265 réponses à ce sujet

[StElmo]

MakeMineMako wrote...

StElmo wrote...

MakeMineMako wrote...

StElmo wrote...

hand-o_death547 wrote...

I am a christian and I didn't really think anything of it when he said that. To him it would be mythology just like to me the Greek gods are mythology.

They are all mythology, there is no reason to believe in any of them.

In your opinion.

Opinion? nope. Fact. Although admittedly, I should refphrase, No "factual" reason was my inference.

Of course there is reasons to be religious, otherwise no one would be.

Those reasons are not based on any facts of the religion's existence.

When it comes to matters on a person's faith and it's validity, it is a matter of opinion. Not fact.

When you call a person's faith "mythology", inferring that they are just stories/fairy tales, you are expressing your personal opinion on the subject.

no, I am expressing the fact that they are mythology. No proof of them being "true" other then stories shows they are mythology. That's a fact.

Wether people choose to believe them is a matter of opinion, but the fact is they are mythology no different from Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Pagan, Tribal, Indian, etc.

It's all stories. No proof of this has shown otherwise.

Fact.

[StElmo]

frylock23 wrote...

StElmo wrote...

MakeMineMako wrote...

StElmo wrote...

hand-o_death547 wrote...

I am a christian and I didn't really think anything of it when he said that. To him it would be mythology just like to me the Greek gods are mythology.

They are all mythology, there is no reason to believe in any of them.

In your opinion.

Opinion? nope. Fact. Although admittedly, I should refphrase, No "factual" reason was my inference.

Of course there is reasons to be religious, otherwise no one would be.

Those reasons are not based on any facts of the religion's existence.

I have faith there is something. You have faith there is nothing. Neither of us has anymore proof of the validity of our belief than the other. That's why it's called faith. Face it. You have it just as much as I do.

You also don't have proof that the invisble flying spaghetti monster is false. You can't prove he doesn't exist, therefore it's valid for someone to stake their morals, their livelyhood and their time and effort into this?

You will never have proof of nothing, because nothing is nothing, you only need proof to proove something. It doesn't work both ways.

[StrelokCH]

frylock23 wrote...

I have faith there is something. You have faith there is nothing. Neither of us has anymore proof of the validity of our belief than the other. That's why it's called faith. Face it. You have it just as much as I do.

That's not really correct, and I am a believer. As long as there is no scientific proof, the people who don't belief in it don't have the "faith of not-believing".

[StElmo]

StrelokCH wrote...

frylock23 wrote...

I have faith there is something. You have faith there is nothing. Neither of us has anymore proof of the validity of our belief than the other. That's why it's called faith. Face it. You have it just as much as I do.

That's not really correct, and I am a believer. As long as there is no scientific proof, the people who don't belief in it don't have the "faith of not-believing".

This.

Faith is belief without evidence.

Not a virtue, though. Sadly I have to disagree with the above on that point.

[frylock23]

StrelokCH wrote...

frylock23 wrote...

I have faith there is something. You have faith there is nothing. Neither of us has anymore proof of the validity of our belief than the other. That's why it's called faith. Face it. You have it just as much as I do.

That's not really correct, and I am a believer. As long as there is no scientific proof, the people who don't belief in it don't have the "faith of not-believing".

They believe there is nothing, but since there isn't any proof that there is nothing (i.e. no God), it's still a position they have to have a certain amount of faith in the same way that they have to have a certain amount of faith in the ability of man and science to eventually be able to absolutely be able to answer every question in the universe.

Just to be clear, I am not using the word "faith" in the same way I would if I were referring to a religious denomination. I just mean faith as in strong, quasi-religious belief because IME many atheists carry their absolute faith in science to the level of the religious. 

[General User]

Ariq wrote...

Qutayba wrote...

Well, calling it a mythology doesn't necessarily deny any truth claims. Myth encapsulates ideas and values in the form of a narrative. You could believe that the Adam and Eve story is true, and you could still call it mythology. It doesn't have to have a negative connotation.

