trubble76 wrote:

JTRizzle wrote:

Made of Stars wrote:This thread has been wikified.

The objective is to collate the names of deities created by humans to give some meaning to the world around them. For the purposes of this project, and loosely speaking, a 'god' is something that is used to explain natural phenomena in the absence of proper naturalistic understanding. This includes 'personifications' of natural phenomena, motive spirits, and spirits used to explain incidents such as lottery wins, drownings, cot/crib death, and so on. The unnamed god of intelligent design creationism counts here too.

Improvements to the wiki can be discussed here.

The God of Abraham (perhaps the unnamed god of intelligent design, but who knows how He did it) is NOT something that is used to explain a natural phenomena. no explanation of any natural phenomena is necessary in our (Catholicism's) definition of God. if all things about nature were known, there would be no reason whatsoever to disbelieve in God because there is no phenomenon on which He relies. now, many Christians do use God to explain the unexplained, but that has no bearing on what God really is. refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church for more information on this matter. I think your idea is interesting, it could be a very cool read (if it is not overly biased towards any of the gods or lack of gods) but i think it would be a good idea to either change the criteria or leave the God of Abraham out of it because He does NOT fit the criteria.

I wonder if you are the only believer that thinks their god is different?

I hate to break it to you but your invisible friend is no different to all the other invisible friends. They are all silly little fairy tales, some more amusing than others.

you are incredibly cute.

Made of Stars wrote:

JTRizzle wrote:

Made of Stars wrote:

JTRizzle wrote:The God of Abraham (perhaps the unnamed god of intelligent design, but who knows how He did it) is NOT something that is used to explain a natural phenomena.

Genesis. Book of.

that is an allegorical tale. God's existence does not rely on this story. as i said, Christians have and do use God to explain natural phenomena, but that is NOT what He is. He is a self contained entity, He in no way relies on a description of any natural event.

I think this is a discussion you need to have with your fundamentalist friends first, then we can talk. I don't really debate Sophisticated TheologiansTM any more. I've found that the last step towards atheism is best completed on one's own.

i have had this discussion many times with the few fundamentalist friends i have. its funny how many less insults are thrown around in arguments about religion among the different sects of Christianity than in arguments between Christians and atheists. a lot less sarcasm too...

JTRizzle wrote:

Made of Stars wrote:This thread has been wikified.

The objective is to collate the names of deities created by humans to give some meaning to the world around them. For the purposes of this project, and loosely speaking, a 'god' is something that is used to explain natural phenomena in the absence of proper naturalistic understanding. This includes 'personifications' of natural phenomena, motive spirits, and spirits used to explain incidents such as lottery wins, drownings, cot/crib death, and so on. The unnamed god of intelligent design creationism counts here too.

Improvements to the wiki can be discussed here.

The God of Abraham (perhaps the unnamed god of intelligent design, but who knows how He did it) is NOT something that is used to explain a natural phenomena. no explanation of any natural phenomena is necessary in our (Catholicism's) definition of God. if all things about nature were known, there would be no reason whatsoever to disbelieve in God because there is no phenomenon on which He relies. now, many Christians do use God to explain the unexplained, but that has no bearing on what God really is. refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church for more information on this matter. I think your idea is interesting, it could be a very cool read (if it is not overly biased towards any of the gods or lack of gods) but i think it would be a good idea to either change the criteria or leave the God of Abraham out of it because He does NOT fit the criteria.

If God, according to Catholicism, is creator and sustainer of said creation, then He is responsible for all and every natural phenomenon and every event that happens.
He isn't a explanation for natural phenomena. He is the explanation for natural phenomena.

So, into the pile with Him.

JTRizzle wrote:i have had this discussion many times with the few fundamentalist friends i have. its funny how many less insults are thrown around in arguments about religion among the different sects of Christianity than in arguments between Christians and atheists. a lot less sarcasm too...

I guess people from the various Christian sub-cults have accepted many of the same premises as a starting point. Most atheists would hold much truck with some of the nonsense used to prop up the fantasies.

