iNow Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 I'm curious about what people involved in science believe regarding Thor. Do you believe in Thor? Use any common defintion you like. No, I'm not talking about, "Yes, as a literary character," nor as "Sure, as a mythological figure in Norse culture." No, I'm asking "do you believe in Thor?" Why do we completely short-circuit our normal reasoning abilities and logic when the word "god" comes up? I'd be willing to wager my right testicle that the vast majority of you right now find this thread silly, yet it's SO very similar to the thread "do you believe in god?" What the hell is supposed to be the difference? I'm genuinely curious.
Daecon Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 (edited) No I don't. However I do think Thor's existence is probably more likely than Allah, or Jehovah, or whatever she calls herself these days. Although I still don't believe in him. Edited February 10, 2009 by Transdecimal browser hiccup
Martin Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 (edited) Do you believe in Thor? Use any common defintion you like. ... OK. Here is a common definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor Here is one for Odin too, for comparison: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odin I respect your wish not to have a literary discussion of Germanic myth, but the sources are interesting. Here is a contemporary description from 1070s. ==quote== Temple at Uppsala Between 1072 and 1076, Adam of Bremen recorded in his Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum that a statue of Thor existed in the Temple at Uppsala. Adam relates that: "Thor takes the central position, with Wotan and Frey on either side. Thor, according to their beliefs, governs the air with its thunder, lightning, wind, rain, and fair weather. He is depicted carrying a scepter, much as our people depict Jove.[16]" ==endquote== A sky entity: at some time or place, the top member of a pantheon. Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum means "Deeds of the Hamburg church bishops". Here is a longer excerpt: "In hoc templo, quod totum ex auro paratum est, statuas trium deorum veneratur populus, ita ut potentissimus eorum Thor in medio solium habeat triclinio; hinc et inde locum possident Wodan et Fricco. Quorum significationes eiusmodi sunt: 'Thor', inquiunt, 'praesidet in aere, qui tonitrus et fulmina, ventos ymbresque, serena et fruges gubernat. Alter Wodan, id est furor, bella gerit, hominique ministrat virtutem contra inimicos. Tertius est Fricco, pacem voluptatemque largiens mortalibus'. Cuius etiam simulacrum fingunt cum ingenti priapo." Gesta Hammaburgensis 26 "In this temple, entirely decked out in gold, the people worship the statues of three gods in such wise that the mightiest of them, Thor, occupies a throne in the middle of the chamber; Wotan and Frikko have places on either side. The significance of these gods is as follows: Thor, they say, presides over the air, which governs the thunder and lightning, the winds and rains, fair weather and crops. The other, Wotan—that is, the Furious—carries on war and imparts to man strength against his enemies. The third is Frikko, who bestows peace and pleasure on mortals. His likeness, too, they fashion with an immense phallus." Gesta Hammaburgensis 26, Tschan's translation What the hell is supposed to be the difference? I'm genuinely curious. I didn't read the other thread, so I can't properly address the question of what the difference is. It seems to me from looking over the Thor sources that it was a nice explanation of whatever the people didn't understand. It explained Lightning (sparks from his hammer) Thunder and the other Sky events. Also it explained Tides (they started with a drinking contest where a Giant tricked Thor by connecting his drinking cup to the Ocean.) Tides must have been hard to explain, so they needed a theory like this. A modernized Thor would presumably be the explanation of all the natural phenomena that you couldn't otherwise satisfactorily explain. Except for having erections which you would give thanks for to Frikko, the erection god. Odin seems to be more modeled after a Seer, a Wizard, an inspired raving Poet. He apparently knew the future! Maybe Odin fits the shaman stereotype better. Thor was more your standard Jupiter-type sky-god. Edited February 10, 2009 by Martin 1
moth Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 i was going to vote agnostic (is that a cop-out?) but "cannot have knowledge" seems too high a bar. have no knowledge would be easier to choose.
padren Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 I'd have to say yes because, well someone's gotta be throwing those lightening bolts, and even though they don't like to mention this in public schools, there are lots of holes in modern meteorology - we can't even get a 5 day forecast with any accuracy. Thor is the only explanation for thunder and lightening that doesn't have any holes in the theory. Of Polar Air Masses and People explains it well. Wait, that's silly - I mean no. 1
SkepticLance Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 iNow Can you please come clean and tell us what you are actually after? This is a rather silly question, since almost no-one in the 21st Century world actually believes in the existence of Thor as a living god, and I know you are fully aware of that. So why ask the question?
YT2095 Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 No not exactly, but something like a Stargate could probably exist.
mrburns2012 Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 Yes. How else could you explain thunder and lightning?
CaptainPanic Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 I don't believe in any product with poor marketing. And I haven't heard of Thor for ages.
JohnB Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 And I haven't heard of Thor for ages. That's because he's retired.
npts2020 Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 Well, I believe in Thor. Do I believe Thor can cleave rifts into hills with his hammer, drink half the ocean in a couple of draughts, cause lightning bolts ...... etc.? No, but they do make for great stories. It's kind of like asking if I believe in monarchy. Of course I do, but I am not for promoting such a system of belief.