This deserves applause and repetition.

I agree.  Very well put.

[MakeMineMako]

StElmo wrote...

MakeMineMako wrote...

StElmo wrote...

MakeMineMako wrote...

StElmo wrote...

hand-o_death547 wrote...

I am a christian and I didn't really think anything of it when he said that. To him it would be mythology just like to me the Greek gods are mythology.

They are all mythology, there is no reason to believe in any of them.

In your opinion.

Opinion? nope. Fact. Although admittedly, I should refphrase, No "factual" reason was my inference.

Of course there is reasons to be religious, otherwise no one would be.

Those reasons are not based on any facts of the religion's existence.

When it comes to matters on a person's faith and it's validity, it is a matter of opinion. Not fact.

When you call a person's faith "mythology", inferring that they are just stories/fairy tales, you are expressing your personal opinion on the subject.

no, I am expressing the fact that they are mythology. No proof of them being "true" other then stories shows they are mythology. That's a fact.

Wether people choose to believe them is a matter of opinion, but the fact is they are mythology no different from Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Pagan, Tribal, Indian, etc.

It's all stories. No proof of this has shown otherwise.

Fact.

There is no proof for or against.

In other words, they cannot be proven or disproven. That is the real and ONLY fact.

Your argument is flawed.

Modifié par MakeMineMako, 02 mai 2012 - 01:11 .

[StrelokCH]

frylock23 wrote...

They believe there is nothing, but since there isn't any proof that there is nothing (i.e. no God), it's still a position they have to have a certain amount of faith in the same way that they have to have a certain amount of faith in the ability of man and science to eventually be able to absolutely be able to answer every question in the universe.

Just to be clear, I am not using the word "faith" in the same way I would if I were referring to a religious denomination. I just mean faith as in strong, quasi-religious belief because IME many atheists carry their absolute faith in science to the level of the religious. 

Still sounds fishy to me. I don't believe in aliens and I don't think that's "faith", lack of proof doesn't need faith to not believe in something, it just needs faith to do so.

The thing about science beeing treated almost as a religion sometimes is true, but I can see where this is coming, given the fact that most of those people live in countries with various very strange religious groups.

[StElmo]

frylock23 wrote...

StrelokCH wrote...

frylock23 wrote...

I have faith there is something. You have faith there is nothing. Neither of us has anymore proof of the validity of our belief than the other. That's why it's called faith. Face it. You have it just as much as I do.

That's not really correct, and I am a believer. As long as there is no scientific proof, the people who don't belief in it don't have the "faith of not-believing".

They believe there is nothing, but since there isn't any proof that there is nothing (i.e. no God), it's still a position they have to have a certain amount of faith in the same way that they have to have a certain amount of faith in the ability of man and science to eventually be able to absolutely be able to answer every question in the universe.

Just to be clear, I am not using the word "faith" in the same way I would if I were referring to a religious denomination. I just mean faith as in strong, quasi-religious belief because IME many atheists carry their absolute faith in science to the level of the religious. 

I don't believe in nothing, I simply do not believe there is anything based on the evidence. I do not have a firm believe in anything. Please do your research on non-believers before making such gross assumptions.

[StElmo]

MakeMineMako wrote...

StElmo wrote...

MakeMineMako wrote...

StElmo wrote...

MakeMineMako wrote...

StElmo wrote...

hand-o_death547 wrote...

I am a christian and I didn't really think anything of it when he said that. To him it would be mythology just like to me the Greek gods are mythology.

They are all mythology, there is no reason to believe in any of them.

In your opinion.

Opinion? nope. Fact. Although admittedly, I should refphrase, No "factual" reason was my inference.

Of course there is reasons to be religious, otherwise no one would be.

Those reasons are not based on any facts of the religion's existence.

When it comes to matters on a person's faith and it's validity, it is a matter of opinion. Not fact.

