Argument from nonbelief

[danasider]

NintendoPie said:

Aielyn said:

Ah, well then, your comparison didn't make sense. Ice Giants weren't gods, and Jesus never promised to destroy the "Christian God". There is nothing about Ice Giants, other than the presumption of non-existence, to relate them to the "Christian God".

Oh, by the way, Ice Giants aren't made out of ice. Another name for them is "Frost Giants".

And can I point out that Adam was made from dirt? Why is being made from dirt any different from being made from ice?

It was purely a comparison. No need to get technical. You over-thought my post.

I think you're missing the point he's making.  I don't think he necessarily believes in ice giants or frost giants.  However, if he did, he is saying that doing so would be no more rediculous than believing in a god who has no physical explanation/isn't known to to be made from perceptible materials and does not follow laws of science we believe we understand.

You responded by saying ice giants seemed sillier because they were made of inanimate objects, and he compared that to Adam who was made from dirt, because the same religion's god this thread is arguing over is said to have created man from earth.  There is an irony here, because a foreign, outdated or just opposing religion can be viewd as unrealistic...even if the premise for which it is construed as silly (in this case a giant made of ice, which aren't really ice giants are, compared to a man made of dirt) is virtually the same in the religion from where the god you see as more normal originates.

The overall theme is that what one person has faith in/sees as normal (the idea of a Christian-Judeo God to you, though it may sound like a comic book or fairy tale to someone from another part of the world with a different religious background), another may be see it as silly and vice versa.  Neither party necessarily is right or wrong, because the only thing that changes is perspective.

Not meaning to intrude, but your conversation interested me.