believe in the same way, some of us are religously plural, non-dogmatic, and we don't feel the need to prove our beliefs to the non-believers in order to justify what we believe and get converts. My UPG isn't verifiable(hence the U part of UPG), and as far as mankind is aware there is absolutely no evidence in existence that proves or disproves a god or gods, so there's no point in trying. I don't really care that you want objective scientifically verifiable evidence, that's not my problem(and I'm pretty sure is such evidence were to exist, we'd all be following this religion by now). You started this thread, I don't know exactly what you were expecting, but get used to not being able to make any good arguements against my faith. I have no bible full of contradictions, I have no commandments or rules to follow, I have no need to be saved from anything in the afterlife(if there is even an afterlife to be had). I have no omni god that is self-contradicting. I follow the traditions of my ancestors and I honor the gods. That's pretty much it, not much to argue about I'm afraid.

 

Now if you want to argue about theism in general or aspects of paganism, or something a bit more interesting than trying to get me to be atheist because you think I merely like my beliefs, maybe we could go down that road.


 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
The question is then

Ciarin wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Anyways......Ciarin, if your personal experiences were shown to have plausible natural explanations, would you reject these gods?

 

They already have plausible natural explanations. I would only reject these gods if it were proven they weren't real, or that they were unworthy of honoring.

 

How do you prove them real outside of your own mind, how can you show them to be real to anyone else instead of avoiding answering that simple question to which the OP asked for? How are your god(s) more real than say the mayan gods, the hindu gods? or the IPU? What evidence do you have that you can show?


anniet
Silver Member
Posts: 325
Joined: 2008-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote:I've always

Christos wrote:

I've always wondered why there are still believers. These pagan religion died. Then 20th century people bring these dead religions back to life. Why is that necessary? These gods are dead. They don't exist. It's a crazy joke. Your religions had their time, were defeated philosophically by monotheism, and faded into oblivion. Your religion disappeared for a reason.......it's wrong. Completely wrong.

The Abrahmic religions are also obviously wrong yet believers don't seem to mind.  The people I know who have dabbled in paganism have done so because they are looking for some sort of spiritual something without having to deal with all the nasty baggage of the major religions. 

Polytheism was defeated by the sword, not philosophy btw.  Monotheism is no more true than polytheism.

"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Heyo, I am not a Christian!

Heyo, I am not a Christian! This should clarify things for several posters

Ciarin wrote:

that may be true for some young folks today, but you seem to not know or remember that the resurgence of paganism came about from hippies and occultists.

Exactly. Those damn hippies. Maybe this is the exact conversation of how neo-paganism returned as a religion.

Hippie 1: "Bro, pass me that blunt."

Hippie 2: "Let's brainstorm. Let's get away from the norm."

Hippie 1: "Rocking horse people are eating marshmellow pies man."

Hippie 2: "Relgion bro, I'm so wore down with the Jesus stuff man."

Hippie 1: "The lunatic is in my head."

Hippie 2: "Oh shit, I got it man. I'll bring back that Roman, pagan shit. That'll really stick it to the man. This is gonna be a religious revolution. Pass me that blunt."

Hippie 1: "Fuck man, I'm so high."

Furthermore, I think it was some Jupiter cult that Seneca was referring to. You didn't really answer my question about Seneca. C'mon, what's so good abotu your religion? Why bring back a religion that promoted self-mutiliation? You even said in an earlier post that you think circumcision as a religious practice is detestable. However, your religion promoted men cutting off their balls. Tell me, why bring this nonsense back? Why make up a pantheon of gods to attain imaginary self-fulfillment?

Also, someone said that monotheism beat polytheism with the sword. Somewhat true, but not really. I think you need to check out Nero, Tacitus, Justin Martyr, Augustine, Athenagoras and Clement to name a few. Christian monotheism just got the snuff kicked out of them until the Edict of Milan, and monotheism still survived. Furthermore, philosophers like Justin and Augustine converted away from paganism under a threat of persecution (moreso for Justin)

 

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote: YOU claim

Ciarin wrote:

 YOU claim that I believe because I merely like it.