When you call a person's faith "mythology", inferring that they are just stories/fairy tales, you are expressing your personal opinion on the subject.

no, I am expressing the fact that they are mythology. No proof of them being "true" other then stories shows they are mythology. That's a fact.

Wether people choose to believe them is a matter of opinion, but the fact is they are mythology no different from Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Pagan, Tribal, Indian, etc.

It's all stories. No proof of this has shown otherwise.

Fact.

There is no proof for or against.

In other words, they cannot be proven or disproven. That is the real and ONLY fact.

Your argument is flawed.

You can only ever have proof FOR something, you cannot have proof FOR nothing. It is illogical.

Prove to me that invisible unicorns don't fly our skies? Go on, proove it? You can't, there is no evidence for the unicorns so it is reasonable not to believe in them, just like any religious mythology.

I only believe in things with evidence, before that I am unsure, and thereofre have no opinion. Non belief is not a belief.

Simple logic.

[StElmo]

frylock23 wrote...


They believe there is nothing, but since there isn't any proof that there is nothing (i.e. no God), it's still a position they have to have a certain amount of faith in the same way that they have to have a certain amount of faith in the ability of man and science to eventually be able to absolutely be able to answer every question in the universe.

Just to be clear, I am not using the word "faith" in the same way I would if I were referring to a religious denomination. I just mean faith as in strong, quasi-religious belief because IME many atheists carry their absolute faith in science to the level of the religious. 

Science will never be able to answer everything, we will most likely die out before that happens. That does not mean I should need to have faith something does not exist. I do not make any absolute claims, I simply have no evidence that it does exist, therefore no reason to believe in it.

You can never be 100% sure, but the fact is, these thigns are myths, because they are not proven. You could prove a myth (like on mythbusters) and therefore it is no longer a myth, it's a fact.

Given there is no evidence for any belief over another, religion is a myth, as there is no evidence.

That's a fact, based on the definition.

Modifié par StElmo, 02 mai 2012 - 01:24 .

[aternak]

frylock23 wrote...

They believe there is nothing, but since there isn't any proof that there is nothing (i.e. no God), it's still a position they have to have a certain amount of faith in the same way that they have to have a certain amount of faith in the ability of man and science to eventually be able to absolutely be able to answer every question in the universe.

Just to be clear, I am not using the word "faith" in the same way I would if I were referring to a religious denomination. I just mean faith as in strong, quasi-religious belief because IME many atheists carry their absolute faith in science to the level of the religious. 

You are confusing "not believing" with "believing not", as so many are.

Modifié par aternak, 02 mai 2012 - 01:25 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Catroi wrote...

It's said in the ME1 codex that abrahamic religions collapsed after the discovery of other species, because they were unable to explain their existence

Yeah yeah, BW likes to push their little diatribes on us. Nothing to see here.

[MakeMineMako]

StElmo wrote...

frylock23 wrote...

StrelokCH wrote...

frylock23 wrote...

I have faith there is something. You have faith there is nothing. Neither of us has anymore proof of the validity of our belief than the other. That's why it's called faith. Face it. You have it just as much as I do.

That's not really correct, and I am a believer. As long as there is no scientific proof, the people who don't belief in it don't have the "faith of not-believing".

They believe there is nothing, but since there isn't any proof that there is nothing (i.e. no God), it's still a position they have to have a certain amount of faith in the same way that they have to have a certain amount of faith in the ability of man and science to eventually be able to absolutely be able to answer every question in the universe.

Just to be clear, I am not using the word "faith" in the same way I would if I were referring to a religious denomination. I just mean faith as in strong, quasi-religious belief because IME many atheists carry their absolute faith in science to the level of the religious. 

I don't believe in nothing, I simply do not believe there is anything based on the evidence. I do not have a firm believe in anything. Please do your research on non-believers before making such gross assumptions.

Actually, that poster makes a valid point. Science has become a de-facto religion, with it's own dogmas, "holy men", and acolytes. And this is an observation from someone who isn't even religious (me).

