Thor Reinterpreted

[DoomJester]

Uh oh... I can see the post count on this thing going way up... hype and religious discussions just don't get along well.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Even if the "reinterpretation" I suggested were not applied to Thor, it could produce an interesting character in its own right. Okay, so maybe it just shouldn't be Thor, then. But don't forget, anyone either writing stories or reading them is at least partly controlled by their own belief-system. Obviously a Christian will entertain stories about the supernatural, but won't get off on stories about so-called "gods." But you guys, too, have belief-systems you hold to, and those beliefs determine how much enjoyment you get out of a character like Thor. A character who was more like Jesus Christ you probably wouldn't enjoy so much, right?

I'm an atheist and I love both Thor and the Loaded Bible series. It's all fantasy fiction to me.

 

[fifthfiend]

Is it Religious Arguments Day in the Comics forum? I guess it is.

Secondly, the world and our lives just make more sense when explained by the existence of the Creator - not so with pagan "gods." Pagan "gods," being part of nature, have to have their own existence explained along with the rest of the universe. You (the poster I quoted) seem to believe that the universe explains itself somehow - but that's just another type of faith, not science.

Or he's capable of acknowledging that the 'explanation' for the universe simply isn't something that we know? And that in lieu of such knowledge there's no point inventing fantasies of an all-powerful Thing for which we also have no explanation or supporting evidence.

And if there's no Creator, where do we get personality, rationality, and morals from?

Rational discourse and the development of codes of behavior that promote the well-being of our societies?

what scientific evidence do you have that the universe either created itself (which is contradictory) or has always existed? Your comment seems to imply that you put your faith in one of the following:

1. The cosmos appeared on its own, without any cause; or--
2. The cosmos has always existed.

Are either of these ideas supportable with empirical science? Not at all. All science can do is describe what the universe is right now and how it functions; science can't prove that the cosmos was created by God, OR created by itself, OR always existed. So you've just expressed your own nonscientific faith. "Nonscientific" doesn't mean "bad"; it just means that our most deeply rooted beliefs about the world do not come directly from science but from faith.

Science doesn't need to prove any of that, because the whole point is that there's no proof for it, and the idea with science is that you don't go around believing things you don't have any proof for.

 

[DoomJester]

Is it Religious Arguments Day in the Comics forum? I guess it is.

Science doesn't need to prove any of that, because the whole point is that there's no proof for it, and the idea with science is that you don't go around believing things you don't have any proof for.

I never heard that last one before, and I think you just hurt the feelings of a lot of physicists.

 

[highguard]

Your ideas and viewpoints are completely awful and utterly ******ed. We're all dumber for having read that.

I said it, because others don't have the power to. Please, next time you have a new idea about the complete and total annihilation of a literary figure, keep them to yourself.

Geeeeeeeeeez! The guy just threw something out there for discussion, was it too much for you so you had to go personal, geez, I thought it generated some healthy discussion and you come at him like a he chopped your head off.

I say again, Geeeeeeez man.

CHILL OUT DUDE!!!!!

 

[Darthphere]

Geeeeeeeeeez! The guy just threw something out there for discussion, was it too much for you so you had to go personal, geez, I thought it generated some healthy discussion and you come at him like a he chopped your head off.

I say again, Geeeeeeez man.

CHILL OUT DUDE!!!!!

Who the **** are you?

I just love how everyone is like "He just threw it out there for discussion!" ok yeah, lets discuss how ******ed his ideas are. Is that not discussion?

 

[highguard]

Who the **** are you?

I just love how everyone is like "He just threw it out there for discussion!" ok yeah, lets discuss how ******ed his ideas are. Is that not discussion?

Ok Darth, I see you are ready to rumble, ok well you may have a point but I don't see his ideas as ******ed, unfamiliar to this forum but in reality we unconsciously as readers of fantasy and fiction, Thor included are dealing with these ideas all the time and an axamination of the real world implications of these concepts is healthy. We are not mindless blocks of wood that we can't have a healthy and mature discussion of these concepts.

I just took issue with you saying we are the dumber for having read that. We are dumber when we can't listen to opposing concepts.

It just seemed like you went ballistic, If my perception was wrong I apologize, if it was not, my earlier comment stands.

And you can take that however you like.

 

[fifthfiend]

I never heard that last one before, and I think you just hurt the feelings of a lot of physicists.

What the **** kind of physicists are those? There are what now, Creation Physicists running around to go with the Creation Biologists? Intelligent Big-Bangers or some ridiculous ****?

 

[Vartha]

ya know This just reminds me of Ulty Thor's predecessor,

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I remember that. That was a comic that was supposed to have been made within the Marvel universe itself, so they portray Thor as a super-powerful alien who just thinks he's a god, which is what most people in the Marvel universe wrote him off as before the King Thor era.

