WHAT CONVINCED YOU?

Húrin · 06-02-2009 10:46pm

hairyheretic wrote: »

Two different points. Perhaps I should have made that more obvious.

I'm quite aware that history is never simple. You seem content to offer an image of bloodthirsty barbarians for viking culture though.

I do indeed accept that the Vikings did a lot of trading. But what I'm talking about evangelising, which they did not do.

At that point in history, violence was not in short supply, wherever you want to look.

At no point in recorded history has violence been in short supply.

hairyheretic · 07-02-2009 12:18am

Húrin wrote: »

I do indeed accept that the Vikings did a lot of trading. But what I'm talking about evangelising, which they did not do.

And still don't. Asatruar don't believe in it. If your Wyrd is to find your way to the Gods, then you will. Others will be there to help you along the way, but the choice, and the work, has to be yours.

Asatru is a belief system with homework

Húrin wrote: »

At no point in recorded history has violence been in short supply.

Can't argue that one. At least some of the excesses of the past aren't quite so common these days.

Húrin · 07-02-2009 12:37am

hairyheretic wrote: »

And still don't. Asatruar don't believe in it. If your Wyrd is to find your way to the Gods, then you will. Others will be there to help you along the way, but the choice, and the work, has to be yours.

Asatru is a belief system with homework

Umm, thanks. Does anyone outside Scandinavia still believe in Thor and Odin? You sound like you know a thing or two.

Can't argue that one. At least some of the excesses of the past aren't quite so common these days.

I would say that the main difference is that warfare is now mechanised enough to be carried out on a scale unimaginable a thousand years ago. We just happen to be shielded from not only the effects but also news about a lot of the wars that happen.

Zombrex · 07-02-2009 12:44am

Húrin wrote: »

Correct. The Nordic religion concerned the people of Scandinavia, not the rest of us. The Vikings did not evangelise it, they just plundered other people and settled their people.

Well that isn't actually true, but more importantly it is irrelevant to what you claimed.

You said that the Nordic religions were not considered universal. That isn't true.

They did consider them universal, the fact that the rest of us didn't believe was irrelevant to this.

Are you saying it wasn't universal because it wasn't particularly successful in other cultures?

hairyheretic · 07-02-2009 12:56am

Húrin wrote: »

Umm, thanks. Does anyone outside Scandinavia still believe in Thor and Odin? You sound like you know a thing or two.

*fishes out the hammer pendant*

Yeah, I know a thing or two. Asatruar can be found in quite a few places these days. The Nordic countries, and Iceland, obviously enough, but as well as that, the UK (and at least a handfull of us here), the US and possibly surprisingly, in Australia.

I've also seen posts on assorted forums from people in the likes of Brazil and Malaysia. Looks like those longboats got a bit further than you'd have thought

We may be going somewhat OT here, so if you want to know more, kick off a thread in the paganism forum, or feel free to PM me.

Húrin wrote: »

I would say that the main difference is that warfare is now mechanised enough to be carried out on a scale unimaginable a thousand years ago. We just happen to be shielded from not only the effects but also news about a lot of the wars that happen.

I wasn't thinking about warfare specifically, but I take your point. More the advancement of .. civil liberty is perhaps the best word for it.

Zombrex · 07-02-2009 1:22am

I'm telling you what convinces me more and more every day is talking to believers and listening to the utter nonsense they use to justify why they believe what they believe.

what is wrong with you people!!

I'm going to bed

Húrin · 07-02-2009 2:18am

Wicknight wrote: »

Well that isn't actually true, but more importantly it is irrelevant to what you claimed.

You said that the Nordic religions were not considered universal. That isn't true.

They did consider them universal, the fact that the rest of us didn't believe was irrelevant to this.

Are you saying it wasn't universal because it wasn't particularly successful in other cultures?

I'm saying it wasn't universal because it wasn't preached to other cultures. If the Nordic religion was considered to be for everyone, why did the Vikings not preach it to all the nations they traded with, plundered and settled?

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm telling you what convinces me more and more every day is talking to believers and listening to the utter nonsense they use to justify why they believe what they believe.