I am telling you I believe beyond merely liking it.

 Ciarin,

I think the question is "what's beyond "merely liking it"?"

Or is that the anecdoatal stuff?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:as far as

Ciarin wrote:

as far as mankind is aware there is absolutely no evidence in existence that proves or disproves a god or gods, so there's no point in trying.

This statement is false.  There is a lot of evidence to suggest that the gods you believe in, and gods in general, do not exist.  The strongest support is the fact that nobody who doesn't believe in them can ever find them.  Others on this site, and in this thread, have discussed the various means of proof, and the simple fact is that there is no way to rationally support a belief in god.  For you to continue in your self-delusion becuase you enjoy it is fine if that's what you really want, but to claim that all of humanity shares in that deslusion is demonstratedly false.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I like toast   

I like toast

 

 

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:I like

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I like toast

I like butter. Give me some toast, and I'll give you some butter.

Ciarin wrote:
They already have plausible natural explanations. I would only reject these gods if it were proven they weren't real, or that they were unworthy of honoring.

Would you agree that the natural explanations for these experiences are more likely than the explanations offered by your religion? If so, why not the natural explanations?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Ciarin

latincanuck wrote:

Ciarin wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Anyways......Ciarin, if your personal experiences were shown to have plausible natural explanations, would you reject these gods?

 

They already have plausible natural explanations. I would only reject these gods if it were proven they weren't real, or that they were unworthy of honoring.

 

How do you prove them real outside of your own mind, how can you show them to be real to anyone else instead of avoiding answering that simple question to which the OP asked for?

I can't. I didn't avoid the question. THERE'S NO EVIDENCE.

Quote:

How are your god(s) more real than say the mayan gods, the hindu gods? or the IPU?

I don't know whether the mayan god or hindu gods are "more real"(how is something more real?) than the ones I believe in. The IPU is as real as the FSM.

Quote:

What evidence do you have that you can show?

 

Seriously? Ok, maybe you just didn't read all the posts where I said: There's no evidence for you.


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:I can't. I

Ciarin wrote:

I can't. I didn't avoid the question. THERE'S NO EVIDENCE.

The people on this site feel that people shouldn't believe anything unless their is 'valid' evidence.   Make and argument that your type of evidence UPG is a valid reason to believe something, or give up on making them accept your beliefs.  


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:I like

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I like toast

I like toast too.

 

And on a related note: how old can a fox get?

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Nikolaj wrote:Cpt_pineapple

Nikolaj wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I like toast

I like toast too.

 

And on a related note: how old can a fox get?

Older then it was the day before. 

 

I love Toast!  We should all eat more Toast.  What can be butter then Toast?


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote:Furthermore,

Christos wrote:

Furthermore, I think it was some Jupiter cult that Seneca was referring to. You didn't really answer my question about Seneca. C'mon, what's so good abotu your religion? Why bring back a religion that promoted self-mutiliation? You even said in an earlier post that you think circumcision as a religious practice is detestable. However, your religion promoted men cutting off their balls. Tell me, why bring this nonsense back? Why make up a pantheon of gods to attain imaginary self-fulfillment?

Do you honestly think the followers of Jupiter actually cut off their balls and that we would actually bring back this alleged practice? I wonder how these people lasted longer than a generation, lol.

BTW, can you cite any other sources to verify this claim, because I am having trouble coming up with any.

Quote:

Also, someone said that monotheism beat polytheism with the sword. Somewhat true, but not really. I think you need to check out Nero, Tacitus, Justin Martyr, Augustine, Athenagoras and Clement to name a few. Christian monotheism just got the snuff kicked out of them until the Edict of Milan, and monotheism still survived. Furthermore, philosophers like Justin and Augustine converted away from paganism under a threat of persecution (moreso for Justin)

 

Monotheism didn't beat polytheism. The rulers of those times had decided to change the state religion, and that's it. Christianity was used as a means to consolidate power. There is nothing inherent about monotheistic religions that make it a superior belief than polytheistic ones.


