Do people still worship the Roman, Greek, Celtic, Viking, etc Gods?

[Col. Tartleton]

Well I don't take much stock in those sorts of theories. They very well may be true though. It doesn't actually take anything away from Asatru. All it means is the heathen gods were at least as real as the Christ.

After all, the boundary between god and hero is a slim one. A hero is a great man whose tomb is still kept sacred. The gods were those so ancient that their graves are lost to the ages and so great their names still live on without them. Isn't that what's Asatru is about? Honoring the memory of those ancient dead?

I don't think ritual and ceremony is bad. We perform them for mundane things. We celebrate the holidays we no longer hold sacred. We feast to celebrate events. We celebrate the anniversaries of our kin's birth and bestow them with gifts and wish them longevity. We celebrate marriages between houses and we drink to their health, to their wealth, their happiness, and to their fertility. Hell we like getting drunk for it's own sake.

We don't shave during playoff events to preserve the luck in the locks of hair, we keep four leaved clovers and horseshoes and we're afraid to wash the luck off our garments. We know it's nonsense, but it's still something we do. Just to be sure.

[XIII]

And this precisely the reason why most atheists are turned away from theism: the irrationality of some of it's adherents. Merely reiterating your points (you're wrong!) and shouting down your opponents (YOU'RE WRONG!) doesn't really make for a convincing argument for polytheism. But I suspect that the majority of those would-be readers of this thread will be rather dismissive of polytheism considering your abysmal performance.

In response to my point about Occam's Razor cutting against polytheism? Your solution is to dispute the veracity of Occam's Razor (a well-known and universally accepted philosophical principle). And you do this by two ways:

1. By imputing the character of William of Ockham as though that somehow impugns upon the merits of his razor. I pointed out that it's a genetic fallacy and thus not really a good point (read: irrational). Your response was merely to gainsay your point and continue your attacks on Ockham and ignore the point altogether. Once again, it is a genetic fallacy.

2. To claim that Occam's Razor is fallible (read: not universally applicable) and that there might be possible exceptions to it. The problem with this is that I already touched on this point when I asked whether or not these extra postulation might in fact be necessary and I then asked you to provide possible extrapolations on how this could be so. Here:

Now, might these extra postulation be necessary? You have yet to show how.

There are indeed exceptions to the principle, as Tankbuster pointed out, but the overarching problem is that you never even attempt to show how polytheism is, in fact, just this exception. Your only solution is to maintain that anyone who disagrees with you has no idea what polytheism is which, as an argument, is a non-starter. While it may be the case that we fatally misunderstood what polytheism is, it is nevertheless incumbent upon you to carry your burden of proof and show us how this is, in fact, the case.

The problem is that you never do this.

We have seen attacks on the character of William of Ockham. We have seen attacks Occam's Razor. And we have seen attacks on logic and reason itself. And all of this is simply because you don't want to face the fact that your polytheistic belief might, in fact, be irrational. You will reject anything that will not conform to your world-view and you will never hear out even the possibility that you might be wrong.

In fact, I suspect that in reply to this, you won't actually respond to the points I raise (and that you are, in fact, open to the possibility of error). Rather, there will be attacks on Christianity (or me) rather than an honest bit of soul-searching regarding your beliefs.

[Tankbuster]

It's a well known logical principle, yes. Universally accepted? NO! Completely fault-proof? NO!

A logical principle doesn't need to be fault-proof to be reasonable. If I hear the sound of hooves outside my house, the logical principles that tell me the conclusion that it's a horse is more likely to be true than that it's a unicorn, don't necessarily yield the correct conclusion either. It still might be a unicorn.
But that doesn't mean the conclusion that it's a horse wasn't far more likely to be true. It was still the best conclusion, and anyone who disagreed that it was, would still be a fool.

Depends also of the amount of cheese missing, don't you think? And of the time between last time you last checked your cheese stash, don't you think?

The principle remains true: you'll presuppose as many entities as you need to reliably explain the data, not more.

I think the razor is actually better expressed simply by saying "Pick the explanation that requires the least amount of supposition" or better put, that explains the largest amount of data with the proportionally smallest amount of assumptions.

