Is it "insulting" to refer to god as "mythical"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From now on, so as not to offend anyone -- I'l use God/god. So does anyone think the God/god depicted in Genesis is anything other than myth? If so, how do you characterize it?

Not-the-editor here.

You're carefully narrowing the scope of your question to Genesis. As you know, the Christian Bible goes through Revelations and other religions also go much further than Genesis or don't use Genesis at all.

So I'll be very clear and equally specific in my answer. Yes, it's true that many believers think Genesis is literature.

But God in general is NOT a myth. Hope that forestalls the atheist who is always coming on to make "We all agree" posts about how, this time, God is a myth.

Not-the-editor here again. And you shouldn't need to be told this, but this is why it's insulting to refer to God as a myth. Because we know you don't just mean the God of Genesis, you mean the God of the whole Bible.

I see. Now we're getting somewhere. It's ok, to insult the OT because that's just myth, but not the NT?
So the virgin birth, the bodily ascension into heaven, walking on water, raising people from the dead -- that's not myth, that all really happened?

That's not what I said. I never said the entire OT is a myth, you made that up. Your snark about the NT says everything about your bad faith and how its not worth engaging with you.

Ok, so just Genesis is a myth? At least we're getting somewhere here How about the scientifically impossible occurences in the NT. Will you concede that any of those are myth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From now on, so as not to offend anyone -- I'l use God/god. So does anyone think the God/god depicted in Genesis is anything other than myth? If so, how do you characterize it?

Not-the-editor here.

You're carefully narrowing the scope of your question to Genesis. As you know, the Christian Bible goes through Revelations and other religions also go much further than Genesis or don't use Genesis at all.

So I'll be very clear and equally specific in my answer. Yes, it's true that many believers think Genesis is literature.

But God in general is NOT a myth. Hope that forestalls the atheist who is always coming on to make "We all agree" posts about how, this time, God is a myth.

Not-the-editor here again. And you shouldn't need to be told this, but this is why it's insulting to refer to God as a myth. Because we know you don't just mean the God of Genesis, you mean the God of the whole Bible.

I see. Now we're getting somewhere. It's ok, to insult the OT because that's just myth, but not the NT?
So the virgin birth, the bodily ascension into heaven, walking on water, raising people from the dead -- that's not myth, that all really happened?

That's not what I said. I never said the entire OT is a myth, you made that up. Your snark about the NT says everything about your bad faith and how its not worth engaging with you.

Ok, so just Genesis is a myth? At least we're getting somewhere here How about the scientifically impossible occurences in the NT. Will you concede that any of those are myth?

You mean like the virgin birth and the ascension into heaven?

[Anonymous]

[img]<a href="https://ibb.co/jZTyxGY"><img src="https://i.ibb.co/CszbXvy/IMG-3295.webp" alt="IMG-3295" border="0"></a>
<a href="https://imgbb.com/"><img src="https://i.ibb.co/8jjGh6x/IMG-3296.webp" alt="IMG-3296" border="0"></a>[/img]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From now on, so as not to offend anyone -- I'l use God/god. So does anyone think the God/god depicted in Genesis is anything other than myth? If so, how do you characterize it?

Not-the-editor here.

You're carefully narrowing the scope of your question to Genesis. As you know, the Christian Bible goes through Revelations and other religions also go much further than Genesis or don't use Genesis at all.

So I'll be very clear and equally specific in my answer. Yes, it's true that many believers think Genesis is literature.

But God in general is NOT a myth. Hope that forestalls the atheist who is always coming on to make "We all agree" posts about how, this time, God is a myth.

Not-the-editor here again. And you shouldn't need to be told this, but this is why it's insulting to refer to God as a myth. Because we know you don't just mean the God of Genesis, you mean the God of the whole Bible.

I see. Now we're getting somewhere. It's ok, to insult the OT because that's just myth, but not the NT?
So the virgin birth, the bodily ascension into heaven, walking on water, raising people from the dead -- that's not myth, that all really happened?

That's not what I said. I never said the entire OT is a myth, you made that up. Your snark about the NT says everything about your bad faith and how its not worth engaging with you.

Ok, so just Genesis is a myth? At least we're getting somewhere here How about the scientifically impossible occurences in the NT. Will you concede that any of those are myth?

You mean like the virgin birth and the ascension into heaven?

those and walking on water, raising people from the dead, stuff like that.

[Anonymous]

[img]
[/img]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From now on, so as not to offend anyone -- I'l use God/god. So does anyone think the God/god depicted in Genesis is anything other than myth? If so, how do you characterize it?