DrDNA Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 (edited) Thor IS quite a super hero; with his mighty hammer. In a fair fight, and especially in an unfair fight, Thor can easily whip Batman, Aquaman, the Green Lantern,, or Spiderman (to name a few). He can whip the Fantastic Four; one by one or together, but being the gentleman he is, he probably would not fight the woman, I think he might do something else with her..... He can even defeat Superman, as long Oden is showing him favor. Edited February 10, 2009 by DrDNA
iNow Posted February 10, 2009 Author Posted February 10, 2009 (edited) I'd have to say yes because, well someone's gotta be throwing those lightening bolts, and even though they don't like to mention this in public schools, there are lots of holes in modern meteorology - we can't even get a 5 day forecast with any accuracy. Thor is the only explanation for thunder and lightening that doesn't have any holes in the theory. Of Polar Air Masses and People explains it well. That was quite brilliant. Loved the whole response, especially the end. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergediNowCan you please come clean and tell us what you are actually after? This is a rather silly question I don't understand. Why is this question any sillier than the question "Do you believe in god?" Can you elaborate? As for other motives, in addition to wondering why the logic and rationality of so many humans seems to completely evaporate when the word god comes up, I'm also making a point. By simply displacing the original question a little bit, it becomes painfully obvious (to me anyway) how silly that other question is. It should hopefully cause pause for those who answered "Yes" to the "Do you believe in god" thread, and spur some internal reflection on that silliness. So, Lance, oh great arbiter of what is and what is not silly or allowable, I was both asking a question and making a point, all at the same time. Edited February 10, 2009 by iNow Consecutive posts merged.
Baby Astronaut Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 You should add this: I believe Thor's existence is possible, even if I don't necessarily believe in Thor. Just want to point out that Thor is not a good comparison, because the Norse, Greek and Roman ancient gods were not omniscient and omnipresent, and weren't believed to have created the entire universe and other gods. A better comparison might be Chaos of ancient Greek mythology, who birthed lesser gods such as Tartarus, Eros, and Gaia, who then birthed the Titans, who finally birthed the Olympians. (lineage source: Wikipedia) Or even that one myth where a giant cosmic turtle vomited the universe -- although it died from choking on this vomit, so now it's just a skeletal husk floating out in space.
SkepticLance Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 iNow The reason your question is sillier than 'do you believe in God' is because enormous numbers of people believe in God, but almost none believe in Thor, in spite of the amusing answers so many have given. I respect your intelligence and knowledge, so I know you are fully aware of this, and wondered why you should want to ask the question?
mrburns2012 Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 That was quite brilliant. Loved the whole response, especially the end. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I don't understand. Why is this question any sillier than the question "Do you believe in god?" Can you elaborate? As for other motives, in addition to wondering why the logic and rationality of so many humans seems to completely evaporate when the word god comes up, I'm also making a point. By simply displacing the original question a little bit, it becomes painfully obvious (to me anyway) how silly that other question is. It should hopefully cause pause for those who answered "Yes" to the "Do you believe in god" thread, and spur some internal reflection on that silliness. So, Lance, oh great arbiter of what is and what is not silly or allowable, I was both asking a question and making a point, all at the same time. "Do you believe in God?" is not silly a question. We can believe in the existence of god for the same reason we don't believe in the existence of Thor. Unlike what you seemed to suggest, beliefs don't have to be rational or justified. I think the question you really wanted to ask is, "Do you have evidence to justify the existence of god?"
DrDNA Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 (edited) I don't understand. Why is this question any sillier than the question "Do you believe in god?" Can you elaborate? As opposed to Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and many other mainstream religions, Norse paganism is not currently practiced by millions of people world wide. If you look hard, far and wide, I'm sure that you will find somebody that actively practices Norse paganism, but not a great number. Therefore, one can easily anticipate that only a few, or no one here, will honestly admit to a belief in Thor. Conclusions: The question and many answers are very amusing, however, the (honest) answers can be easily anticipated a priori. Many "true believers" may suspect that the question was intended to ridicule those that believe in a higher power(s). In which case neither the question nor any subsequent responses, would be taken very seriously. PS: Although I adamantly believe in God, I, for one, am quite amused and definitely NOT offended. PSS: If you ever meet a practicing Norse paganist, I would advise against making fun of Thor, Oden or any other Norse god. Knowing what I know about many ancient Viking and Germanic cultures, I doubt that it is or ever was a "religion of peace". Edited February 10, 2009 by DrDNA
ParanoiA Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 ...beliefs don't have to be rational or justified. Then why do you believe them? Why not believe that paper clips created the universe? Also, how are we to distinguish between the beliefs you rationally concluded, like belief in gravity, and the ones you irrationally concluded?
