Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mut-Wadjet-Bastet-Sekhmet-Nekhbet

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    If its an option, if there is room, then yes seperate them.

    Sorry if I seemed bitchy today, its just its my birthday and I had to work today, and not only did I get into an arguement to day with someone I work with, but I was caught in the middle of an arguement between two men today that nearly ended with a fight between them, and I was in the middle on top of the that I'm having money problems, my bank fucked me around, my dad lost his glasses and nearly his iphone in dumpster today, I'm sore as fuck and half deaf from the blower I had to use today. Oh and I almost lost my Scion Pledge, losing out on all that stuff, but I managed to fix. Also had to buy fuses because the water heater fuse blew.

    So I apologize, I'm usually not a Diva.

    Honestly I'm cancelling my birthday today and celebrating it on the 31 of October or November 1.

    October is usually my favourite month, but I was late by fucking 15 minutes for Canadian Thanksgiving and had to deal with my dad's tempertantrum over that for a week.

    Sorry for rambling, I just had to get that off my chest.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Omegaphallic View Post
      If its an option, if there is room, then yes seperate them.

      Sorry if I seemed bitchy today, its just its my birthday and I had to work today, and not only did I get into an arguement to day with someone I work with, but I was caught in the middle of an arguement between two men today that nearly ended with a fight between them, and I was in the middle on top of the that I'm having money problems, my bank fucked me around, my dad lost his glasses and nearly his iphone in dumpster today, I'm sore as fuck and half deaf from the blower I had to use today. Oh and I almost lost my Scion Pledge, losing out on all that stuff, but I managed to fix. Also had to buy fuses because the water heater fuse blew.

      So I apologize, I'm usually not a Diva.

      Honestly I'm cancelling my birthday today and celebrating it on the 31 of October or November 1.

      October is usually my favourite month, but I was late by fucking 15 minutes for Canadian Thanksgiving and had to deal with my dad's tempertantrum over that for a week.

      Sorry for rambling, I just had to get that off my chest.

      I fully support throwing your birthday on Halloween or the Day of the Dead, and I apologize if I came at you too strongly, honestly my own birthdays have never really had that much meaning, so I can sympathize the exhaustion that might come with them. Hope things improve on your end, and thanks for creating a thread that encouraged discussion, instead of just, I dunno - virtue signaling the benefits of conflation.

      Not a great expression but I'm tired and I think most people will understand what I mean by that, based on its original context.

      Comment


      • #48
        I think the most telling point here is this; the alpha write-ups of the Theo and Tuatha didn't cover every possible God/Goddess in those Pantheons, but they didn't receive the same hue and cry that the Netjer one did. To me, this means, please include separate write-ups (now or in a later publication) for those deities that have been mentioned as omitted or disappointingly unified with others. You don't have to get them all in the first books - but unifying them means we never get them in an official context, and that's what's frustrating the fans and supporters.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Purple Snit View Post
          I think the most telling point here is this; the alpha write-ups of the Theo and Tuatha didn't cover every possible God/Goddess in those Pantheons, but they didn't receive the same hue and cry that the Netjer one did. To me, this means, please include separate write-ups (now or in a later publication) for those deities that have been mentioned as omitted or disappointingly unified with others. You don't have to get them all in the first books - but unifying them means we never get them in an official context, and that's what's frustrating the fans and supporters.
          Exactly this. Folding Hathor into Isis as just another name for her means we'll never see Hathor officially in Scion while excluding her completely means she could pop up in a supplement later. I'd rather have that hope than an unsatisfying mention that folds her into someone else wholly.


          Just call me Lex.

          Female pronouns for me, please.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Jachra View Post
            If you can't bear seeing someone say "the gods aren't real" you're going to have a bad time.

            I can't possibly assert that all of the gods that have ever been dreamed up have actual reality that backs them up, and the evidence that gods have linguistic ties going back several cultures to points of unification with distinctly different gods is just too clear to believe that any gods, let alone the ones at the terminus of recent history, can be real. If the gods were real, we almost certainly wouldn't have the history we do today. I can certainly in no way imagine that insulting Zeus would lead to my death by lightning. Either the gods are weak beyond imagining, or they exist only in the imagination.

