The Big Picture: Nerd Gods
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You're aware of the definition of "invented", right? If you want to debate what's more important (inventing/discovering or popularising) then fine, but you can't win an argument by directly contradicting yourself and then trying to change the point of the argument, which was who invented that image.danpascooch said:
A couple things.
1) Bob clearly no understanding of Gnosticism. Gnostics didn't believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible because of their metaphysical commitments (i.e. their belief in complete substance dualism meant that Jesus couldn't actually be God.)
2) Odinism has already made a comeback. Remember, the Viking mythos is what Tolkien ripped off for the Lord of the Rings. It's really just a much more hard core and violent version thereof. It's all blood and death, but in a happy, psychopathic way. Too dark for Tolkien.
The Odinic elves are nasty, they're kind of the evil counterpart to the Aesir. Loki has sex with one of them and spawns a giant wolf (Fenrir) that will eventually open his massive jaws to consume the world, the world serpent (Jörmungandr) that will unleash his tail and consume the world in poison during the Ragnarok, and Hel, the goddess of death that presides of the underworld.
3) This is a side note but the 'New' atheists want to worship 'Science' (which they seem to imply is some sort of positive worldview and not simply a method of inquiry).
Don't believe me? Yeah. It seems pretty stupid. Just go look up Sam Harris' new book where he tries to explain how we can derive morality from 'Science'. He was clearly dropped on his head multiple times as a child.
1) Bob clearly no understanding of Gnosticism. Gnostics didn't believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible because of their metaphysical commitments (i.e. their belief in complete substance dualism meant that Jesus couldn't actually be God.)
2) Odinism has already made a comeback. Remember, the Viking mythos is what Tolkien ripped off for the Lord of the Rings. It's really just a much more hard core and violent version thereof. It's all blood and death, but in a happy, psychopathic way. Too dark for Tolkien.
The Odinic elves are nasty, they're kind of the evil counterpart to the Aesir. Loki has sex with one of them and spawns a giant wolf (Fenrir) that will eventually open his massive jaws to consume the world, the world serpent (Jörmungandr) that will unleash his tail and consume the world in poison during the Ragnarok, and Hel, the goddess of death that presides of the underworld.
3) This is a side note but the 'New' atheists want to worship 'Science' (which they seem to imply is some sort of positive worldview and not simply a method of inquiry).
Don't believe me? Yeah. It seems pretty stupid. Just go look up Sam Harris' new book where he tries to explain how we can derive morality from 'Science'. He was clearly dropped on his head multiple times as a child.
The Church of the Dark Knight approves of vigilante attitudes and that criminals cannot be changed. ALL BOW BEFORE LORD BATMAN, THE IMMORTAL SPIRIT OF JUSTICE!
He sees you, all of you, he knows what you did, nobody has actually died over the course of human history, Batman simply got them when nobody was looking.
He sees you, all of you, he knows what you did, nobody has actually died over the course of human history, Batman simply got them when nobody was looking.
I know saying invented was wrong, you definitely have me there, because hell, I was just plain wrong. I didn't know about Thomas Nast until looking at the Wikipedia entry you provided. Just don't say they didn't have an important influence on his image, whether inventing was the right word or not (I know it's not the right word)Woodsey said:
I'm not sure if I'm agnostic or athiest...
I don't believe in any god. but I do believe that there are more in this world than we can perceive. I mean, we only see 360 nm of the light spectrum. and thats just our eyes. we have four more senses.
I believe in my friends, my family and my self.
also 42.
I don't believe in any god. but I do believe that there are more in this world than we can perceive. I mean, we only see 360 nm of the light spectrum. and thats just our eyes. we have four more senses.
I believe in my friends, my family and my self.
also 42.
Brilliant ending there. That seems to be the pattern of my thoughts. Hmm... a thought, expand on that thought, this is getting good, and if that could work why not this too... and, oh, wait, one example screws the whole thing up... nevermind.
There's religious context behind some holidays? Since when? I mean really, I don't even see the people that follow their religion very seriously, actually celebrate the holidays in context of their religion. Some of them seem to almost contradict their faith a bit. The new religion is consumerism, your church is based on where you shop/the products you buy the most.
Man that's sad, it really feels that way sometimes.