What I'm trying to state here is that the principle is FLAWED! Specially when applied to a NECESSARILY COMPLICATED MATTER. I've shot two directions, both claiming that Mr. Ockham had a nice idea, but only when tendentiously applied,and that the fundamental simplifying behind the idea is flawed to report a wider comprehension of what we are discussing here - hundreds of different Faiths and Gods, simplistically labeled as 'polytheism'.

So then analyse them all specifically and see how strong they are in explanatory terms.
Surely the fact that there's all these different ways that polytheism has been asserted to be, is your problem, not mine.

You have yourself grasped one of the possible outcomes of a more complete understanding of the Universe. I liked the way you put it, but you need to see that the razor is no longer obvious simply because it's not appliable!

Of course the principle is still applicable: you still need to go for the explanation that requires the least amount of supposition. If you can show how your brand of polytheism requires less supposition than a God, now would be a good time to start providing it.

[Charrua]

Well I don't take much stock in those sorts of theories. They very well may be true though. It doesn't actually take anything away from Asatru. All it means is the heathen gods were at least as real as the Christ.

After all, the boundary between god and hero is a slim one. A hero is a great man whose tomb is still kept sacred. The gods were those so ancient that their graves are lost to the ages and so great their names still live on without them. Isn't that what's Asatru is about? Honoring the memory of those ancient dead?

I don't think ritual and ceremony is bad. We perform them for mundane things. We celebrate the holidays we no longer hold sacred. We feast to celebrate events. We celebrate the anniversaries of our kin's birth and bestow them with gifts and wish them longevity. We celebrate marriages between houses and we drink to their health, to their wealth, their happiness, and to their fertility. Hell we like getting drunk for it's own sake.

We don't shave during playoff events to preserve the luck in the locks of hair, we keep four leaved clovers and horseshoes and we're afraid to wash the luck off our garments. We know it's nonsense, but it's still something we do. Just to be sure.

You just resumed what I feel it means do be a heathen, in my POV. I'd further it no longer...

[Charrua]

And this precisely the reason why most atheists are turned away from theism: the irrationality of some of it's adherents. Merely reiterating your points (you're wrong!) and shouting down your opponents (YOU'RE WRONG!) doesn't really make for a convincing argument for polytheism. But I suspect that the majority of those would-be readers of this thread will be rather dismissive of polytheism considering your abysmal performance.

So, the point is that you're judging my 'performance' as a debater? And not relying to the matter of the discussion? Or I got it wrong?

In response to my point about Occam's Razor cutting against polytheism? Your solution is to dispute the veracity of Occam's Razor (a well-known and universally accepted philosophical principle). And you do this by two ways:

1. By imputing the character of William of Ockham as though that somehow impugns upon the merits of his razor. I pointed out that it's a genetic fallacy and thus not really a good point (read: irrational). Your response was merely to gainsay your point and continue your attacks on Ockham and ignore the point altogether. Once again, it is a genetic fallacy.

It's like the 'parabole' of Captain Kirk in Star Trek: in order to win, you 'change' the rules that supposedly you couldn't change. Then, it becames easy to surpass the adversity. Well, again, you are doing, according to what you claim I'm doing, the exact thing: you haven't at least ONCE tried to rebut my critics in the Occam's razor. You merely disqualify me for doing so. Well, then again, you can't judge my performance playing Occam's advocate. You ought yet to rebut my critical analysis, and only this.

2. To claim that Occam's Razor is fallible (read: not universally applicable) and that there might be possible exceptions to it. The problem with this is that I already touched on this point when I asked whether or not these extra postulation might in fact be necessary and I then asked you to provide possible extrapolations on how this could be so. Here:


There are indeed exceptions to the principle, as Tankbuster pointed out, but the overarching problem is that you never even attempt to show how polytheism is, in fact, just this exception. Your only solution is to maintain that anyone who disagrees with you has no idea what polytheism is which, as an argument, is a non-starter. While it may be the case that we fatally misunderstood what polytheism is, it is nevertheless incumbent upon you to carry your burden of proof and show us how this is, in fact, the case.