Not-the-editor here.

You're carefully narrowing the scope of your question to Genesis. As you know, the Christian Bible goes through Revelations and other religions also go much further than Genesis or don't use Genesis at all.

So I'll be very clear and equally specific in my answer. Yes, it's true that many believers think Genesis is literature.

But God in general is NOT a myth. Hope that forestalls the atheist who is always coming on to make "We all agree" posts about how, this time, God is a myth.

Not-the-editor here again. And you shouldn't need to be told this, but this is why it's insulting to refer to God as a myth. Because we know you don't just mean the God of Genesis, you mean the God of the whole Bible.

I see. Now we're getting somewhere. It's ok, to insult the OT because that's just myth, but not the NT?
So the virgin birth, the bodily ascension into heaven, walking on water, raising people from the dead -- that's not myth, that all really happened?

That's not what I said. I never said the entire OT is a myth, you made that up. Your snark about the NT says everything about your bad faith and how its not worth engaging with you.

Ok, so just Genesis is a myth? At least we're getting somewhere here How about the scientifically impossible occurences in the NT. Will you concede that any of those are myth?

Why do you think we're getting somewhere now? It is super rare that any religion teaches that Genesis is not a creation story. Is that new information for you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From now on, so as not to offend anyone -- I'l use God/god. So does anyone think the God/god depicted in Genesis is anything other than myth? If so, how do you characterize it?

Not-the-editor here.

You're carefully narrowing the scope of your question to Genesis. As you know, the Christian Bible goes through Revelations and other religions also go much further than Genesis or don't use Genesis at all.

So I'll be very clear and equally specific in my answer. Yes, it's true that many believers think Genesis is literature.

But God in general is NOT a myth. Hope that forestalls the atheist who is always coming on to make "We all agree" posts about how, this time, God is a myth.

Not-the-editor here again. And you shouldn't need to be told this, but this is why it's insulting to refer to God as a myth. Because we know you don't just mean the God of Genesis, you mean the God of the whole Bible.

I see. Now we're getting somewhere. It's ok, to insult the OT because that's just myth, but not the NT?
So the virgin birth, the bodily ascension into heaven, walking on water, raising people from the dead -- that's not myth, that all really happened?

That's not what I said. I never said the entire OT is a myth, you made that up. Your snark about the NT says everything about your bad faith and how its not worth engaging with you.

Ok, so just Genesis is a myth? At least we're getting somewhere here How about the scientifically impossible occurences in the NT. Will you concede that any of those are myth?

Why do you think we're getting somewhere now? It is super rare that any religion teaches that Genesis is not a creation story. Is that new information for you?

Why do you say "creation story"? Do you mean "myth?" If so, why not come right out and say Genesis is myth? And yes, in fact, you'll get some who disagree with that right here on this forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From now on, so as not to offend anyone -- I'l use God/god. So does anyone think the God/god depicted in Genesis is anything other than myth? If so, how do you characterize it?

Not-the-editor here.

You're carefully narrowing the scope of your question to Genesis. As you know, the Christian Bible goes through Revelations and other religions also go much further than Genesis or don't use Genesis at all.

So I'll be very clear and equally specific in my answer. Yes, it's true that many believers think Genesis is literature.

But God in general is NOT a myth. Hope that forestalls the atheist who is always coming on to make "We all agree" posts about how, this time, God is a myth.

Not-the-editor here again. And you shouldn't need to be told this, but this is why it's insulting to refer to God as a myth. Because we know you don't just mean the God of Genesis, you mean the God of the whole Bible.

I see. Now we're getting somewhere. It's ok, to insult the OT because that's just myth, but not the NT?
So the virgin birth, the bodily ascension into heaven, walking on water, raising people from the dead -- that's not myth, that all really happened?

That's not what I said. I never said the entire OT is a myth, you made that up. Your snark about the NT says everything about your bad faith and how its not worth engaging with you.

Ok, so just Genesis is a myth? At least we're getting somewhere here How about the scientifically impossible occurences in the NT. Will you concede that any of those are myth?

Why do you think we're getting somewhere now? It is super rare that any religion teaches that Genesis is not a creation story. Is that new information for you?

DP -- I share pp's feeling of getting somewhere, because I thought Bible believers believed the whole Bible, not just the NT, and not the OT minus the creation story. Are there any other OT stories you don't believe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have asked these questions every time someone claims a non-believer is "insulting" and no one replies. Another PP suggested its own thread so here it is:

1. Is it "insulting" to refer to god as "mythical"? Why?

2. Is it insulting to compare a god to another god or mythical being knowing people who believe in one don't believe in the other? Why?

