:-)
My grandfather is a big fan of Heinrich Schliemann and I would say it is like this:

There is some evidence that some kind of war in relation to Troy has happened, but there is not enough evidence to say that it has happened exactly as depicted in the Iliad.
So a real event with lots of extra stuff added to it in the written accounts.

If the "Trojan War" for you is defined as the event described in the Iliad, then no, there was no "Trojan War".
If any war at Troy that has been the basis for the events in the Iliad suffices for you as the definition of "Trojan War", then yes, there was a "Trojan War".

That's absolutely correct. Christianity was thrust into a political role that it was never meant to take, but which only it was capable of taking.

I will not break your post down and reply to everything individually, but let's begin.

But you DO believe in things blindly. It's not so much different than a religion. Most religions are not set in stone either. The things you call "evidence" in science, are called by the religion leaders as "God giving new insight about his word". The Catholic church have changed quite a lot since it's start. Not only that but the fact that we have so many religions today splintered from only a few in the past proves that people DO question their faith, they just don't like to be told their beliefs are a lie and both atheists and christians defend their current views with nail and teeth despite the fact that they COULD be wrong.

The next three of your comments can be answered the same: There's no point in denying or stating something unless you are one hundred percent sure of it. Or is there? The way I see it, both sides do it just to feel themselves superior. You know, everyone likes to be the Lord of the Absolute Truth (hey, even you and me!).

Are you sure that's not the case? Try to contest any one of those fundamental "truths" and you get a whole lot of backlash for no reason other than fanatism. And what's so silly about what I've said? I told you that atheist like to mock people who disagree with them. You are proving my point.

And regarding mithology, why that can't be true? Really. Ask yourself why. I'm not saying it's exactly like the ancient "gods" were depicted by our rather primitive ancestors but couldn't they just have been something else? Visitors from other planets? Another dimension? I don't know, use your imagination. What's so silly about that? I'm not so quick to dismiss (or believe in) anything. The words of Arthur C. Clarke and Einstein should spring to mind here: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" and "Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”

Just for the record, I have nothing against you (or atheists in general) it's just that the majority (or at least the vocal minority) tend to misbehave. You are not doing a good job at it either.

I think taking things at face value is a problem that part of the human condition rather than something unique to theists. It's always good for people to be willing to critically examine what they are being told and to be willing to reevaluate what they believe, especially on matters that are most important to them.

Do you have any idea how arrogant that is? There's plenty of other religions that could do the deed, Christianity is probably not even the best choice. Arguably both Buddhism and Hinduism do a better job.

Any other supernatural things written off as myth that could be true? Anything in Asia?

(www.dictionary.com)
ev·i·dence [ev-i-duhns]
noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.

The fact that there is evidence for something does not mean that it is true; it just means that it can be used to form the belief that something is true. If someone reads the Iliad and forms the belief that the Trojan War happened, then the Iliad caused their belief. It indicated, made clear, or proved to them that it is true that the Trojan War happened, so it is evidence for that by definition. If the Iliad or anything else had indicated, made clear, or proved to them that it was true that the Trojan War happened, then that is essentially saying their belief that it did is uncaused. Keep in mind that it is possible to misinterpret evidence, so what we think the evidence indicates, makes clear, or proves to us is not necessarily true.

I have the same problem when writing than and then.

I was not saying that only Christianity was capable of handling a political role, or that only it is capable of meeting the social needs of the people, or even that it would do the best job of it. What I am saying is that historically speaking, only Christianity was in the position to play that role at that time and that it was a role it was never meant to take.

I encourage you to read this article on the Inquisition:

http://www.tektonics.org/qt/spaninq.html

Well that makes sense in that "war is politics by other means" as Von Clausewitz once stated. Then again, humanity use many excuses to hurt each other, and that makes me rather said since I am a firm believer in any action (regardless of what it may be) should never result in the harm of others (or at least not including accidents and what have you). Regardless, it was an atrocious event that never should have happened. I remember studying it in world philosophies, religions, and history. It was a brilliant class taught by one of my favourite teachers, and he tried to show the implications of it from all possible sides and how much of a clusterfuck it really was.

edit: The saying "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" comes to mind as well. Then again, I generally choose to keep many of my personal beliefs to myself as I tend to think they are generally no one else's business. At least in terms of philosophical, and what not; usually to avoid arguments and the like.

"Power corrupts, but the power of duct tape corrupts absolutely."

No. It is very different. You don't sound like an agnostic.

People need to be mocked so they realise how ridiculous their beliefs are. You need to be mocked for thinking Xenu could really be out there.

Sure, any more baseless assumptions you want to postulate? Maybe pixies build it all with small chocolate blocks and over time because of cosmic rays sent out by Xenu that turned into the matter we see now? NO EVIDENCE

Really? My posts must have been pretty convincing then, because you sounded very different before this one.


The point is that you CAN do those experiments, you can verify them. For some of them its hard, for some of them it is extremely easy. Go to youtube, there are videos that show you how you can find out that the earth is not flat, just like Aristoteles back then. No need for blind faith, no need to reserve the possibility of a flat earth like a good agnostic anymore. You can verify all the evidence by yourself. And by evidence I mean evidence, not something that somebody maybe have said at some point. You don't need to believe anything, find it out for yourself. That is what science is about.

See this is the religious peoples problem, scientists getting something wrong, does not mean some baseless assumption is automatically more likely.

Right, you can't vote another god, if your god exists, so it is a dictator. It murders people on a daily basis. There is lots of murder commanded by it in the bible, so where do you get this not murderous from?

Then please explain it to me. Don't just throw it out there. The bridge example is very clearly circular, it is not hard to understand. I never said you wrote the second example, that was simply for your benefit to see how religious circular reasoning usually goes, glad you agree, though.

You don't seem to know what an agnostic really is. Perhaps this will help you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Excerpt:

"A person calling oneself 'agnostic' is literally stating that he or she has no opinion on the existence of God, as there is no definitive evidence for or against."

And so mockery is your answer to everyone who dares to question YOUR beliefs? You are the typical atheist fanatic I'm used to see everywhere. And I didn't state that this Xenu is real. Let me mock you in return to see if you get what you are doing wrong, monkey boy. Do you want a banana? You should like them a lot since your ancestors used to be monkeys, right?

See? That serves no purpose whatsoever and in fact strenghten the other's resolve and his hostility towards you. (Don't worry I'm not saying evolution is false. If you were a christian I would mock God's existance too just to get you on board)

One thing is to state something easily verifiable (like the Earth is round and not flat) the other is to state the existance (or not) of a God (or gods). There's quite a difference in both statements. All I'm saying is that you CANNOT be 100% sure of either the existance or non-existance of a God and your attitude towards those who believe in one should be a little (a lot) more tolerant.

And again, you didn't read my last sentence properly (or ignored the key parts altogether) since I've stated that I only have problems with fanatics (like you are turning out to be now).

Gee thanks, from the impression I got here I was beginning to think agnostic means gullible person who thinks anything could be true and doesn;t understand the scientific method.

Where is the mockery, I like bananas and moneys are awesome.

Not really, it just confused me. Why would you hate on monkeys?

And that is where you are wrong. When the church claimed that the earth is flat,there were no space stations in orbit. It was an example for how science works, how we don;t need to believe religiously in them, how we can do the science ourselves.
And yes I can be a 100% sure that impossible things do not exist. Why can't you? I did not say you think Xenu exists, I said you think there is a chance Xenu exists. Which is what you said. Which is IMPOSSIBLE and ridiculous.