Made of Stars wrote:

JTRizzle wrote:i have had this discussion many times with the few fundamentalist friends i have. its funny how many less insults are thrown around in arguments about religion among the different sects of Christianity than in arguments between Christians and atheists. a lot less sarcasm too...

I guess people from the various Christian sub-cults have accepted many of the same premises as a starting point. Most atheists would hold much truck with some of the nonsense used to prop up the fantasies.

so when arguing with a christian, it is reasonable for an atheist to throw around not-so-veiled insults simply because he does not agree with many of the same premises?

Clive Durdle wrote:....

Do cats have gods? ....

I AM a god to my cat!

JTRizzle wrote:
i have had this discussion many times with the few fundamentalist friends i have. its funny how many less insults are thrown around in arguments about religion among the different sects of Christianity than in arguments between Christians and atheists. a lot less sarcasm too...

It might be true, but then also you might be unaware of the offensiveness of some of the material that flows in the other direction. I remember an instance last year of a street preacher on a street corner. I'd normally ignore the type, but hearing his content and realising I was passing someone threatening with me with eternal torture for not doing what he wanted let to a very loud "fuck off" in his direction, and I really can't think of anything I have ever said to anyone, ever, in my entire life, that could be anywhere near as offensive as that concept is to me, regardless of the absence of profanity on his part.

Animavore wrote:

JTRizzle wrote:

Made of Stars wrote:This thread has been wikified.

The objective is to collate the names of deities created by humans to give some meaning to the world around them. For the purposes of this project, and loosely speaking, a 'god' is something that is used to explain natural phenomena in the absence of proper naturalistic understanding. This includes 'personifications' of natural phenomena, motive spirits, and spirits used to explain incidents such as lottery wins, drownings, cot/crib death, and so on. The unnamed god of intelligent design creationism counts here too.

Improvements to the wiki can be discussed here.

The God of Abraham (perhaps the unnamed god of intelligent design, but who knows how He did it) is NOT something that is used to explain a natural phenomena. no explanation of any natural phenomena is necessary in our (Catholicism's) definition of God. if all things about nature were known, there would be no reason whatsoever to disbelieve in God because there is no phenomenon on which He relies. now, many Christians do use God to explain the unexplained, but that has no bearing on what God really is. refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church for more information on this matter. I think your idea is interesting, it could be a very cool read (if it is not overly biased towards any of the gods or lack of gods) but i think it would be a good idea to either change the criteria or leave the God of Abraham out of it because He does NOT fit the criteria.

If God, according to Catholicism, is creator and sustainer of said creation, then He is responsible for all and every natural phenomenon and every event that happens.
He isn't a explanation for natural phenomena. He is the explanation for natural phenomena.

So, into the pile with Him.

" For the purposes of this project, and loosely speaking, a 'god' is something that is used to explain natural phenomena in the absence of proper naturalistic understanding."

that is part of the criteria for this project. God is not used to explain natural phenomena in the absence of proper and naturalistic understanding. He is the explanation for supernatural phenomena regardless of an absence, or an abundance, of naturalistic understanding. basically, He is used to explain things believed to occur that science doesn't explain, like the existence of sin, the possibility and existence of forgiveness, the immortality of the human soul, the afterlife, and many more such ideas. He has been used to explain natural phenomena but only when those phenomena were believed to be supernatural. some Christians are unknowingly and incorrectly asserting that certain natural phenomena are supernatural phenomena, the evolution of mankind for instance, but this does not change the fact that they use Him to explain supernatural phenomena, not the natural phenomena. the only reason God is their explanation for natural phenomena is because they believe them to be supernatural phenomena. all Christians believe the creation of existence was (or is, depending on how you look at it) a supernatural phenomena. prove that it is not, and we will not be able to use Him to describe creation.

