Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Christianity Polytheistic?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 361 of 375 (570636)
07-28-2010 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 353 by Straggler
07-27-2010 5:44 PM


Re: The Criteria Quest Continues.....
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:
  • Being identified as the god of any group or individual by the method set out in post #198.
  • Being identified as the god of any group or individual by the method set out in post #198.
  • Being identified as the god of any group or individual by the method set out in post #198.
  • Being identified as the god of any group or individual by the method set out in post #198.
    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:
  • Being identified as the god of any group or individual by the method set out in post #198.
  • Being identified as the god of any group or individual by the method set out in post #198.
  • Being identified as the god of any group or individual by the method set out in post #198.
  • Being identified as the god of any group or individual by the method set out in post #198.
    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:
  • Being identified as the god of any group or individual by the method set out in post #198.
  • Being identified as the god of any group or individual by the method set out in post #198.
  • Being identified as the god of any group or individual by the method set out in post #198.
  • Being identified as the god of any group or individual by the method set out in post #198.
    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"?
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 353 by Straggler, posted 07-27-2010 5:44 PM Straggler has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 363 by Straggler, posted 07-28-2010 1:07 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  • Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 362 of 375 (570718)
    07-28-2010 1:00 PM
    Reply to: Message 360 by subbie
    07-28-2010 12:53 AM


    Re: The Criteria Quest Continues.....
    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.....

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 360 by subbie, posted 07-28-2010 12:53 AM subbie has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 364 by subbie, posted 07-28-2010 1:21 PM Straggler has replied

    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 363 of 375 (570720)
    07-28-2010 1:07 PM
    Reply to: Message 361 by Dr Adequate
    07-28-2010 3:29 AM


    I AM NOT A GOD (I am a very naught boy)
    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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 361 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2010 3:29 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 370 by dronestar, posted 07-29-2010 3:00 PM Straggler has replied

    subbie
    Member (Idle past 1255 days)
    Posts: 3509
    Joined: 02-26-2006


    Message 364 of 375 (570723)
    07-28-2010 1:21 PM
    Reply to: Message 362 by Straggler
    07-28-2010 1:00 PM


    Re: The Criteria Quest Continues.....
    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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 362 by Straggler, posted 07-28-2010 1:00 PM Straggler has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 365 by Straggler, posted 07-28-2010 1:50 PM subbie has replied

    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 365 of 375 (570729)
    07-28-2010 1:50 PM
    Reply to: Message 364 by subbie
    07-28-2010 1:21 PM


    Re: The Criteria Quest Continues.....
    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........

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 364 by subbie, posted 07-28-2010 1:21 PM subbie has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 366 by subbie, posted 07-28-2010 1:54 PM Straggler has replied

    subbie
    Member (Idle past 1255 days)
    Posts: 3509
    Joined: 02-26-2006


    Message 366 of 375 (570731)
    07-28-2010 1:54 PM
    Reply to: Message 365 by Straggler
    07-28-2010 1:50 PM


    Re: The Criteria Quest Continues.....
    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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 365 by Straggler, posted 07-28-2010 1:50 PM Straggler has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 367 by Straggler, posted 07-28-2010 2:17 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 367 of 375 (570738)
    07-28-2010 2:17 PM
    Reply to: Message 366 by subbie
    07-28-2010 1:54 PM


    Re: The Criteria Quest Continues.....
    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?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 366 by subbie, posted 07-28-2010 1:54 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 369 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2010 2:45 PM Straggler has replied

    New Cat's Eye
    Inactive Member


    Message 368 of 375 (570971)
    07-29-2010 2:43 PM
    Reply to: Message 318 by Straggler
    07-20-2010 12:39 PM


    Re: I Am God
    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:
    In ‘The Art of Trolling’ published on the web it is suggested that ‘in Usenet usage, a troll is not a grumpy monster that lives beneath a bridge accosting passers by, but rather a provocative posting to a news group intended to produce a large volume of frivolous responses.
    So yeah, you're trolling. Its no biggie.
    Here, have a funny pic:

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 318 by Straggler, posted 07-20-2010 12:39 PM Straggler has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 371 by Straggler, posted 07-29-2010 6:49 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

    New Cat's Eye
    Inactive Member


    Message 369 of 375 (570973)
    07-29-2010 2:45 PM
    Reply to: Message 367 by Straggler
    07-28-2010 2:17 PM


    Re: The Criteria Quest Continues.....
    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?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 367 by Straggler, posted 07-28-2010 2:17 PM Straggler has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 372 by Straggler, posted 07-29-2010 6:53 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

    dronestar
    Member
    Posts: 1407
    From: usa
    Joined: 11-19-2008


    Message 370 of 375 (570977)
    07-29-2010 3:00 PM
    Reply to: Message 363 by Straggler
    07-28-2010 1:07 PM


    Re: I AM NOT A GOD (I am a very naught boy)
    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.)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 363 by Straggler, posted 07-28-2010 1:07 PM Straggler has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 373 by Straggler, posted 07-29-2010 6:54 PM dronestar has replied

    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 371 of 375 (571041)
    07-29-2010 6:49 PM
    Reply to: Message 368 by New Cat's Eye
    07-29-2010 2:43 PM


    Frivolity Prevails
    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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 368 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2010 2:43 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 372 of 375 (571042)
    07-29-2010 6:53 PM
    Reply to: Message 369 by New Cat's Eye
    07-29-2010 2:45 PM


    Re: The Criteria Quest Continues.....
    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.......

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 369 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2010 2:45 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 373 of 375 (571043)
    07-29-2010 6:54 PM
    Reply to: Message 370 by dronestar
    07-29-2010 3:00 PM


    Re: I AM NOT A GOD (I am a very naught boy)
    You have seen through my facade.
    I am of course testing the faith of the cynical non-believers out there.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 370 by dronestar, posted 07-29-2010 3:00 PM dronestar has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 374 by dronestar, posted 07-30-2010 10:47 AM Straggler has not replied

    dronestar
    Member
    Posts: 1407
    From: usa
    Joined: 11-19-2008


    Message 374 of 375 (571100)
    07-30-2010 10:47 AM
    Reply to: Message 373 by Straggler
    07-29-2010 6:54 PM


    Re: I AM NOT A GOD (I am a very naught boy)
    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!!!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 373 by Straggler, posted 07-29-2010 6:54 PM Straggler has not replied

    AdminPD
    Inactive Administrator


    Message 375 of 375 (571182)
    07-30-2010 3:55 PM


    Topic Please
    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 you
    AdminPD

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024