Ooh shouting now.

Not shouting.

YES YOU WERE

lol. No.

Sterling,

If you could put forward a grammatically coherent proposition and a number of persuasive points to support your assertions, perhaps we may have something to address. But until then, your discussion looks like something the cat dragged in and should be treated with the commensurate distain as such.

Ok, here is what I am saying the fact is that nobody considers the religious point of view of Hellenism. I would like to know what your point of view is on the religion but not a religion in general persective. I wan to know the reason why you do not consider the religion and dismiss it and revert to atheism without knowing the whole scope. And why you reject the idea polythieism too?

Sterling wrote:Ok, here is what I am saying the fact is that nobody considers the religious point of view of Hellenism. I would like to know what your point of view is on the religion but not a religion in general persective. I wan to know the reason why you do not consider the religion and dismiss it and revert to atheism without knowing the whole scope. And why you reject the idea polythieism too?

When you understand why you reject every other god, you will understand why I reject yours.

- Dawkins and others

Sterling wrote:Ok, here is what I am saying the fact is that nobody considers the religious point of view of Hellenism. I would like to know what your point of view is on the religion but not a religion in general persective. I wan to know the reason why you do not consider the religion and dismiss it and revert to atheism without knowing the whole scope. And why you reject the idea polythieism too?

The burden of proof is on you. Why should any of us accept that any god is or was real?
So many gods claimed, so little no evidence. We're waiting.

Sterling wrote:Look the postition is simple it actually shows progresstion [sic] threw [sic] out the works and days, the theogony, and the Bibliotheca.

What the holy fuck are you talking about?

There are is no dogma rether [sic] just basic principles Hubris,Reciprocity, and Virtue.

Nope. Still not any clearer.

I would like to reference that Evolution is a theory(which means though highly accepted is not proved on [sic] like the laws which are inperfect[sic] (ex:perpetional [sic] motion).

Bzzzz. Thank you for playing. Evolution is a demonstrable fact. Indeed, evolution is a collection of facts, for which the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution by natural selection is the explanatory framework. Your scientific illiteracy (along with your linguistic illiteracy) is showing here.

I would like some reasons that prove Zeus immoral or unreal.

What for? What exactly are you arguing against?

Sterling wrote:Ok, here is what I am saying the fact is that nobody considers the religious point of view of Hellenism. I would like to know what your point of view is on the religion but not a religion in general persective. I wan to know the reason why you do not consider the religion and dismiss it and revert to atheism without knowing the whole scope. And why you reject the idea polythieism too?

There is zero credible evidence that the olympian gods exist and unless you're prepared to put forward any evidence or reasoning as to why they do in your opinion, I don't see that we have much to discuss here.

Sterling wrote:Ok, here is what I am saying the fact is that nobody considers the religious point of view of Hellenism. I would like to know what your point of view is on the religion but not a religion in general persective. I wan to know the reason why you do not consider the religion and dismiss it and revert to atheism without knowing the whole scope. And why you reject the idea polythieism too?

Lack of anything remotely resembling evidence? Of course, if you actually have some evidence to present that goes some way toward supporting your illiterate guff, we might actually have something to discuss.

Sterling wrote:You should be able to skeptic me but you are just making excuses.
WHY IS ZEUS NOT REAL?
OR IMMORAL?
It simply doesn't make sense to belive in something and not listen to all the religions why are they not real?

Well if you don't want to be skepticked why don't you start evidencing?

MtD

The idea of the generations in the works and days shows that the priciples of a version of evolution, the theogony shows the formations of stars and galaxys in simple terms. The universe was made over(direct transaltion) "infinite centurys" centurys to them was a long time. Thats my first arguement.

Sterling wrote:The idea of the generations in the works and days shows that the priciples of a version of evolution, the theogony shows the formations of stars and galaxys in simple terms. The universe was made over(direct transaltion) "infinite centurys" centurys to them was a long time. Thats my first arguement.

That's an argument, is it ?

It's not an argument, it's a word salad.

Sterling wrote:The idea of the generations in the works and days shows that the priciples of a version of evolution, the theogony shows the formations of stars and galaxys in simple terms. The universe was made over(direct transaltion) "infinite centurys" centurys to them was a long time. Thats my first arguement.

Word salad

Sterling wrote:The idea of the generations in the works and days shows that the priciples of a version of evolution, the theogony shows the formations of stars and galaxys in simple terms. The universe was made over(direct transaltion) "infinite centurys" centurys to them was a long time. Thats my first arguement.

What does this "first arguement" mean?

MtD

"first arguement" I have more.

Sterling wrote:The idea of the generations in the works and days shows that the priciples [sic] of a version of evolution,

What works? What days? What the fuck are you on about? Give us a clue, this might be really interesting once you're coherent.

the theogony shows the formations of stars and galaxys [sic] in simple terms.

Huh? The origin of god shows the formation of stars? How does that work, then?

The universe was made over(direct transaltion [sic]) "infinite centurys"[sic] centurys [sic]to them was a long time. Thats my first arguement [sic].

That was an argument?

Sterling wrote:The idea of the generations in the works and days shows that the priciples of a version of evolution, the theogony shows the formations of stars and galaxys in simple terms. The universe was made over(direct transaltion) "infinite centurys" centurys to them was a long time. Thats my first arguement.

Please start using a spell check and then come back with something coherent. Otherwise your posts will be dismissed as trollish.