"This includes 'personifications' of natural phenomena, motive spirits, and spirits used to explain incidents such as lottery wins, drownings, cot/crib death, and so on."

this is another part of the criteria. we do not believe anything natural is a personification of God. Christ is our only personification of God, and we believe that he is a supernatural phenomenon, not a natural phenomenon. one of our core tenets is 'we must never worship an idol.' to do what fits under this criteria would not be in accordance what God's commands, so saying that a Christian would use God to personify any of these things is like saying a married man can be a bachelor.

because of this, God does not fit the criteria.

Wrong.

virphen wrote:

JTRizzle wrote:
i have had this discussion many times with the few fundamentalist friends i have. its funny how many less insults are thrown around in arguments about religion among the different sects of Christianity than in arguments between Christians and atheists. a lot less sarcasm too...

It might be true, but then also you might be unaware of the offensiveness of some of the material that flows in the other direction. I remember an instance last year of a street preacher on a street corner. I'd normally ignore the type, but hearing his content and realising I was passing someone threatening with me with eternal torture for not doing what he wanted let to a very loud "fuck off" in his direction, and I really can't think of anything I have ever said to anyone, ever, in my entire life, that could be anywhere near as offensive as that concept is to me, regardless of the absence of profanity on his part.

the man may not have been purposefully insulting you, but you purposefully insulted him. that is not very reasonable. i am insulted when someone burps loudly and purposefully when he is eating at my table. if i am ever eating with a person from a certain part of the middle east (i can't remember where) then i would not be insulted, because i would know the man was not trying to insult me. if i had a child who was just learning to speak and he called me a fucktard, i would find the comment insulting, but i would not feel i was insulted by the child because he had no idea he was insulting me. if the preacher was purposefully insulting you than he was wrong and you sunk down to his level.

kennyc wrote:
Do cats have gods

No they have servants

surreptitious57 wrote:

kennyc wrote:
Do cats have gods

No they have servants

Damn! I've been demoted!

And back to the point kind of ...... this thread was dredged up from four years ago and the initial thread talks of 'wikifying' -- but the link in that O.P. gives an error (in German btw as best I can tell ) -- I'm presuming that wiki went away???

JTRizzle wrote:
the man may not have been purposefully insulting you, but you purposefully insulted him. that is not very reasonable. i am insulted when someone burps loudly and purposefully when he is eating at my table. if i am ever eating with a person from a certain part of the middle east (i can't remember where) then i would not be insulted, because i would know the man was not trying to insult me. if i had a child who was just learning to speak and he called me a fucktard, i would find the comment insulting, but i would not feel i was insulted by the child because he had no idea he was insulting me. if the preacher was purposefully insulting you than he was wrong and you sunk down to his level.

Ahhh, and here we go: you fail to recognise the impact of the aggression he offered me, and you double down on that by insulting me personally. You just don't seem to have any conception of why. Various theists (certainly not all) offer all sorts of insults - other examples include but are certainly not limited to: homophobic rationalisations, justifications for biblical genocide, allusions that atheists are less than fully human. Trust me, there's plenty of insults to go around.

Except you automatically arrange to win the "oh atheists are so prone to insulting us poor innocent Christians" because you only acknowledge what you personally regard as insulting. That's extremely fucking rude, actually.

virphen wrote:

JTRizzle wrote:
the man may not have been purposefully insulting you, but you purposefully insulted him. that is not very reasonable. i am insulted when someone burps loudly and purposefully when he is eating at my table. if i am ever eating with a person from a certain part of the middle east (i can't remember where) then i would not be insulted, because i would know the man was not trying to insult me. if i had a child who was just learning to speak and he called me a fucktard, i would find the comment insulting, but i would not feel i was insulted by the child because he had no idea he was insulting me. if the preacher was purposefully insulting you than he was wrong and you sunk down to his level.

Ahhh, and here we go: you fail to recognise the impact of the aggression he offered me, and you double down on that by insulting me personally. You just don't seem to have any conception of why. Various theists (certainly not all) offer all sorts of insults - other examples include but are certainly not limited to: homophobic rationalisations, justifications for biblical genocide, allusions that atheists are less than fully human. Trust me, there's plenty of insults to go around.

