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

[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.

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not all religions have a god. Many don’t. So you are wrong again.

[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.

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You're kidding? One can believe in God without the priests and rituals and churches/tabernacles and "orthodoxy of belief" and passing the collection plate and all that. Religion is wholly different than a belief in God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You're kidding? One can believe in God without the priests and rituals and churches/tabernacles and "orthodoxy of belief" and passing the collection plate and all that. Religion is wholly different than a belief in God.

Of course. You're deliberately missing the point. OP wants to diss God, the holy books and the hereafter under the guise of calling "God" and "religion" mythical.

[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.

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.



Sigh.

https://grammarist.com/style/god-capitalization/

As already been explained multiple times, use to describe a supreme being or deity is always capitalized. This is universal with dictionaries. The OP in his original post made reference to a single God (and later started sputtering about referring to multiple gods, in which case the noun becomes common and not proper — but that was a disingenuous argument tangential from his original bad-faith question.)

If you need a refresher on basic grammar, I recommend spending more time with the grammarly link above. It’s quite useful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not all religions have a god. Many don’t. So you are wrong again.

Except when you guys are trashing religion, it's always Christianity and occasionally Judaism or Islam. I've never seen one of you atheists trash Zeus. So you are indeed referring to the monotheistic God.

Stop being so disingenuous. You're as squirrelly as a squirrel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not all religions have a god. Many don’t. So you are wrong again.

Except when you guys are trashing religion, it's always Christianity and occasionally Judaism or Islam. I've never seen one of you atheists trash Zeus. So you are indeed referring to the monotheistic God.

Stop being so disingenuous. You're as squirrelly as a squirrel.

OK so you want to hear the trash Zeus? Happy to oblige.

There is no evidence Zeus exists. And if he did, I wouldn’t worship him because he’s a petulant, jerk, throwing lightning bolts like a spoiled child.

Happy now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You're kidding? One can believe in God without the priests and rituals and churches/tabernacles and "orthodoxy of belief" and passing the collection plate and all that. Religion is wholly different than a belief in God.

Of course. You're deliberately missing the point. OP wants to diss God, the holy books and the hereafter under the guise of calling "God" and "religion" mythical.

religion is mythical. It developed out of magic, and then soothsayers who predicted future events, then priests - do you honestly think Jesus would recognize these huge cathedrals and priests with the big pointy hats - and hunreds of pages of the book of Catechism? I just looked online and the Catechism book was $64 - what? There's you difference between God and religion right there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not all religions have a god. Many don’t. So you are wrong again.

Except when you guys are trashing religion, it's always Christianity and occasionally Judaism or Islam. I've never seen one of you atheists trash Zeus. So you are indeed referring to the monotheistic God.

Stop being so disingenuous. You're as squirrelly as a squirrel.

OK so you want to hear the trash Zeus? Happy to oblige.

There is no evidence Zeus exists. And if he did, I wouldn’t worship him because he’s a petulant, jerk, throwing lightning bolts like a spoiled child.

Happy now?

Yeah, and you left out womanizer. But all these gods have their shortcomings including the one in Genesis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You're kidding? One can believe in God without the priests and rituals and churches/tabernacles and "orthodoxy of belief" and passing the collection plate and all that. Religion is wholly different than a belief in God.

Of course. You're deliberately missing the point. OP wants to diss God, the holy books and the hereafter under the guise of calling "God" and "religion" mythical.

religion is mythical. It developed out of magic, and then soothsayers who predicted future events, then priests - do you honestly think Jesus would recognize these huge cathedrals and priests with the big pointy hats - and hunreds of pages of the book of Catechism? I just looked online and the Catechism book was $64 - what? There's you difference between God and religion right there.

Sigh from a different pp than the one with the Grammarly link.

We all--and this includes you--know the word "Religion" is a huge term that includes lots of things. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
1. personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
2(a1). the service and worship of God or the supernatural
2(a2). commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2(b). the state of a religious -- a nun in her 20th year of religion
3. a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Rambling on about the Catechism is just lazy (I'm not Catholic fwiw). "Religion" is all of the above.

You know perfectly well that when you call religion "manmade" you're insulting people along many dimensions, including their systems of beliefs and practices and the legitimacy of their God(s) if they have one. Or, you're dumb as a box of rocks where grammar and vocabulary are concerned. Take your pick.

[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: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.

