DoomJester
A side-kick no longer.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 879
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 11
Uh oh... I can see the post count on this thing going way up... hype and religious discussions just don't get along well.
I'm an atheist and I love both Thor and the Loaded Bible series. It's all fantasy fiction to me.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?
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?
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:
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.
- The cosmos appeared on its own, without any cause; or--
- The cosmos has always existed.
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.
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!!!!!
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?![]()
I never heard that last one before, and I think you just hurt the feelings of a lot of physicists.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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!)
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, 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.
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.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:
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.
- The cosmos appeared on its own, without any cause; or--
- The cosmos has always existed.
Okay, yeah, so I never actually read that issue. Shut up.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.
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.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.
Okay, yeah, so I never actually read that issue. Shut up.![]()
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?![]()
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, 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.
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.
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).. . . there is the exact same amount of evidence to support both ["gods" and "God"]: absolutely none.
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.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.
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?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.
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.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.
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?All I actually stated was that it's hypocritical to question the rationality of a polytheism while endorsing the rationality of a monotheism.
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?You may prefer one over the other, but neither are rational. Both are faith-based.
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.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.
Why is faith in a Creator irrational or "ridiculous," while another faith is okay?
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.