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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on context. If I’m talking to a group of believers, I would never use a term like that. It upsets people for no good purpose. If we’re having a comparative religion conversation, I would say “Christianity does this, Islam does that, and in Roman mythology they said xyz”. I’m not sure adding the phrase “mythical” to a deity humans living today actually believe in ever enhanced any conversation.

+1. If the question here is about whether OP is arguing in bad faith, then case closed. She is arguing in bad faith, because she repeatedly uses lower-case "god" and calls religion "mythical," both things that she knows insult living humans who actually believe.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. People can believe in myths. They're just stories that try to help us understand natural forces that are beyond our senses -- although science has come a long way to explaining much of that - so the only realm of religion now is the hereafter - which is speculation since no one has ever died and come back to tell about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on context. If I’m talking to a group of believers, I would never use a term like that. It upsets people for no good purpose. If we’re having a comparative religion conversation, I would say “Christianity does this, Islam does that, and in Roman mythology they said xyz”. I’m not sure adding the phrase “mythical” to a deity humans living today actually believe in ever enhanced any conversation.

+1. If the question here is about whether OP is arguing in bad faith, then case closed. She is arguing in bad faith, because she repeatedly uses lower-case "god" and calls religion "mythical," both things that she knows insult living humans who actually believe.

You are a liar.

Didn’t post in bad faith and didn’t call religion mythical. Lies lies lies.

You be honest: do you consider Zeus mythical?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on context. If I’m talking to a group of believers, I would never use a term like that. It upsets people for no good purpose. If we’re having a comparative religion conversation, I would say “Christianity does this, Islam does that, and in Roman mythology they said xyz”. I’m not sure adding the phrase “mythical” to a deity humans living today actually believe in ever enhanced any conversation.

+1. If the question here is about whether OP is arguing in bad faith, then case closed. She is arguing in bad faith, because she repeatedly uses lower-case "god" and calls religion "mythical," both things that she knows insult living humans who actually believe.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. People can believe in myths. They're just stories that try to help us understand natural forces that are beyond our senses -- although science has come a long way to explaining much of that - so the only realm of religion now is the hereafter - which is speculation since no one has ever died and come back to tell about it.

No, God isn't just in the hereafter, he's in the present too. This is Religion 100 for all the major religions.

It's disingenuous to call religion "mythical" based on your false claim that, for believers, God is only in the hereafter. So now instead of straight-forward insults (god instead of God) you're dealing in rhetorical slights of hand to insult people. No difference.

[Anonymous]

I think it is fine in certain settings. If you are in church attending service and you tell the priest well, no, it is not fine as you are clearly there to start a fight BCS, you are a narc.(narcissist)
The same goes if you have a relative who is a bible believer and a religious person, or a Buddhist monk, or a Hindu believer; you get it, right? Only a horrible person who is looking for a fight BCS that is how you achieve your narc supply would raise an issue that is offensive to so many.
If you are in an academic setting and debating the origins of faith and religion, you are ok. If you are in a light chat with likeminded friends, then you are ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on context. If I’m talking to a group of believers, I would never use a term like that. It upsets people for no good purpose. If we’re having a comparative religion conversation, I would say “Christianity does this, Islam does that, and in Roman mythology they said xyz”. I’m not sure adding the phrase “mythical” to a deity humans living today actually believe in ever enhanced any conversation.

+1. If the question here is about whether OP is arguing in bad faith, then case closed. She is arguing in bad faith, because she repeatedly uses lower-case "god" and calls religion "mythical," both things that she knows insult living humans who actually believe.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. People can believe in myths. They're just stories that try to help us understand natural forces that are beyond our senses -- although science has come a long way to explaining much of that - so the only realm of religion now is the hereafter - which is speculation since no one has ever died and come back to tell about it.

No, God isn't just in the hereafter, he's in the present too. This is Religion 100 for all the major religions.

It's disingenuous to call religion "mythical" based on your false claim that, for believers, God is only in the hereafter. So now instead of straight-forward insults (god instead of God) you're dealing in rhetorical slights of hand to insult people. No difference.

You keep changing the words. I said the realm of religion (not God) is the hereafter. You did the same thing on the other thread. Insisting that what someone said religion is man-made they were saying God is man-made, which is not what they were saying all. You are just too slippery and squirrely to even talk to.

[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: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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on context. If I’m talking to a group of believers, I would never use a term like that. It upsets people for no good purpose. If we’re having a comparative religion conversation, I would say “Christianity does this, Islam does that, and in Roman mythology they said xyz”. I’m not sure adding the phrase “mythical” to a deity humans living today actually believe in ever enhanced any conversation.

+1. If the question here is about whether OP is arguing in bad faith, then case closed. She is arguing in bad faith, because she repeatedly uses lower-case "god" and calls religion "mythical," both things that she knows insult living humans who actually believe.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. People can believe in myths. They're just stories that try to help us understand natural forces that are beyond our senses -- although science has come a long way to explaining much of that - so the only realm of religion now is the hereafter - which is speculation since no one has ever died and come back to tell about it.