There's religious context behind some holidays? Since when? I mean really, I don't even see the people that follow their religion very seriously, actually celebrate the holidays in context of their religion. Some of them seem to almost contradict their faith a bit. The new religion is consumerism, your church is based on where you shop/the products you buy the most.
Man that's sad, it really feels that way sometimes.
In italy santa is rarely celebrated, italians celebrate a witch who couldn't find jesus the day he was born so she gives presents to everyone hoping to find jesus. santa has come a long way.Woodsey said:
I am now officially the first member of The Church of Yahtzee. Bask in his mighty glow!! All must own a copy of the holy text, Mogworld!
I happily accept that if a deity of some kind were to appear before me and prove his/her existence and power without a shadow of doubt, I would happily accept religion into my life. As a person who believes in science and technology, it would be hypocritical to deny the existence of a god when proof is made available.
Of course, I've yet to see proof.
Of course, I've yet to see proof.
Lol, way to overgeneralize to hell and back what an agnostic is. Atheist agnostics are people that believe there is no god, but don't go around saying that they know this for a fact. Not being an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic of any other belief regarding something so unknowable as a god is pure ignorance in a can, just add water! This is known as weak agnosticism, which boils down to having certain beliefs regarding a higher power, but not claiming to have the ultimate truth. This is, of course, opposed to strong agnostic, which is just the same, except without really claiming to believe one way or another. An agnostic is NOT an atheist with commitment issues as you say, and the fact that you said this leads me to believe you're only familiar with strong agnosticism, even though a strong agnostic who is also an atheist is purely contradictory in its very nature. Furthermore, since you seem to be a strong agnostic, how can you say that atheist agnostics have commitment issues when you don't even attempt to go beyond being a fence sitter in your belief on the subject. Next time, don't show a severe case of did not do the research when you make a video regarding any subject. This just really bugged me and showed clear ignorance of the full truth of the matter on your part, as you wrongly shoehorned a very large segment of the atheist population into a tag that doesn't even fit them, and ironically is just a bit closer to describing your own beliefs. I do enjoy your videos and this is merely a critique, as well as just one case of me not always agreeing with you, but still listening.
Ask yourself this: Do you believe that a higher power exists that is also intelligent? If your answer is anything short of YES, that makes you an atheist.Palwador said:
You can be a gnostic or an agnostic atheist, the former claims that he knows that what he believes is true, and the latter claims that he does not know if a god or gods exist.
I myself am an agnostic atheist, although I think there probably is no god and/or an intelligent higher power'.
May have been said, but for the record, you do not need to disprove the non-existance of things. The fact you can't prove them IS THE DISPROVING. The stance that "You cannot disprove God anymore than you can prove" is false for this reason. Same with "Atheism is the same as Religion".
Still, based on the rest of the piece I do believe the good Movie Bob is genuinly agnostic. He's right; most people who claim to be are actually atheists "with commitment issues".
Still, based on the rest of the piece I do believe the good Movie Bob is genuinly agnostic. He's right; most people who claim to be are actually atheists "with commitment issues".
The ending pretty much answered why the religions we're used to stay with everyone I also think the South Park episode with David Blane sums up a what if situation
Interesting video. But I think your proposed theological reform is a bad idea. Non-propositional theology has the same problem as fundamentalism. It doesn't allow for any critical thought process, just for the opposite reason that fundamentalism doesn't allow for any critical thought process.
I am down with this, but I think we should test the water by declaring people/characters who exemplify our current values paragons. Ya know and work our way up to god from there. Also if we are taking nominations for new gods I say we start with Mr. Rogers.
Amuro would arguably be it's benign redemption figure, and Char is the punishing avenger.Frank_Sinatra_ said:
Me, personally? That's a pretty tough question. It's like asking what someone would do if all their favourite famous girls asked them for a sex party - it's nice to say what you'd like to think you'd do, but who knows what you'd actually wind up committing to. Likely stare, stammer, and be impotent.arragonder said:
Of course, any god-creature worth my time would give me powers with which to prove his existence..
So, um, what was the point of bringing up Scientology at the end? I thought for a second that you had a good point about having modern-day gods be pop-culture figures until you brought that up.
Why derail your own argument?
Why derail your own argument?