3. Those of you who believe in one god: do you think the other gods are "mythical"? Why?

Thoughtful replies only, please. If you don't like the questions you don't have to respond at all. However all views are welcome as long as they are thoughtful and not trolls or insults.

I think it is because the questions aren’t really asked in good faith. Good faith conversations would use proper capitalization of proper nouns, for example. Your studious refusal to capitalize “God” is exhibit one of your trolling. And trolling is insulting.

DP -- I would guess that you, pp, are religious, and in your religion, "God" is one being who comes with a capital letter. Not all sentences are contructed this way and people are not being inherently insulting when they do not capitalize the word "god" in a sentence. Perhaps you could be more open-minded about that, assuming that you can be accepting of differing religious views.

No, I am not religious, actually. But I am an editor and the Christian “God” I reasonably infer is being discussed in this context is capitalized as a proper noun. People who act in good faith and want a respectful discussion generally abide by norms such as grammar. It’s kind of like a conservative who wants a conversation about “democrat” policies (instead of Democratic) or liberals who refer to “rethuglicans.” The premise is undercut by the presentation. It’s not hard to capitalize “God” in this context if you are genuinely interested in an answer — studiously refusing to do is a red flag from the start.

Thanks for the explanation. "Studiously refusing to do so" is different from not knowing. I didn't know and I wouldn't be surprised if some religious people didn't know and didn't notice.

Also, it seems like mind reading to infer that pp is not acting in good faith. And, even as a non-editor, it seems to me that not capitalizing God is not the same as using the made-up, purposely insulting term "rethuglicans".

I disagree. Given context of the premise it is purposefully insulting to not capitalize God in this context. Ignorance is no excuse because if you really want to have a good-faith discussion you should do a bare minimum of research. You’re completely full of shit and trying to stir the pot under a guise of civility.

Well, clearly pp is not being civil. I sure hope this is not the editor.

It is me, the editor. I don’t care whether or not you think I am being civil. I called out OP for posing a question in bad faith. The premise is rejected. You can’t act in bad faith and demand civility and clutch pearls that others don’t abide by your parameters. OP got called out. OP can sit down now.

I am the OP, and I did not post this question in bad faith. You made that up with no evidence and you are 100% wrong.

I do fully understand how you might reject the premise since you don’t seem to have a good answer to it.

My post speaks for itself, as do yours.

DP. Gawd DCUM’s atheists are boring and uncreative. In your post you simply recapped what you or someone else has been pushing for a few weeks, that the god of monotheists/people of the book is the same as Zeus. (And yes I too clocked the lower-case God in reference to a specific God not a generic god.) Nobody bothered to answer something so childish so you thought you’d try to start a thread about it. Yawn Zzzzzzzzz.

No. You are dishonest. I asked if it was offensive to compare them and why. I also asked if people viewed one god as mythical but not another and why.

If you are bored, stay out of the discussion please. Your white noise and lies will not deter an interesting conversation.

No, using the word “compare” doesn’t paper over your bad faith intent, as evidenced by your lack of capitalization as someone else pointed out. If you think you’re convincing us otherwise, either you have no respect for your readers’ intelligence or you just don’t get it yourself.

Anyway, thanks for treating us to yet another of your ad hominem-ridden, stiffly self-important screeds.

Whether it's insulting to use the upper case or lower case "G/g" when discussing God/god is another thread, right? I understand how some do consider it disrespectful. But the reason it's done is that some posters, including myself, don't venerate one particular god over the others. There are so many. So explain if you would why the upper case should always be used. Isn't it an open question whether there is only one "God" or many "gods".

The atheist editor already explained it to you. Why do you need it explained a second time?

If you want a constructive discussion with republicans, you don’t lead by calling them “rethuglicans” or “magats.” If you want a constructive discussion with liberals, you don’t refer to the “democrat” party.

This is very basic.

well don't discuss it then if you don't like the use of the lower case "g." I don't see why we should venerate any one of these many different gods over another.

Translation: I know I’m insulting people, because several posters have explained it to me, but I’m going to keep doing it.

^^^ The definition of bad faith arguing

? why should I capitulate to you. And where do you get off telling people that they have to exalt your spelling of your supernatural entity over any others'?