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Fish wrote:This statement is

Fish wrote:

This statement is false.  There is a lot of evidence to suggest that the gods you believe in, and gods in general, do not exist. 

 

Prove Odin doesn't exist then.


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Ciarin

butterbattle wrote:

Ciarin wrote:
They already have plausible natural explanations. I would only reject these gods if it were proven they weren't real, or that they were unworthy of honoring.

Would you agree that the natural explanations for these experiences are more likely than the explanations offered by your religion? If so, why not the natural explanations?

 

What are the explanations offered by my religion?


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:Ciarin wrote:I

RatDog wrote:

Ciarin wrote:

I can't. I didn't avoid the question. THERE'S NO EVIDENCE.

The people on this site feel that people shouldn't believe anything unless their is 'valid' evidence.   Make and argument that your type of evidence UPG is a valid reason to believe something, or give up on making them accept your beliefs.  

 

Ummm.....but I didn't attempt to get anyone to accept my beliefs. So I guess I'll give up something I didn't attempt.


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:RatDog

Ciarin wrote:

RatDog wrote:

Ciarin wrote:

I can't. I didn't avoid the question. THERE'S NO EVIDENCE.

The people on this site feel that people shouldn't believe anything unless their is 'valid' evidence.   Make and argument that your type of evidence UPG is a valid reason to believe something, or give up on making them accept your beliefs.  

 

Ummm.....but I didn't attempt to get anyone to accept my beliefs. So I guess I'll give up something I didn't attempt.

Then what are you attempting?


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:Then what are

RatDog wrote:


Then what are you attempting?

 

I'm attempting to respond to other people's posts.


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:RatDog

Ciarin wrote:

RatDog wrote:

 

Then what are you attempting?

 

I'm attempting to respond to other people's posts.

Why?  Does it make you happy?


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
I'm not trying to be rude. 

I'm not trying to be rude.  I just doen't understand what you getting out of it.  It seems to be making you angry. 


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Do you like Toast?

Do you like Toast?


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:Ciarin

RatDog wrote:

Ciarin wrote:

RatDog wrote:

 

Then what are you attempting?

 

I'm attempting to respond to other people's posts.

Why?  Does it make you happy?

 

It passes the time. I like to talk about religion, philosophy, humanity etc. Why do you respond to other people's posts? Does it make you happy?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Well, modern

Well, modern electromagnetism proves that Thor doesn't exist

 

meteorology and climate science proves that Freyr doesn't exist

 

 

Since Norse religion got those Gods wrong, I think don't think they're right about Odin.

 

 

 

 

 


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:I'm not trying

RatDog wrote:

I'm not trying to be rude.  I just doen't understand what you getting out of it.  It seems to be making you angry. 

 

Why does it seem to be making me angry(especially since I'm not angry)?

 

Quote:
Do you like toast?{/quote]

 

I like toast but it has to have butter, or cream cheese, or jelly/jam on it. Why does it matter?


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:Why does it

Ciarin wrote:

Why does it seem to be making me angry(especially since I'm not angry)?

That's good anger is bad for you. 

Quote:

I like toast but it has to have butter, or cream cheese, or jelly/jam on it. Why does it matter?

No, there is only one proper way to really eat Toast.  All other ways are an abomination, and should be eradicated. 


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Well,

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Well, modern electromagnetism proves that Thor doesn't exist

 

No it doesn't. Thor's existence isn't dependant on whether or not we discover how electricity works.

 

Quote:

meteorology and climate science proves that Freyr doesn't exist

 

Again, Freyr's existence isn't dependant on if we figure out the weather.

