Creationism

[Liu Bei mixed with Leondias]

Greek Paganism is not what I believe. Pagan is term introduced to keep this followers of this religion as peasents and outcasts. The term I use Hellenism. I believe this because the creation story makes more sense to me then any other faith. So God was just always there.....No way..... There is no god(why is ), There are a god and a goddess(hmm... and they are good so why is there evil[Wiccanism]). The Universe(including the earth and stars) arose from Chaos. That show a scientific fact of emergance. That makes sense. There are many gods with conflicting intrests. That is easily possible. Not proveable though.

[theVOID]

In other words the answer to why is "incredulity".

[Liu Bei mixed with Leondias]

No more of a thing where I believe it did happen and it could've of happened. It also makes more sense. Why would a loving god send his people to hell? Why can't he defeat the devil?

---

Also I believe in the teachings of my religions. Being judged based on your actions? Rather then what you believe? Shocking.

---

Also the fact of that u judged on your actions not what faith you believe.

[theVOID]

It makes more sense if there is no God.

[Liu Bei mixed with Leondias]

Not really. Every culture has had a religion even geographicly isolated areas. Just because there is no evidence doesn't mean should reject all of it. We should make our choices carefully in what make sense to us and noticing what is possible. If its not possible it should be rejected.

[theVOID]

Firstly, that is an argument from antiquity and an argument from popularity, both of which are fallacious.

Secondly, You say that the absence of evidence isn't ground to reject it, but that is very different from what you have done in not only accepting the presence of God(s) but specifying exactly which Gods you believe exist.

Thirdly, There are many things that are not impossible that also do not exist. We should not believe propositions simply because they haven't been disproved, which is what you are arguing, instead we should believe in a proposition based on the arguments for it's existence.

Fourthly, What makes sense to us is no way necessarily true. To assume that because it makes sense to us it must be real is to be arrogant about one's cognitive abilities - this is evident due to the number of contradictory propositions that can make sense to an individual, for example Naturalism makes sense to me, substance dualism makes sense to others, to suggest that our ability to "make sense" of (or to rationalise) our beliefs makes them likely true is simply false.

[Liu Bei mixed with Leondias]

Firstly, this a true arguement: i.e Polynesia, Samoa,New Zealand, and Australlia.
Secondly, No that is not the same, I have not rejected other faiths for lack of evidence but for princples or key concepts in the religion that do not make sense to me or ARE NOT POSSIBLE.
Thirdly, if they haven't been disproved then they are still a possiblity that they are true, you are fundementally wrong suggesting that we can't consider a religion solely because it hasn't been disproved, we can due to the fact that they are possible and then we can consider arguements for existance, because if they aren't possible then there no reason to evaluate them.
Fourthly, I see your point but to determine faith also is based on some ethical choices(or it should) so if it makes sense to you, as humans, we should assume its true, only on a moral and ethical basis not on existance which can be determined in if it possible. But it may lead to multiple answers. So thats where we choose.

[theVOID]

Firstly, this a true arguement: i.e Polynesia, Samoa,New Zealand, and Australlia.

Yeah, but to suggest that because it is either popular, antique or both that it is likely to be valid is a fallacy. It is not surprising that primitive man anthropomorphised the universe, this does not mean that a God concept is valid or rational.

Also, the religious concepts were all different, to that extent you must conclude that either:

1) Either only one of them was correct or none of them were. The gods had different names, personalities, requirements, rituals etc - All of these religions cannot be correct.

2) The gods lied about who they were depending on the continent and ethnic group, went by different names and assumed different roles and played different personalities.

I doubt you assume 2, so what reasons do you have for believing that you are the one who is correct?

Secondly, No that is not the same, I have not rejected other faiths for lack of evidence but for princples or key concepts in the religion that do not make sense to me or ARE NOT POSSIBLE.

And you have an argument that demonstrates all of the other gods except your ones are impossible, or are you just asserting that?

Thirdly, if they haven't been disproved then they are still a possiblity that they are true, you are fundementally wrong suggesting that we can't consider a religion solely because it hasn't been disproved, we can due to the fact that they are possible and then we can consider arguements for existance, because if they aren't possible then there no reason to evaluate them.

I agree, you simply didn't initially relate this to a need for reasons for their existence, thus the confusion.

Fourthly, I see your point but to determine faith also is based on some ethical choices(or it should) so if it makes sense to you, as humans, we should assume its true, only on a moral and ethical basis not on existance which can be determined in if it possible. But it may lead to multiple answers. So thats where we choose.

Any methodology that can lead to contradictory conclusions is insufficient for determining the truth, Basing your beliefs on such a methodology makes your beliefs irrational. If you care about the truth of your beliefs then you would not use such a methodology.

[Paul the Human]

If I felt that I simply must have a religion, I suppose the Olympians would be the most fun to believe in. They definitely have the best myths! And come on!.. who didn't love the original "Clash of the Titans"?

Seriously, though... deciding to believe in ancient myths as an alternative to modern (relatively) myths is just that; a decision. It is a conscious choice to believe in something, because you like it better than the alternatives. In other words... it is an exercise in make-believe.

And... Dionysus FTW!

[Liu Bei mixed with Leondias]

I'd like address this in a differant order if you don't mind.
2. I am saying that concepts in the religion that don't make sense to me also factor in. i.e. the two good gods thing but there is still evil. Another thing I reject is if it is not possible, I reject the concept of a devil, for y would a honest, nice, peaceful god allow his people rot in hell for lack faith. That is one reason. This can go on for each religion you put in front of me exempt this one there for assuming any less is ignorant. Plus another reason is that the Religion spread(and is still alive) without bloodshed. We have no crimes against humanity.
4. The method I use is accurate because if religion is possible is a individual question for each religion. Then do you believe in its moral standards is another. Then do you think it actually happened, thats another. Then it is matter of which you believe. There is no way to prove religion. So we have to make ethical choices.
3. Agreed. Sorry for the confution.

---

Paul: You are wrong. The Ancient myths are part of the religion the new myths were made to keep the religion down. So to believe in the Ancient myths is differant then the new ones.