That's OK, I have the same feeling about what I hear from some atheists. Wicknight, sleep tight!

CerebralCortex · 07-02-2009 3:20am

Húrin wrote: »

That's OK, I have the same feeling about what I hear from some atheists. Wicknight, sleep tight!

Could you explain that Hùrin? I mean we don't believe in anything that has no conclusive evidence that we need to justify. Also the whole "I know you are but what am I?" argument style is fairly tired.

Húrin · 07-02-2009 3:54am

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Could you explain that Hùrin? I mean we don't believe in anything that has no conclusive evidence that we need to justify. Also the whole "I know you are but what am I?" argument style is fairly tired.

Reflect on your ideas about epistemology and you might see where I am coming from.

CerebralCortex · 07-02-2009 12:33pm

Húrin wrote: »

Reflect on your ideas about epistemology and you might see where I am coming from.

Well I suppose I'm more interested in is what is this supposed utter nonsense that we spout that matches what some if not most theists come out with. Besides what can a lowly engineer like myself propose concerning his thoughts about epistemology to someone who I think studies philosophy. That would be cyber suicide.

I mean seriously what is that you think makes us the same in terms of what we claim to be true about the universe/existence?

Húrin · 07-02-2009 3:30pm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Well I suppose I'm more interested in is what is this supposed utter nonsense that we spout that matches what some if not most theists come out with. Besides what can a lowly engineer like myself propose concerning his thoughts about epistemology to someone who I think studies philosophy. That would be cyber suicide.

I mean seriously what is that you think makes us the same in terms of what we claim to be true about the universe/existence?

I have never formally studied philosophy really. Postmodern philosophy has been a tengiental part of my university course. My knowledge of it generally is self-taught (not just from wikipedia though!). Epistemology is the theory and structure of what passes for knowledge.

Most posters here appear to adhere to a form of it known as logical positivism, contending that theology and metaphysics is futile, meaningless, or of no use at all. This philosophy states that "all knowledge is based on logical inference from simple "protocol sentences" grounded in observable facts." In other words, "if you can't count it, it don't count; and if you can't kick it, then you can't count it."

I think that this kind of scientific exclusivity is narrow, self-limiting, Eurocentric and intolerant even.

CerebralCortex · 07-02-2009 4:38pm

Húrin wrote: »

......I think that this kind of scientific exclusivity is narrow, self-limiting, Eurocentric and intolerant even.

Why do you think that?

sink · 07-02-2009 4:42pm

Húrin wrote: »

I think that this kind of scientific exclusivity is narrow, self-limiting, Eurocentric and intolerant even.

Eurocentric - of or pertaining to Europe? I can understand why you think the rest but I'm not sure where you are coming from with this.

Zombrex · 07-02-2009 5:44pm

Húrin wrote: »

I'm saying it wasn't universal because it wasn't preached to other cultures. If the Nordic religion was considered to be for everyone, why did the Vikings not preach it to all the nations they traded with, plundered and settled?

Because the Vikings didn't consider their religion to be for anyone, themselves include.

It was just the way things were. Preaching to other people would have been some what pointless.

Christianity has been successful because it is a form of self help doctrine (do this, follow this, and your life will improve), wrapped in a convoluted supernatural story about God and sin and the Fall and Jesus. But ultimately it boils down to do this, follow this, believe this, and your life will improve.

That is not what the Viking religion was like. It was simply This is the way it is.

hairyheretic · 07-02-2009 10:39pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Because the Vikings didn't consider their religion to be for anyone, themselves include.

That is not what the Viking religion was like. It was simply This is the way it is.

Would you mind expanding on that? I'm curious to know what exactly you think it was. I'm not sure I get what you're trying to say there.

The Mad Hatter · 07-02-2009 10:51pm

hairyheretic wrote: »

Would you mind expanding on that? I'm curious to know what exactly you think it was. I'm not sure I get what you're trying to say there.

I think what he's trying to say is that the Vikings didn't bother to proselytise because there was no need to. Their gods existed (in their eyes), but it wouldn't do anyone any good to know that - no-one would get saved or damned on account of it.

