[PluggyRug]

fifeboy fifeboy:

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Yup, Valhalla is closed and deemed off limits, but I still have Thor's hammer.

Yeah, but without Tanngrisni, Tanngnost and the chariot it's just about as useful as one of the plastic Jesus bobble heads on the dash:

Don't tell the nails.

[Pseudonym]

Dayseed Dayseed:

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

I like how you set up your definitions such that everyone is an atheist in some respect. I find it tremendously insulting and yet hilarious for its obvious ridiculousness. So now an "atheist" is anyone who does not believe in a given set of religious precepts, instead of the standard accepted usage as one who does not believe in religion/the supernatural/"God".

Pseudonym,

You're right. Why is the Christian God given pre-eminence over other gods? What is it about Christianity that makes it the only damn "true" religion over every other one that has ever eked itself out? If somebody is a Christian, doesn't that mean they have to reject the idea of Thor? Christianity is pretty clear that there is a monotheistic trinity (yup, we're already off to a bad start) with Mary coming in a close fourth followed by hundreds of Saints all handling specific calls God's too busy for. It's no wonder Valhalla got annexed! God needed parking space and a lunch room for his Heaven Hotlines. Thor's out.

They in essence denounce the existence of Thor, claiming he's a figment of skaldic poetry. They're Thor Atheists.

How could they not be?

Because there is no such thing as a "Thor Atheist" except as a linguistic construct that has no purpose. Why invent the term? You can easily argue that there is no rational distinction between various forms of religious belief without such a phrase. It only really gets on the nerves of us religious types, although I can understand if that is the actual point.

I do contend, however, that there are strong reasons for belief in Christianity as opposed to belief in Thor or what have you, but then again, I am one of those that argues for the existence of rational faith, so perhaps I am not a representative individual here.

[Gunnair]

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

Dayseed Dayseed:

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

I like how you set up your definitions such that everyone is an atheist in some respect. I find it tremendously insulting and yet hilarious for its obvious ridiculousness. So now an "atheist" is anyone who does not believe in a given set of religious precepts, instead of the standard accepted usage as one who does not believe in religion/the supernatural/"God".

Pseudonym,

You're right. Why is the Christian God given pre-eminence over other gods? What is it about Christianity that makes it the only damn "true" religion over every other one that has ever eked itself out? If somebody is a Christian, doesn't that mean they have to reject the idea of Thor? Christianity is pretty clear that there is a monotheistic trinity (yup, we're already off to a bad start) with Mary coming in a close fourth followed by hundreds of Saints all handling specific calls God's too busy for. It's no wonder Valhalla got annexed! God needed parking space and a lunch room for his Heaven Hotlines. Thor's out.

They in essence denounce the existence of Thor, claiming he's a figment of skaldic poetry. They're Thor Atheists.

How could they not be?

I do contend, however, that there are strong reasons for belief in Christianity as opposed to belief in Thor or what have you, .

Such as? What makes Christian beliefs the Alpha beliefs of the civilized world?

[Pseudonym]

As far as I have seen, Christianity answers all the fundamental questions of reality coherently. In any philosophy, you create a structure that you revise or replace if it is incoherent with reality and reason. I freely admit my bias towards the Christian philosophical structure that I was raised in. However, I have not found it to fail at any point that I have truly understood it.

So, as for reasons to prefer it to other faiths, my most basic one is that Christianity presents the fundamental problem of Man ("Sin"), and a solution to that problem that makes sense.

[Gunnair]

Pseudonym wrote:

$1:

As far as I have seen, Christianity answers all the fundamental questions of reality coherently.

In what way? Six day Creation, death and either everlasting heaven or everlasting hell?

$1:

In any philosophy, you create a structure that you revise or replace if it is incoherent with reality and reason.

Are you suggesting Christianity does this at a higher acceptable level than Paganism let's say?

$1:

I freely admit my bias towards the Christian philosophical structure that I was raised in. However, I have not found it to fail at any point that I have truly understood it.

