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: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.

Non-believers are certainly welcome to engage in discourse but those who present themselves falsely like OP are understandably dismissed out of hand. That’s generally how civil society works. People have little patience for scoundrels and liars.

[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: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.

You're arguing with Merriam-Webster. Take it up with them.

Here's the link 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: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.

Roman Catholicism is the One True Religion, ordained by God. The protestant religions are all man-made off-shoots of it. That's what I learned in Catechism, anyway.

[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: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.

Non-believers are certainly welcome to engage in discourse but those who present themselves falsely like OP are understandably dismissed out of hand. That’s generally how civil society works. People have little patience for scoundrels and liars.

Ha ha. We're on 12 pages here so I don't think OP's question has been dismissed "out of hand." Do you have an answer to it?

[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: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.

Atheist victim has entered the room....

No, we're saying that if you want to have a constructive conversation with somebody, don't kick it off by calling their religion a "myth" and defying grammar rules to use lower-case god. Somebody gave a good example, which is that if you want to have a constructive conversation with a Trump supporter, don't start off by calling your counterpart a Magat.

This is why OP is getting ignored. This is so basic it's hard to understand why you (OP?) don't get it.

[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: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.

Non-believers are certainly welcome to engage in discourse but those who present themselves falsely like OP are understandably dismissed out of hand. That’s generally how civil society works. People have little patience for scoundrels and liars.

Ha ha. We're on 12 pages here so I don't think OP's question has been dismissed "out of hand." Do you have an answer to it?

12 pages of multiple posters calling OP disingenuous and posting in 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: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.

Roman Catholicism is the One True Religion, ordained by God. The protestant religions are all man-made off-shoots of it. That's what I learned in Catechism, anyway.

Coo. Do you believe 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: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.

Roman Catholicism is the One True Religion, ordained by God. The protestant religions are all man-made off-shoots of it. That's what I learned in Catechism, anyway.

Coo. Do you believe that?

*cool

[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: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.

Roman Catholicism is the One True Religion, ordained by God. The protestant religions are all man-made off-shoots of it. That's what I learned in Catechism, anyway.

Coo. Do you believe that?

*cool

Of course not

[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: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.

Non-believers are certainly welcome to engage in discourse but those who present themselves falsely like OP are understandably dismissed out of hand. That’s generally how civil society works. People have little patience for scoundrels and liars.

Ha ha. We're on 12 pages here so I don't think OP's question has been dismissed "out of hand." Do you have an answer to it?

12 pages of multiple posters calling OP disingenuous and posting in bad faith.

True. It's remarkably similar to the other thread where that sincere OP who wanted to reignite her faith who was relentlessly called a troll. You would think these folks would have something substantive to add, but they never do.

[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: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.

Roman Catholicism is the One True Religion, ordained by God. The protestant religions are all man-made off-shoots of it. That's what I learned in Catechism, anyway.

Coo. Do you believe that?

*cool

Of course not

+1. Thanks for clarifying

[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: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.

Non-believers are certainly welcome to engage in discourse but those who present themselves falsely like OP are understandably dismissed out of hand. That’s generally how civil society works. People have little patience for scoundrels and liars.

Ha ha. We're on 12 pages here so I don't think OP's question has been dismissed "out of hand." Do you have an answer to it?

12 pages of multiple posters calling OP disingenuous and posting in bad faith.

PP here -- meant to say 12 pages of multiple POSTS, not posters

[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: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.

Non-believers are certainly welcome to engage in discourse but those who present themselves falsely like OP are understandably dismissed out of hand. That’s generally how civil society works. People have little patience for scoundrels and liars.

Ha ha. We're on 12 pages here so I don't think OP's question has been dismissed "out of hand." Do you have an answer to it?

12 pages of multiple posters calling OP disingenuous and posting in bad faith.

PP here -- meant to say 12 pages of multiple POSTS, not posters

Editor here. It’s definitely multiple posters. I couldn’t say how many but I certainly am not a sock puppet. OP, otoh, seems to be.

[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: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.

Roman Catholicism is the One True Religion, ordained by God. The protestant religions are all man-made off-shoots of it. That's what I learned in Catechism, anyway.

Coo. Do you believe that?

The atheist who was raised Catholic and now hates the religion was trying to be cute. Fail.

[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: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.

Non-believers are certainly welcome to engage in discourse but those who present themselves falsely like OP are understandably dismissed out of hand. That’s generally how civil society works. People have little patience for scoundrels and liars.

Ha ha. We're on 12 pages here so I don't think OP's question has been dismissed "out of hand." Do you have an answer to it?

12 pages of multiple posters calling OP disingenuous and posting in bad faith.

PP here -- meant to say 12 pages of multiple POSTS, not posters

That was my post at 12:19 and you're not me although you're trying to pretend you are. WTF is wrong with you?