Huh?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Xywqv1cDH8[/youtube]

Matty the Damned wrote:

iamthereforeithink wrote:I contend that Zeus is unreal and Hellenism is false, because there are 4 days in one earth rotation and a 4 corner square rotating 1/4 turn creates a full circle. A full rotated square will create 16 corners, 96 hours and 4 simultaneous 24 hour Day circles within only a single imaginary cubed Earth rotation.*




*Ref: Dr. Gene Ray, 2009

Time Cube FTW!

I love Gene Ray. He's a hoot.

MtD

Yup. Denial of Cubic Truth will get you nowhere. I exhort the OP to shun the satanic cult of hellenism, and accept the divine ungodly truth of Cubism into his life.

I like cheese. Omnomnom.

Ok Sterling, lets go.
Right first off, science proves the universe is 4.54 billion years old, THIS DOESN'T FIT WITH ANY CREATION MYTH.
I really would love to wander through the world of Ancient Greek Myth, as I regularly do in God of War, but I can disprove the entire theologic cluster-fuck that it is with one word.
GEOGRAPHY
Throughout the myths of the ancient greeks, which by the way have one of the best overall plotlines outside of Marvel Comics, we are constantly told of journeys to the underworld and yet one of these entrances has never been found but the absolute knock-out blow of the entire geography argument is this ZEUS IS SUPPOSED TO LIVE ATOP MOUNT OLYMPUS. For a full debunking please climb said mountain and shout his name real loud and see if he turns up... oh wait a minute you can't climb it can you, then you'll need a FUCKING PEGASUS.
Like the many twats who have had Klingon Weddings you have mistaken a story for a religion, please take your intellectual fuck-wittery elsewhere before I have to logic your tiny mind out of existence, from the quality of your posts may I suggest the YouTube comments section.

Right first off, science proves the universe is 4.54 billion years old,

May I gently point out that science can offer no proof of anything? The best that science can ever say is that (insert conclusion here) is the most probable explanation of the available evidence.

... ok yeah I'll give you that but when it's the most likely outcome by an incredibly high margin then I choose to see that as proof.

How did I know was coming? I must be a prophet.

pawiz wrote:How did I know was coming? I must be a prophet.

Divine revelation?

Sorry I've removed the offending quotes... I'm having a bad day. I just really wish on one occasion someone would at least pretend to have some evidence for their point of view

eddie.zdi wrote:Sorry I've removed the offending quotes... I'm having a bad day. I just really wish on one occasion someone would at least pretend to have some evidence for their point of view

You mean the OP was serious . I thought it was just a bit of humor. A sort of creationist parody using the Hellenistic gods instead of the usual Abrahamic ones.

Sterling wrote:I win!

Meh I won the internet twice last week, and am officially most winningest in the history of webs. So what.

does this mean I have to accept that Zeus is real though? What's the protocol on this one?

Sterling wrote:I was reading the Evolution is wrong and Zeus is real! page and alot of it is a bunch of crap. I am a real prationer of Hellenism and it contradicts with the works and days, the theogony, and the Bibliotheca. I want to debate someone on why the gods aren't real. BRING IT ON!

It's simple Sterling: you make your claims and arguments for them, and people will address them.
_________

Sterling wrote:I win!

Demonstarting your lack of interest in actually establishing anything, but nothing more than "winning" a debate. Even if only due to no one bothering to take you up on it. Truly pathetic.
___________________

Sterling wrote:You should be able to skeptic me but you are just making excuses.
WHY IS ZEUS NOT REAL?

Do not start by trying to shift the burden of proof. You claim this entity is real, can you provide any reason why anybody should believe you (any more than we should believe the Raelians?)

Sterling wrote:
OR IMMORAL?

Have you actually read the various Zeus Myths?! It's all a bit of a soap opera really.

Sterling wrote:
It simply doesn't make sense to belive in something and not listen to all the religions why are they not real?

Um what? You do realise that you are challenging people who don't believe something, namely in the existence of any gods, don't you?!
_______________

Sterling wrote:Ok, here is what I am saying the fact is that nobody considers the religious point of view of Hellenism.

Have you read and seriously considered the text of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? If not why not?
Simple isn't it: you have been offered no reason to. And it is simply impractical (indeed impossible) to carefully examine each and every wild claim. Give us a reason to seriously consider yours.

Sterling wrote:I would like to know what your point of view is on the religion but not a religion in general persective.

It's one of many many polytheistic religions that once flourished in a certain area, and subsequently subsided, as most invariably do, often to be replaced by other belief systems. Including a general degradation/shifting of the beliefs internally, and the influences of the Romans basically bastardising the whole thing, as well as the Greek Judaism converts establishing Christianity.
Some of the stories are pretty good (hence the interest in such tales to this very day, for example the recent Clash of the Titans film) as literature and fiction, but suggest no truth value.

Sterling wrote: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?

One does not revert to atheism. Atheism is not a belief system, but the non-acceptance of any theistic belief systems. Why? Well one can have many reasons, but for me (and many others I know) the answer is simple; insufficient reasons to think they have any truth value whatsoever.

Don't delude yourself into assuming that I reject polytheism any more or less than monotheism.
___________

I am at least loosely familiar with the texts you have been referring to (not in any detail however.) Is there any reason to see them as any more than stories? Any more than the many other "religious" texts which conflict with them?
_____________

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

If you say so. Some of the basic principles of evolution were recognised (and recorded) as far back as the Pre-Socratic era in that part of the world, and that was through observation of the life around them, nothing more required. Nothing "mysterious" there.

Sterling wrote: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.

They thought the universe was old? Okay, so they trump the incredibly naive biblical literalists (YECs) Good for them. Evidence suggests it is far from "infinite" however. We should expect a hel of a lot better than that to have any call to be impressed. All kinds of beliefs about the age of the universe have come up through the ages, ranging from a few thousand years, through billions and trillions of years to literally infinite (including cyclic models,) what of it really? Unless there is something more specific there, is there?

Sterling wrote:Thats my first arguement.

An argument for what though?! It amounts to nothing, certainly nothing toward any claims of gods existing.

You have given us nothing thus far Sterling, even many creationists can, and do, do better than that.