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:It’s a myth and there is no evidence any of them are true.

Ok, but evidence is not usually a standard for faith. You believing religion is a myth shouldn't diminish how believers feel about it.

While I believe it's rude and insulting to walk up to a person of faith and tell them their religion is a myth, I'm not insulted, because what someone else believes about my religion doesn't affect what I believe about my religion. It's just a waste of everyone's time.

If it is a waste of time why are you here and why type a clearly thoughtful message?

Others think it IS important, even if you don’t.

Also no one here “walks up” to anyone. It’s an open forum. Participate at will, and ignore anything you choose.

DP. You enter threads about religion (recently: the "I want to return to God" thread) to tell everybody there that God is a myth.

That's virtual "walking up." There's no other way to describe it. You've been called a proselytizer by the moderator no less.

Tell us this: You don't want people proselytizing on your atheism threads. How is your behavior on religion threads (walking up + insulting) different?

You are not telling the truth- I encourage all thoughts in any thread dealing with religion in the religion forum. If you want to proselytize here, please do. I am capable of responding thoughtfully.

So, please proceed! And you have my sincere “blessings “.

We're discussing behavior. Specifically, we're discussing confronting people--in person or virtually--to tell them their belief/nonbelief is a laughable child's thinking on par with a myth. Yes, of course, most of us respect a thoughtful back-and-forth. It should be obvious that insults aren't thoughtful.

The correct analogy would be entering an atheist thread to tell atheists that they're sad people with no morals. And then dominating the thread so atheists can't get a word in edgewise, gish galloping after losing a line of argument, bumping old posts to get away from take-downs, and winding up with straight-up insults like "immoral" or "depraved." (Some have called the couple of atheists who do this trolls.)

I can't see anybody condoning that, either.

First, I don't know how there is anything such as an "atheist thread". This is an open religion forum and I think all beliefs should be welcomed and encouraged to participate.

But I go back to a question posted prior and largely ignored: why is it offensive to say "Jesus Is Not Lord" because people of faith might read it but not offensive to say "Jesus Is Lord" when people who have other beliefs might see it?

Can you answer that one for me?

DP (really). I think we've beaten this dead horse long enough. If someone says Jesus is Lord, I don't see how it's "offensive." I think they're a little deluded maybe, but it's really not offensive to atheists. Maybe to adherents of other religions thoiugh?

And I don't see how saying Jesus Is Not Lord is offensive, yet people are sure claiming to be offended by it.

Don't you think it should be one way or the other in this open forum, consistent for all positions? It is is simply a statement of belief or disbelief, and neither should be viewed offensive in an open forum.

In a church vestibule, or a public school classroom, the rules are - and should be - different. But in open forums and the public square, there should be freedom to state either without being shouted down and canceled.

I am surprised there is not more consensus on that here.

I don't think we've had that debate. The thread is about whether it's insulting to refer to god (lower case "g") is mythical. Not about whether Jesus is Lord. I haven't even seen any posts making that argument one way or the other.

So what is the difference between saying Jesus is mythical and Jesus Is Not Lord?

This I really don't understand. I honestly think the former would be less offensive to a believer.

Can you read? The thread isn't about Christian theology.

Why do you have to be so rude and use ad hominems? Do you think that reflects well on your position?

Threads follow a discussion path and are OK as long as they remain on topic. If anyone gets to say what a thread is about, it is the OP, and since that is me, I can say you are incorrect.

I'm glad you clarified that - but you are changing the subject. It was about whether it's "insulting to refer to god as mythical". And now you're asking why it isn't insulting to say Jesus is Lord to someone who doesn't believe Jesus is Lord. Surely you see the difference? That's a different topic. And no, I'm not sure that you do, even as an OP (which you didn't disclose until just now) - get to "say what a thread is about." Unless you're just confused about what you're asking.

No, I do not see the difference. And if the OP doesn't get to say what a thread was intended to be about, then random posters certainly don't get to either. But my intention was to point out what I saw as hypocrisy and demands from people of one position to control the dialog when they were not even prepared to extend the same criteria to others.

So why isn't it insulting to say "JIL" to someone who does not believe but it is offensive to say the opposite to someone who does?

DP. This is all missing the point.

If you don't want to hear that "Jesus is Lord," then don't go onto threads about Christianity. It's that simple.

Instead, you're
1. Deliberately "subjecting" yourself to "Jesus is Lord."
And then,
2. You're claiming you're insulted by reading by reading "Jesus is Lord."
Which, wait for it,
3. Is the excuse you use to insult people of faith by calling their religion a "myth."

Can you see how this strikes some of us as bad-faith rhetoric? You're stirring up trouble that didn't need to be there as an excuse to insult people of faith.

So you cannot or will not answer the question?

Perhaps my point was too subtle for you. These things are very different, as another pp was also arguing.

1. It's straight-up dishonest to enter a thread on religion voluntarily, pretend to be offended when you read "Jesus is Lord," and then use that as an excuse to insult people on that thread.

What's different:

2. People of faith in a religion thread are minding their own business and talking about what's meaningful to them. Until you barged in and insulted them.

I must repeat, apparently: so you can not or will not answer the question?

If you don't understand, it's either because you don't want to understand and you're playing dumb.

Let's summarize. Your position is that nobody in the Religion forum should be allowed to talk about their beliefs. Because some clueless atheist might stumble into a Religion thread and burn their eyes by reading "Jesus is Lord" or something.

Have you tried taking that up with the moderator? Bwahahaha.

No, I'd rather just continue to point out you can't or won't answer a simple question.

You haven't answered my question about whether you want to ban people of faith from talking about religion on the Religion forum. So, huh, huh? (Doing my best to imitate you.)

Maybe if I could frame this in toddler terms you can understand? This is a case of "he started it."

The person who starts it, the person who is the aggressive instigator, is the atheist barging into a religion thread to fabricate excuses to insult everybody there. Using terms like "myth" which you have been told are insulting.

The people saying "Jesus is Lord" are just minding their own business on religious threads. Nobody has ever, ever, posted JIL on an atheist thread. If somebody did post JIL on an atheist thread that would be insulting--but that never, ever happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a myth and there is no evidence any of them are true.

^^^ Typical. Instead of addressing the question of whether calling God/Gods a "myth" is insulting, here's an atheist hammering on the reductive, analysis-free, childish insults.

Maybe off topic, but it’s a concise statement that isn’t childish or insulting. Nothing wrong with it.

DP.

It's like me calling you "childish." No explanation, no rationale, just random ad hominems. Even if it's true.

You don’t need extra, flowery words when stating basic facts: “there is no evidence”.

So say "there is no evidence" and people of faith will nod and say you're right, it's about faith. Calling it a "myth" is another level of rudeness.

It's the same thing. There is no evidence = it's a myth. All myths rely on "faith".

No, "myth" is insulting. It's putting peoples' faith on par with Santa Claus, as OP's gotcha in her OP clearly tried to do.

As we've all learned in the past few years, if we didn't know it before: if somebody tells you they're insulted, then it's insulting. You don't get to decide whether somebody else should be insulted by your words or deeds.