No, God isn't just in the hereafter, he's in the present too. This is Religion 100 for all the major religions.

It's disingenuous to call religion "mythical" based on your false claim that, for believers, God is only in the hereafter. So now instead of straight-forward insults (god instead of God) you're dealing in rhetorical slights of hand to insult people. No difference.

life in the past -- better handled by historians and by science
life today -- better handled by science, psychology, neuroscience and philosophy
the hereafter - the only realm still left where religion has any edge because the other disciplines don't address it. They don't have the tools since it's all speculation.

[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: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.

yeah, but you're still here -- with nothing to say, as usual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on context. If I’m talking to a group of believers, I would never use a term like that. It upsets people for no good purpose. If we’re having a comparative religion conversation, I would say “Christianity does this, Islam does that, and in Roman mythology they said xyz”. I’m not sure adding the phrase “mythical” to a deity humans living today actually believe in ever enhanced any conversation.

+1. If the question here is about whether OP is arguing in bad faith, then case closed. She is arguing in bad faith, because she repeatedly uses lower-case "god" and calls religion "mythical," both things that she knows insult living humans who actually believe.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. People can believe in myths. They're just stories that try to help us understand natural forces that are beyond our senses -- although science has come a long way to explaining much of that - so the only realm of religion now is the hereafter - which is speculation since no one has ever died and come back to tell about it.

No, God isn't just in the hereafter, he's in the present too. This is Religion 100 for all the major religions.

It's disingenuous to call religion "mythical" based on your false claim that, for believers, God is only in the hereafter. So now instead of straight-forward insults (god instead of God) you're dealing in rhetorical slights of hand to insult people. No difference.

You keep changing the words. I said the realm of religion (not God) is the hereafter. You did the same thing on the other thread. Insisting that what someone said religion is man-made they were saying God is man-made, which is not what they were saying all. You are just too slippery and squirrely to even talk to.

Syllogism alert. That's what's slippery and squirrelly.

What's squirrelly is trying to claim "religion" and "the realm of religion" are different concepts so that you can (1) assert that "the only realm of religion now is the hereafter" (direct quote from you), which you then assert (2) makes religion the same as mythology. Both premises are wrong.

Same for your attempt to distinguish "religion is manmade" from "God is manmade." The first implies the second and to pretend otherwise is dishonest, slippery and squirrelly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on context. If I’m talking to a group of believers, I would never use a term like that. It upsets people for no good purpose. If we’re having a comparative religion conversation, I would say “Christianity does this, Islam does that, and in Roman mythology they said xyz”. I’m not sure adding the phrase “mythical” to a deity humans living today actually believe in ever enhanced any conversation.

+1. If the question here is about whether OP is arguing in bad faith, then case closed. She is arguing in bad faith, because she repeatedly uses lower-case "god" and calls religion "mythical," both things that she knows insult living humans who actually believe.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. People can believe in myths. They're just stories that try to help us understand natural forces that are beyond our senses -- although science has come a long way to explaining much of that - so the only realm of religion now is the hereafter - which is speculation since no one has ever died and come back to tell about it.

No, God isn't just in the hereafter, he's in the present too. This is Religion 100 for all the major religions.

It's disingenuous to call religion "mythical" based on your false claim that, for believers, God is only in the hereafter. So now instead of straight-forward insults (god instead of God) you're dealing in rhetorical slights of hand to insult people. No difference.

life in the past -- better handled by historians and by science
life today -- better handled by science, psychology, neuroscience and philosophy
the hereafter - the only realm still left where religion has any edge because the other disciplines don't address it. They don't have the tools since it's all speculation.

That's your opinion as an atheist. It's far, very far, from the opinion of anybody who believes in any of today's world religions.

To bring this convo around full circle, to start a discussion by calling religion "mythical" is to start a discussion by dissing belief. That's bad faith.

[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: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.

yeah, but you're still here -- with nothing to say, as usual.

FFS get a hobby and stop trolling DCUM. Some (not all) of DCUM's atheists are truly sad people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on context. If I’m talking to a group of believers, I would never use a term like that. It upsets people for no good purpose. If we’re having a comparative religion conversation, I would say “Christianity does this, Islam does that, and in Roman mythology they said xyz”. I’m not sure adding the phrase “mythical” to a deity humans living today actually believe in ever enhanced any conversation.

+1. If the question here is about whether OP is arguing in bad faith, then case closed. She is arguing in bad faith, because she repeatedly uses lower-case "god" and calls religion "mythical," both things that she knows insult living humans who actually believe.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. People can believe in myths. They're just stories that try to help us understand natural forces that are beyond our senses -- although science has come a long way to explaining much of that - so the only realm of religion now is the hereafter - which is speculation since no one has ever died and come back to tell about it.

No, God isn't just in the hereafter, he's in the present too. This is Religion 100 for all the major religions.

It's disingenuous to call religion "mythical" based on your false claim that, for believers, God is only in the hereafter. So now instead of straight-forward insults (god instead of God) you're dealing in rhetorical slights of hand to insult people. No difference.