PP doesn’t dictate grammar, OP. Those conventions were decided and codified long ago by a collective and adopted as commonly accepted usage. Deliberately violating that commonly accepted usage under the guise of asking a question is inherently disingenuous, if not a provocation. You don’t want a conversation. You want a fight and you’re trying to reset a playing field long established by neutral arbiters. As a result, nothing you say from that point on has validity or really is worthy of discussion.

+1000

That's because you've got nothing to say. You never do.

You just don't want to hear it.

I really do. But you've never contributed anything substantive ever; just criticized the OP's choice of words, and call people sea lion, gish galloping etc.

You have no idea who I am or what I've contributed to this thread. As the moderator can verify, it's been substantive. All you're proving is that, when you have no response, you resort to insults.

Let's repost the atheist editor's comment that you're so desperate to get away from:

PP doesn’t dictate grammar, OP. Those conventions were decided and codified long ago by a collective and adopted as commonly accepted usage. Deliberately violating that commonly accepted usage under the guise of asking a question is inherently disingenuous, if not a provocation. You don’t want a conversation. You want a fight and you’re trying to reset a playing field long established by neutral arbiters. As a result, nothing you say from that point on has validity or really is worthy of discussion.

Are you talking about the lowercase G?

Look up the word god in any of the online dictionaries and look at all the lower case examples and then come back and tell me that it’s commonly accepted to always capitalize it

I’ll wait.

She's an editor. What are your qualifications? And do you even know the difference between generic "gods" and specific "God"?

I'll wait.[/quote

]

My qualifications are I can read a dictionary and I am educated enough to trust the qualifications of the folks who[ create those, since they all seem to agree. But not agree with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have asked these questions every time someone claims a non-believer is "insulting" and no one replies. Another PP suggested its own thread so here it is:

1. Is it "insulting" to refer to god as "mythical"? Why?

2. Is it insulting to compare a god to another god or mythical being knowing people who believe in one don't believe in the other? Why?

3. Those of you who believe in one god: do you think the other gods are "mythical"? Why?

Thoughtful replies only, please. If you don't like the questions you don't have to respond at all. However all views are welcome as long as they are thoughtful and not trolls or insults.

I think it is because the questions aren’t really asked in good faith. Good faith conversations would use proper capitalization of proper nouns, for example. Your studious refusal to capitalize “God” is exhibit one of your trolling. And trolling is insulting.

DP -- I would guess that you, pp, are religious, and in your religion, "God" is one being who comes with a capital letter. Not all sentences are contructed this way and people are not being inherently insulting when they do not capitalize the word "god" in a sentence. Perhaps you could be more open-minded about that, assuming that you can be accepting of differing religious views.

No, I am not religious, actually. But I am an editor and the Christian “God” I reasonably infer is being discussed in this context is capitalized as a proper noun. People who act in good faith and want a respectful discussion generally abide by norms such as grammar. It’s kind of like a conservative who wants a conversation about “democrat” policies (instead of Democratic) or liberals who refer to “rethuglicans.” The premise is undercut by the presentation. It’s not hard to capitalize “God” in this context if you are genuinely interested in an answer — studiously refusing to do is a red flag from the start.

Thanks for the explanation. "Studiously refusing to do so" is different from not knowing. I didn't know and I wouldn't be surprised if some religious people didn't know and didn't notice.

Also, it seems like mind reading to infer that pp is not acting in good faith. And, even as a non-editor, it seems to me that not capitalizing God is not the same as using the made-up, purposely insulting term "rethuglicans".

I disagree. Given context of the premise it is purposefully insulting to not capitalize God in this context. Ignorance is no excuse because if you really want to have a good-faith discussion you should do a bare minimum of research. You’re completely full of shit and trying to stir the pot under a guise of civility.

Well, clearly pp is not being civil. I sure hope this is not the editor.

It is me, the editor. I don’t care whether or not you think I am being civil. I called out OP for posing a question in bad faith. The premise is rejected. You can’t act in bad faith and demand civility and clutch pearls that others don’t abide by your parameters. OP got called out. OP can sit down now.

I am the OP, and I did not post this question in bad faith. You made that up with no evidence and you are 100% wrong.

I do fully understand how you might reject the premise since you don’t seem to have a good answer to it.

My post speaks for itself, as do yours.

DP. Gawd DCUM’s atheists are boring and uncreative. In your post you simply recapped what you or someone else has been pushing for a few weeks, that the god of monotheists/people of the book is the same as Zeus. (And yes I too clocked the lower-case God in reference to a specific God not a generic god.) Nobody bothered to answer something so childish so you thought you’d try to start a thread about it. Yawn Zzzzzzzzz.

