Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic

[Cecelia]

I stated in the opening post: Odin said he would rid the world of Frost Giants. There are no frost giants, ergo Odin must exist. The lack of Frost Giants is as much if not more proof than I've ever gotten from the Christian crowd. The best I get is some passages from an ancient book filled with more plotholes than Twilight, or some philosophical ramblings.

[Huggy Bear]

How about a photograph thoroughly vetted scientifically, along with eye witness testimony, and audio recordings of the same event?

That would be 3 pieces of corroborative evidence.

Can anyone provide the same for Odin? If not then it isn't exactly "potato, potaho" is it?

So you have a scientifically vetted photo of god? hahahahahahaha

Laugh it up, it's not like I haven't already posted it but then you wouldn't know this since you're a straight up newb.

---

I stated in the opening post: Odin said he would rid the world of Frost Giants. There are no frost giants, ergo Odin must exist. The lack of Frost Giants is as much if not more proof than I've ever gotten from the Christian crowd. The best I get is some passages from an ancient book filled with more plotholes than Twilight, or some philosophical ramblings.

*Emphasis mine*
Where did Odin state this? Where can I read Odins word?

[haig]

So you have a scientifically vetted photo of god? hahahahahahaha

Laugh it up, it's not like I haven't already posted it but then you wouldn't know this since you're a straight up newb.

---

So your serious? You should send it to NBC to publish it on the 6 o'clock News. Hilarious. Now I know not to believe a thing you say

[Nay_Sayer]

So you have a scientifically vetted photo of god? hahahahahahaha

Laugh it up, it's not like I haven't already posted it but then you wouldn't know this since you're a straight up newb.

---

I stated in the opening post: Odin said he would rid the world of Frost Giants.  There are no frost giants, ergo Odin must exist.   The lack of Frost Giants is as much if not more proof than I've ever gotten from the Christian crowd.  The best I get is some passages from an ancient book filled with more plotholes than Twilight, or some philosophical ramblings.

*Emphasis mine*
Where did Odin state this? Where can I read Odins word?

You could try googling. 

However, Odin was merely a blessed prophet of FSM, Of which you have made very sad.

[LadyForCamus]

I was told that just the other day by a talking donkey and he took offence when I didn't believe that he existed. I tried to argue with him that he was a product of my brain and a shit load of drugs that I had just taken but he tried to convince me that seeing him was itself evidence.

I have to say though, it was more tangible than a temporal lobe seizure and a personal relationship with an invisible presence you cannot hear or touch.

That's your example! It is not metaphysically possible for God to use a donkey to send a message to its obstinate owner? Perhaps the donkey spoke or perhaps Balaam just heard the wise-ass speak. Neither is metaphysically impossible. 

So does Shrek and its sequels. Which incidentally also contains a talking donkey.

You probably don't even know the story--saw it on an internet atheist list of sophomoric objections to Christianity. You're way out of your depth discussing these issues-

Bold mine...

Says the guy who believes in talking donkeys!  Oh, I’m sorry; almighty god communicating to a person through a donkey.  Because, ya know, that’s far less idiotic.

Do you realize how your two comments juxtaposed here looks?

---

Omg, Huggy. You’re going for The Picture?! Don’t do it, man. You’re going to get chewed up and spit out.

[GrandizerII]

What picture? There's a picture of the Sky Daddy himself out there?

[Fireball]

This thread.  So many not getting it.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Before you go on about Gen 1-3, there are way way way more people that ever lived that believe Gen 1-3 was allegorical in nature than believed it to be literal.

That's irrelevant.  What matters is whether the author of Genesis intended it to be taken literally.  It's consistent with both the time period and the genre that he did.  Against that are incredibly weak textual arguments that it was intended as allegory.  The fact that some body of people treat it as allegory is more an artifact of people realizing that holding to a literal interpretation of Genesis puts them in the position of defending things like the flood, which they realize they can't reasonably defend.  It's a tactical retreat, unrelated to the facts of history which are that originally, it was accepted as literal.  You're always going on about how the authors of the gospels "would have known eye witnesses," implying that their proximity to the events is a testament to their historical validity, yet when it comes to Genesis, you implicitly argue against that standard; you seem to have a double standard here.

And you're basing this on what exactly? A contemporaneous document instructing readers to take it literally? Your entire post is pure conjecture and the product of your own hubris. You're assuming that people in ancient cultures were just shallow rubes, incapable critical thinking, when in fact it is obvious to any art historian that ancient cultures were clearly more sophisticated and adept at communicating meaning symbolically than we so called enlightened moderns...especially you.

[Angrboda]

That's irrelevant.  What matters is whether the author of Genesis intended it to be taken literally.  It's consistent with both the time period and the genre that he did.  Against that are incredibly weak textual arguments that it was intended as allegory.  The fact that some body of people treat it as allegory is more an artifact of people realizing that holding to a literal interpretation of Genesis puts them in the position of defending things like the flood, which they realize they can't reasonably defend.  It's a tactical retreat, unrelated to the facts of history which are that originally, it was accepted as literal.  You're always going on about how the authors of the gospels "would have known eye witnesses," implying that their proximity to the events is a testament to their historical validity, yet when it comes to Genesis, you implicitly argue against that standard; you seem to have a double standard here.

And you're basing this on what exactly? A contemporaneous document instructing readers to take it literally? Your entire post is pure conjecture and the product of your own hubris. You're assuming that people in ancient cultures were just shallow rubes, incapable critical thinking, when in fact it is obvious to any art historian that ancient cultures were clearly more sophisticated and adept at communicating meaning symbolically than we so called enlightened moderns...especially you.

11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
Exodus 20:11, NASB

The bible itself testifies to a literal interpretation of Genesis, and the early church fathers testify to a literal belief in the flood (HERE).  That you want to make a strategic retreat from literalism because your bible doesn't square with the facts means absolutely squat.  Your attempt to retcon the bible to satisfy the demands of reality is simply your attempt to evade the truth, which is that your religion is a bunch of bullshit.

Then He said, “Hear now My words: if there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream. Not so with My servant Moses; he is faithful in all My house. I speak with him face to face, even plainly, and not in dark sayings; And he sees the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against My servant Moses?”
Numbers 12:6–8, ESV [emphasis mine]

[Astreja]

So how is your evidence different from the Norse evidence?  There are some old stories but no directly-observable deity.  Potato, potahto.

How about a photograph thoroughly vetted scientifically, along with eye witness testimony, and audio recordings of the same event?

That would be 3 pieces of corroborative evidence.

Can anyone provide the same for Odin? If not then it isn't exactly "potato, potaho" is it?

Can we interrogate the eye witnesses directly?

Do you have a photograph of your god (and preferably a negative, to ensure it hasn't been retouched)?

And what audio recordings are these?  I'm reasonably sure there were no analog or digital audio recorders in Biblical times.

I don't give a rat's ass about the testimony, photos or audio recordings of believers.  That's at least third-hand evidence due to the passage of time, and in any event people believe a lot of weird things for not particularly good reasons..