Has exhausted my patience. I'm on the verge of pining for Bishop Berkeley...
>At that point worship was established but after the compromise they
>needed it to continue to exist.
Proof? Nothing written about the Compromise says that the Gods need worship to exist.
>So why can there be storms without Orlanth (or Storm God)?
Get a clue. Nobody has said there are no storms without the storm god in glorantha. What has been said is that the theists see the storm and think it caused by the storm god, whereas the scientist says it's just a storm.
NB>> I am certain Richard's contention that the sun don't shine over
>> atheist lands (later modified to "the sun don't shine so bright") is a
>> Gloranthan absurdity.
>If it's an absurdity then you'll be able to give me loads of examples
>where it isn't true.
We have. Brithos. We have shouted it from the Mountains. Brithos. What part of this did you not understand?
>>> I reckon the sun don't shine so bright over there [in Arolanit].
Me>> And you are wrong.
>Well - as far as Arolanit is concerned, first of all they worship the
>Invisible God, which is worship, isn't it?
No. They _acknowlege_ the Invisible God as the Creator but do not worship him.
>Couldn't it be that monotheists worship one god which has, effectively,
>all runes associated with it?
The Brithini of Arolanit are Atheists. Furthermore the Invisible God only has three runes: Law, Magic and Infinity.
>'Most travellers to Arolanit complain that everything looks grey, or as
>according to one merchant from Hendra, "like the radiance was taken from
>the light..."'
>Sounds like the sun doesn't shine so bright.
Nope. The Brithini use tap spells on the environment.
Me>> How does one destroy the Wind or the Sun? Since it's pretty much
>> impossible then why _bother_ introducing oodles of amateur metaphysics
>> to screw up glorantha?
>I'm not trying to screw up Glorantha. I'm postulating theories to try to
>explain Glorantha.
And in case you haven't noticed, your theories screw up glorantha. People have been pointing out the flaws in your argument. First you posted at full speed three days in a row without even acknowledging that they even existed and now you seem intent on denying that any flaw exists in your theories.
Me>> Proof? All we have is human worship can affect physicial
>> manifestations. But that does not mean that human worship is the
>> source of all physical manifestations.
>I don't have to give you any proof.
If we are going to play semantics, then I shall point out that this forum uses plain english. Thus trying to welsh out of a demand for proof by appealing to a technical sense of proof first used by Karl Popper in this century is underhand. You do have to give some proof or evidence in support of your theory that Gods require Sapient Worship. So far you have not given one single solitary fucking iota. So put up or shut up.
>It's not the way this sort of thing
>works. I propose a theory and make predictions from it.
Yaddayaddayadda. Tell me, what makes you think that reading 'A Brief History of Time' makes you a super-philosopher? What makes you think the rest of us are complete morons?
>If it's wrong
>then my predictions will fail. You can never prove a theory right, you
>can only say it's not been proved wrong yet.
So in Develynworld, criminals get off scot free because we can never _prove_ they were the ones wot dun it? You should visit Planet Earth one of these days...
I have shown again and again that your theories lead to wrong conclusions. When challenged, you postulate _ad_hoc_ theories that are quite frankly absurd: Orlanthi Care-Bears, Underground Death Worshippers. That is a sure sign that the basic premise (that Gods Need Sapient Worship) should be dropped.
>And I have no problem whatsoever changing my theories around to fit in
>with any new evidence. That's all part of the process.
You are not changing your theories. You have persisted with the theory that Gods Need Sapient Worship in spite of the fact that people have told you that it is Wrong. As for the new evidence, you are woefully ignorant of much of this evidence (ie you didn't know that Brithos was a land of Atheists until someone told you). As a result of being told about this new evidence, you have repeated your old theory and quibbled about the definition of proof.
>So how do you explain what happens when the two are in conflict? i.e.
>when a theist and a scientist standing on the same spot predict
>different things?
You have shown absolutely no mechanism by which they can predict wrong things. The only scenario that I've seen requires the Theist to believe that Gods Need Sapient Worship. You have not proven this (Yes, I know Richard will object to this usage of proof but frankly I don't give a shit) thus your hypothesis is moot.