 

 

Quote:

Since Norse religion got those Gods wrong, I think don't think they're right about Odin.

 

You're assuming the purpose of those gods is to explain the weather, or other natural phenomena. It isn't. Also, you're using a logical fallacy regarding odin "I think these other gods don't exist, therefore odin doesn't either".

 

Try again.


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:Do you honestly

Ciarin wrote:

Do you honestly think the followers of Jupiter actually cut off their balls and that we would actually bring back this alleged practice? I wonder how these people lasted longer than a generation, lol.

BTW, can you cite any other sources to verify this claim, because I am having trouble coming up with any.

I can direct you to Tacitus (Roman historian) for other sources. However, Seneca is pretty reliable Ciarin.

Ciarin wrote:

Monotheism didn't beat polytheism. The rulers of those times had decided to change the state religion, and that's it. Christianity was used as a means to consolidate power. There is nothing inherent about monotheistic religions that make it a superior belief than polytheistic ones.

Ah, not true Ciarin. Surely there were political motivations behind the switch of state religion. However, your predecessor sure as hell tried to kill every Christian before the Edict of Milan. Remember when Nero burned Christians on crosses on the roads leading to Rome? Neither do I, but Tacitus sure as hell did. The Roman pagans tried to wipe out Christians.....but eventually Christianity won out.

Also, I would like to compliment you for trying to respond to all posts. You are surrounded, and still managing to continue debating everyone.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote:Ciarin

Christos wrote:

Ciarin wrote:

Do you honestly think the followers of Jupiter actually cut off their balls and that we would actually bring back this alleged practice? I wonder how these people lasted longer than a generation, lol.

BTW, can you cite any other sources to verify this claim, because I am having trouble coming up with any.

I can direct you to Tacitus (Roman historian) for other sources. However, Seneca is pretty reliable Ciarin.

 

Seneca isn't reliable at all, actually. Please feel free to direct me. I don't believe Tacitus ever mentioned Romans castrating themselves. And I'm still wondering how Rome prospered if they weren't able to have children.

Quote:

Ciarin wrote:

Monotheism didn't beat polytheism. The rulers of those times had decided to change the state religion, and that's it. Christianity was used as a means to consolidate power. There is nothing inherent about monotheistic religions that make it a superior belief than polytheistic ones.

Ah, not true Ciarin. Surely there were political motivations behind the switch of state religion. However, your predecessor sure as hell tried to kill every Christian before the Edict of Milan. Remember when Nero burned Christians on crosses on the roads leading to Rome? Neither do I, but Tacitus sure as hell did. The Roman pagans tried to wipe out Christians.....but eventually Christianity won out.

 

No they didn't. The romans never tried to wipe out christians(I'm pretty sure they would've been able to accomplish this if they so desired). The problem the romans had with the christians was the same problem they had witht the jews. Jews and christians would not have any other god but theirs. Romans had a state cultus, and as long as you give homage to the state cultus, you were free to do whatever you wanted in your private cultus. Jews and christians refused. A slight against the state cultus was considered treasonous. Christians though, made damn sure to incite the romans because they had an insane desire to be martyrs. Much like the fanatics of Islam today, christians thought it was the greatest thing to be a martyr for their religion. And you can still see this today with christianity's persecution complex. They have missionaries going to countries that do not allow proselytizing and get all worked up when their missionary gets in trouble. Anytime someone wants to reign in christianity's hold on politics and gov't and public schooling, christians claim we're trying to take away their religion, etc.

 

Quote:

Also, I would like to compliment you for trying to respond to all posts. You are surrounded, and still managing to continue debating everyone.

 

I'm used to it.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote: No it

Ciarin wrote:

 

No it doesn't. Thor's existence isn't dependant on whether or not we discover how electricity works.

 

 

Yes it does, Thor is the God of Thunder right?

 

 

 

Quote:

 

Again, Freyr's existence isn't dependant on if we figure out the weather.