 

[Vartha]

I remember that. That was a comic that was supposed to have been made within the Marvel universe itself, so they portray Thor as a super-powerful alien who just thinks he's a god, which is what most people in the Marvel universe wrote him off as before the King Thor era.

Um no alien's technicall in the book Corp. Just a group of Technicans running "Thor's" suit, tho I only have the 1st issue, not sure it went past that tho.

THOR was Don Jolson, His DAD Owen and little Brother Lenny. Thor Technology was from one of the Saturn men's space ships Owen stumbled on years ago.

 

[Vartha]

dang can't find more on it.

 

[DoomJester]

What the **** kind of physicists are those? There are what now, Creation Physicists running around to go with the Creation Biologists? Intelligent Big-Bangers or some ridiculous ****?

well, in most every geology, and astronomy class I took in college, they were concerned about the origins of the universe, and they thought it was science. And I'd say I went to a school that was at least pretty good.

 

[fifthfiend]

well, in most every geology, and astronomy class I took in college, they were concerned about the origins of the universe, and they thought it was science. And I'd say I went to a school that was at least pretty good.

Were they "concerned" about it in a way where they ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY THE VERY CORNERSTONE OF THEIR EXISTENCE DEMANDS that they have whatever answer for it is nearest to hand which is held to be the one and only answer from now unto the end of eternity and if it isn't then morals cease to exist?

 

[GNR]

I'm not sure what you're after with this thread, but I'm personally not interested in any reinterpretations of Thor. I like the fact that he's a bona fide god. Yes, there are illogical aspects to that, but there are illogical aspects to everything in comics. I'm content with Thor just the way he is. He's already my favorite character, after all.

True dat!Now delete this thread before the producers get any ideas.

 

[DoomJester]

Corp, you do have the power. Not that I'm against religious discussion, but this probably won't get anywhere. And for the record, I like Thor the way he is. I just don't want Loki having hax all a sudden.

 

[BrianWilly]

It may seem that way on the surface, but are you sure you've thought it through? For starters, the Judeo-Christian God is not the only version of a Creator.

By definition, "pagan" specifically refers to any belief that's not Jewish, Muslim, or Christian; by your own choice of words you singled out the Abrahamic God as the more rational figure here. It's possible you didn't mean to imply that, and I don't mean to put words into your mouth...but considering that we as a western culture identify the concept of a "Supreme Being" almost exclusively with Abrahamic religions, it's virtually impossible that anyone would assume you meant otherwise without specific clarification. You even capitalized "His" honorifics, after all.

Many of the ancients believed in a Creator who is separate from the cosmos. But most of the pagan small-g "gods" are not the same kind of being as the Creator. The small-g "gods" are actually part of the cosmos; they emanate from the substance of the universe or the Earth; they personify various forces of nature (Thor personifies thunder).

That's not the Creator. The Creator is a totally separate being from the universe, and is not contingent on anyone or anything else for His existence. He is self-existent. The pagan "gods," though, are not this kind of being. So, no, the Judeo-Christian God is most definitely not "basically doing the exact same thing" as the pagan "gods." (I dare say, even Thor would admit that!)

True, by definition the concept of a lone omnipotent Creator would be intrinsically superior to pantheonic deities. But that has nothing to do with whether one is more rational or believable or less "stupid," in your words, than the other. Like I said, there is the exact same amount of evidence to support both: absolutely none.

Secondly, the world and our lives just make more sense when explained by the existence of the Creator - not so with pagan "gods." Pagan "gods," being part of nature, have to have their own existence explained along with the rest of the universe. You (the poster I quoted) seem to believe that the universe explains itself somehow - but that's just another type of faith, not science. And if there's no Creator, where do we get personality, rationality, and morals from? Life just doesn't make sense without a Creator.

First of all, all of this is rather contingent on a presupposition on your part that life has to make sense. Which is what it is: a presupposition. I am not myself endorsing or disputing it, I'm merely making it clear: what you're stating here is that life makes sense because there is a Creator, and that there is a Creator because life makes sense. As you can see, that's not an rational case at all, rather a cycle of self-justifications with no original evidence.

Secondly...personality, rationality, and morals can come from a literal thousand other sources than a Creator figure that we never met and never communicated with. Countless philosophies and even religions give rise to what we consider "morals" without ever consulting a lone omnipotence. Buddhism, for instance, lays down as intricate a system of behavior and morality as any other without ever venturing near the notion of a creator figure, or even that of creation myths at all; it argues that the enlightenment of humanity originates from humanity, not divinity. On a less spiritual example, Kantianism preaches an impersonal form of ultimate goodness that originates almost exclusively through reason and logic. There is simply no case to be made that personality, rationality, and morality -- which would basically constitute humanity -- simply must come from any superhuman source at all, much less as specific a one as God.