I think it’s more on par with Zeus, Odin, etc. Gods who people worshipped.

True, the Greek pantheon of gods were very real to them, and it was a religion. As was the Roman's religion which had many if the same gods by different names. True, these religions have fallen out of favor now, but the American Indians belived in the "great spirit in the sky" and the "happy hunting grounds" (heaven). These are no less respectable beliefs than the monotheistic religions that came out of the middle east.

I was referring to the Greek, Roman, Norse myths when I said all myths rely on “faith”. No evidence = myth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a myth and there is no evidence any of them are true.

^^^ Typical. Instead of addressing the question of whether calling God/Gods a "myth" is insulting, here's an atheist hammering on the reductive, analysis-free, childish insults.

Maybe off topic, but it’s a concise statement that isn’t childish or insulting. Nothing wrong with it.

DP.

It's like me calling you "childish." No explanation, no rationale, just random ad hominems. Even if it's true.

You don’t need extra, flowery words when stating basic facts: “there is no evidence”.

So say "there is no evidence" and people of faith will nod and say you're right, it's about faith. Calling it a "myth" is another level of rudeness.

It's the same thing. There is no evidence = it's a myth. All myths rely on "faith".

No, "myth" is insulting. It's putting peoples' faith on par with Santa Claus, as OP's gotcha in her OP clearly tried to do.

As we've all learned in the past few years, if we didn't know it before: if somebody tells you they're insulted, then it's insulting. You don't get to decide whether somebody else should be insulted by your words or deeds.

I think it’s more on par with Zeus, Odin, etc. Gods who people worshipped.

True, the Greek pantheon of gods were very real to them, and it was a religion. As was the Roman's religion which had many if the same gods by different names. True, these religions have fallen out of favor now, but the American Indians belived in the "great spirit in the sky" and the "happy hunting grounds" (heaven). These are no less respectable beliefs than the monotheistic religions that came out of the middle east.

What makes it insulting is whether you're talking to somebody who believes in the thing you're insulting.

[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:It’s a myth and there is no evidence any of them are true.

Ok, but evidence is not usually a standard for faith. You believing religion is a myth shouldn't diminish how believers feel about it.

While I believe it's rude and insulting to walk up to a person of faith and tell them their religion is a myth, I'm not insulted, because what someone else believes about my religion doesn't affect what I believe about my religion. It's just a waste of everyone's time.

If it is a waste of time why are you here and why type a clearly thoughtful message?

Others think it IS important, even if you don’t.

Also no one here “walks up” to anyone. It’s an open forum. Participate at will, and ignore anything you choose.

DP. You enter threads about religion (recently: the "I want to return to God" thread) to tell everybody there that God is a myth.

That's virtual "walking up." There's no other way to describe it. You've been called a proselytizer by the moderator no less.

Tell us this: You don't want people proselytizing on your atheism threads. How is your behavior on religion threads (walking up + insulting) different?

You are not telling the truth- I encourage all thoughts in any thread dealing with religion in the religion forum. If you want to proselytize here, please do. I am capable of responding thoughtfully.

So, please proceed! And you have my sincere “blessings “.

We're discussing behavior. Specifically, we're discussing confronting people--in person or virtually--to tell them their belief/nonbelief is a laughable child's thinking on par with a myth. Yes, of course, most of us respect a thoughtful back-and-forth. It should be obvious that insults aren't thoughtful.

The correct analogy would be entering an atheist thread to tell atheists that they're sad people with no morals. And then dominating the thread so atheists can't get a word in edgewise, gish galloping after losing a line of argument, bumping old posts to get away from take-downs, and winding up with straight-up insults like "immoral" or "depraved." (Some have called the couple of atheists who do this trolls.)

I can't see anybody condoning that, either.

First, I don't know how there is anything such as an "atheist thread". This is an open religion forum and I think all beliefs should be welcomed and encouraged to participate.

But I go back to a question posted prior and largely ignored: why is it offensive to say "Jesus Is Not Lord" because people of faith might read it but not offensive to say "Jesus Is Lord" when people who have other beliefs might see it?

Can you answer that one for me?

DP (really). I think we've beaten this dead horse long enough. If someone says Jesus is Lord, I don't see how it's "offensive." I think they're a little deluded maybe, but it's really not offensive to atheists. Maybe to adherents of other religions thoiugh?

And I don't see how saying Jesus Is Not Lord is offensive, yet people are sure claiming to be offended by it.

Don't you think it should be one way or the other in this open forum, consistent for all positions? It is is simply a statement of belief or disbelief, and neither should be viewed offensive in an open forum.

In a church vestibule, or a public school classroom, the rules are - and should be - different. But in open forums and the public square, there should be freedom to state either without being shouted down and canceled.

I am surprised there is not more consensus on that here.

I don't think we've had that debate. The thread is about whether it's insulting to refer to god (lower case "g") is mythical. Not about whether Jesus is Lord. I haven't even seen any posts making that argument one way or the other.

So what is the difference between saying Jesus is mythical and Jesus Is Not Lord?

This I really don't understand. I honestly think the former would be less offensive to a believer.

Can you read? The thread isn't about Christian theology.

Why do you have to be so rude and use ad hominems? Do you think that reflects well on your position?

Threads follow a discussion path and are OK as long as they remain on topic. If anyone gets to say what a thread is about, it is the OP, and since that is me, I can say you are incorrect.

I'm glad you clarified that - but you are changing the subject. It was about whether it's "insulting to refer to god as mythical". And now you're asking why it isn't insulting to say Jesus is Lord to someone who doesn't believe Jesus is Lord. Surely you see the difference? That's a different topic. And no, I'm not sure that you do, even as an OP (which you didn't disclose until just now) - get to "say what a thread is about." Unless you're just confused about what you're asking.

No, I do not see the difference. And if the OP doesn't get to say what a thread was intended to be about, then random posters certainly don't get to either. But my intention was to point out what I saw as hypocrisy and demands from people of one position to control the dialog when they were not even prepared to extend the same criteria to others.

So why isn't it insulting to say "JIL" to someone who does not believe but it is offensive to say the opposite to someone who does?

DP. This is all missing the point.

If you don't want to hear that "Jesus is Lord," then don't go onto threads about Christianity. It's that simple.

Instead, you're
1. Deliberately "subjecting" yourself to "Jesus is Lord."
And then,
2. You're claiming you're insulted by reading by reading "Jesus is Lord."
Which, wait for it,
3. Is the excuse you use to insult people of faith by calling their religion a "myth."

Can you see how this strikes some of us as bad-faith rhetoric? You're stirring up trouble that didn't need to be there as an excuse to insult people of faith.

So you cannot or will not answer the question?

Perhaps my point was too subtle for you. These things are very different, as another pp was also arguing.

1. It's straight-up dishonest to enter a thread on religion voluntarily, pretend to be offended when you read "Jesus is Lord," and then use that as an excuse to insult people on that thread.

What's different:

2. People of faith in a religion thread are minding their own business and talking about what's meaningful to them. Until you barged in and insulted them.

I must repeat, apparently: so you can not or will not answer the question?

If you don't understand, it's either because you don't want to understand and you're playing dumb.