 

 

But she's responsible for it right?

 

 

 

 

Quote:


You're assuming the purpose of those gods is to explain the weather, or other natural phenomena. It isn't. Also, you're using a logical fallacy regarding odin "I think these other gods don't exist, therefore odin doesn't either".

 

 

They were

 

But Odin is tied in with Thor and Freyr. No Thor or Freyr implies no Odin

 

 

Quote:

Try again.

 

 

How was this?


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:What can be

RatDog wrote:
What can be butter then Toast?

Lmao, butter.

Ciarin wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Ciarin wrote:
They already have plausible natural explanations. I would only reject these gods if it were proven they weren't real, or that they were unworthy of honoring.

Would you agree that the natural explanations for these experiences are more likely than the explanations offered by your religion? If so, why not the natural explanations?

What are the explanations offered by my religion?

I have no idea. What are the explanations offered by your religion? Oh, after this, can you answer my previous question?

RatDog wrote:
Then what are you attempting?

She actually isn't attempting anything. Brian proposed MORTAL COMBAT! (there is no godsperm and you can't fart a Lamborghini out of your ass!), and she tentatively accepted. 

 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:Seneca isn't

Ciarin wrote:

Seneca isn't reliable at all, actually. Please feel free to direct me. I don't believe Tacitus ever mentioned Romans castrating themselves. And I'm still wondering how Rome prospered if they weren't able to have children.

This is false. Seneca was the personal tutor for Emperor Nero. Why the hell isn't he reliable? I'm sure not all men cut off their nuts in the name of Jupiter, but Seneca clearly records some men doing so.

Ciarin wrote:

No they didn't. The romans never tried to wipe out christians(I'm pretty sure they would've been able to accomplish this if they so desired). The problem the romans had with the christians was the same problem they had witht the jews. Jews and christians would not have any other god but theirs. Romans had a state cultus, and as long as you give homage to the state cultus, you were free to do whatever you wanted in your private cultus. Jews and christians refused. A slight against the state cultus was considered treasonous. Christians though, made damn sure to incite the romans because they had an insane desire to be martyrs. Much like the fanatics of Islam today, christians thought it was the greatest thing to be a martyr for their religion.

Ciarin, you are somewhat ignorant when it comes to historical data in this situation. Christians did not have an insane martry complex. Read any Christian apologist......any. Try Jutin Martyr in the second century, Clement in the late first century, Athenagoras, Iraneus, etc. They all argued for TOLERATION. They begged rulers and emperors to STOP KILLING CHRISTIANS. You make me sad when you make up shit.

And you said that the Romans never tried to kill Christians. False. Here is a great quote from Tacitus:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired."

Like I said, when you make up shit about history without evidence it makes me

 

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Ciarin

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Ciarin wrote:

 

No it doesn't. Thor's existence isn't dependant on whether or not we discover how electricity works.

 

 

Yes it does, Thor is the God of Thunder right?

 

Thor is god of many things. His name in OE is where we get the word for thunder. But he isn't thunder himself. And he's not the mastermind behind how thunder happens. The belief that he can cause thunder doesn't mean he's the sole cause for every instance of thunder in the world. Humans can cause thunder too, does that mean all thunder is caused by humans?

 

 

Quote:

 

Quote:

 

Again, Freyr's existence isn't dependant on if we figure out the weather.

 

 

But she's responsible for it right?

 

no he's not responsible for the weather. He's associated with the weather, as well as agriculture and fertlity, but he's not hte reason for the weather. Meaning if Freyr suddenly died, the weather wouldn't disappear with him. And it's odd you think he's a she. Maybe you're confusing him with his sister Freyja? She's also a goddess of fertility as well as love, beauty, battle, prophecy, death, etc. I don't think she does anything about the weather though.

 

 

 

Quote:

 

Quote:

 

You're assuming the purpose of those gods is to explain the weather, or other natural phenomena. It isn't. Also, you're using a logical fallacy regarding odin "I think these other gods don't exist, therefore odin doesn't either".