Thirdly, what scientific evidence do you have that the universe either created itself (which is contradictory) or has always existed? Your comment seems to imply that you put your faith in one of the following:

1. The cosmos appeared on its own, without any cause; or--
2. The cosmos has always existed.

Are either of these ideas supportable with empirical science? Not at all. All science can do is describe what the universe is right now and how it functions; science can't prove that the cosmos was created by God, OR created by itself, OR always existed. So you've just expressed your own nonscientific faith. "Nonscientific" doesn't mean "bad"; it just means that our most deeply rooted beliefs about the world do not come directly from science but from faith.

I'm not quite sure how you managed to presume and interpret so much of my beliefs about the universe, scientific or otherwise, from what little I said. All I actually stated was that it's hypocritical to question the rationality of a polytheism while endorsing the rationality of a monotheism. You may prefer one over the other, but neither are rational. Both are faith-based. And in a fictional setting, neither one has the more precedence.

I really have no opinions one way or another about the origins of the cosmos; it's all one to me. But in any case, because you bring it up: Argument from ignorance. A lack of information on the part of science does not equate to an abundance of support on behalf of faith.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Um no alien's technicall in the book Corp. Just a group of Technicans running "Thor's" suit, tho I only have the 1st issue, not sure it went past that tho.

THOR was Don Jolson, His DAD Owen and little Brother Lenny. Thor Technology was from one of the Saturn men's space ships Owen stumbled on years ago.

Okay, yeah, so I never actually read that issue. Shut up.

Corp, you do have the power. Not that I'm against religious discussion, but this probably won't get anywhere. And for the record, I like Thor the way he is. I just don't want Loki having hax all a sudden.

I'm not against religious discussion either, so long as it's civil. This thread's still pretty civil by our standards, so I don't see any reason to close it. If people start hurling epithets and proclaiming each other heretics, then I'll re-examine my stance.

 

[DoomJester]

Okay, yeah, so I never actually read that issue. Shut up.

Always rapidshare... (I can use that word on hype right?!)

I'm not against religious discussion either, so long as it's civil. This thread's still pretty civil by our standards, so I don't see any reason to close it. If people start hurling epithets and proclaiming each other heretics, then I'll re-examine my stance. [/QUOTE]

True dat! But wait until the fifth paget: I like that Hype like explodes on one thread but the same people still pretty are fine on another. Always thought that was funny to me.

 

[ad101867]

Geeeeeeeeeez! The guy just threw something out there for discussion, was it too much for you so you had to go personal, geez, I thought it generated some healthy discussion and you come at him like a he chopped your head off.

I say again, Geeeeeeez man.

CHILL OUT DUDE!!!!!

Thanks, highguard. Yeah, characters like Thor just take my mind that direction, so I thought I'd discuss it. I didn't expect everyone to agree with me, nor would I insult anyone for disagreeing.

I'm just curious why certain topics seem to set people off.

Cheers,
Andy

 

[ad101867]

Who the **** are you?

I just love how everyone is like "He just threw it out there for discussion!" ok yeah, lets discuss how ******ed his ideas are. Is that not discussion?

Well, actually they're not that ******ed. Some of the world's most intelligent people believe what I believe (though I'm sure they could argue it better). For example, world-renowned philosopher (if you move in those circles) Alvin Plantinga.

Hey, it's your prerogative to disagree - but you're simply mistaken when you think such ideas are "******ed." They're not.

 

[ad101867]

What the **** kind of physicists are those? There are what now, Creation Physicists running around to go with the Creation Biologists? Intelligent Big-Bangers or some ridiculous ****?

Well, there are plenty of physicists who believe Nature is all there is and the universe either started itself or is eternal - yet there's absolutely zero observational evidence for that. It's just a belief. Those kinds of physicists have faith in Nature. Everybody's got faith in something. Why is faith in a Creator irrational or "ridiculous," while another faith is okay?

 

[Darthphere]

Well, actually they're not that ******ed. Some of the world's most intelligent people believe what I believe (though I'm sure they could argue it better). For example, world-renowned philosopher (if you move in those circles) Alvin Plantinga.

Hey, it's your prerogative to disagree - but you're simply mistaken when you think such ideas are "******ed." They're not.

Do you know what an opinion is?

My opinion is, your ideas are ******ed. That can't be wrong, because it's an opinion.

 

[ad101867]

I won't post anymore on this subject, but I'll leave some food for thought and if anyone wants to message me off-list, please feel free to do so.

By definition, "pagan" specifically refers to any belief that's not Jewish, Muslim, or Christian; by your own choice of words you singled out the Abrahamic God as the more rational figure here.