            You are certainly free to believe in them, but do not call our absence of belief "offensive." That's one of the more irritating things that Christians do.
            I don't think that Zeldafan42 was trying to say that absence of belief was offensive. I think he/she was trying to say that stating "the gods aren't real" as though it was a forgone conclusion can be offensive to people who think otherwise. "There are no gods." "There is only one god." "There are many gods." Each of these three statements will irk at least some of the people that hold to one of the other two. In general, I try to leave these statements be, especially in relation to the interpretation of the gods in a fictional setting. In Nomine made pagan gods out to be creatures of dreams, but I still enjoyed the setting immensely. Somebody stating their belief (or absence of belief) doesn't bother me. Stating that our history would be different if the gods were real, and that because of this, they must be weak or imaginary, strikes me as the more bothersome comments. I don't imagine that I would be killed by lightning if I insulted Zeus, either, and I actually believe in Him. I also imagine that if I walked up to you and insulted you to your face, you probably wouldn't shoot me, even if you were holding a loaded gun at the time. Most people are pretty reasonable, and wouldn't consider that to be a valid response to mere words. I would say the same would hold true for the gods. If there are gods, then this history is the one we get with them, just as surely as it is the one we get if they don't exist. To say otherwise is to assume that the gods must behave in a certain way if they are real, and that failure to do so must indicate lack of ability to do so, either due to weakness or non-existence. This ignores a vast number of different beliefs about the nature of divinity, which comes across as dismissive to any that don't hold to the list of traits that a deity must have in the above example. It assumes that if any god exists, then this deity must also be a personal one, with the sort of temper that would lead to striking someone dead with a lightning bolt at the slightest provocation, basically implying that to be real, a deity must be a human with more power and less reason than your average human. Ultimately, stating absence of belief isn't offensive in itself, just like stating presence of belief isn't offensive in itself. Where people tend to get hung up is when someone feels like their own stance is being dismissed as unworthy of consideration. While I don't think that anyone on this thread was trying to give that impression or offend anyone, it is still a delicate matter to balance one's own perspective with respect for the perspectives of others. I apologize for this tangent.

            Back on topic, I think that the combination of different deities is something that needs to be handled delicately. No matter how it is done, there will be some people who are bothered by it, and others that will be bothered by not doing so. If Ares and Mars were treated as separate deities, there'd be some who would be irritated that the same god was separated into two parts, and others that would be delighted that the two distinct gods were recognized as such, depending on their own perspective of it. Most seem to be unhappy about the Aset/Hathor combination, and a lot are bothered by the Bast/Sekhmet one, but some would be content with a Sekhment/Hathor combination and others would be bothered by that one, too. I think that the default assumption should be to keep as many separate as possible, given the Community Content section that was unlocked. This would allow for additional deities to be put forward by the fans without going against canon, while still leaving more free space for the things that the writers feel are in need of more wordcount. If deities must be combined, I'd prefer for them to combine the ones that are most commonly combined historically and in the popular mindset.


            Currently working on: DtD Night Horrors: Enemy Action
            Projects I've contributed to: C20 Anthology of Dreams ("No Such Thing As Dragons")

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by White Oak Dragon View Post
              I think he/she was trying to say that stating "the gods aren't real" as though it was a forgone conclusion can be offensive to people who think otherwise.
              Per the introduction thread, she prefers female pronouns. Not trying to reprimand, just being informative. I understand that's what she's saying, but the issue is that it's equivalent to telling us we can't say: "Evolution is real," or "The Earth is older than 10,000," because presenting it as a foregone conclusion might be offensive to Christians who believe otherwise. The issue is that 'all' of the evidence points to those things, just as all of the evidence suggests that there are no gods and they are not necessary for the universe/Man to exist. Certainly it's hard to accept that Zeus made humans, or that Odin and his brothers did, when you consider that all the evidence points to evolution over millions of years.