Okay.

Like said in other threads, there's the Hero Cult hypothesis, there's the Social Construction principle applied to shamanism, there's the principle of multiple universes hypothesis, there's the principle of Eternal Return, there's the hierophany versus theophany discussion (regarding that the abrahamic use of theophany is rather different then the ones considered to analyse other religions), there's the Coincidentia oppositorum debate, there's the Kathenotheists procedure, and also Henotheism, that can even be the origin of abrahamic faith, as well as the debate between the divinity and deity debate. Well, there are lots of parallel and perpendicular issues that ought to be taken in consideration, for furthering the issue about different manifestations of Gods. And these are the many reasons that, by firstly deeming 'polytheim' as an uniform expression of 'many gods', whereas it is not, and using a single procedure that disproves it only when manipulating the original proposed data, seems rather illogical and irrational.

The problem is that you never do this.

Regarding the OP, I stated my opinion and you yours. If I entered in each of the themes I just scraped, it would require a load of time to debate it. Yet, if it appears in OTHER threads such debates, then I'll gladly join.

We have seen attacks on the character of William of Ockham. We have seen attacks Occam's Razor. And we have seen attacks on logic and reason itself. And all of this is simply because you don't want to face the fact that your polytheistic belief might, in fact, be irrational. You will reject anything that will not conform to your world-view and you will never hear out even the possibility that you might be wrong.

I can live without your pretense moral sermon. It's debate, and also, writing in posts is never the optimal way to work out a full debate. And again, if you swap between demanding Occams accomplishment to a fallacious assumption, I won't cope with it and, if you may, we can close by here this fruitless debate. Opinions both backed and generally not yet universally accepted will almost always bring such things to occur.

In fact, I suspect that in reply to this, you won't actually respond to the points I raise (and that you are, in fact, open to the possibility of error). Rather, there will be attacks on Christianity (or me) rather than an honest bit of soul-searching regarding your beliefs.

Col. Tartleton, in the thread "Do people still worship the Roman, Greek, Celtic, Viking, etc Gods?" made a wonderful statement, that I'd have nothing to add or correct. Based on that, my faith, contrary to your belief (in my reason or emotion to have so) is derived from a profound soul-search. Be quite sure of that.

A logical principle doesn't need to be fault-proof to be reasonable. If I hear the sound of hooves outside my house, the logical principles that tell me the conclusion that it's a horse is more likely to be true than that it's a unicorn, don't necessarily yield the correct conclusion either. It still might be a unicorn.
But that doesn't mean the conclusion that it's a horse wasn't far more likely to be true. It was still the best conclusion, and anyone who disagreed that it was, would still be a fool.

I don't need to futher explain the issue - it could be a mare, a donkey, or even a similar noise, since for example, you're in an apartment and hear such. I'm continuously saying that I don't agree, as many other people (author, professors, philosphers or just ordinary people like me) don't.

The principle remains true: you'll presuppose as many entities as you need to reliably explain the data, not more.

And the need to explain the data varies. Greatly.

I think the razor is actually better expressed simply by saying "Pick the explanation that requires the least amount of supposition" or better put, that explains the largest amount of data with the proportionally smallest amount of assumptions.

I think it's better applied to some scientific assumptions, regarding chemistry and physics. Yet, there's also people that don't agree with this.

So then analyse them all specifically and see how strong they are in explanatory terms.
Surely the fact that there's all these different ways that polytheism has been asserted to be, is your problem, not mine.

Of course the principle is still applicable: you still need to go for the explanation that requires the least amount of supposition. If you can show how your brand of polytheism requires less supposition than a God, now would be a good time to start providing it.

Yes, it seems it's XIII that's demanding it. It's already provided some quite complicated themes for exposition.

[Helm]

It seems to me that there used to be all these gods, idols and things people worshipped but then the Lord Jesus came along and slew them all with his righteousness paving the way for our salvation and eternal life. Or have I missed something?

[DimeBagHo]

Neo-paganism threads merged.