You're kidding? One can believe in God without the priests and rituals and churches/tabernacles and "orthodoxy of belief" and passing the collection plate and all that. Religion is wholly different than a belief in God.

Of course. You're deliberately missing the point. OP wants to diss God, the holy books and the hereafter under the guise of calling "God" and "religion" mythical.

religion is mythical. It developed out of magic, and then soothsayers who predicted future events, then priests - do you honestly think Jesus would recognize these huge cathedrals and priests with the big pointy hats - and hunreds of pages of the book of Catechism? I just looked online and the Catechism book was $64 - what? There's you difference between God and religion right there.

Sigh from a different pp than the one with the Grammarly link.

We all--and this includes you--know the word "Religion" is a huge term that includes lots of things. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
1. personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
2(a1). the service and worship of God or the supernatural
2(a2). commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2(b). the state of a religious -- a nun in her 20th year of religion
3. a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Rambling on about the Catechism is just lazy (I'm not Catholic fwiw). "Religion" is all of the above.

You know perfectly well that when you call religion "manmade" you're insulting people along many dimensions, including their systems of beliefs and practices and the legitimacy of their God(s) if they have one. Or, you're dumb as a box of rocks where grammar and vocabulary are concerned. Take your pick.

So to be clear:

You are free to express your beliefs here, without consideration of if it offends anyone, but a non-believer is not.

That seems fair.

[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: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.

You're kidding? One can believe in God without the priests and rituals and churches/tabernacles and "orthodoxy of belief" and passing the collection plate and all that. Religion is wholly different than a belief in God.

Of course. You're deliberately missing the point. OP wants to diss God, the holy books and the hereafter under the guise of calling "God" and "religion" mythical.

religion is mythical. It developed out of magic, and then soothsayers who predicted future events, then priests - do you honestly think Jesus would recognize these huge cathedrals and priests with the big pointy hats - and hunreds of pages of the book of Catechism? I just looked online and the Catechism book was $64 - what? There's you difference between God and religion right there.

Sigh from a different pp than the one with the Grammarly link.

We all--and this includes you--know the word "Religion" is a huge term that includes lots of things. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
1. personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
2(a1). the service and worship of God or the supernatural
2(a2). commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2(b). the state of a religious -- a nun in her 20th year of religion
3. a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Rambling on about the Catechism is just lazy (I'm not Catholic fwiw). "Religion" is all of the above.

You know perfectly well that when you call religion "manmade" you're insulting people along many dimensions, including their systems of beliefs and practices and the legitimacy of their God(s) if they have one. Or, you're dumb as a box of rocks where grammar and vocabulary are concerned. Take your pick.

You make a very ggod point. I said in the third post on this thread if we don't define "god" and "myth" we will all just be talking at cross purposes. And that's exactly what has happened.

[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: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.

You're kidding? One can believe in God without the priests and rituals and churches/tabernacles and "orthodoxy of belief" and passing the collection plate and all that. Religion is wholly different than a belief in God.

Of course. You're deliberately missing the point. OP wants to diss God, the holy books and the hereafter under the guise of calling "God" and "religion" mythical.

religion is mythical. It developed out of magic, and then soothsayers who predicted future events, then priests - do you honestly think Jesus would recognize these huge cathedrals and priests with the big pointy hats - and hunreds of pages of the book of Catechism? I just looked online and the Catechism book was $64 - what? There's you difference between God and religion right there.

Sigh from a different pp than the one with the Grammarly link.

We all--and this includes you--know the word "Religion" is a huge term that includes lots of things. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
1. personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
2(a1). the service and worship of God or the supernatural
2(a2). commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2(b). the state of a religious -- a nun in her 20th year of religion
3. a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Rambling on about the Catechism is just lazy (I'm not Catholic fwiw). "Religion" is all of the above.

You know perfectly well that when you call religion "manmade" you're insulting people along many dimensions, including their systems of beliefs and practices and the legitimacy of their God(s) if they have one. Or, you're dumb as a box of rocks where grammar and vocabulary are concerned. Take your pick.

?? Religion is man-made. How can anyone possibly argue otherwise? Go ahead, I'd love to hear it.

[Anonymous]

To me, "religion" requires the worship in some way of a divinity.
It takes on many forms, but they all seem to have priests, rules/rituals, meeting places, some agreed upon orthodoxy of belief - otherwise it's just philosophy.