No. You are dishonest. I asked if it was offensive to compare them and why. I also asked if people viewed one god as mythical but not another and why.

If you are bored, stay out of the discussion please. Your white noise and lies will not deter an interesting conversation.

No, using the word “compare” doesn’t paper over your bad faith intent, as evidenced by your lack of capitalization as someone else pointed out. If you think you’re convincing us otherwise, either you have no respect for your readers’ intelligence or you just don’t get it yourself.

Anyway, thanks for treating us to yet another of your ad hominem-ridden, stiffly self-important screeds.

Whether it's insulting to use the upper case or lower case "G/g" when discussing God/god is another thread, right? I understand how some do consider it disrespectful. But the reason it's done is that some posters, including myself, don't venerate one particular god over the others. There are so many. So explain if you would why the upper case should always be used. Isn't it an open question whether there is only one "God" or many "gods".

The atheist editor already explained it to you. Why do you need it explained a second time?

If you want a constructive discussion with republicans, you don’t lead by calling them “rethuglicans” or “magats.” If you want a constructive discussion with liberals, you don’t refer to the “democrat” party.

This is very basic.

well don't discuss it then if you don't like the use of the lower case "g." I don't see why we should venerate any one of these many different gods over another.

Translation: I know I’m insulting people, because several posters have explained it to me, but I’m going to keep doing it.

^^^ The definition of bad faith arguing

? why should I capitulate to you. And where do you get off telling people that they have to exalt your spelling of your supernatural entity over any others'?

PP doesn’t dictate grammar, OP. Those conventions were decided and codified long ago by a collective and adopted as commonly accepted usage. Deliberately violating that commonly accepted usage under the guise of asking a question is inherently disingenuous, if not a provocation. You don’t want a conversation. You want a fight and you’re trying to reset a playing field long established by neutral arbiters. As a result, nothing you say from that point on has validity or really is worthy of discussion.

+1000

That's because you've got nothing to say. You never do.

You just don't want to hear it.

I really do. But you've never contributed anything substantive ever; just criticized the OP's choice of words, and call people sea lion, gish galloping etc.

You have no idea who I am or what I've contributed to this thread. As the moderator can verify, it's been substantive. All you're proving is that, when you have no response, you resort to insults.

Let's repost the atheist editor's comment that you're so desperate to get away from:

PP doesn’t dictate grammar, OP. Those conventions were decided and codified long ago by a collective and adopted as commonly accepted usage. Deliberately violating that commonly accepted usage under the guise of asking a question is inherently disingenuous, if not a provocation. You don’t want a conversation. You want a fight and you’re trying to reset a playing field long established by neutral arbiters. As a result, nothing you say from that point on has validity or really is worthy of discussion.

Are you talking about the lowercase G?

Look up the word god in any of the online dictionaries and look at all the lower case examples and then come back and tell me that it’s commonly accepted to always capitalize it

I’ll wait.

She's an editor. What are your qualifications? And do you even know the difference between generic "gods" and specific "God"?

I'll wait.[/quote

]

My qualifications are I can read a dictionary and I am educated enough to trust the qualifications of the folks who[ create those, since they all seem to agree. But not agree with you.

You also disagree with Grammarly. Which assuredly has better qualifications than your basic ability to read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[img]
[/img]

So according to this the only substantive difference between myth nd religion is that the subject believes one to be true, and thus all others are considered to be myth?

Also interesting where they put the story of Adam and Eve, alongside Odin and Hercules. I would think that would offend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From now on, so as not to offend anyone -- I'l use God/god. So does anyone think the God/god depicted in Genesis is anything other than myth? If so, how do you characterize it?

Not-the-editor here.

You're carefully narrowing the scope of your question to Genesis. As you know, the Christian Bible goes through Revelations and other religions also go much further than Genesis or don't use Genesis at all.

So I'll be very clear and equally specific in my answer. Yes, it's true that many believers think Genesis is literature.

But God in general is NOT a myth. Hope that forestalls the atheist who is always coming on to make "We all agree" posts about how, this time, God is a myth.

Not-the-editor here again. And you shouldn't need to be told this, but this is why it's insulting to refer to God as a myth. Because we know you don't just mean the God of Genesis, you mean the God of the whole Bible.

I see. Now we're getting somewhere. It's ok, to insult the OT because that's just myth, but not the NT?
So the virgin birth, the bodily ascension into heaven, walking on water, raising people from the dead -- that's not myth, that all really happened?