What people normally understand by different viewpoints is that the Scientist would predict X based on his theories and the priest would also predict X based on his divinations. There is a lot more to that but since Thomas Kuhn's paradigms aren't mentioned in 'A Brief History of Time' and Popper is (p10), I don't think that Richard knows what I'm talking about...
>> OTOH you seem to think that if a scientist gives a correct prediction
>> then he is disproving theism.
>I don't think that. I think that if the scientist and theist predict
>different results then what will happen will be a compromise to allow
>both to be correct.
Scientist says A. Theist says B. You say B will be observed. How the fuck is this a compromise? Furthermore if you mean that (A+B)/2 is observed then both are _wrong_.
>For example, both could realise they had insufficient data.
How does a divination become 'insufficient data'?
>>> If you're saying, and _know_, not just saying, that in a land
>>> thousands of miles away from _any_ storm worship whatsoever, there
>>> are mountains with hurricane winds blowing in them, then my theory
>>> doesn't fit.
Me>> Yes. Ergo you are wrong in saying that Gods need worship to manifest.
>Where is this place?
The Jrusteli Mountains. The Palarkri Mountains. The Tarmo. The Enneal Mountains etc. Satisfied now? Can you drop your oral-retention about the theory that Gods Need Sapient Worship now?
>You then made a couple of comments based on the fact that you _deny_ my
>theories. You haven't yet disproved it I'm afraid.
Lie. You detailed two scenarios in which a theist would lose faith in his gods and then concluded from it that Gods Need Sapient Worship. I pointed out your reasoning required the Theist to _believe_ that Gods Need Sapient Worship. If we take this out, then the Theist won't lose faith in your scenarios.
So why, o why, do we need to incorporate the thesis that Gods Need Sapient Worship in Glorantha? So far all I have seen for it is Orlanthi Care-Bears and Underground Death Worshippers, both which make me want to projectile-vomit...
>I made a statement that I believed sun worshippers on earth believed
>that the sun shone brightest over their temples. Peter and Nick want
>proof!
No. You said that you are _sure_ that they believed this is so until they were disproved by Scientists. Nick asked for documentation (in the knowledge that he probably wouldn't get it) and I told you that you were _wrong_.
>Let me simply state that I _imagine_ this to be the case. It seems to be
>very much the sort of thing that religions say.
The onus is on you to prove your case. You have not shown any proof but said 'I imagine this to be the case'. If historical disputes could be resolved by asking you what you imagine to be the case, then a lot of historians will be out of a job. The _reality_ is you are completely and utterly flat out wrong about how sun religions work.
Me>> We can prove God doesn't exist? When did that happen?
>No, you're right, we can't _prove_ anything. However we can make some of
>these miracles seem extremely unlikely. The faithful will always be the
>faithful, however I believe a lot of religions have started toning down
>the supposed miraculous feats of their scriptures, in the face of
>scientific opposition.
Let's see. The Catholic Church is still churning out Saints (which requires two witnessed miracles for acceptance) and maintains the Body of Christ is manifestly present in the Eucharist. Faith healing still takes place amongst charismatic christians. Years of scepticism has failed to diminish the intensity of the faithful's belief.
>> Oh? Why can't [the Theist and the Scientist] simply talk past each
>> other as happens in the Real World?
>Because I think there would be a decline in religion, like, I believe,
>has happened in the real world. I don't feel that's the way Glorantha
>ticks.
Let's see if I get this straight. Theist is not convinced by the Scientist's explainations. Therefore Theist loses faith and becomes a Scientist. I'm lost...
>What I meant to say was that the answer would lie between the theists
>"little or no wind" and the scientists "strong gale".
So both are wrong and both have been disproved.
>> Note that I said the _depths_ where there are very few fish (due to
>> lack of sunlight etc).
>The place could be teeming with magical fish, couldn't it?
Who, if your theory that Gods Need Sapient Worship is true, would need worship to exist. But there is no non-magical sapient in their midsts and so it fails.
Powered by hypermail