Let's summarize. Your position is that nobody in the Religion forum should be allowed to talk about their beliefs. Because some clueless atheist might stumble into a Religion thread and burn their eyes by reading "Jesus is Lord" or something.

Have you tried taking that up with the moderator? Bwahahaha.

No, I'd rather just continue to point out you can't or won't answer a simple question.

You haven't answered my question about whether you want to ban people of faith from talking about religion on the Religion forum. So, huh, huh? (Doing my best to imitate you.)

Maybe if I could frame this in toddler terms you can understand? This is a case of "he started it."

The person who starts it, the person who is the aggressive instigator, is the atheist barging into a religion thread to fabricate excuses to insult everybody there. Using terms like "myth" which you have been told are insulting.

The people saying "Jesus is Lord" are just minding their own business on religious threads. Nobody has ever, ever, posted JIL on an atheist thread. If somebody did post JIL on an atheist thread that would be insulting--but that never, ever happens.

Just for the record, I wouldn't be insulted by it and I doubt any atheists would be either.

[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:It’s a myth and there is no evidence any of them are true.

Ok, but evidence is not usually a standard for faith. You believing religion is a myth shouldn't diminish how believers feel about it.

While I believe it's rude and insulting to walk up to a person of faith and tell them their religion is a myth, I'm not insulted, because what someone else believes about my religion doesn't affect what I believe about my religion. It's just a waste of everyone's time.

If it is a waste of time why are you here and why type a clearly thoughtful message?

Others think it IS important, even if you don’t.

Also no one here “walks up” to anyone. It’s an open forum. Participate at will, and ignore anything you choose.

DP. You enter threads about religion (recently: the "I want to return to God" thread) to tell everybody there that God is a myth.

That's virtual "walking up." There's no other way to describe it. You've been called a proselytizer by the moderator no less.

Tell us this: You don't want people proselytizing on your atheism threads. How is your behavior on religion threads (walking up + insulting) different?

You are not telling the truth- I encourage all thoughts in any thread dealing with religion in the religion forum. If you want to proselytize here, please do. I am capable of responding thoughtfully.

So, please proceed! And you have my sincere “blessings “.

We're discussing behavior. Specifically, we're discussing confronting people--in person or virtually--to tell them their belief/nonbelief is a laughable child's thinking on par with a myth. Yes, of course, most of us respect a thoughtful back-and-forth. It should be obvious that insults aren't thoughtful.

The correct analogy would be entering an atheist thread to tell atheists that they're sad people with no morals. And then dominating the thread so atheists can't get a word in edgewise, gish galloping after losing a line of argument, bumping old posts to get away from take-downs, and winding up with straight-up insults like "immoral" or "depraved." (Some have called the couple of atheists who do this trolls.)

I can't see anybody condoning that, either.

First, I don't know how there is anything such as an "atheist thread". This is an open religion forum and I think all beliefs should be welcomed and encouraged to participate.

But I go back to a question posted prior and largely ignored: why is it offensive to say "Jesus Is Not Lord" because people of faith might read it but not offensive to say "Jesus Is Lord" when people who have other beliefs might see it?

Can you answer that one for me?

DP (really). I think we've beaten this dead horse long enough. If someone says Jesus is Lord, I don't see how it's "offensive." I think they're a little deluded maybe, but it's really not offensive to atheists. Maybe to adherents of other religions thoiugh?

And I don't see how saying Jesus Is Not Lord is offensive, yet people are sure claiming to be offended by it.

Don't you think it should be one way or the other in this open forum, consistent for all positions? It is is simply a statement of belief or disbelief, and neither should be viewed offensive in an open forum.

In a church vestibule, or a public school classroom, the rules are - and should be - different. But in open forums and the public square, there should be freedom to state either without being shouted down and canceled.

I am surprised there is not more consensus on that here.

I don't think we've had that debate. The thread is about whether it's insulting to refer to god (lower case "g") is mythical. Not about whether Jesus is Lord. I haven't even seen any posts making that argument one way or the other.

So what is the difference between saying Jesus is mythical and Jesus Is Not Lord?

This I really don't understand. I honestly think the former would be less offensive to a believer.

Can you read? The thread isn't about Christian theology.

Why do you have to be so rude and use ad hominems? Do you think that reflects well on your position?

Threads follow a discussion path and are OK as long as they remain on topic. If anyone gets to say what a thread is about, it is the OP, and since that is me, I can say you are incorrect.

I'm glad you clarified that - but you are changing the subject. It was about whether it's "insulting to refer to god as mythical". And now you're asking why it isn't insulting to say Jesus is Lord to someone who doesn't believe Jesus is Lord. Surely you see the difference? That's a different topic. And no, I'm not sure that you do, even as an OP (which you didn't disclose until just now) - get to "say what a thread is about." Unless you're just confused about what you're asking.

No, I do not see the difference. And if the OP doesn't get to say what a thread was intended to be about, then random posters certainly don't get to either. But my intention was to point out what I saw as hypocrisy and demands from people of one position to control the dialog when they were not even prepared to extend the same criteria to others.

So why isn't it insulting to say "JIL" to someone who does not believe but it is offensive to say the opposite to someone who does?

DP. This is all missing the point.

If you don't want to hear that "Jesus is Lord," then don't go onto threads about Christianity. It's that simple.

Instead, you're
1. Deliberately "subjecting" yourself to "Jesus is Lord."
And then,
2. You're claiming you're insulted by reading by reading "Jesus is Lord."
Which, wait for it,
3. Is the excuse you use to insult people of faith by calling their religion a "myth."

Can you see how this strikes some of us as bad-faith rhetoric? You're stirring up trouble that didn't need to be there as an excuse to insult people of faith.

So you cannot or will not answer the question?

Perhaps my point was too subtle for you. These things are very different, as another pp was also arguing.

1. It's straight-up dishonest to enter a thread on religion voluntarily, pretend to be offended when you read "Jesus is Lord," and then use that as an excuse to insult people on that thread.

What's different:

2. People of faith in a religion thread are minding their own business and talking about what's meaningful to them. Until you barged in and insulted them.

I must repeat, apparently: so you can not or will not answer the question?

If you don't understand, it's either because you don't want to understand and you're playing dumb.

Let's summarize. Your position is that nobody in the Religion forum should be allowed to talk about their beliefs. Because some clueless atheist might stumble into a Religion thread and burn their eyes by reading "Jesus is Lord" or something.

Have you tried taking that up with the moderator? Bwahahaha.

No, I'd rather just continue to point out you can't or won't answer a simple question.

You haven't answered my question about whether you want to ban people of faith from talking about religion on the Religion forum. So, huh, huh? (Doing my best to imitate you.)

Maybe if I could frame this in toddler terms you can understand? This is a case of "he started it."

The person who starts it, the person who is the aggressive instigator, is the atheist barging into a religion thread to fabricate excuses to insult everybody there. Using terms like "myth" which you have been told are insulting.

The people saying "Jesus is Lord" are just minding their own business on religious threads. Nobody has ever, ever, posted JIL on an atheist thread. If somebody did post JIL on an atheist thread that would be insulting--but that never, ever happens.