Okay. That being said, what do you really know of any other faith that allows you to make such a bold and potentially arrogant assumption?

$1:

So, as for reasons to prefer it to other faiths, my most basic one is that Christianity presents the fundamental problem of Man ("Sin"), and a solution to that problem that makes sense.

[/quote]

Interesting. I've always found the Christian answer to sin the least rational. Eternal damnation for the sins of life has always suggested a sadistic malevolance in God that is beyoind redemption. Eternal happiness in heaven is almost as equally perplexing as it removes the those fudemental challanges that mankind thrive on.

[Pseudonym]

Gunnair Gunnair:

$1:

As far as I have seen, Christianity answers all the fundamental questions of reality coherently.

In what way? Six day Creation, death and either everlasting heaven or everlasting hell?

More like "What is the purpose of Man?" and other essential methodological and epistemological questions, and read your Westminster Catechism for the answers to those.

Gunnair Gunnair:

$1:

In any philosophy, you create a structure that you revise or replace if it is incoherent with reality and reason.

Are you suggesting Christianity does this at a higher acceptable level than Paganism let's say?

Yes, I would say that Christianity is coherent whereas Paganism is not.

Gunnair Gunnair:

$1:

I freely admit my bias towards the Christian philosophical structure that I was raised in. However, I have not found it to fail at any point that I have truly understood it.

Okay. That being said, what do you really know of any other faith that allows you to make such a bold and potentially arrogant assumption?

Only the jealous would portray the tellers of truth as "arrogant".

But really, I have done my research, but it would be impossible for me to go through everything and verify each individual religion in the world. I'll stick with mine and stand by my statement. Truth is, by its very nature, exclusive.

Gunnair Gunnair:

$1:

So, as for reasons to prefer it to other faiths, my most basic one is that Christianity presents the fundamental problem of Man ("Sin"), and a solution to that problem that makes sense.

Interesting. I've always found the Christian answer to sin the least rational. Eternal damnation for the sins of life has always suggested a sadistic malevolance in God that is beyoind redemption. Eternal happiness in heaven is almost as equally perplexing as it removes the those fudemental challanges that mankind thrive on.

Very simply, if I accept a perfect, and perfectly good, God, then I conclude that He is both just and merciful (two good things). These things are perfectly reconciled in God providing the sacrifice of himself to pay for the wrong things we have done if we accept said gift. Christianity doesn't say that God sends men to Hell; it says that men choose that fate for themselves. We could go further into specific doctrine if you wish, but you might want to ask a priest/pastor for a more authoritative description.

[ShepherdsDog]

if the Early Christians had kept the Jewish prohibition on pork all Europeans would likely be following the old ways.

[Tricks]

Thor > God. Topic over.

[Gunnair]

Pseudonym wrote:

$1:

Gunnair Gunnair:

$1:

As far as I have seen, Christianity answers all the fundamental questions of reality coherently.

In what way? Six day Creation, death and either everlasting heaven or everlasting hell?

More like "What is the purpose of Man?" and other essential methodological and epistemological questions, and read your Westminster Catechism for the answers to those.

Funny, there are many that can propose those philisophical thoughts. Christianity hardly has the cornerstone on those.

$1:

Gunnair Gunnair:

$1:

In any philosophy, you create a structure that you revise or replace if it is incoherent with reality and reason.

Are you suggesting Christianity does this at a higher acceptable level than Paganism let's say?

Yes, I would say that Christianity is coherent whereas Paganism is not.

Christianity is a string of contradictions and hardly coherent. Your knowledge of paganism seems weak.

$1:

Gunnair Gunnair:

$1:

I freely admit my bias towards the Christian philosophical structure that I was raised in. However, I have not found it to fail at any point that I have truly understood it.

Okay. That being said, what do you really know of any other faith that allows you to make such a bold and potentially arrogant assumption?

Only the jealous would portray the tellers of truth as "arrogant".