Húrin · 08-02-2009 4:12pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Because the Vikings didn't consider their religion to be for anyone, themselves include.

It was just the way things were. Preaching to other people would have been some what pointless.

Christianity has been successful because it is a form of self help doctrine.

That is not what the Viking religion was like. It was simply This is the way it is.

So if their Gods were unknowable, and humans could not relate to them, why did the Vikings worship them?

Húrin · 08-02-2009 4:15pm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Why do you think that?

sink wrote: »

Eurocentric - of or pertaining to Europe? I can understand why you think the rest but I'm not sure where you are coming from with this.

Because modern science is almost completely European in its philosophical origins. The idea of linking science (rational) to technology (empirical) is western, originating with Francis Bacon.

Zombrex · 08-02-2009 4:18pm

Húrin wrote: »

Because modern science is almost completely European in its philosophical origins. The idea of linking science (rational) to technology (empirical) is western, originating with Francis Bacon.

That isn't really true. A large basis for modern science came from the Islamic naturalists in between the 10th and 15th centuries in the Middle East

Joey the lips · 08-02-2009 4:18pm

I have always believed if far easier to be in the non existance of a god then the existance cause without a god of some sort

You dont have to be committed

You dont have to be caring

You dont have to practise faith

You dont have to give

You infact dont have to do anything unless you want

Where as with faith, belief you are driven by the fact.

Having said that you are entitled to what you believe but I am amazed at the amount of non believers that still want their kids confirmed

Which of course is another motive for having a faith

"Greed is a sin"

thebigcheese22 · 08-02-2009 4:29pm

Joey the lips wrote: »

I have always believed if far easier to be in the non existance of a god then the existance cause without a god of some sort

You dont have to be committed

You dont have to be caring

You dont have to practise faith

You dont have to give

You infact dont have to do anything unless you want

Where as with faith, belief you are driven by the fact.

Having said that you are entitled to what you believe but I am amazed at the amount of non believers that still want their kids confirmed

Which of course is another motive for having a faith

"Greed is a sin"

I think this is an attitude that so-called believers try to paint all atheists with, that with no religion, you can't be as moral as those who do have a religion.

I'm sorry but that is complete bullsiht. All people should be compassionate and caring nevermind if they're atheistic, Catholic or Jedi. Not one religion or belief have a monopoly over this most basic human instinct.

Anyways, my family was never religious but I was made to go to Mass on Christmas etc. There has never been one event that convinved me - I would say I'm an Agnostic, bordering on Atheist. But I would never rule out anything, and am open to being wrong. I think a lot of people are so bent on being on the 'right side' so-to-speak that they will never find merit in other people's arguments.

But thats human nature I suppose, and applies to most things where there are disagreements

Zombrex · 08-02-2009 4:29pm

hairyheretic wrote: »

Would you mind expanding on that? I'm curious to know what exactly you think it was. I'm not sure I get what you're trying to say there.

Christianity teaches that their religion has a purpose, Jesus came to Earth to save us and we should know this and believe it and we will get something back for doing that.

Which is why evangelism is a big bit of Christianity. Christians should spread the good word, convert people, tell people about what Jesus did because people who believe get something for believing.

Nordic religion isn't like that. There isn't a purpose to their religious beliefs. The gods don't exist for us.

Yes there are things like be good to Thor because he controls the rain and stuff like that, but Hurin's objects to the Nordic religions because they don't put a strong focus on evangelism is some what miss placed.

Húrin · 08-02-2009 4:31pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes there are things like be good to Thor because he controls the rain and stuff like that

That is self-help. The right amount of rain will ensure the success of your crops and thus you will be not only well fed, but rich. It's prosperity gospel stuff. Did they believe that Thor would provide good rain for all who were good to him, or only Scandinavians?

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't really true. A large basis for modern science came from the Islamic naturalists in between the 10th and 15th centuries in the Middle East

Yes I agree, I wouldn't doubt that modern science is heir to the science of the past, more than most the Islamic scientists. Our science and tech also absorbed Chinese elements, but everywhere today, from Chile to Mongolia, successful technology is western. Trains, motorways, neon lights and all the rest that is of service to the global economic system. All the major science too is western in style and method, whatever the nationality* of the scientists doing it.