That's not what I said. I never said the entire OT is a myth, you made that up. Your snark about the NT says everything about your bad faith and how its not worth engaging with you.

Ok, so just Genesis is a myth? At least we're getting somewhere here How about the scientifically impossible occurences in the NT. Will you concede that any of those are myth?

Why do you think we're getting somewhere now? It is super rare that any religion teaches that Genesis is not a creation story. Is that new information for you?

We got somewhere indeed, because we answered OP's question about whether it's insulting to call religion or God a "myth."

Yes, it is insulting, because religion and God are much bigger than Genesis. We looked at Grammarly and Merriam-Webster for our definitions of "religion" and found it also includes the service and worship of God or the supernatural (note MW capitalizes God), commitment to religious faith or service, or an entire system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Here, in case you forgot: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

No need to "get anywhere" further on this thread. Start your own thread trying to pick apart the Christian Bible book by book and see how far you get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[img]
[/img]

So according to this the only substantive difference between myth nd religion is that the subject believes one to be true, and thus all others are considered to be myth?

Also interesting where they put the story of Adam and Eve, alongside Odin and Hercules. I would think that would offend.

DP. While I didn’t find them all that useful, I took these charts to mean that religions use myths to explain things. So Adam and Eve is a myth used to explain some part of the religion. The religion is beliefs, rituals, dogma, etc… The “myths” within religious texts are there to explain those beliefs, rituals, dogma, etc... I wouldn’t necessarily agree that this chart is accurate, but I think that’s what it’s trying to say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have asked these questions every time someone claims a non-believer is "insulting" and no one replies. Another PP suggested its own thread so here it is:

1. Is it "insulting" to refer to god as "mythical"? Why?

2. Is it insulting to compare a god to another god or mythical being knowing people who believe in one don't believe in the other? Why?

3. Those of you who believe in one god: do you think the other gods are "mythical"? Why?

Thoughtful replies only, please. If you don't like the questions you don't have to respond at all. However all views are welcome as long as they are thoughtful and not trolls or insults.

I think it is because the questions aren’t really asked in good faith. Good faith conversations would use proper capitalization of proper nouns, for example. Your studious refusal to capitalize “God” is exhibit one of your trolling. And trolling is insulting.

DP -- I would guess that you, pp, are religious, and in your religion, "God" is one being who comes with a capital letter. Not all sentences are contructed this way and people are not being inherently insulting when they do not capitalize the word "god" in a sentence. Perhaps you could be more open-minded about that, assuming that you can be accepting of differing religious views.

No, I am not religious, actually. But I am an editor and the Christian “God” I reasonably infer is being discussed in this context is capitalized as a proper noun. People who act in good faith and want a respectful discussion generally abide by norms such as grammar. It’s kind of like a conservative who wants a conversation about “democrat” policies (instead of Democratic) or liberals who refer to “rethuglicans.” The premise is undercut by the presentation. It’s not hard to capitalize “God” in this context if you are genuinely interested in an answer — studiously refusing to do is a red flag from the start.

Thanks for the explanation. "Studiously refusing to do so" is different from not knowing. I didn't know and I wouldn't be surprised if some religious people didn't know and didn't notice.

Also, it seems like mind reading to infer that pp is not acting in good faith. And, even as a non-editor, it seems to me that not capitalizing God is not the same as using the made-up, purposely insulting term "rethuglicans".

I disagree. Given context of the premise it is purposefully insulting to not capitalize God in this context. Ignorance is no excuse because if you really want to have a good-faith discussion you should do a bare minimum of research. You’re completely full of shit and trying to stir the pot under a guise of civility.

Well, clearly pp is not being civil. I sure hope this is not the editor.

It is me, the editor. I don’t care whether or not you think I am being civil. I called out OP for posing a question in bad faith. The premise is rejected. You can’t act in bad faith and demand civility and clutch pearls that others don’t abide by your parameters. OP got called out. OP can sit down now.

I am the OP, and I did not post this question in bad faith. You made that up with no evidence and you are 100% wrong.

I do fully understand how you might reject the premise since you don’t seem to have a good answer to it.

My post speaks for itself, as do yours.

DP. Gawd DCUM’s atheists are boring and uncreative. In your post you simply recapped what you or someone else has been pushing for a few weeks, that the god of monotheists/people of the book is the same as Zeus. (And yes I too clocked the lower-case God in reference to a specific God not a generic god.) Nobody bothered to answer something so childish so you thought you’d try to start a thread about it. Yawn Zzzzzzzzz.

