|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 389 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Christianity Polytheistic? | ||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
As a self declared atheist you must have some conceptual idea of what it is you claim not to believe in. Gods.
Is the answer to this in God-Spotting (Message 198) as well? No: post #198 does not say that I don't believe in gods.
I have told you how. List the criteria. Are you mentally incapable of seperating the reasoning and argumentation related to these criteria from the actual criteria themselves? No. How about you?
In the name of clarity can you just filter out all else and list the criteria that pertain to the question that you claim to have already answered: "Straggler you are quite clearly NOT actually a god whatever label you apply to yourself because you do not meet the following criteria:
Straggler you are quite clearly NOT actually a god whatever label you apply to yourself because you do not meet the following criteria:
In the name of clarity can you just filter out all else and list the criteria that pertain to the question that you claim to have already answered: "Straggler you are quite clearly NOT actually a god whatever label you apply to yourself because you do not meet the following criteria:
Straggler you are quite clearly NOT actually a god whatever label you apply to yourself because you do not meet the following criteria:
If you want to avoid accusations of evasivness and obliqueness simply filter out all else and list the criteria that pertain to the question that you claim to have already answered: "Straggler you are quite clearly NOT actually a god whatever label you apply to yourself because you do not meet the following criteria:
Straggler you are quite clearly NOT actually a god whatever label you apply to yourself because you do not meet the following criteria:
Your preferred form of evasion involves mockery. But it remains evasion whatever else it entails. It is not evasion because the other thing it entails is giving you a very direct non-evasive answer.
Everytime I have made any comment pertaining to what I think your much publicised "God Spotting" post says about "tiers" or "nouns" you have simply replied with an unedifying "No". Thus my ongoing quest to overcome your ambiguity continues. What do you find ambiguous about the word "no"? Can you suggest a less ambiguous way of saying "no" than saying "no"?
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 389 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: Bob believes in the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator of all that is seen and unseen who demands respect and adulation in order to appease his monumental wrath. Bob refuses to label this being as a god and instead refers to said entity as a glod. Can Bob legitimately call himself an atheist? Subbie writes: Insufficient information to answer the question. Really? What else do you need to know? I have a direct line to Bob's brain so feel free to ask whatever you think needs to be asked.
Subbie writes: That's not a criteria question, that's a counting question. Wrong. What are you counting? God concepts. Obviously. Why isn't the Trinity 1 God, 1 supernatural man and 1 spirit? Thus you can have your three distinct entities but retain the self declared montheism of Trinitarian Christians.
Subbie writes: They can call anything they like a god, but they redefine three to equal one. Hmmm. It seems to me that you are rejecting the self serving internal religious definitions, labels and nomenclature and instead applying common conceptual meaning. Radical.....
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 389 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Respect to the Pythons.
DR A writes: Straggler you are quite clearly NOT actually a god whatever label you apply to yourself because you do not meet the following criteria: Being identified as the god of any group or individual by the method set out in post #198 So if Straggler-theism becomes the dominant world religion tomorrow I will suddenly be transformed into an actual God? Actually - No. You are wrong.Whilst I appreciate the vote of confidence I can assure you that I shall remain very un-godly no matter who may believe otherwise. Because whatever anyone misguidedly believes about me, whatever godly qualities they falsely imbue me with, I shall in fact remain un-imbued with any godly qualities and any of my followers who discover the truth are destined to be bitterly disappointed. Likewise in the unlikely event that there is a god out there it remains a god regardless of whether any human has ever even considered the existence of said entity. Never mind worshiped it. No?
DA writes: Straggler writes: As a self declared atheist you must have some conceptual idea of what it is you claim not to believe in. Gods. Which conceptually means what? What conceptual attributes do these "Gods" possess? Consider the age old issue of pencil -theism once again. You have previously agreed that bog standard wooden pencils unimbued with any additional qualities could ever be considered to be gods. So what additional attributes would a pencil require such that it could qualify as a god?
DA writes: Can you suggest a less ambiguous way of saying "no" than saying "no"? Explaining why the answer is "No". Here is a tip for you. Next time you feel compelled to answer "No" (or "Yes") try answering "No/Yes. Because........." instead.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1578 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Really? What else do you need to know? Does Bob understand that the word "atheist" means not believing in any gods? If yes, then I take him at his word that he does not believe in any gods. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 389 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: Bob believes in the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator of all that is seen and unseen who demands respect and adulation in order to appease his monumental wrath. Bob refuses to label this being as a god and instead refers to said entity as a glod. Can Bob legitimately call himself an atheist? Subbie originally writes: Insufficient information to answer the question. Stragler writes: Really? What else do you need to know? I have a direct line to Bob's brain so feel free to ask whatever you think needs to be asked. Subbie now writes: Does Bob understand that the word "atheist" means not believing in any gods? If yes, then I take him at his word that he does not believe in any gods. Oh? Suddenly you have all the information you need? What changed? Anyway - Bob, delighted with his self defined atheist status (all the cool kids at school are atheists). takes you at your word and goes off to one of Dawkin's atheist camps full of confidence. There he confidently reveals his belief in the one true glod knowing that he will find common conceptual ground with his fellow atheists. Needless to say things don't work out too well for Bob........