[Mortality]

It seems to me that there used to be all these gods, idols and things people worshipped but then the Lord Jesus came along and slew them all with his righteousness paving the way for our salvation and eternal life. Or have I missed something?

But Lord Jesus has been edited by the Catholic Church for thousands of years. So..for all we know, Lord Jesus was an alien.

[Helm]

Lord Jesus was an alien.

Well he wasn't entirely of this world.

[basics]

" So..for all we know, Lord Jesus was an alien. "

The Rifleman,

All God's reborn people are alien just as Jesus Christ was/is to this fallen world. It is written that God calls out a people, but out from what? The ways of the world is the answer, why? Because the world is fallen in sin and therefore hates God and those that are His and since God hates sin it follows that whatever He and His are they are alien to the world and all on it.

[Mortality]

" So..for all we know, Lord Jesus was an alien. "

The Rifleman,

All God's reborn people are alien just as Jesus Christ was/is to this fallen world. It is written that God calls out a people, but out from what? The ways of the world is the answer, why? Because the world is fallen in sin and therefore hates God and those that are His and since God hates sin it follows that whatever He and His are they are alien to the world and all on it.

Sir, you are telling this to a Buddhist.

You do understand that more sins (I hate that word...so wrong) have been committed in the name of God than anything else.

[panzer 4]

yep, unfortunately most crimes are commited by greed, but are covered up by using religion

[basics]

" You do understand that more sins (I hate that word...so wrong) have been committed in the name of God than anything else. "

The Rifleman,

I have just finished in the thread about Islam these very factors. Your not the only one who is in denial about sin but it is something that you should seriously consider because it is your future that is at stake.

[Helm]

Scientology is the best religion if you're into aliens, its expensive though.

[Getwulf]

It seems to me that there used to be all these gods, idols and things people worshipped but then the Lord Jesus came along and slew them all with his righteousness paving the way for our salvation and eternal life. Or have I missed something?

Wow...!

What a comment to make about somebody who (allegedly) died on the cross in order to redeem the world from sin and suffering...!

Apparently now he is some slayer full of righteousness...!??? Huh...? What...?

[Helm]

Apparently now he is some slayer full of righteousness...!??? Huh...? What...?

In death he became glorified and badass and so killed off all the false gods with righteous zeal therefore paving the the way for humanity to atain true salavation of the Lord. At least if were talking metaphorically.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Col. Tartleton]

Jesus killed himself via Victim-Precipitated Homicide and went to hell. True story. Then he broke out because hell couldn't hold him and led a prison break of Biblical heroes. Which makes so much sense if you're the lawful God of the universe and you need to use cheat codes because your rules are so absolute as to need to be broken in order to be in line with each other.

[Coal143]

" You do understand that more sins (I hate that word...so wrong) have been committed in the name of God than anything else. "

The Rifleman,

I have just finished in the thread about Islam these very factors. Your not the only one who is in denial about sin but it is something that you should seriously consider because it is your future that is at stake.

You didn't even reply to his post, you just posted a threat about his future. Is this how you try to convert people? I can see the appeal
Anyways, we all know it's a sin to kill in the name of allah. But killing in the name of god is righteous and just.

Scientology is the best religion if you're into aliens, its expensive though.

All the good things in life are, even the (cool) religions

[Mortality]

" You do understand that more sins (I hate that word...so wrong) have been committed in the name of God than anything else. "

The Rifleman,

I have just finished in the thread about Islam these very factors. Your not the only one who is in denial about sin but it is something that you should seriously consider because it is your future that is at stake.

What?

Plus you didn't answer what I posted.

[AqD]

Simply put above. I do not want "Huurrrr ur goin to hellz" or "God hates uuuu" because that is not constructive and it has nothing to do with what I am asking. Also, where would they worship?


Reasoning: I've been reading about many religions right now. Mainly Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Roman, Greek, and Egyptian.

The chinese gods are still worshiped and they're quite similar to the roman/greek gods in some way.

PS: the Buddhism in china/taiwan has nothing like the real Buddhism that it was. Buddha(s) here are treated just like gods.