You keep changing the words. I said the realm of religion (not God) is the hereafter. You did the same thing on the other thread. Insisting that what someone said religion is man-made they were saying God is man-made, which is not what they were saying all. You are just too slippery and squirrely to even talk to.

Syllogism alert. That's what's slippery and squirrelly.

What's squirrelly is trying to claim "religion" and "the realm of religion" are different concepts so that you can (1) assert that "the only realm of religion now is the hereafter" (direct quote from you), which you then assert (2) makes religion the same as mythology. Both premises are wrong.

Same for your attempt to distinguish "religion is manmade" from "God is manmade." The first implies the second and to pretend otherwise is dishonest, slippery and squirrelly.

If you don't see a difference you're too obtuse to talk to. And no, the first doesn't imply the second. "God" and "religion" are two very different concepts. Do we need a whole new thread to discuss that?

[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.

yeah, but you're still here -- with nothing to say, as usual.

FFS get a hobby and stop trolling DCUM. Some (not all) of DCUM's atheists are truly sad people.

right. and they're here "24/7/365" "gish galloping" "echo chamber" etc etc. Your schtick is getting pretty old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on context. If I’m talking to a group of believers, I would never use a term like that. It upsets people for no good purpose. If we’re having a comparative religion conversation, I would say “Christianity does this, Islam does that, and in Roman mythology they said xyz”. I’m not sure adding the phrase “mythical” to a deity humans living today actually believe in ever enhanced any conversation.

+1. If the question here is about whether OP is arguing in bad faith, then case closed. She is arguing in bad faith, because she repeatedly uses lower-case "god" and calls religion "mythical," both things that she knows insult living humans who actually believe.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. People can believe in myths. They're just stories that try to help us understand natural forces that are beyond our senses -- although science has come a long way to explaining much of that - so the only realm of religion now is the hereafter - which is speculation since no one has ever died and come back to tell about it.

No, God isn't just in the hereafter, he's in the present too. This is Religion 100 for all the major religions.

It's disingenuous to call religion "mythical" based on your false claim that, for believers, God is only in the hereafter. So now instead of straight-forward insults (god instead of God) you're dealing in rhetorical slights of hand to insult people. No difference.

life in the past -- better handled by historians and by science
life today -- better handled by science, psychology, neuroscience and philosophy
the hereafter - the only realm still left where religion has any edge because the other disciplines don't address it. They don't have the tools since it's all speculation.

That's your opinion as an atheist. It's far, very far, from the opinion of anybody who believes in any of today's world religions.

To bring this convo around full circle, to start a discussion by calling religion "mythical" is to start a discussion by dissing belief. That's bad faith.

So you disagree then? Religion is not fundamentally based on "myth"? So why don't you go ahead and make that case instead of just insulting the OP. Nevermind, it's because you've got nothing to say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on context. If I’m talking to a group of believers, I would never use a term like that. It upsets people for no good purpose. If we’re having a comparative religion conversation, I would say “Christianity does this, Islam does that, and in Roman mythology they said xyz”. I’m not sure adding the phrase “mythical” to a deity humans living today actually believe in ever enhanced any conversation.

+1. If the question here is about whether OP is arguing in bad faith, then case closed. She is arguing in bad faith, because she repeatedly uses lower-case "god" and calls religion "mythical," both things that she knows insult living humans who actually believe.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. People can believe in myths. They're just stories that try to help us understand natural forces that are beyond our senses -- although science has come a long way to explaining much of that - so the only realm of religion now is the hereafter - which is speculation since no one has ever died and come back to tell about it.

No, God isn't just in the hereafter, he's in the present too. This is Religion 100 for all the major religions.

It's disingenuous to call religion "mythical" based on your false claim that, for believers, God is only in the hereafter. So now instead of straight-forward insults (god instead of God) you're dealing in rhetorical slights of hand to insult people. No difference.

You keep changing the words. I said the realm of religion (not God) is the hereafter. You did the same thing on the other thread. Insisting that what someone said religion is man-made they were saying God is man-made, which is not what they were saying all. You are just too slippery and squirrely to even talk to.

Syllogism alert. That's what's slippery and squirrelly.

What's squirrelly is trying to claim "religion" and "the realm of religion" are different concepts so that you can (1) assert that "the only realm of religion now is the hereafter" (direct quote from you), which you then assert (2) makes religion the same as mythology. Both premises are wrong.

Same for your attempt to distinguish "religion is manmade" from "God is manmade." The first implies the second and to pretend otherwise is dishonest, slippery and squirrelly.

If you don't see a difference you're too obtuse to talk to. And no, the first doesn't imply the second. "God" and "religion" are two very different concepts. Do we need a whole new thread to discuss that?

Go ahead and explain how these are "very" different concepts. We'll wait.

When OP (you?) talks about God being "mythical" they're necessarily bringing in all of religion. God by His nature entails everything rom the holy books to daily practice to God herself to the hereafter.

To pretend otherwise means either OP (you?) is dumb as a box of rocks, or they (you?) are completely disingenuous and trying to justify insulting believers.