You say you do not have a firm belief in anything, YET you firmly believe that religion is nothing more than a falsehood. And it IS A BELIEF on your part, since there is NO HARD EVIDENCE that there is a higher power, or that there is no higher power.

The Agnostics are actually closer to the mark, if one wants to get technical. They simply admit that they don't know.

[Kileyan]

What is the point of this thread? It appears people like to complain about the easily offended whacky Christians, maybe had all their jabs at religion ready to fire. The issue wasn't pounced on by the whacky Christians, so a thread was created to bash them anyway for something that...........ya know, something they should have already posted about!

[cutegigi]

One bad word choice from Mordin is very easy to forgive. (for the record, I dont see any problem with any of this).
Broken journal, lazy tali reveal, import bug, artistic ending, and other things are much bigger problem for me.

[hoodaticus]

Catroi wrote...

It's said in the ME1 codex that abrahamic religions collapsed after the discovery of other species, because they were unable to explain their existence

Which is kinda dumb actually.  Aliens clearly fall into the "animal" category and as such are to be subdued, dominated, and mastered.  Humans have a duty to spread out like a gas and fill our container in Genesis.  This spells universal human empire for the glory of Abraham's God.

Cerberus might have been the right-wing Christian fundamentalists of the future, had they not been such bloodthristy killers of their own kind.

Modifié par hoodaticus, 02 mai 2012 - 01:32 .

[StrelokCH]

hoodaticus wrote...

Which is kinda dumb actually.  Aliens clearly fall into the "animal" category and as such are to be subdued, dominated, and mastered.  Humans have a duty to spread out like a gas and fill our container in Genesis.  This spells universal human empire for the glory of Abraham's God.

Cerberus might have been the right-wing Christian fundamentalists of the future, had they not been such bloodthristy killers of their own kind.

Cerberus is more a "nationalist" movement than anything else, religious extremist groups would have other characteristics.

[Salfin]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

You do know many Christians regard Adam and Eve and other the stories of the Old Testament as mythology don't you?

But why not Lucy? Dr. Leakey referred to what he thought was the first hominid female as "Lucy." Why Eve? or would Lucy have gone over everyone's head?

I think most people learn about Lucy in gradeschool, shouldn't have gone over peoples heads.

Though it's not from mythology, its an archeological find.

[StElmo]

MakeMineMako wrote...

StElmo wrote...

frylock23 wrote...

StrelokCH wrote...

frylock23 wrote...

I have faith there is something. You have faith there is nothing. Neither of us has anymore proof of the validity of our belief than the other. That's why it's called faith. Face it. You have it just as much as I do.

That's not really correct, and I am a believer. As long as there is no scientific proof, the people who don't belief in it don't have the "faith of not-believing".

They believe there is nothing, but since there isn't any proof that there is nothing (i.e. no God), it's still a position they have to have a certain amount of faith in the same way that they have to have a certain amount of faith in the ability of man and science to eventually be able to absolutely be able to answer every question in the universe.

Just to be clear, I am not using the word "faith" in the same way I would if I were referring to a religious denomination. I just mean faith as in strong, quasi-religious belief because IME many atheists carry their absolute faith in science to the level of the religious. 

I don't believe in nothing, I simply do not believe there is anything based on the evidence. I do not have a firm believe in anything. Please do your research on non-believers before making such gross assumptions.

Actually, that poster makes a valid point. Science has become a de-facto religion, with it's own dogmas, "holy men", and acolytes. And this is an observation from someone who isn't even religious (me).

You say you do not have a firm belief in anything, YET you firmly believe that religion is nothing more than a falsehood. And it IS A BELIEF on your part, since there is NO HARD EVIDENCE that there is a higher power, or that there is no higher power.

The Agnostics are actually closer to the mark, if one wants to get technical. They simply admit that they don't know.

Sorry, at what point do I put another human being "above" myself or place him as "more holy"? No man is worth more ore less then I, though some may be more or less intelligent.