              "There are no gods." "There is only one god." "There are many gods." Each of these three statements will irk at least some of the people that hold to one of the other two. In general, I try to leave these statements be, especially in relation to the interpretation of the gods in a fictional setting. In Nomine made pagan gods out to be creatures of dreams, but I still enjoyed the setting immensely. Somebody stating their belief (or absence of belief) doesn't bother me. Stating that our history would be different if the gods were real, and that because of this, they must be weak or imaginary, strikes me as the more bothersome comments.
              In my experience when your claim is based on evidence you're not going to feel personally violated when someone says something that's wrong. As an example - I am in no way offended when people assert that the gods 'are' real. And it's reasonable to present history as an example of how the gods have no practical presence in this world. If the gods existed in the way mythology asserts, then history would be quite a bit different. The gods would take a direct hand in human events. There would be monsters all over the place. None of those things have panned out, and the gods don't interact with us, so either the gods presented in mythology are imaginary, or they are too weak to do any of those things. Or they're completely different in character and personality, and thus the gods in mythology are still 'fictional'.

              I don't imagine that I would be killed by lightning if I insulted Zeus, either, and I actually believe in Him. I also imagine that if I walked up to you and insulted you to your face, you probably wouldn't shoot me, even if you were holding a loaded gun at the time.
              Zeus has a reputation for doing literally that, all the time. He also has a reputation for raping women, all the time. I on the other hand, do not have a reputation for carrying around a loaded gun and shooting you in the face. I don't believe in violence, Zeus does. This is not a good comparison at all.

              Most people are pretty reasonable, and wouldn't consider that to be a valid response to mere words. I would say the same would hold true for the gods.
              Then you're not worshiping the gods of mythology, because the gods in that specific mythology are often not reasonable. They do consider that a valid respond to mere words. Zeus curses people who insult him. He rapes women, his brother rapes women, and Zeus's daughter curses women for having the audacity to be raped in her temple. Again - if you don't believe any of this is true, that's fine. I've never seen a pagan assert that those stories are false, and if they did then they're no longer worshiping the gods in question, because at that point we're discussing different people. The gods of Asgard violated their deal and smashed a frost Jotun to bits after they learned of his lineage, even after he built a wall for then. For free.

              If there are gods, then this history is the one we get with them, just as surely as it is the one we get if they don't exist. To say otherwise is to assume that the gods must behave in a certain way if they are real, and that failure to do so must indicate lack of ability to do so, either due to weakness or non-existence.
              If the gods as they are presented in mythology are to be true, then yes, they 'must' behave in a manner congruent with that. Failure to do so is evidence of their non-existence. It's very convenient that the gods would choose certain people to talk to over others, while also offering no evidence that they exist, in contrast to the way they are in the stories.

              This ignores a vast number of different beliefs about the nature of divinity, which comes across as dismissive to any that don't hold to the list of traits that a deity must have in the above example.
              Conversely, it's dismissive to ignore that the burden of proof is on those who assert extraordinary claims, and then insist that people operating under the 'foregone conclusion' that gods aren't real are being offensive. "I believe in these diverse deities who often don't behave responsibly and always interfere in the affairs of mortals. Except they don't do any of those things, and if you expect them to act in accordance with those stories you are being dismissive of my beliefs."

              It assumes that if any god exists, then this deity must also be a personal one, with the sort of temper that would lead to striking someone dead with a lightning bolt at the slightest provocation, basically implying that to be real, a deity must be a human with more power and less reason than your average human.
              That assumption is there because everything we've been told about them suggests that is the case. Humans outwit gods, very frequently. Even the Christian god loses a wrestling match with a human. Zeus smites people with lightning, very frequently. But we don't need him to just smite every person who insults him - any evidence of his interference, any at all, would be enough to flip my position immediately. I'm speaking as someone who does have an altar to various gods, even though I don't believe in them. I find the construction of an altar to be wonderful act of self-expression and like celebrating figures from my culture that inspire me. Although I doubt most Asatru would approve of me having Laufey on there.

              Ultimately, stating absence of belief isn't offensive in itself, just like stating presence of belief isn't offensive in itself. Where people tend to get hung up is when someone feels like their own stance is being dismissed as unworthy of consideration. While I don't think that anyone on this thread was trying to give that impression or offend anyone, it is still a delicate matter to balance one's own perspective with respect for the perspectives of others. I apologize for this tangent.
              I understand, I'm still not going to stop speaking from the conclusion that the gods aren't real, and that things would be noticeably different if they were. You can argue that Artemis just stopped turning people into animals, or men into women, but that's kind of special pleading and I'd love to know why she stopped.