Just for the record, I wouldn't be insulted by it and I doubt any atheists would be either.

An atheist proposed the analogy.

[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:It’s a myth and there is no evidence any of them are true.

Ok, but evidence is not usually a standard for faith. You believing religion is a myth shouldn't diminish how believers feel about it.

While I believe it's rude and insulting to walk up to a person of faith and tell them their religion is a myth, I'm not insulted, because what someone else believes about my religion doesn't affect what I believe about my religion. It's just a waste of everyone's time.

If it is a waste of time why are you here and why type a clearly thoughtful message?

Others think it IS important, even if you don’t.

Also no one here “walks up” to anyone. It’s an open forum. Participate at will, and ignore anything you choose.

DP. You enter threads about religion (recently: the "I want to return to God" thread) to tell everybody there that God is a myth.

That's virtual "walking up." There's no other way to describe it. You've been called a proselytizer by the moderator no less.

Tell us this: You don't want people proselytizing on your atheism threads. How is your behavior on religion threads (walking up + insulting) different?

You are not telling the truth- I encourage all thoughts in any thread dealing with religion in the religion forum. If you want to proselytize here, please do. I am capable of responding thoughtfully.

So, please proceed! And you have my sincere “blessings “.

We're discussing behavior. Specifically, we're discussing confronting people--in person or virtually--to tell them their belief/nonbelief is a laughable child's thinking on par with a myth. Yes, of course, most of us respect a thoughtful back-and-forth. It should be obvious that insults aren't thoughtful.

The correct analogy would be entering an atheist thread to tell atheists that they're sad people with no morals. And then dominating the thread so atheists can't get a word in edgewise, gish galloping after losing a line of argument, bumping old posts to get away from take-downs, and winding up with straight-up insults like "immoral" or "depraved." (Some have called the couple of atheists who do this trolls.)

I can't see anybody condoning that, either.

First, I don't know how there is anything such as an "atheist thread". This is an open religion forum and I think all beliefs should be welcomed and encouraged to participate.

But I go back to a question posted prior and largely ignored: why is it offensive to say "Jesus Is Not Lord" because people of faith might read it but not offensive to say "Jesus Is Lord" when people who have other beliefs might see it?

Can you answer that one for me?

DP (really). I think we've beaten this dead horse long enough. If someone says Jesus is Lord, I don't see how it's "offensive." I think they're a little deluded maybe, but it's really not offensive to atheists. Maybe to adherents of other religions thoiugh?

And I don't see how saying Jesus Is Not Lord is offensive, yet people are sure claiming to be offended by it.

Don't you think it should be one way or the other in this open forum, consistent for all positions? It is is simply a statement of belief or disbelief, and neither should be viewed offensive in an open forum.

In a church vestibule, or a public school classroom, the rules are - and should be - different. But in open forums and the public square, there should be freedom to state either without being shouted down and canceled.

I am surprised there is not more consensus on that here.

I don't think we've had that debate. The thread is about whether it's insulting to refer to god (lower case "g") is mythical. Not about whether Jesus is Lord. I haven't even seen any posts making that argument one way or the other.

So what is the difference between saying Jesus is mythical and Jesus Is Not Lord?

This I really don't understand. I honestly think the former would be less offensive to a believer.

Can you read? The thread isn't about Christian theology.

Why do you have to be so rude and use ad hominems? Do you think that reflects well on your position?

Threads follow a discussion path and are OK as long as they remain on topic. If anyone gets to say what a thread is about, it is the OP, and since that is me, I can say you are incorrect.

I'm glad you clarified that - but you are changing the subject. It was about whether it's "insulting to refer to god as mythical". And now you're asking why it isn't insulting to say Jesus is Lord to someone who doesn't believe Jesus is Lord. Surely you see the difference? That's a different topic. And no, I'm not sure that you do, even as an OP (which you didn't disclose until just now) - get to "say what a thread is about." Unless you're just confused about what you're asking.

No, I do not see the difference. And if the OP doesn't get to say what a thread was intended to be about, then random posters certainly don't get to either. But my intention was to point out what I saw as hypocrisy and demands from people of one position to control the dialog when they were not even prepared to extend the same criteria to others.

So why isn't it insulting to say "JIL" to someone who does not believe but it is offensive to say the opposite to someone who does?

DP. This is all missing the point.

If you don't want to hear that "Jesus is Lord," then don't go onto threads about Christianity. It's that simple.

Instead, you're
1. Deliberately "subjecting" yourself to "Jesus is Lord."
And then,
2. You're claiming you're insulted by reading by reading "Jesus is Lord."
Which, wait for it,
3. Is the excuse you use to insult people of faith by calling their religion a "myth."

Can you see how this strikes some of us as bad-faith rhetoric? You're stirring up trouble that didn't need to be there as an excuse to insult people of faith.

So you cannot or will not answer the question?

Perhaps my point was too subtle for you. These things are very different, as another pp was also arguing.

1. It's straight-up dishonest to enter a thread on religion voluntarily, pretend to be offended when you read "Jesus is Lord," and then use that as an excuse to insult people on that thread.

What's different:

2. People of faith in a religion thread are minding their own business and talking about what's meaningful to them. Until you barged in and insulted them.

I must repeat, apparently: so you can not or will not answer the question?

If you don't understand, it's either because you don't want to understand and you're playing dumb.

Let's summarize. Your position is that nobody in the Religion forum should be allowed to talk about their beliefs. Because some clueless atheist might stumble into a Religion thread and burn their eyes by reading "Jesus is Lord" or something.

Have you tried taking that up with the moderator? Bwahahaha.

No, I'd rather just continue to point out you can't or won't answer a simple question.

You haven't answered my question about whether you want to ban people of faith from talking about religion on the Religion forum. So, huh, huh? (Doing my best to imitate you.)

Maybe if I could frame this in toddler terms you can understand? This is a case of "he started it."

The person who starts it, the person who is the aggressive instigator, is the atheist barging into a religion thread to fabricate excuses to insult everybody there. Using terms like "myth" which you have been told are insulting.

The people saying "Jesus is Lord" are just minding their own business on religious threads. Nobody has ever, ever, posted JIL on an atheist thread. If somebody did post JIL on an atheist thread that would be insulting--but that never, ever happens.

Just for the record, I wouldn't be insulted by it and I doubt any atheists would be either.

An atheist proposed the analogy.

oh, I'm getting so confused. If that's true, then I'll just have to go ahead and disagree with that atheist; I don't think it would be insulting at all. That's what they believe, so they have every right to express it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a myth and there is no evidence any of them are true.

^^^ Typical. Instead of addressing the question of whether calling God/Gods a "myth" is insulting, here's an atheist hammering on the reductive, analysis-free, childish insults.

Maybe off topic, but it’s a concise statement that isn’t childish or insulting. Nothing wrong with it.

DP.

It's like me calling you "childish." No explanation, no rationale, just random ad hominems. Even if it's true.

You don’t need extra, flowery words when stating basic facts: “there is no evidence”.

So say "there is no evidence" and people of faith will nod and say you're right, it's about faith. Calling it a "myth" is another level of rudeness.