*the nation-state is also western (Westphalian) but that's off-topic

Húrin · 08-02-2009 4:38pm

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

All people should be compassionate and caring nevermind if they're atheistic, Catholic or Jedi. Not one religion or belief have a monopoly over this most basic human instinct.

Do instincts carry a moral force? If they exist without purpose, how can they carry such a moral force?

Zombrex · 08-02-2009 4:39pm

Húrin wrote: »

So if their Gods were unknowable, and humans could not relate to them, why did the Vikings worship them?

It isn't that the gods were unknowable, it is that the gods didn't offer that much to those who believed.

The Vikings didn't look over to the French and think "Isn't it a shame they aren't worshipping Odin. Now Odin is going to keep all his wonderful gifts of eternal happiness from them. Perhaps we should go over there and teach them to believe in Odin and Thor and they will get eternal paradise with us, rather than hell"

As far as the Vikings the French warriors went to Valhalla just like them (if they were worthy). It wasn't based on the condition of believing in the particular religion.

Zombrex · 08-02-2009 4:40pm

Húrin wrote: »

Do instincts carry a moral force? If they exist without purpose, how can they carry such a moral force?

Easy, they don't exist without purpose. Instincts exist to help you live longer.

CerebralCortex · 08-02-2009 5:43pm

Húrin wrote: »

Because modern science is almost completely European in its philosophical origins. The idea of linking science (rational) to technology (empirical) is western, originating with Francis Bacon.

My question though is why you think "scientific exclusivity is narrow"?

kiffer · 08-02-2009 6:36pm

Húrin wrote: »

That is self-help. The right amount of rain will ensure the success of your crops and thus you will be not only well fed, but rich. It's prosperity gospel stuff. Did they believe that Thor would provide good rain for all who were good to him, or only Scandinavians?

From my understanding of the Norse view:
Thor provided good weather. If you had good weather it was Thor's doing... it didn't matter if you worshiped Thor or not. You didn't need to kneel and pledge your soul to Thor to get good weather, although prayers, thanks and offerings probably were a good idea.

Christians are compelled to actively spread the 'Good News', like a chain letter (only kind of...

), many other religions don't seem to have this compulsion... notable exceptions include Islam and Scientology.

robindch · 08-02-2009 7:29pm

Húrin wrote: »

All the major science too is western in style and method, whatever the nationality* of the scientists doing it.

Yes. That's because ideology-based discovery systems don't work.

hairyheretic · 08-02-2009 7:41pm

Wicknight wrote: »

It isn't that the gods were unknowable, it is that the gods didn't offer that much to those who believed.

What makes you think that? If you had a particular problem, why would you not call on one of the Gods for help .. either one you felt particularly close to, or one who was suited to the problem you were facing.

If nothing else, the Gods would stand against the forces of chaos at Ragnarok, and fight and die so humanity would survive. Seems to me there's at least some offer there

Wicknight wrote: »

The Vikings didn't look over to the French and think "Isn't it a shame they aren't worshipping Odin. Now Odin is going to keep all his wonderful gifts of eternal happiness from them. Perhaps we should go over there and teach them to believe in Odin and Thor and they will get eternal paradise with us, rather than hell"

Well, I can't speak for those ancient vikings, but modern day asatruar don't go out looking to convert anyone either. The choice of who your Gods are .. or even if you choose none at all .. is entirely your own.

Wicknight wrote: »

As far as the Vikings the French warriors went to Valhalla just like them (if they were worthy). It wasn't based on the condition of believing in the particular religion.

I'm not sure I can agree with that. If you had no connection with the Gods when you were alive, why would that change when you were dead?

And not all warriors went to Valhalla .. only those who were worthy. Actually, only half those who were worthy, if I'm being precise. Odin gets half of the chosen slain, Freya gets the other half (and first pick as well).

WHAT CONVINCED YOU?

Comments