No. You are dishonest. I asked if it was offensive to compare them and why. I also asked if people viewed one god as mythical but not another and why.

If you are bored, stay out of the discussion please. Your white noise and lies will not deter an interesting conversation.

No, using the word “compare” doesn’t paper over your bad faith intent, as evidenced by your lack of capitalization as someone else pointed out. If you think you’re convincing us otherwise, either you have no respect for your readers’ intelligence or you just don’t get it yourself.

Anyway, thanks for treating us to yet another of your ad hominem-ridden, stiffly self-important screeds.

Whether it's insulting to use the upper case or lower case "G/g" when discussing God/god is another thread, right? I understand how some do consider it disrespectful. But the reason it's done is that some posters, including myself, don't venerate one particular god over the others. There are so many. So explain if you would why the upper case should always be used. Isn't it an open question whether there is only one "God" or many "gods".

The atheist editor already explained it to you. Why do you need it explained a second time?

If you want a constructive discussion with republicans, you don’t lead by calling them “rethuglicans” or “magats.” If you want a constructive discussion with liberals, you don’t refer to the “democrat” party.

This is very basic.

well don't discuss it then if you don't like the use of the lower case "g." I don't see why we should venerate any one of these many different gods over another.

Translation: I know I’m insulting people, because several posters have explained it to me, but I’m going to keep doing it.

^^^ The definition of bad faith arguing

? why should I capitulate to you. And where do you get off telling people that they have to exalt your spelling of your supernatural entity over any others'?

PP doesn’t dictate grammar, OP. Those conventions were decided and codified long ago by a collective and adopted as commonly accepted usage. Deliberately violating that commonly accepted usage under the guise of asking a question is inherently disingenuous, if not a provocation. You don’t want a conversation. You want a fight and you’re trying to reset a playing field long established by neutral arbiters. As a result, nothing you say from that point on has validity or really is worthy of discussion.

+1000

That's because you've got nothing to say. You never do.

You just don't want to hear it.

I really do. But you've never contributed anything substantive ever; just criticized the OP's choice of words, and call people sea lion, gish galloping etc.

You have no idea who I am or what I've contributed to this thread. As the moderator can verify, it's been substantive. All you're proving is that, when you have no response, you resort to insults.

Let's repost the atheist editor's comment that you're so desperate to get away from:

PP doesn’t dictate grammar, OP. Those conventions were decided and codified long ago by a collective and adopted as commonly accepted usage. Deliberately violating that commonly accepted usage under the guise of asking a question is inherently disingenuous, if not a provocation. You don’t want a conversation. You want a fight and you’re trying to reset a playing field long established by neutral arbiters. As a result, nothing you say from that point on has validity or really is worthy of discussion.

Are you talking about the lowercase G?

Look up the word god in any of the online dictionaries and look at all the lower case examples and then come back and tell me that it’s commonly accepted to always capitalize it

I’ll wait.

She's an editor. What are your qualifications? And do you even know the difference between generic "gods" and specific "God"?

I'll wait.[/quote

]

My qualifications are I can read a dictionary and I am educated enough to trust the qualifications of the folks who[ create those, since they all seem to agree. But not agree with you.

You also disagree with Grammarly. Which assuredly has better qualifications than your basic ability to read.

Since you insist - please note all include frequent lowercase usage except when referring to a specific god, which I do not do:

Dictionary.com

god
[ god ]SHOW IPA


See synonyms for god on Thesaurus.com
noun
one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.: Compare goddess (def. 1).

an image of a deity; an idol.

SEE MORE
verb (used with object),god·ded, god·ding.
to regard or treat as a god; deify; idolize.

Cambridge Dictionary:

god
noun [ C ]
US /ɡɑːd/ UK /ɡɒd/
god noun [C] (SPIRIT)
Add to word list
B2
a spirit or being believed to control some part of the universe or life and often worshiped for doing so, or something that represents this spirit or being:
the ancient Greek gods and goddesses
Fewer examples
The site was named after a Norse god.
Their sacred dance is performed to invoke ancient gods.
The children enjoyed the stories about the gods and goddesses of Greek and Roman myth.
The gods smiled on us and we had brilliant sunshine throughout the day.
In the various regions of India, Hindus worship different gods and observe different religious festivals.