It's the same thing. There is no evidence = it's a myth. All myths rely on "faith".

No, "myth" is insulting. It's putting peoples' faith on par with Santa Claus, as OP's gotcha in her OP clearly tried to do.

As we've all learned in the past few years, if we didn't know it before: if somebody tells you they're insulted, then it's insulting. You don't get to decide whether somebody else should be insulted by your words or deeds.

I think it’s more on par with Zeus, Odin, etc. Gods who people worshipped.

True, the Greek pantheon of gods were very real to them, and it was a religion. As was the Roman's religion which had many if the same gods by different names. True, these religions have fallen out of favor now, but the American Indians belived in the "great spirit in the sky" and the "happy hunting grounds" (heaven). These are no less respectable beliefs than the monotheistic religions that came out of the middle east.

I was referring to the Greek, Roman, Norse myths when I said all myths rely on “faith”. No evidence = myth.

So you're doubling down on the "no evidence" = "myth" false equivalence.

Again, what matters is context. If the people you're talking to are insulted by the word "myth," or by you comparing their beliefs to the Greek pantheon, then don't do it. If you want to refer to the Greek pantheon by itself and you're confident you're not talking to people who still believe it (are there?) then go ahead and refer to the Greek pantheon as myths--without thinking you're cute by dragging things people actually do believe into it.

This is so basic it shouldn't have to keep being repeated.

[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:It’s a myth and there is no evidence any of them are true.

^^^ Typical. Instead of addressing the question of whether calling God/Gods a "myth" is insulting, here's an atheist hammering on the reductive, analysis-free, childish insults.

Maybe off topic, but it’s a concise statement that isn’t childish or insulting. Nothing wrong with it.

DP.

It's like me calling you "childish." No explanation, no rationale, just random ad hominems. Even if it's true.

You don’t need extra, flowery words when stating basic facts: “there is no evidence”.

So say "there is no evidence" and people of faith will nod and say you're right, it's about faith. Calling it a "myth" is another level of rudeness.

It's the same thing. There is no evidence = it's a myth. All myths rely on "faith".

No, "myth" is insulting. It's putting peoples' faith on par with Santa Claus, as OP's gotcha in her OP clearly tried to do.

As we've all learned in the past few years, if we didn't know it before: if somebody tells you they're insulted, then it's insulting. You don't get to decide whether somebody else should be insulted by your words or deeds.

I think it’s more on par with Zeus, Odin, etc. Gods who people worshipped.

True, the Greek pantheon of gods were very real to them, and it was a religion. As was the Roman's religion which had many if the same gods by different names. True, these religions have fallen out of favor now, but the American Indians belived in the "great spirit in the sky" and the "happy hunting grounds" (heaven). These are no less respectable beliefs than the monotheistic religions that came out of the middle east.

I was referring to the Greek, Roman, Norse myths when I said all myths rely on “faith”. No evidence = myth.

So you're doubling down on the "no evidence" = "myth" false equivalence.

Again, what matters is context. If the people you're talking to are insulted by the word "myth," or by you comparing their beliefs to the Greek pantheon, then don't do it. If you want to refer to the Greek pantheon by itself and you're confident you're not talking to people who still believe it (are there?) then go ahead and refer to the Greek pantheon as myths--without thinking you're cute by dragging things people actually do believe into it.

This is so basic it shouldn't have to keep being repeated.

Oh, it doesn’t have to be repeated we get it loud and clear that you want special treatment for your beliefs and don’t care about others. You made that very clear.

Is the statement all religions are myths offensive?

Is the statement ‘all religions are myths except for blank” offensive? Or only unless your religion is in the blank spot?

[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:It’s a myth and there is no evidence any of them are true.

^^^ Typical. Instead of addressing the question of whether calling God/Gods a "myth" is insulting, here's an atheist hammering on the reductive, analysis-free, childish insults.

Maybe off topic, but it’s a concise statement that isn’t childish or insulting. Nothing wrong with it.

DP.

It's like me calling you "childish." No explanation, no rationale, just random ad hominems. Even if it's true.

You don’t need extra, flowery words when stating basic facts: “there is no evidence”.

So say "there is no evidence" and people of faith will nod and say you're right, it's about faith. Calling it a "myth" is another level of rudeness.

It's the same thing. There is no evidence = it's a myth. All myths rely on "faith".

No, "myth" is insulting. It's putting peoples' faith on par with Santa Claus, as OP's gotcha in her OP clearly tried to do.

As we've all learned in the past few years, if we didn't know it before: if somebody tells you they're insulted, then it's insulting. You don't get to decide whether somebody else should be insulted by your words or deeds.

I think it’s more on par with Zeus, Odin, etc. Gods who people worshipped.

True, the Greek pantheon of gods were very real to them, and it was a religion. As was the Roman's religion which had many if the same gods by different names. True, these religions have fallen out of favor now, but the American Indians belived in the "great spirit in the sky" and the "happy hunting grounds" (heaven). These are no less respectable beliefs than the monotheistic religions that came out of the middle east.

I was referring to the Greek, Roman, Norse myths when I said all myths rely on “faith”. No evidence = myth.

So you're doubling down on the "no evidence" = "myth" false equivalence.

Again, what matters is context. If the people you're talking to are insulted by the word "myth," or by you comparing their beliefs to the Greek pantheon, then don't do it. If you want to refer to the Greek pantheon by itself and you're confident you're not talking to people who still believe it (are there?) then go ahead and refer to the Greek pantheon as myths--without thinking you're cute by dragging things people actually do believe into it.

This is so basic it shouldn't have to keep being repeated.

Oh, it doesn’t have to be repeated we get it loud and clear that you want special treatment for your beliefs and don’t care about others. You made that very clear.

Is the statement all religions are myths offensive?

Is the statement ‘all religions are myths except for blank” offensive? Or only unless your religion is in the blank spot?

Whenever you lose an argument you come back to this. We're going in circles now.

Nobody is demanding special treatment for any religion.

We're demanding RESPECT for all living religions. Sing it with me. RESPECT. We're asking you to stop with the dumb and childish insults.

And yes, you've been told many times that calling any or all living religions "myths" is disrespectful and insulting. How many more times does this need to be repeated? Can you not grasp this simple logic of democratic exchange, or are the tenets of respectful modern discourse beyond your understanding?

[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:It’s a myth and there is no evidence any of them are true.

^^^ Typical. Instead of addressing the question of whether calling God/Gods a "myth" is insulting, here's an atheist hammering on the reductive, analysis-free, childish insults.

Maybe off topic, but it’s a concise statement that isn’t childish or insulting. Nothing wrong with it.

DP.

It's like me calling you "childish." No explanation, no rationale, just random ad hominems. Even if it's true.

You don’t need extra, flowery words when stating basic facts: “there is no evidence”.

So say "there is no evidence" and people of faith will nod and say you're right, it's about faith. Calling it a "myth" is another level of rudeness.

It's the same thing. There is no evidence = it's a myth. All myths rely on "faith".

No, "myth" is insulting. It's putting peoples' faith on par with Santa Claus, as OP's gotcha in her OP clearly tried to do.