 

 

They were

 

Evidence?

 

Quote:

But Odin is tied in with Thor and Freyr. No Thor or Freyr implies no Odin

 

You still haven't been able to provide evidence that Odin doesn't exist(let alone the other gods which you base your logical fallacy on).

 

Come on! Just show me this alleged evidence. It should be easy right?

 

 

Quote:

 

How was this?

 

Full of fail.


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote:This is

Christos wrote:

This is false. Seneca was the personal tutor for Emperor Nero. Why the hell isn't he reliable? I'm sure not all men cut off their nuts in the name of Jupiter, but Seneca clearly records some men doing so.

Being the personal tutor of Nero means nothing to me. He was also involved in a conspiracy to kill nero and was ordered to kill himself as punishment. He was also a hypocrite, in that he claimed to be a stoic but his actions proved otherwise.

 

I'm pretty sure no one cut off their nuts in the name of Jupiter. What reason would they have for doing this? The only mention of self-castration in Rome was for some of the more fanatic male followers of the cult of Cybele who's son was castrated and died and she resurrected him. These guys were called Galli. Other male followers substituted bull's testicles. There's no mention of them cutting their arms though. Also, Roman citizens were forbidden to become priests of Cybele.

 

and even if only some men did it for some weirdo reason, why would this be your point of contention to being a roman recon? Obviously we're not going to make people castrate themselves based on some quote by seneca the younger.

Quote:

 

Ciarin, you are somewhat ignorant when it comes to historical data in this situation. Christians did not have an insane martry complex. Read any Christian apologist......any.

LOL, cause christian apologists are so reliable right? Let's go ask Kent Hovind or Ray Comfort!

Quote:

Try Jutin Martyr in the second century, Clement in the late first century, Athenagoras, Iraneus, etc. They all argued for TOLERATION. They begged rulers and emperors to STOP KILLING CHRISTIANS. You make me sad when you make up shit.

 

Would it make you even sadder that I didn't make it up at all?

 

All the christians had to do was pay homage to the state cult, no need to beg for the state to stop killing them.

 

"

Some early Christians sought out and welcomed martyrdom. Roman authorities tried hard to avoid Christians because they "goaded, chided, belittled and insulted the crowds until they demanded their death."193 One man shouted to the Roman officials: "I want to die! I am a Christian," leading the officials to respond: "If they wanted to kill themselves, there was plenty of cliffs they could jump off."194 Such seeking after death is found in Tertullian's Scorpiace but was certainly not the only view of martyrdom in the Christian church. Both Polycarp and Cyprian, bishops in Smyrna and Carthage respectively, attempted to avoid martyrdom.

The conditions under which martyrdom was an acceptable fate or under which it was suicidally embraced occupied writers of the early Christian Church. Broadly speaking, martyrs were considered uniquely exemplary of the Christian faith, and few early saints were not also martyrs.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states that "Ancient, medieval and early modern hagiographers were inclined to exaggerate the number of martyrs. Since the title of martyr is the highest title to which a Christian can aspire, this tendency is natural". Estimates of Christians killed for religious reasons before the year 313 vary greatly, depending on the scholar quoted, from a high of almost 100,000 to a low of 10,000." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians

 

Yes I know wikipedia isn't a good source, but if you read the source that is cited you can verify for yourself:

The Empire of the Tetrarchs: Imperial Pronouncements and Government AD 284-324 by Simon Corcoran.

Quote:

And you said that the Romans never tried to kill Christians. False. Here is a great quote from Tacitus:


Yea I never said Roman never killed christians, so nice strawman you got there. I said they never tried to wipe them out.

Quote:

Like I said, when you make up shit about history without evidence it makes me

 

I've given evidence. I didn't make this shit up, hehe. your ignorance of the matter is probably a lot sadder.