I don't firmly believe religion does not exist. I simply do not believe it, as there is no evidence. I am happy to look at evidence that suggests otherwise but I have yet to see any.

[Ariq]

KingNothing125 wrote...

Anyone who treats the story of any religion as anything more than mythology, as if it was literal truth, should submit to psychiatric evaluation.

Hey, if 20th Century totalitarianism taught us nothing else, at least we can embrace their abuse of psychiatry to suppress dissenting viewpoints.

[MakeMineMako]

StElmo wrote...

MakeMineMako wrote...

StElmo wrote...

MakeMineMako wrote...

StElmo wrote...

MakeMineMako wrote...

StElmo wrote...

hand-o_death547 wrote...

I am a christian and I didn't really think anything of it when he said that. To him it would be mythology just like to me the Greek gods are mythology.

They are all mythology, there is no reason to believe in any of them.

In your opinion.

Opinion? nope. Fact. Although admittedly, I should refphrase, No "factual" reason was my inference.

Of course there is reasons to be religious, otherwise no one would be.

Those reasons are not based on any facts of the religion's existence.

When it comes to matters on a person's faith and it's validity, it is a matter of opinion. Not fact.

When you call a person's faith "mythology", inferring that they are just stories/fairy tales, you are expressing your personal opinion on the subject.

no, I am expressing the fact that they are mythology. No proof of them being "true" other then stories shows they are mythology. That's a fact.

Wether people choose to believe them is a matter of opinion, but the fact is they are mythology no different from Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Pagan, Tribal, Indian, etc.

It's all stories. No proof of this has shown otherwise.

Fact.

There is no proof for or against.

In other words, they cannot be proven or disproven. That is the real and ONLY fact.

Your argument is flawed.

You can only ever have proof FOR something, you cannot have proof FOR nothing. It is illogical.

Prove to me that invisible unicorns don't fly our skies? Go on, proove it? You can't, there is no evidence for the unicorns so it is reasonable not to believe in them, just like any religious mythology.

I only believe in things with evidence, before that I am unsure, and thereofre have no opinion. Non belief is not a belief.

Simple logic.

You can have hard proof that something does not exist for sure. On the other hand, to dismiss the possibility out of hand without the evidence to do so, is nothing more than sheer incredulity.

I cannot prrove that unicorns are flying in our skies. At the same time, I cannot logically dismiss the possibility that they exist. I cannot prove that they do not exist with any hard facts.

You cannot prove that gods and goddesses do not exist. Therefore, your logic is flawed. Just because you have never seen one, or scientist have not proven existence or non-existence through the five steps of the scientific method, does not mean that it can be so casually dismissed out of hand.

WE DO NOT KNOW. That's why these things have to be taken on faith, and faith alone, at this point in our understanding. To claim otherwise is hubris of the highest order.

[aeonlifestream]

Stop arguing about religion and whose holy book / mythology / fairy tale is better, honestly.

I believe Mordin picked the name Eve as it is something most people are familiar with (Adam and Eve), even if they don't care about religion. The first Krogan female you see, the 'apparent first woman', etc.

[Kajan451]

MakeMineMako wrote...

When it comes to matters on a person's faith and it's validity, it is a matter of opinion. Not fact.

When you call a person's faith "mythology", inferring that they are just stories/fairy tales, you are expressing your personal opinion on the subject.

No, actually your not expressing your personal opinion, you are using the right termiology. Every Religion has their own theories and most of our countries do carry the freedom of faith as their core values. As such its not only right but also just to apply the same "lable" to a religion whatever your personal opinion on the subject would be.

The Bible is containing the Jewish (and by extention of it the Islamic and Christian) Mythology. Labeling said Mythology as anything other than Mythology is personal opinion and personal believe. From a Hindu point of view those stories are mythology just like from a Jewish or Christian point of view the stories of the Hindu Religion is regarded as Mythology by them.

Calling it Mythology is the proper use of the word and lable for what those stories are. Its not personal opinion to call them that, its personal opinion NOT to call them that.