As we've all learned in the past few years, if we didn't know it before: if somebody tells you they're insulted, then it's insulting. You don't get to decide whether somebody else should be insulted by your words or deeds.

I think it’s more on par with Zeus, Odin, etc. Gods who people worshipped.

True, the Greek pantheon of gods were very real to them, and it was a religion. As was the Roman's religion which had many if the same gods by different names. True, these religions have fallen out of favor now, but the American Indians belived in the "great spirit in the sky" and the "happy hunting grounds" (heaven). These are no less respectable beliefs than the monotheistic religions that came out of the middle east.

I was referring to the Greek, Roman, Norse myths when I said all myths rely on “faith”. No evidence = myth.

So you're doubling down on the "no evidence" = "myth" false equivalence.

Again, what matters is context. If the people you're talking to are insulted by the word "myth," or by you comparing their beliefs to the Greek pantheon, then don't do it. If you want to refer to the Greek pantheon by itself and you're confident you're not talking to people who still believe it (are there?) then go ahead and refer to the Greek pantheon as myths--without thinking you're cute by dragging things people actually do believe into it.

This is so basic it shouldn't have to keep being repeated.

Let’s take any dearly held belief. Let’s drop religion for the moment and take up something else. Like LGBT rights. Lots of people - good morally upstanding people - were very uncomfortable with the idea of accepting gay marriage. Some folks (and I remember these conversations) felt that equating heterosexual marriage with gay marriage was somehow disrespectful of their own (straight) marriage. There was pretty no way to get across the idea that these should both be legally recognized in the same way without stepping on an emotional landmine for some folk.

This feels sort of similar. You shut down conversation by saying “that is disrespectful so we can’t discuss how a living religion is like a myth.” Difference is that people going about practicing their religion on their own does not affect me and I have zero reason to get them to engage in such a discussion. So, I don’t generally participate in these “debates” because all it does is upset people with no real potential outcome. Unless of course the religious (like the conservative majority on the court) try to impose their religion on the rest of us. Suddenly, one does feel like you need to get a larger share of the population to see that their baseline is a set of “myths” that non believers should not have to live under.

[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:It’s a myth and there is no evidence any of them are true.

^^^ Typical. Instead of addressing the question of whether calling God/Gods a "myth" is insulting, here's an atheist hammering on the reductive, analysis-free, childish insults.

Maybe off topic, but it’s a concise statement that isn’t childish or insulting. Nothing wrong with it.

DP.

It's like me calling you "childish." No explanation, no rationale, just random ad hominems. Even if it's true.

You don’t need extra, flowery words when stating basic facts: “there is no evidence”.

So say "there is no evidence" and people of faith will nod and say you're right, it's about faith. Calling it a "myth" is another level of rudeness.

It's the same thing. There is no evidence = it's a myth. All myths rely on "faith".

No, "myth" is insulting. It's putting peoples' faith on par with Santa Claus, as OP's gotcha in her OP clearly tried to do.

As we've all learned in the past few years, if we didn't know it before: if somebody tells you they're insulted, then it's insulting. You don't get to decide whether somebody else should be insulted by your words or deeds.

I think it’s more on par with Zeus, Odin, etc. Gods who people worshipped.

True, the Greek pantheon of gods were very real to them, and it was a religion. As was the Roman's religion which had many if the same gods by different names. True, these religions have fallen out of favor now, but the American Indians belived in the "great spirit in the sky" and the "happy hunting grounds" (heaven). These are no less respectable beliefs than the monotheistic religions that came out of the middle east.

I was referring to the Greek, Roman, Norse myths when I said all myths rely on “faith”. No evidence = myth.

So you're doubling down on the "no evidence" = "myth" false equivalence.

Again, what matters is context. If the people you're talking to are insulted by the word "myth," or by you comparing their beliefs to the Greek pantheon, then don't do it. If you want to refer to the Greek pantheon by itself and you're confident you're not talking to people who still believe it (are there?) then go ahead and refer to the Greek pantheon as myths--without thinking you're cute by dragging things people actually do believe into it.

This is so basic it shouldn't have to keep being repeated.

Let’s take any dearly held belief. Let’s drop religion for the moment and take up something else. Like LGBT rights. Lots of people - good morally upstanding people - were very uncomfortable with the idea of accepting gay marriage. Some folks (and I remember these conversations) felt that equating heterosexual marriage with gay marriage was somehow disrespectful of their own (straight) marriage. There was pretty no way to get across the idea that these should both be legally recognized in the same way without stepping on an emotional landmine for some folk.

This feels sort of similar. You shut down conversation by saying “that is disrespectful so we can’t discuss how a living religion is like a myth.” Difference is that people going about practicing their religion on their own does not affect me and I have zero reason to get them to engage in such a discussion. So, I don’t generally participate in these “debates” because all it does is upset people with no real potential outcome. Unless of course the religious (like the conservative majority on the court) try to impose their religion on the rest of us. Suddenly, one does feel like you need to get a larger share of the population to see that their baseline is a set of “myths” that non believers should not have to live under.

To extend your analogy: we all (95% of posters here?) agree that gay marriage is a good thing. I have a gay child and my child and I are both Christian. And we all (95% of posters here?) agree the current SC pretty much sucks. Are we good on that much, at least?

But only a boor (per the moderator) and an idiot starts an argument by insulting the other side. Let's say, to continue your analogy, by calling people who disagree with you "cavemen" or some other insult. Posters here have told you that "myth" is insulting and you don't get to decide that it isn't.

Calling religion a "myth" is your own caveman behavior. Your pretension that you're on your own mini-crusade to convert people to atheism is narcissistic and, unfortunately, you're truly laughable. Not if you really intend to persuade people. As opposed to just insulting them for fun, or whatever your sick little troll game is about. You're persuading nobody, in fact you're driving them further into their own corner, so it's pointless and counterproductive. It's also based on a (probably deliberate) misunderstanding of what people of faith--like me--believe, for example many of us are pro-choice.

So I don't actually gaf that you're acting like a douchebag for atheism. Well actually I want a liberal SC too, so I kind of resent your douchebaggery. But you should know that's what your douchebaggery and boorishness is hurting the cause we both support.

[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:It’s a myth and there is no evidence any of them are true.

^^^ Typical. Instead of addressing the question of whether calling God/Gods a "myth" is insulting, here's an atheist hammering on the reductive, analysis-free, childish insults.

Maybe off topic, but it’s a concise statement that isn’t childish or insulting. Nothing wrong with it.

DP.

It's like me calling you "childish." No explanation, no rationale, just random ad hominems. Even if it's true.

You don’t need extra, flowery words when stating basic facts: “there is no evidence”.

So say "there is no evidence" and people of faith will nod and say you're right, it's about faith. Calling it a "myth" is another level of rudeness.

It's the same thing. There is no evidence = it's a myth. All myths rely on "faith".

No, "myth" is insulting. It's putting peoples' faith on par with Santa Claus, as OP's gotcha in her OP clearly tried to do.

As we've all learned in the past few years, if we didn't know it before: if somebody tells you they're insulted, then it's insulting. You don't get to decide whether somebody else should be insulted by your words or deeds.