There's the arrogance everyone knows and despises. That's why you aren't invited out much...

$1:

But really, I have done my research, but it would be impossible for me to go through everything and verify each individual religion in the world. I'll stick with mine and stand by my statement. Truth is, by its very nature, exclusive.

I would disagree. I don't think you've done much research when you walk in with your mind made up.

$1:

Gunnair Gunnair:

$1:

So, as for reasons to prefer it to other faiths, my most basic one is that Christianity presents the fundamental problem of Man ("Sin"), and a solution to that problem that makes sense.

Interesting. I've always found the Christian answer to sin the least rational. Eternal damnation for the sins of life has always suggested a sadistic malevolance in God that is beyoind redemption. Eternal happiness in heaven is almost as equally perplexing as it removes the those fudemental challanges that mankind thrive on.

Very simply, if I accept a perfect, and perfectly good, God, then I conclude that He is both just and merciful (two good things). These things are perfectly reconciled in God providing the sacrifice of himself to pay for the wrong things we have done if we accept said gift. Christianity doesn't say that God sends men to Hell; it says that men choose that fate for themselves. We could go further into specific doctrine if you wish, but you might want to ask a priest/pastor for a more authoritative description.

Not quite so simple. God made man imperfect, therefore man will make mistakes and wrong decisions. It is their flaw as much as their strength. God may create these flawed creatures, but it is a rather conveniant argument that a loving God would turn his back on them and leave them to the fate his imperfect design allows.

[Dayseed]

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

But really, I have done my research, but it would be impossible for me to go through everything and verify each individual religion in the world. I'll stick with mine and stand by my statement. Truth is, by its very nature, exclusive.

No, truth is not exclusive at all. The law of gravity is true to everyone, everything and everywhere. Who the hell is it exclusive to? Only people who believe in it? If that's the case, I invite all gravitational disbelievers to test the strength of their belief that truth is exclusive and find a nice tall building from whence to leap.

If you float, you can gloat.

[ShepherdsDog]

Tricks Tricks:

Thor > God. Topic over.

We haven't even discussed Crom...what do you mean it's over. It's over when Rita MacNeill sings and not before.

[ShepherdsDog]

Dayseed Dayseed:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Cthulhu ate Thor for a snack yesterday.

The Old Ones were a neat idea, but did you ever read the Color out of Space? I thought it was his best story...I mean gospel?

I read it and enjoyed it, as I have most of his writings. For me personally, the White Ship, Polaris, At the Mountains of Madness and his Randolph Carter(Dream Worlds) stories were intriguing.

[Invader_Tak]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#Deis ... ted_States

[Mustang1]

If Christianity is allegedly "universal" and addresses "all" questions, then why did it take so long to be "introduced" to mankind? Why hasn't it been here from the beginning and been present in all cultures in all historical epochs? Seems pretty suspicious that it "evolves" from a "start" point that's roughly thousands of years into man's cognitive awakening.

[Blue_Nose]

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

Very simply, if I accept a perfect, and perfectly good, God, then I conclude that He is both just and merciful (two good things). These things are perfectly reconciled in God providing the sacrifice of himself to pay for the wrong things we have done if we accept said gift.

What kind of sacrifice is an eternal, omnipotent being playing dressup as a mortal, getting his costume kicked around for a bit, and then going back to Heaven? There's no sacrifice - God could pop back down dressed up as his "only mortal daughter" Janine and do it all over again, suffering precisely no actual consequences whatsoever.

Even if we ignore that and pretend he did some great service to mankind in doing so, what on earth is rational about doing it by "killing" himself? Since he's obviously making this stuff up for himself, he could have easily popped down and said, "from now on, goats will all walk backwards and that's a sign to you that I will pardon your sins as long as you care for at least one goat and make sure they don't bump into things" and it makes as much sense. At least we'd have the evidence of the backwards-walking goats - right now we have no real evidence that God sacrificed himself and not a regular person.