DrDNA Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 (edited) Also, how are we to distinguish between the beliefs you rationally concluded, like belief in gravity, and the ones you irrationally concluded? Who or what is the judge of rational vs irrational? Edited February 10, 2009 by DrDNA
padren Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 As opposed to Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and many other mainstream religions, Norse paganism is not currently practiced by millions of people world wide.If you look hard, far and wide, I'm sure that you will find somebody that actively practices Norse paganism, but not a great number. Therefore, one can easily anticipate that only a few, or no one here, will honestly admit to a belief in Thor. Conclusions: The question and many answers are very amusing, however, the (honest) answers can be easily anticipated a priori. Many "true believers" may suspect that the question was intended to ridicule those that believe in a higher power(s). In which case neither the question nor any subsequent responses, would be taken very seriously. PS: Although I adamantly believe in God, I, for one, am quite amused and definitely NOT offended. PSS: If you ever meet a practicing Norse paganist, I would advise against making fun of Thor, Oden or any other Norse god. Knowing what I know about many ancient Viking and Germanic cultures, I doubt that it is or ever was a "religion of peace". One, glad you aren't offended, I don't think it's anyone's intention to offend you. Second, when you mention the fact that Thor does not have many worshipers, that sounds like an appeal to a logical claim that there is a logical reason why believing in Thor would be silly, but Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and many other mainstream religions is different due to the number of followers. I just want to mention this is 1) an assertion of logic, not belief, and as such you may find responses to be less "understanding" from a "belief" standpoint as the logically the assertion values due to the fact it's based on the fallacy of "appeal to majority" (if I remember it right) and Christianity was deemed no less viable when it only had a handful of worshipers at it's beginning. It opens the can of worms discussed in the Science could use a widespread PR shift thread. Personally I don't want to get into a discussion of why mainstream religions do not have more logical basis than Norse religions as I personally respect them both equally in terms of faith and usually that sort of discussion begins to push the boundaries that SFN seems to try to maintain on the topic.
Pangloss Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 I for one welcome our Asgardian overlords.
ParanoiA Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 (edited) Who or what is the judge of rational vs irrational? I'm aware of that, but I was waiting for him to step in it first and admit it was irrational to circumvent that problem. Thanks Dr. The obvious follow up is substantiation. Again, I get why folks suspect things, but I do not understand how you cross the line to belief. But I don't want to bust the rules here, and I'm afriad I'm walking a thin line here. Second, when you mention the fact that Thor does not have many worshipers, that sounds like an appeal to a logical claim that there is a logical reason why believing in Thor would be silly, but Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and many other mainstream religions is different due to the number of followers. Actually, I thought he was making the argument that it wasn't likely that anyone on here would actually be a follower of Thor just due to the odds, since it isn't popular by a long shot. Not an appeal to majority to legitimize the belief, but an appeal to minority to explain the lack of honest "Yes" votes. Edited February 10, 2009 by ParanoiA
Baby Astronaut Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 (edited) Also, how are we to distinguish between the beliefs you rationally concluded, like belief in gravity, and the ones you irrationally concluded? Irrational makes it seem faulty. "People should be treated humanely" isn't a rational conclusion, yet many people (including rationalists) believe it. Knowing what I know about many ancient Viking and Germanic cultures, I doubt that it is or ever was a "religion of peace". Therein lies the rub. The power brokers of the world seek out those who believe in a worthy ideology -- like peace. If they can draw enough such believers under their umbrella, and subtly mold/pollute the ideology to their own benefit, the result is a massive amount of energy poured into their nefarious ends by good yet unwitting people. And then, is the religion's use as such a tool one of peace anymore? In other words, a religion's followers seek peace -- while its leaders might execute war or destruction. In even more other words, the most successful *crooked* groups hardly bother to recruit crooks, they're actually better off recruiting *goody two-shoes* They'll also need to convince the flock with such deceptive propaganda as: whoever attempts to stop or expose their schemes, are bad/dangerous/misguided people. A relative example is France: did they really snub the U.S. in not helping with Iraq, or did they just refuse to partake in the obvious schemes of neocons? (I'm sure France would've helped with UBL) So yeah, "religion of peace" is a good thing, but make sure the politicians who campaign on such values really have peace in mind - and not the $$ "values" from businesses that profit on war and relevant technologies. Edited February 10, 2009 by Baby Astronaut changes of wording
iNow Posted February 10, 2009 Author Posted February 10, 2009 Then why do you believe them? Why not believe that paper clips created the universe? Indeed. Judging from the responses, though, it's because not many other people believe that. However, as padren rightly commented, even christianity started with just a small handful of followers, so that's another irrelevant appeal to popularity. I know many find my comments provocative, by why not believe in unicorns or leprechauns while you're at it? What's the difference? Oh, they're not gods or not omnipotent, you say? Okay, then... why not believe in Apollo or Zeus or Baal? I'll tell you. It's because we indoctrinate our children and they far too often are locked into these mistaken worldviews for the rest of their lives. If parents indoctrinated their children that paper clips created the universe, then you know darned well that this is what they'd believe.
Recommended Posts