I think it’s more on par with Zeus, Odin, etc. Gods who people worshipped.

True, the Greek pantheon of gods were very real to them, and it was a religion. As was the Roman's religion which had many if the same gods by different names. True, these religions have fallen out of favor now, but the American Indians belived in the "great spirit in the sky" and the "happy hunting grounds" (heaven). These are no less respectable beliefs than the monotheistic religions that came out of the middle east.

I was referring to the Greek, Roman, Norse myths when I said all myths rely on “faith”. No evidence = myth.

So you're doubling down on the "no evidence" = "myth" false equivalence.

Again, what matters is context. If the people you're talking to are insulted by the word "myth," or by you comparing their beliefs to the Greek pantheon, then don't do it. If you want to refer to the Greek pantheon by itself and you're confident you're not talking to people who still believe it (are there?) then go ahead and refer to the Greek pantheon as myths--without thinking you're cute by dragging things people actually do believe into it.

This is so basic it shouldn't have to keep being repeated.

Let’s take any dearly held belief. Let’s drop religion for the moment and take up something else. Like LGBT rights. Lots of people - good morally upstanding people - were very uncomfortable with the idea of accepting gay marriage. Some folks (and I remember these conversations) felt that equating heterosexual marriage with gay marriage was somehow disrespectful of their own (straight) marriage. There was pretty no way to get across the idea that these should both be legally recognized in the same way without stepping on an emotional landmine for some folk.

This feels sort of similar. You shut down conversation by saying “that is disrespectful so we can’t discuss how a living religion is like a myth.” Difference is that people going about practicing their religion on their own does not affect me and I have zero reason to get them to engage in such a discussion. So, I don’t generally participate in these “debates” because all it does is upset people with no real potential outcome. Unless of course the religious (like the conservative majority on the court) try to impose their religion on the rest of us. Suddenly, one does feel like you need to get a larger share of the population to see that their baseline is a set of “myths” that non believers should not have to live under.

To extend your analogy: we all (95% of posters here?) agree that gay marriage is a good thing. I have a gay child and my child and I are both Christian. And we all (95% of posters here?) agree the current SC pretty much sucks. Are we good on that much, at least?

But only a boor (per the moderator) and an idiot starts an argument by insulting the other side. Let's say, to continue your analogy, by calling people who disagree with you "cavemen" or some other insult. Posters here have told you that "myth" is insulting and you don't get to decide that it isn't.

Calling religion a "myth" is your own caveman behavior. Your pretension that you're on your own mini-crusade to convert people to atheism is narcissistic and, unfortunately, you're truly laughable. Not if you really intend to persuade people. As opposed to just insulting them for fun, or whatever your sick little troll game is about. You're persuading nobody, in fact you're driving them further into their own corner, so it's pointless and counterproductive. It's also based on a (probably deliberate) misunderstanding of what people of faith--like me--believe, for example many of us are pro-choice.

So I don't actually gaf that you're acting like a douchebag for atheism. Well actually I want a liberal SC too, so I kind of resent your douchebaggery. But you should know that's what your douchebaggery and boorishness is hurting the cause we both support.

Just to correct the record. I am the poster you are responding to. However, I have not been an active participant on this thread and I certainly have not been involved in calling religions myths. As I said, I don’t see much value.

All I was trying to do is to offer up that sometimes one has to “offend” to break through. Perhaps people are trying to do that. I gave my own example for why one might feel it’s worth having this discussion. And with that, I am off this subthread.

[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:It’s a myth and there is no evidence any of them are true.

^^^ Typical. Instead of addressing the question of whether calling God/Gods a "myth" is insulting, here's an atheist hammering on the reductive, analysis-free, childish insults.

Maybe off topic, but it’s a concise statement that isn’t childish or insulting. Nothing wrong with it.

DP.

It's like me calling you "childish." No explanation, no rationale, just random ad hominems. Even if it's true.

You don’t need extra, flowery words when stating basic facts: “there is no evidence”.

So say "there is no evidence" and people of faith will nod and say you're right, it's about faith. Calling it a "myth" is another level of rudeness.

It's the same thing. There is no evidence = it's a myth. All myths rely on "faith".

No, "myth" is insulting. It's putting peoples' faith on par with Santa Claus, as OP's gotcha in her OP clearly tried to do.

As we've all learned in the past few years, if we didn't know it before: if somebody tells you they're insulted, then it's insulting. You don't get to decide whether somebody else should be insulted by your words or deeds.

I think it’s more on par with Zeus, Odin, etc. Gods who people worshipped.

True, the Greek pantheon of gods were very real to them, and it was a religion. As was the Roman's religion which had many if the same gods by different names. True, these religions have fallen out of favor now, but the American Indians belived in the "great spirit in the sky" and the "happy hunting grounds" (heaven). These are no less respectable beliefs than the monotheistic religions that came out of the middle east.

I was referring to the Greek, Roman, Norse myths when I said all myths rely on “faith”. No evidence = myth.

So you're doubling down on the "no evidence" = "myth" false equivalence.

Again, what matters is context. If the people you're talking to are insulted by the word "myth," or by you comparing their beliefs to the Greek pantheon, then don't do it. If you want to refer to the Greek pantheon by itself and you're confident you're not talking to people who still believe it (are there?) then go ahead and refer to the Greek pantheon as myths--without thinking you're cute by dragging things people actually do believe into it.

This is so basic it shouldn't have to keep being repeated.

Oh, it doesn’t have to be repeated we get it loud and clear that you want special treatment for your beliefs and don’t care about others. You made that very clear.

Is the statement all religions are myths offensive?

Is the statement ‘all religions are myths except for blank” offensive? Or only unless your religion is in the blank spot?

Whenever you lose an argument you come back to this. We're going in circles now.

Nobody is demanding special treatment for any religion.

We're demanding RESPECT for all living religions. Sing it with me. RESPECT. We're asking you to stop with the dumb and childish insults.

And yes, you've been told many times that calling any or all living religions "myths" is disrespectful and insulting. How many more times does this need to be repeated? Can you not grasp this simple logic of democratic exchange, or are the tenets of respectful modern discourse beyond your understanding?

What is a “living” religion? It has been posted here that plenty of people believe in things you call myths.

In addition, plenty of people believe all religions are myths. Do they not deserve the same respect? Why do they have to be quiet?

For the record, if the word “myth” is so problematic I will drop it. How should you prefer I express my beliefs on religion here?

[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:It’s a myth and there is no evidence any of them are true.

^^^ Typical. Instead of addressing the question of whether calling God/Gods a "myth" is insulting, here's an atheist hammering on the reductive, analysis-free, childish insults.

Maybe off topic, but it’s a concise statement that isn’t childish or insulting. Nothing wrong with it.

DP.

It's like me calling you "childish." No explanation, no rationale, just random ad hominems. Even if it's true.

You don’t need extra, flowery words when stating basic facts: “there is no evidence”.

So say "there is no evidence" and people of faith will nod and say you're right, it's about faith. Calling it a "myth" is another level of rudeness.

It's the same thing. There is no evidence = it's a myth. All myths rely on "faith".