Brittanica:

god /ˈgɑːd/ noun
plural gods
Britannica Dictionary definition of GOD
1
God [singular]
a : the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe
Does she believe in God?
(May) God bless us all.
(May) God rest her soul. [=I pray that God will give her soul peace now that she has died]
I pray to God that no one was seriously injured in the accident.
— see also man of god
b
◊ God is used informally by itself and in phrases to make a statement or question more forceful or to express surprise, anger, etc. These uses are common but are considered offensive by some people.
God, it's hot out today.
Good God, that's a lot of food!
God Almighty, is it that late already?
[+] more examples
2
[count] : a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people : one of various spirits or beings worshipped in some religions
the gods and goddesses of ancient Egypt
a Hindu god
a myth about the god of war
an offering for the gods
— often used informally to suggest that what happens to someone is controlled by gods or by luck
The gods smiled/frowned on us. = The gods were/weren't on our side. [=we had good/bad luck; things went well/badly for us]
(humorous) The golf gods seem to like you today. [=you are playing golf very well today]
Her sudden arrival was a gift from the gods. [=a very lucky and helpful thing]
3
[count]
a : a person and especially a man who is greatly loved or admired
a professor who was regarded as a kind of god
a guitar god like Jimi Hendrix
b : a person who is very important or powerful in a particular field — usually plural
a talented writer who never found favor with the gods of the literary world
4
[singular] : something that is regarded as one of the most important things in someone's life
He made a god of money. [=he worshipped money; he regarded money as more important than it really is]
5
the gods British : the highest and cheapest seats in a theater
The people in the gods can be the hardest to please.


vocabulary.com

god Share
/gɑd/
/gɒd/
Other forms: gods

A god is a supreme being or deity, and it's spelled with a lowercase g when you're not referring to the God of Christian, Jewish, or Muslim tradition. The ancient Greeks had many gods — including Zeus, Apollo, and Poseidon.

A physical representation of a deity is also called a god. If you go to Hawaii, you can even buy a god in a gift shop — a statue or idol that represents one of the Hawaiian gods, like a figure of the god Pele. The word god also refers to a man of superior quality or exceptional beauty. Elvis Presley was considered a god by many teenage girls in the late 1950s.

Definitions of god
noun any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force
synonyms:deity, divinity, immortal
see more
noun a man of such superior qualities that he seems like a deity to other people
“he was a god among men”
see more
noun a material effigy that is worshipped
“money was his god”
synonyms:graven image, idol


Bottom line: lowercase g god not offensive and common, UNLESS you pre-suppose the existence of your god, which is exactly what you are doing.

It's also why YOU WON'T ANSWER IF YOU THINK ZEUS IS A MYTH.

Because you are a hypocrite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From now on, so as not to offend anyone -- I'l use God/god. So does anyone think the God/god depicted in Genesis is anything other than myth? If so, how do you characterize it?

Not-the-editor here.

You're carefully narrowing the scope of your question to Genesis. As you know, the Christian Bible goes through Revelations and other religions also go much further than Genesis or don't use Genesis at all.

So I'll be very clear and equally specific in my answer. Yes, it's true that many believers think Genesis is literature.

But God in general is NOT a myth. Hope that forestalls the atheist who is always coming on to make "We all agree" posts about how, this time, God is a myth.

Not-the-editor here again. And you shouldn't need to be told this, but this is why it's insulting to refer to God as a myth. Because we know you don't just mean the God of Genesis, you mean the God of the whole Bible.

I see. Now we're getting somewhere. It's ok, to insult the OT because that's just myth, but not the NT?
So the virgin birth, the bodily ascension into heaven, walking on water, raising people from the dead -- that's not myth, that all really happened?

That's not what I said. I never said the entire OT is a myth, you made that up. Your snark about the NT says everything about your bad faith and how its not worth engaging with you.

Ok, so just Genesis is a myth? At least we're getting somewhere here How about the scientifically impossible occurences in the NT. Will you concede that any of those are myth?

Why do you think we're getting somewhere now? It is super rare that any religion teaches that Genesis is not a creation story. Is that new information for you?

We got somewhere indeed, because we answered OP's question about whether it's insulting to call religion or God a "myth."

Yes, it is insulting, because religion and God are much bigger than Genesis. We looked at Grammarly and Merriam-Webster for our definitions of "religion" and found it also includes the service and worship of God or the supernatural (note MW capitalizes God), commitment to religious faith or service, or an entire system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Here, in case you forgot: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

No need to "get anywhere" further on this thread. Start your own thread trying to pick apart the Christian Bible book by book and see how far you get.

I'm sure we all know the gospels are full of stories that are scientifically impossible. That would make them myths. Or maybe you can come up with a term that offends you less. I can respect one's belief in myths and in God/god, but don't tell me these are true occurrences.