Well, I think of Him that way, sure. I was just pointing out that it's possible to believe in a Supreme Being / Creator without being a Jew, a Christian, or a Muslim. There've been philosophers in history and still today who believe in a Creator but don't subscribe to any of those religions.

. . . there is the exact same amount of evidence to support both ["gods" and "God"]: absolutely none.

We exist, and we observe and experience certain things in our own lives and in the world around us. Something has to explain what we observe and experience. There are only two basic explanations for all that exists: theism (God is the ultimate, and created nature) or naturalism (Nature is the ultimate). Naturalism includes pantheism (nature = "God") and paganism (the "gods" = personifications of natural forces).

The "biggies" that we have to explain are: existence (why is there something rather than nothing?), rationality, conscience, and a sense of personhood. You tell me: How can naturalism explain those things? If you can produce a better answer based on naturalism than has been produced by theism, you'll win me over.

First of all, all of this is rather contingent on a presupposition on your part that life has to make sense. Which is what it is: a presupposition. I am not myself endorsing or disputing it, I'm merely making it clear: what you're stating here is that life makes sense because there is a Creator, and that there is a Creator because life makes sense. As you can see, that's not an rational case at all, rather a cycle of self-justifications with no original evidence.

But all human knowledge is circular, in the end. Naturalists believe nature explains everything, so when they look at the world or at their own lives, they only ever come up with natural explanations. But they haven't actually proved that nature is all there is; they've chosen to believe that, and then they turn around and attempt to explain everything by that. All human knowledge (or what we believe we "know") boils down to a faith-position at the end of the day. We all presuppose certain things about existence, and then we build our "knowledge" on those presuppositions, which themselves can never be proved.

I'll try to bring this home to the person you see in the mirror everyday: you know intuitively that you're a person, not just a machine. You sense that about yourself. You also know intuitively that there's rationality in the universe. And thirdly, you also know intuitively that there is right and wrong; your conscience knows there's such a thing as good vs. evil. And, if you deny those things, you'll just be denying yourself, because your inner self knows those things are real.

Naturalism asks me to believe that those things just came into existence on their own: that nonrational, meaningless, chaotic nature produced rationality, morality, and personhood. Is it really reasonable to believe that scenario? Humans have always observed only persons giving rise to other persons, mind giving rise to other minds, and a persistent sense of morality. So which conclusion - theism or naturalism - is more consistent with universal, regular human observation and experience?

Secondly...personality, rationality, and morals can come from a literal thousand other sources than a Creator figure that we never met and never communicated with.

If there were no Creator who set the rules for right and wrong, then what else would make one thing right and another thing wrong?

I'm not quite sure how you managed to presume and interpret so much of my beliefs about the universe, scientific or otherwise, from what little I said.

Well, I can't know the specifics, of course. I'm just trying to make the point that there are really only 2 fundamental worldviews: theism and naturalism. Every form of religion or philosophy ultimately boils down to one of those two.

All I actually stated was that it's hypocritical to question the rationality of a polytheism while endorsing the rationality of a monotheism.

Not at all. Your statement assumes that there couldn't possibly be any way of evaluating those two belief-systems and discerning if one has more going for it than the other. I've made such an evaluation (not entirely on this board, of course) and have been persuaded that polytheism is unreasonable. You are assuming that one could not possibly show itself to be more reasonable than the other, but how have you shown that they're equivalent?

And what is your own philosophical basis for determining that polytheism and monotheism are equivalent? In order to draw that conclusion you would have to occupy a third position that is philosophically superior to the other two and allows you to evaluate them both objectively and form a conclusion. That would mean that your belief-system tells you more about existence than either polytheism or monotheism. So how have you justified your own belief-system by which you judge polytheism and monotheism?

You may prefer one over the other, but neither are rational. Both are faith-based.

All belief-systems are faith-based, at heart. Yours is no different. How can you show your faith has more going for it than another?

But in any case, because you bring it up: Argument from ignorance. A lack of information on the part of science does not equate to an abundance of support on behalf of faith.

Depends. It's common to dismiss any argument based on silence. However, not all arguments from silence are invalid. An argument from silence is valid if the opposing position leads us to expect information or enlightenment where we only find silence. If a given position leads us to expect to find something, and we end up not finding it, that counts as a strike against that position, because its expectations were proved false.

Hey, take care; nice chatting with you. Maybe we'll electronically "bump into" each other in the future.

Andy

 

[fifthfiend]

Why is faith in a Creator irrational or "ridiculous," while another faith is okay?

Why don't you show me where I said anything like that, and then I'll think about answering that question.

Well, there are plenty of physicists who believe Nature is all there is and the universe either started itself or is eternal - yet there's absolutely zero observational evidence for that.

Name two.

Making sure to distinguish between "religious belief" and "best hypothesis based on the existing evidence."