              The closest example I can think of is the current issues with gender identity. I'll try to get to the point, though. When someone operates under the foregone conclusion that transgender people aren't 'real', it's not just offensive because it dismisses my opinion, it's not even dismissive because it ignores all the data (though, if they assert that, they are in contradiction to the evidence) it's offensive because the mindset is actively harmful to society. It's promoting suicide rates, and it's the logic that fuels transpanic court defenses, and the hatred that sees them murdered in the streets and in hotel rooms. That's why it's not okay to dismiss transgender people. Dismissing the gods is fine. We're not dismissing your identity, we're dismissing theirs. Obviously the gods don't care if we believe in them or not, or they'd offer us the evidence we need to start worshiping them sincerely. If your gods don't care, if they don't get offended enough to do anything about it, then why should you be?
              Last edited by Solana; 10-24-2016, 12:43 PM.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by White Oak Dragon View Post
                Zeus
                Throughout human history, and still prevalent in many places today, is the notion that when someone insults you, you must extract their penance by blood. It's only in the last couple hundred years that we've moved beyond this idea.

                As Solana points out, I don't have a reputation for violence of that sort. There are certainly people in this world and in the country I live in (the USA) who assuredly do. In the hypermasculine culture of the Ancient Greeks, violence answers insults.

                There are other conceptions of the gods. Do you, like Jung, believe that gods are little more than the archetypes of our deeper subconscious? In that case, the gods are only at best surface imitations of their mythological counterparts and probably quite weak.


                We don't allow mages to cast spells, since this is the most unbalancing rule of all.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Omegaphallic View Post
                  So Yes or No, do you like my idea?


                  I think the pantheon of Egypt has enough names on their plate as it is. I've already lost track of who's a new deity, and who's an alternate name for the same existing deity.

                  I just prefer to use them by the first name I learned about them. Anubis, Ra, Set, Bastet, Osiris, Horus, Isis, Sobek, Geb, Ptah, and Thoth.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Nyrufa View Post



                    I think the pantheon of Egypt has enough names on their plate as it is. I've already lost track of who's a new deity, and who's an alternate name for the same existing deity.

                    I just prefer to use them by the first name I learned about them. Anubis, Ra, Set, Bastet, Osiris, Horus, Isis, Sobek, Geb, Ptah, and Thoth.
                    You're gonna have fun when the fonal book uses their proper names


                    Just call me Lex.

                    Female pronouns for me, please.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Solana View Post

                      Per the introduction threat, she prefers female pronouns. Not trying to reprimand, just being informative. I understand that's what she's saying, but the issue is that it's equivalent to telling us we can't say: "Evolution is real," or "The Earth is older than 10,000," because presenting it as a foregone conclusion might be offensive to Christians who believe otherwise. The issue is that 'all' of the evidence points to those things, just as all of the evidence suggests that there are no gods and they are not necessary for the universe/Man to exist. Certainly it's hard to accept that Zeus made humans, or that Odin and his brothers did, when you consider that all the evidence points to evolution over millions of years.
                      Thank you for pointing that out. I haven't read the entirety of that thread, so I was unaware. Also, for what it is worth, I agree with you on the age of the Earth and the evolution issue as well. If the myths that various cultures were the literal "gospel" truth, then there would likely be little evidence for those things. Instead, we have a good bit of evidence of both, and even many religious individuals, myself included, accept the Earth is ancient and that life evolved.

                      Originally posted by Solana View Post
                      Zeus has a reputation for doing literally that, all the time. He also has a reputation for raping women, all the time. I on the other hand, do not have a reputation for carrying around a loaded gun and shooting you in the face. I don't believe in violence, Zeus does. This is not a good comparison at all.
                      You and Jachra are perhaps right in my selection of examples. I have no reason to believe that either of you are the type to engage in violence, and all evidence I have seen shows you both to be reasonable people. If one goes based on a literal interpretation of mythology, then there would be reason to worry about Zeus doing it. I apologize if it seemed like I was implying that either of you were violent individuals.