Except you automatically arrange to win the "oh atheists are so prone to insulting us poor innocent Christians" because you only acknowledge what you personally regard as insulting. That's extremely fucking rude, actually.

as i said, if the man was purposefully insulting you, you have every right to be insulted, but you have no right to insult him. i did not purposefully insult you, i just said your behavior was not reasonable. i have bean unreasonable many times, its not the end of the world. you simply gave me an anecdote, and i told you what i thought about it. it is hard to be convinced that atheists aren't prone to purposefully insulting Christians when every forum i go on, i am purposefully insulted continuously by atheists. now, here's the thing. Christians are every bit as prone to purposefully insulting atheists. they are every bit as wrong as the atheists who insult Christians. my point is that arguments among Christians do not contain nearly the same number of insults as arguments between atheists and Christians. why? because both sides of the argument, when both are Christian, accept that purposefully insulting someone is a sin for which there is no excuse, that the sin damns us, it is only by the grace of God that we are forgiven. we accept these notions, and have no problem pointing it out to each other, so the insults remain at a minimum.

this fact remains: you have no right to feel that a person has insulted you unless they meant to insult you. i do not mean to insult you when i say that you sin. if you are insulted by this, i am sorry, but you should not be because i am not purposefully insulting you.

Not purposely insulting, just incidentally insulting through unthinking presupposition.

Oh, ok, that's all right then.




Load of bollocks.

JTRizzle wrote:
as i said, if the man was purposefully insulting you, you have every right to be insulted, but you have no right to insult him. i did not purposefully insult you, i just said your behavior was not reasonable. i have bean unreasonable many times, its not the end of the world. you simply gave me an anecdote, and i told you what i thought about it. it is hard to be convinced that atheists aren't prone to purposefully insulting Christians when every forum i go on, i am purposefully insulted continuously by atheists. now, here's the thing. Christians are every bit as prone to purposefully insulting atheists. they are every bit as wrong as the atheists who insult Christians. my point is that arguments among Christians do not contain nearly the same number of insults as arguments between atheists and Christians. why? because both sides of the argument, when both are Christian, accept that purposefully insulting someone is a sin for which there is no excuse, that the sin damns us, it is only by the grace of God that we are forgiven. we accept these notions, and have no problem pointing it out to each other, so the insults remain at a minimum.

this fact remains: you have no right to feel that a person has insulted you unless they meant to insult you. i do not mean to insult you when i say that you sin. if you are insulted by this, i am sorry, but you should not be because i am not purposefully insulting you.

Once again, all you are doing is talking over me. Your view of what constitutes an insult counts, but mine does not. This is fine for your narrative of nice polite Christians not insulting each other whereas the nasty atheists can't help but be mean, but this narrative is based on ignorance of what we find insulting about how you treat us. You no longer even have the excuse of not realising that you are engaging in this behaviour, because it has been repeatedly and clearly pointed out to you. Your response has not been for a second to take that on board, or to apologise, but to continue to launch your insults and group attacks.

You want a model where you get to fling endless amounts of shit us, but we can't respond. I politely request that you go away and examine your behaviour and remove the insulting elements of your own conduct and assess that of your peers in this light before continuing to insist that atheists are so much more prone to handing out insults.

What's this? JTRizzle attempting to limit discourse so that he can continue to assert he's right?? Surely not. That's never happened before.

Fallible wrote:What's this? JTRizzle attempting to limit discourse so that he can continue to assert he's right?? Surely not. That's never happened before.

I wonder if he's ever been a member at the Debating Christianity forum. It's by and large a Christian forum, set up by Otseng who is a Christian. There is a rule there of civility. If you're adjudged to have been uncivil you can get dinged for it. Needless to say Christians are constantly getting dinged for getting into heated arguments with other Christians, and the list of banned Christian members is long.