No, "myth" is insulting. It's putting peoples' faith on par with Santa Claus, as OP's gotcha in her OP clearly tried to do.

As we've all learned in the past few years, if we didn't know it before: if somebody tells you they're insulted, then it's insulting. You don't get to decide whether somebody else should be insulted by your words or deeds.

I think it’s more on par with Zeus, Odin, etc. Gods who people worshipped.

True, the Greek pantheon of gods were very real to them, and it was a religion. As was the Roman's religion which had many if the same gods by different names. True, these religions have fallen out of favor now, but the American Indians belived in the "great spirit in the sky" and the "happy hunting grounds" (heaven). These are no less respectable beliefs than the monotheistic religions that came out of the middle east.

I was referring to the Greek, Roman, Norse myths when I said all myths rely on “faith”. No evidence = myth.

So you're doubling down on the "no evidence" = "myth" false equivalence.

Again, what matters is context. If the people you're talking to are insulted by the word "myth," or by you comparing their beliefs to the Greek pantheon, then don't do it. If you want to refer to the Greek pantheon by itself and you're confident you're not talking to people who still believe it (are there?) then go ahead and refer to the Greek pantheon as myths--without thinking you're cute by dragging things people actually do believe into it.

This is so basic it shouldn't have to keep being repeated.

Let’s take any dearly held belief. Let’s drop religion for the moment and take up something else. Like LGBT rights. Lots of people - good morally upstanding people - were very uncomfortable with the idea of accepting gay marriage. Some folks (and I remember these conversations) felt that equating heterosexual marriage with gay marriage was somehow disrespectful of their own (straight) marriage. There was pretty no way to get across the idea that these should both be legally recognized in the same way without stepping on an emotional landmine for some folk.

This feels sort of similar. You shut down conversation by saying “that is disrespectful so we can’t discuss how a living religion is like a myth.” Difference is that people going about practicing their religion on their own does not affect me and I have zero reason to get them to engage in such a discussion. So, I don’t generally participate in these “debates” because all it does is upset people with no real potential outcome. Unless of course the religious (like the conservative majority on the court) try to impose their religion on the rest of us. Suddenly, one does feel like you need to get a larger share of the population to see that their baseline is a set of “myths” that non believers should not have to live under.

To extend your analogy: we all (95% of posters here?) agree that gay marriage is a good thing. I have a gay child and my child and I are both Christian. And we all (95% of posters here?) agree the current SC pretty much sucks. Are we good on that much, at least?

But only a boor (per the moderator) and an idiot starts an argument by insulting the other side. Let's say, to continue your analogy, by calling people who disagree with you "cavemen" or some other insult. Posters here have told you that "myth" is insulting and you don't get to decide that it isn't.

Calling religion a "myth" is your own caveman behavior. Your pretension that you're on your own mini-crusade to convert people to atheism is narcissistic and, unfortunately, you're truly laughable. Not if you really intend to persuade people. As opposed to just insulting them for fun, or whatever your sick little troll game is about. You're persuading nobody, in fact you're driving them further into their own corner, so it's pointless and counterproductive. It's also based on a (probably deliberate) misunderstanding of what people of faith--like me--believe, for example many of us are pro-choice.

So I don't actually gaf that you're acting like a douchebag for atheism. Well actually I want a liberal SC too, so I kind of resent your douchebaggery. But you should know that's what your douchebaggery and boorishness is hurting the cause we both support.

Just to correct the record. I am the poster you are responding to. However, I have not been an active participant on this thread and I certainly have not been involved in calling religions myths. As I said, I don’t see much value.

All I was trying to do is to offer up that sometimes one has to “offend” to break through. Perhaps people are trying to do that. I gave my own example for why one might feel it’s worth having this discussion. And with that, I am off this subthread.

What astounding egotism, narcissism, and stupidity.

You are, or you approve others being, on a crusade to convert DCUM’s Episcopalians, liberal Catholics, Jews, Muslims and Hindus—because your insults don’t discriminate—to atheism. And you think you can do this by “offending” them.

This is actually pathological.

[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:It’s a myth and there is no evidence any of them are true.

^^^ Typical. Instead of addressing the question of whether calling God/Gods a "myth" is insulting, here's an atheist hammering on the reductive, analysis-free, childish insults.

Maybe off topic, but it’s a concise statement that isn’t childish or insulting. Nothing wrong with it.

DP.

It's like me calling you "childish." No explanation, no rationale, just random ad hominems. Even if it's true.

You don’t need extra, flowery words when stating basic facts: “there is no evidence”.

So say "there is no evidence" and people of faith will nod and say you're right, it's about faith. Calling it a "myth" is another level of rudeness.

It's the same thing. There is no evidence = it's a myth. All myths rely on "faith".

No, "myth" is insulting. It's putting peoples' faith on par with Santa Claus, as OP's gotcha in her OP clearly tried to do.

As we've all learned in the past few years, if we didn't know it before: if somebody tells you they're insulted, then it's insulting. You don't get to decide whether somebody else should be insulted by your words or deeds.

I think it’s more on par with Zeus, Odin, etc. Gods who people worshipped.

True, the Greek pantheon of gods were very real to them, and it was a religion. As was the Roman's religion which had many if the same gods by different names. True, these religions have fallen out of favor now, but the American Indians belived in the "great spirit in the sky" and the "happy hunting grounds" (heaven). These are no less respectable beliefs than the monotheistic religions that came out of the middle east.

I was referring to the Greek, Roman, Norse myths when I said all myths rely on “faith”. No evidence = myth.

So you're doubling down on the "no evidence" = "myth" false equivalence.

Again, what matters is context. If the people you're talking to are insulted by the word "myth," or by you comparing their beliefs to the Greek pantheon, then don't do it. If you want to refer to the Greek pantheon by itself and you're confident you're not talking to people who still believe it (are there?) then go ahead and refer to the Greek pantheon as myths--without thinking you're cute by dragging things people actually do believe into it.

This is so basic it shouldn't have to keep being repeated.

Oh, it doesn’t have to be repeated we get it loud and clear that you want special treatment for your beliefs and don’t care about others. You made that very clear.

Is the statement all religions are myths offensive?

Is the statement ‘all religions are myths except for blank” offensive? Or only unless your religion is in the blank spot?

Whenever you lose an argument you come back to this. We're going in circles now.

Nobody is demanding special treatment for any religion.

We're demanding RESPECT for all living religions. Sing it with me. RESPECT. We're asking you to stop with the dumb and childish insults.

And yes, you've been told many times that calling any or all living religions "myths" is disrespectful and insulting. How many more times does this need to be repeated? Can you not grasp this simple logic of democratic exchange, or are the tenets of respectful modern discourse beyond your understanding?

What is a “living” religion? It has been posted here that plenty of people believe in things you call myths.

In addition, plenty of people believe all religions are myths. Do they not deserve the same respect? Why do they have to be quiet?

For the record, if the word “myth” is so problematic I will drop it. How should you prefer I express my beliefs on religion here?

Why don’t you just say it : you don’t want to see the point because you want to keep offending people.

A normal, non-bigoted person would quickly grasp the difference between thinking something is a myth and actually saying that, virtually or in person, to somebody’s face.