                      Originally posted by Solana View Post
                      Then you're not worshiping the gods of mythology, because the gods in that specific mythology are often not reasonable. They do consider that a valid respond to mere words. Zeus curses people who insult him. He rapes women, his brother rapes women, and Zeus's daughter curses women for having the audacity to be raped in her temple. Again - if you don't believe any of this is true, that's fine. I've never seen a pagan assert that those stories are false, and if they did then they're no longer worshiping the gods in question, because at that point we're discussing different people. The gods of Asgard violated their deal and smashed a frost Jotun to bits after they learned of his lineage, even after he built a wall for then. For free.
                      Interestingly, I have seen many pagans that don't believe that the mythology is the literal history of the world handed down from on high. Then again, I have seen some that do, as well. And also one that seemed to believe that Xena: Warrior Princess should be considered as part of that, as well. I guess it takes all kinds. This is why Plato suggested that the stories of the gods shouldn't be told. So many of them depict the gods in a negative light that it would give people who interpreted them in a literal manner a negative impression of the gods.

                      Originally posted by Solana View Post
                      If the gods as they are presented in mythology are to be true, then yes, they 'must' behave in a manner congruent with that. Failure to do so is evidence of their non-existence. It's very convenient that the gods would choose certain people to talk to over others, while also offering no evidence that they exist, in contrast to the way they are in the stories.
                      If the mythology is the literal truth of the world, then you would be correct. The problem with spiritual experiences is that they are entirely subjective. If someone has one, then they have only their word to prove it. This means that when speaking of it, they must either be lying or telling the truth. Even if we assume that the person isn't lying, they must then prove that whatever they experienced was a true spiritual experience, and not some sort of accident of brain chemistry. It ends up coming down to the individual needing to decide whether their experience was real, or whether it was a hallucination or other odd coincidence, knowing that any who don't share their beliefs will automatically assume the latter.

                      Originally posted by Solana View Post
                      That assumption is there because everything we've been told about them suggests that is the case. Humans outwit gods, very frequently. Even the Christian god loses a wrestling match with a human. Zeus smites people with lightning, very frequently. But we don't need him to just smite every person who insults him - any evidence of his interference, any at all, would be enough to flip my position immediately. I'm speaking as someone who does have an altar to various gods, even though I don't believe in them. I find the construction of an altar to be wonderful act of self-expression and like celebrating figures from my culture that inspire me. Although I doubt most Asatru would approve of me having Laufey on there.
                      That is fascinating, Solana. I don't think I've ever encountered someone before who enjoyed making altars that didn't have some belief (or desire to believe) in the gods represented. I also am pleased to see that you keep an open mind, as far as evidence goes. I had one professor who I got into a similar discussion with (we were talking about ghosts as an example, but the same basic evidence-related discussion). She said that she didn't believe in anything but what her senses told her. When I asked what she would say if she saw a ghost, she'd believe that she was hallucinating. If a whole group saw it, then the whole group was having a shared hallucination. If one revealed itself to the world and everyone saw it, then she'd believe that the whole world was suffering from mass hysteria on an incredibly large scale. She was so stuck in her own view that ghosts couldn't be real, that she outright said that any hypothetical situations in which evidence for them were found would automatically be invalidated by the fact that ghost weren't real.

                      Originally posted by Solana View Post
                      I understand, I'm still not going to stop speaking from the conclusion that the gods aren't real, and that things would be noticeably different if they were. You can argue that Artemis just stopped turning people into animals, or men into women, but that's kind of special pleading and I'd love to know why she stopped.
                      I'm not asking you to stop speaking from the perspective that the gods aren't real any more than you are asking theists to stop speaking as though they were. I was just hoping to point out why some people would be bothered by such statements. As far as Artemis transforming people into animals go, I don't believe she ever did so in the literal sense.



                      Currently working on: DtD Night Horrors: Enemy Action
                      Projects I've contributed to: C20 Anthology of Dreams ("No Such Thing As Dragons")

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        The original purpose of the thread is kind of over, so I hope people don't mind my continuing the tangent we've been running with.