|
||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1578 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Oh? Suddenly you have all the information you need? What changed? Tell me, did you read what you quoted? The additional information I needed was whether Bob understood what "atheist" means. Seriously, if you can't understand that, you're even thicker than I thought you were. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 389 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Subbie writes: The additional information I needed was whether Bob understood what "atheist" means. Bob looked it up in the dictionary and confidently tells you that: "Atheist means that one doesn't believe in god(s)". Bob says he doesn't believe in gods. Bob says he is an atheist. Bob genuinely believes himself to be an atheist. Bob only believes in in the existence of the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator of all that is seen and unseen that he calls a glod. NOT a "god". Are you disagreeing with Bob's self defined atheistic status?
|
||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Wow... this thread really went downhill.
But by any religion-independent analysis they are polytheists. Not any, no. But for the particular classification of god that you are using, sure. As I said, BFD. I don't see any reason to impose your classification onto them as the way to determine if they are polytheistic. Its better to just use their's since we're considering them.
Explain to me why it is "stupid" to suggest that we can apply a religion-independent use of the term "god" when objectively analysing the beliefs of biblical Christians? Its pointless. Nobody has any reason to care that you've defined god in a way that you can use to make out biblical christians to be polytheistic. Plus, you're shitting all over the definition of polytheism in the process.
Why must we un-questioningly adhere to their rules on this?
You can do whatever you want. But if you're discussing their beliefs, then it makes sense to use their definitions. If you want to make them out to be polytheistic, go right ahead. We'll continue to tell you how stupid it is ![]() From Message 300 In truth I started this thread because I was bored and I thought it would be contentious (no doubt CS would call this "trolling" From wiki on trolling:
quote: So yeah, you're trolling. Its no biggie. Here, have a funny pic:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Bob looked it up in the dictionary and confidently tells you that: "Atheist means that one doesn't believe in god(s)". Bob says he doesn't believe in gods. Bob says he is an atheist. Bob genuinely believes himself to be an atheist. Bob only believes in in the existence of the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator of all that is seen and unseen that he calls a glod. NOT a "god". Are you disagreeing with Bob's self defined atheistic status?
I wouldn't. Apparently Bob sees his glod as different enough from a god to call it by a different name. What's the point in deciding that you shouldn't call him an atheist?
|
||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1482 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Straggler writes: Whilst I appreciate the vote of confidence I can assure you that I shall remain very un-godly no matter who may believe otherwise.Because whatever anyone misguidedly believes about me, whatever godly qualities they falsely imbue me with, I shall in fact remain un-imbued with any godly qualities and any of my followers who discover the truth are destined to be bitterly disappointed. Only the true Messiah denies his divinity! (more respect to Pythons.)
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 389 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
CS writes: Wow... this thread really went downhill. Well it has been an uphill struggle but DA tipped it over the point of no return.
CS writes: I don't see any reason to impose your classification onto them....... Then you will be delighted to hear that this is not what I am doing.
CS writes: Plus, you're shitting all over the definition of polytheism in the process. Hmmm. Whose classification are you imposing?
CS writes: Now, you're arguing that Satan should count as a concept of a god, which could be agreeable.... CS writes: Now, with Satan, it does seem that some christians' beliefs could be considered polythiestic. CS writes: If you want to make them out to be polytheistic, go right ahead. We'll continue to tell you how stupid it is. Explain to me why it is "stupid" to suggest that we can apply a religion-independent use of the term "god" when objectively analysing the beliefs of biblical Christians? A religion-independent use of the term god that you yourself have applied on numerous occasions.
CS on trolling writes: ......frivolous responses I guess that makes your responses "frivolous" then. For once it seems that we agree.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 389 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: Bob believes in the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator of all that is seen and unseen who demands respect and adulation in order to appease his monumental wrath. Bob refuses to label this being as a god and instead refers to said entity as a glod. Can Bob legitimately call himself an atheist? CS writes: Apparently Bob sees his glod as different enough from a god to call it by a different name. Bob, delighted with his self defined atheist status (all the cool kids at school are atheists). takes you at your word and goes off to one of Dawkin's atheist camps full of confidence. There he confidently reveals his belief in the one true glod knowing that he will find common conceptual ground with his fellow atheists. Needless to say things don't work out too well for Bob.......
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 389 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
You have seen through my facade.
I am of course testing the faith of the cynical non-believers out there.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1482 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Brian writes: You have seen through my facade. I am of course testing the faith of the cynical non-believers out there. He is! He is the Messiah!!!
|
||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
Participants, please get back to the topic of whether Christianity is Polytheistic.
The make believe nonsense has run a muck. I'm closing this thread so that participants can read and digest the Administrative warning. If anyone wants the thread reopened, please make a request in the Thread Reopen Requests 2 thread.
Please direct any comments concerning this Administrative msg to the Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread. Thank youAdminPD |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025