PLAYER57832 wrote:Okay, I came into this a bit late (seems to have been fun, though..). However, I must (sigh) stand against you here Dancing Mustard.
Then let battle be joined...
PLAYER57832 wrote:If you limit your belief to that which can be emphirically proven without a doubt, then you must limit yourself also to much of science, as well as excluding art, philosophy, etc.
I'll have to limit myself to only believing in things which are scientifically proven? Well that's just great!
No more fairy-tales, no more make-believe, just things that we can prove and demonstrate. I'll only be basing my life around things which I am totally confident are real.
As for eschewing Art and Philosophy... why do I have to do that? I'm not quite sure why refusing to believe in Gods and monsters stops me from enjoying fine art? Help me out there...
PLAYER57832 wrote:On the issue of Ghosts and Demons ... The one thing I have found is that there is a very wide gap between the most current scientific/theological arguments/discussion/ideas about these things and what many people learn "around the campfire" or "on the playyard"
Sure, it's easier to set up arguments stating that one can't disprove a magical, invisible, all-powerful, ageless God, than it is to say you can't disprove Unicorns and Boggarts. But that doesn't mean that either concept is any more fantastical than the other, does it? It simply means that the subject of one tale is allegedly more ephemeral than that of the other.
Also, the problem with 'God stories' (as opposed to other similar folk-tales) is that they allege to explain something which we haven't yet found a conclusive scientific explanation for; which means that they're not flying in the face of completely overwhelming proof... merely in the face of gross improbability.
Basically, the reason I keep comparing 'God Stories' to campfire tales is because both of them are, so far as I'm concerned, no more than age-old superstitions that were invented to answer questions about environmental phenomena that couldn't be otherwise explained in that time and age. I realise that a great deal of reverence has sprung up around God Concepts, and that their adherents take them very seriously, but that doesn't oblige me to treat the tales as anything other than that which they actually (in my opinion) are... old folk-tales.
However, what I'm not saying with that comment is that the existence of a creator necessitates that creator being the Christian 'God'... In my opinion (which I realise isn't one that Christians are going to take kindly to) Bible stories are as much speculative fairy-tales as those in any other religious text, or in any other collection of folk-tales. All of which can be tested by real evidence and proven to be, at the very best, entirely implausible and highly unlikely.
Before somebody like Coffeecream pipes up, let me say for the record that the above does not make me a 'God Hater', simply a 'God Dismisser'. I don't hate him, or those who choose to base their lives on his speculative existence; I just think it's an odd and archaic way to carry on.
PLAYER57832 wrote:There actually are a large number of wholly responsible, wholle intelligent and credible individuals who have had experiences that are just not explained by traditional means.
Well then bring them out.
If people are up for the "
I think that things actually do go bump in the night" thread, then I'll be happy to engage in the business of explaining away and discrediting any 'evidence' that they choose to bring.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Most of those creatures you mentioned were popularized in D & D, though in most cases they predate that game & its accompanying texts.
All true of course... though I resisted the urge to slot 'Owlbears' in there. They were always my favourites y'see.