                        Originally posted by White Oak Dragon View Post
                        Interestingly, I have seen many pagans that don't believe that the mythology is the literal history of the world handed down from on high. Then again, I have seen some that do, as well. And also one that seemed to believe that Xena: Warrior Princess should be considered as part of that, as well. I guess it takes all kinds. This is why Plato suggested that the stories of the gods shouldn't be told. So many of them depict the gods in a negative light that it would give people who interpreted them in a literal manner a negative impression of the gods.
                        Again, no one is demanding that mythology be the literal truth of the world in order to be real. It's like I said before - some evidence of involvement would be enough for most of us, Zeus doesn't need to smite every person who insulted him, one or two would be fine, maybe a couple of scions who are as strong as his other children purportedly are. I've never seen a neo-pagan state that Zeus never had children by so and so, or that such and such myth never actually happened. I read a lot of reconstructionist books, and apologists will say that the stories are just metaphors, but then use those myths literally as a way of describing the history of their gods and who those people are. It feels a bit like trying to have your cake and eat it too. At least Norse mythology has the benefit that there are other worlds than this one, and many/most of the stories take place in Asgard, or Vanaheim, Jotunheim, etc. However there is still the problem of the stories that do take place in Midgard that we have no evidence for.

                        You're also taking Plato out of context. He didn't say that the stories of the gods should not be told because it makes them look bad. He said they should not be told because then you get generations of children, growing up, thinking that it's perfectly valid to do those things - after all, the gods do them all the time. If a child grows up hearing that the most high god in the world rapes, murders his father, and commits acts of abuse, then it's possible that child will grow up believing that those actions are just in some fashion.

                        Also arguing that the stories of the gods shouldn't be shared because it makes them look bad is a bit like saying a woman who comes out that a sports star raped her shouldn't have her story told because it might ruin the boy's life, or that sexually assaulted women need to shut up about Trump because it's giving people a negative impression of him.

                        If the mythology is the literal truth of the world, then you would be correct. The problem with spiritual experiences is that they are entirely subjective. If someone has one, then they have only their word to prove it. This means that when speaking of it, they must either be lying or telling the truth. Even if we assume that the person isn't lying, they must then prove that whatever they experienced was a true spiritual experience, and not some sort of accident of brain chemistry. It ends up coming down to the individual needing to decide whether their experience was real, or whether it was a hallucination or other odd coincidence, knowing that any who don't share their beliefs will automatically assume the latter.
                        The people who first told stories about those gods made no bones about their active role in the world around them. They provided sacrifices to the gods for this reason, the best portions of meat, until Prometheus taught them to 'cheat' the gods with lousy cuts. We do have records of people sacrificing to the gods, even entire horses were offered up to Poseidon. If the people did not believe the gods would take an active hand and smite them, why then are they burning their things if it's not literal? It's special pleading to say that the gods had an active hand, but they don't anymore, or that they do not communicate with mortals except on a personal level whilst never committing any act that has visible repercussions. The problem I see with a lot of Neo-Paganism today, is that it acts like their gods are in some way a nebulous spiritual entity, instead of a walking talking being of flesh and volatile ichor. It's essentially the same thing Christians do lately, where Yahweh is just kind of a spiritual presence that speaks to them, rather than being an actual individual who wrestles humans, cheats, demands people sacrifice their children to him, etc.

                        I'm really trying to not be offensive to anyone who worships these beings here, and I'm sorry if I'm fixating on the negative traits. In my defense I'm a human being, fixating on the negative is what we do, and there are a lot of negative stories to choose from.

                        A question I have is that, if the stories of the gods are metaphorical and not to be taken literally, what is the story of Poseidon raping Medusa a metaphor 'for'? What is the story of Artemis turning a hunter into a stag, or a man into a woman, a metaphor of? What is the story of Tiresias a metaphor of? Or of Herakles and his slaying of monsters? The Aesir convinced a Frost Thurst to build a wall for Asgard and had Loki prevent him from doing it in time to earn his reward, so Loki turned into a mare, had sex with a stallion, and bore a foal from the exchange, then they found out that the man was a frost thurst and Thor just smashed his skull to bits. What is that story a metaphor of?

                        That is fascinating, Solana. I don't think I've ever encountered someone before who enjoyed making altars that didn't have some belief (or desire to believe) in the gods represented. I also am pleased to see that you keep an open mind, as far as evidence goes. I had one professor who I got into a similar discussion with (we were talking about ghosts as an example, but the same basic evidence-related discussion). She said that she didn't believe in anything but what her senses told her. When I asked what she would say if she saw a ghost, she'd believe that she was hallucinating. If a whole group saw it, then the whole group was having a shared hallucination. If one revealed itself to the world and everyone saw it, then she'd believe that the whole world was suffering from mass hysteria on an incredibly large scale. She was so stuck in her own view that ghosts couldn't be real, that she outright said that any hypothetical situations in which evidence for them were found would automatically be invalidated by the fact that ghost weren't real.
                        I actually do have a desire to believe in gods, and considered myself religious when I was younger. But speaking as someone who worshiped the gods and now does not worship them, there has been no appreciable difference in my life whatsoever. I'd love to know Artemis is real, I'm transgender, maybe she could be persuaded to help me out? I keep little things that remind me of Laufey or Loki and the like because I view them as cultural heroes - and if they could get through what they got through, then perhaps I can too.

                        If your professor said that, then she's not a scientist. I don't even need to see a ghost, nor hear, smell, or touch it. What I do need is for the hypothesis: ghosts are real - to have an ability to yield predictable and consistent results. Seeing and interacting with a ghost would be one way to do that, but having unnatural events befall people who keep shrines to their ancestors would give me every reason to switch to a world view where ghosts are real, because interacting with them has a demonstrable and predictable outcome.

                        I'm not asking you to stop speaking from the perspective that the gods aren't real any more than you are asking theists to stop speaking as though they were. I was just hoping to point out why some people would be bothered by such statements. As far as Artemis transforming people into animals go, I don't believe she ever did so in the literal sense.
                        So Artemis was never in the actual spring, bathing, and it was just a metaphor for some guy's dogs turning on him and ripping him apart? Then we have an explanation for that which doesn't involve Artemis existing at all, what basis did you have for these gods existing before learning of these stories? If they're real people should have interacted with them and learned their name without ever having touched a book of Greek literature, but I've never seen that to be the case. At best we'll get people who 'see a moon goddess' pick up a book of Greek Myth and 'that' is how they learn the goddess's name, because apparently telling the person their own name is not something the gods find desirable.

                        Likewise, what about the story of Artemis turning a man into a woman? Is that just a metaphor for a guy going out into the woods, coming back, and telling her family that she's transgender? We have an explanation for that which does not include Artemis cursing someone with gender dysphoria. It's attributing an event to her when we have no evidence of her involvement or the need for her involvement.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by White Oak Dragon View Post
                          That is fascinating, Solana. I don't think I've ever encountered someone before who enjoyed making altars that didn't have some belief (or desire to believe) in the gods represented. I also am pleased to see that you keep an open mind, as far as evidence goes. I had one professor who I got into a similar discussion with (we were talking about ghosts as an example, but the same basic evidence-related discussion). She said that she didn't believe in anything but what her senses told her. When I asked what she would say if she saw a ghost, she'd believe that she was hallucinating. If a whole group saw it, then the whole group was having a shared hallucination. If one revealed itself to the world and everyone saw it, then she'd believe that the whole world was suffering from mass hysteria on an incredibly large scale. She was so stuck in her own view that ghosts couldn't be real, that she outright said that any hypothetical situations in which evidence for them were found would automatically be invalidated by the fact that ghost weren't real.
                          As Solana points out, she's not a particularly good scientist.

                          If a ghost revealed itself to the world, I would be initially skeptical and attempt to seek out proof. Millions upon millions of others would also do so. Only after repeated examination verifies it would I be convinced. Similarly if I met one - I'd first question my senses, and then seek to establish proof.


                          We don't allow mages to cast spells, since this is the most unbalancing rule of all.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by atamajakki View Post

                            You're gonna have fun when the fonal book uses their proper names
                            I mean, you could never refer to the same god with the same name twice in a row to screw with your group's ability to keep what's being said straight. That sounds like a pretty great idea to me.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X