An Alternative to Manmade Elixirs

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby

There is only one God.

Many in the Middle East, China and elsewhere believe in Jesus Christ. They are in an oppressed minority which in some instances has become an underground church, thanks to state persecution. Noble Peace Prize: A sad joke perpetrated by and on intelligent men and women who are uninformed. Christ said: "There will be wars and rumors of wars until I come".

Are you seriously suggesting that because Jesus said there would be wars (and that there would be poor people) that we should do nothing about either?

Would you do anything personally to stop the ME war (or ANY war!) if it were in your power to do so?

Originally posted by FMF
So you are able to choose to believe that Islam represents the truth, and that Christianity does not, if you want to?

It seems your strength of conviction in your own beliefs disables you from recognizing the nature of disbelief and all you are left able to do is trumpet your own beliefs rather than understand how someone might differ from you in their convictions.

So, in other words, "you disagree with me, so you must be mentally disabled"?

Nice. Sounds like someone who can't handle people with differing beliefs to me.

Originally posted by twhitehead
In what way do you find that insulting? Do you understand what I am saying and why?

[b]Most do not have to insult those who do believe in God by bringing out ridiculous false 'gods'.
So you clearly don't believe in my invisible pink unicorn. Is that a good reason to call it a 'ridiculous false god'? It seems to me the one doing the insulting is you.

When you have calmed down a bit, reread my posts and think about what I have said.[/b]

Why? Clearly you disagree. You don't *have* to insult while doing so. To do so dilutes your message, surely.

So you're an atheist, so you yourself should consider an 'invisible pink unicorn' a false god as well as a ridiculous one. After all, that's your entire point in bringing it up.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So essentially you do not have an open mind, as you chose not to believe me before even considering the proposition.

On top of that, I am skeptical of your response. If you truly believed you were trapped in the bonds of religion, would you have accepted the offer from my invisible pink unicorn? I don't think so. If you really would have replied 'sure', then your mind is so open that your brains have fallen out.

Gauging by this response to GB, you obviously DO consider the 'invisible pink unicorn', hereafter abbreviated to IPU (which is an interesting 'tell' on its own), ridiculous.

So you jumping on me for doing the same is clearly meant to insult and to provoke.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Why? Clearly you disagree. You don't *have* to insult while doing so. To do so dilutes your message, surely.

Except I didn't insult. You may have felt insulted, but you haven't given a clear explanation as to why.

Originally posted by FMF
My Muslim neighbours see themselves as having a direct relationship with God. You see yourself as having a direct relationship with God. This is why the Islam professed by my neighbours and the Christianity you profess are both religions. You are not the first Christian who has tried to add extra mystique to your beliefs by denying that they constitute a religion.

Of course they are religions. God worship of any kind must be considered a religion. To use this definition as a reason to bash them IS ridiculous. It is you and people like you, who bash ALL religions AND the people who believe in them, by using a term like 'religionists' as a term of degradation, who are living in the dark ages.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Except I didn't insult. You may have felt insulted, but you haven't given a clear explanation as to why.

There is no need to repeat my post. I used perfectly acceptable English, with standard definitions. If you find it unclear, perhaps you need to look internally for the reason.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you think that just about everyone else in the world (who doesn't believe as you do) are idiots?

Maybe you could ask FMF why he considers GB 'disabled', merely for not believing as he does?

Originally posted by CalJust
I will explain why it does come across as insulting, even if (as you claim) it is not designed in being so.

A very large proportion of humankind believe in some kind of deity. I would venture to suggest that you are the only one who believes in your little pet unicorn, even with tongue planted firmly in cheek.

So to claim that they MAY be equal beliefs, is insulting.

Exactly.

But some have to muddle the conversation (thanks to the father of this technique, FMF) by claiming not to know what you're talking about and asking you to explain, thereby misdirecting the conversation to minutia which everyone already 'gets'.

Yes, it's amateurish, so it's probably better to ignore these sidetracking attempts.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You only believe it is non-applicable, because you are not open minded enough to consider the possibility that you are bound by your religion. You have chosen not to believe the premise without even considering it.

Yes, simply BECAUSE it is a ridiculous possibility.

Much like your 'IPU'.

Are YOU 'open-minded' enough to consider *that*?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have not claimed that they are equal beliefs. I also don't see why a person being the only member of his religion, comparing his religion or his god to that of a god worshiped by a larger quantity of people would be considered insulting.
If anything, I think the reverse is true. Your implication that minority religions or gods are less worthy simply because they have less followers is insulting to the minority religions.

[eyeroll]...[/eyeroll]

Originally posted by Agerg
Well that "little pet unicorn" is still, "some kind of deity" nonetheless. Moreover, if we really grilled every theist on the notion of "God" they hold exists uniquely I'm sure we would find that their views on this deity are not shared by many others (and so they are one of a select few to believe in such deity).

The little pet unicorn, the flying spaghett ...[text shortened]... o cosmetics - and if some argument breaks down for one then it really isn't valid for the other.

No, it's not a 'deity'. It doesn't exist.

By claiming that it does, and therefore IS a 'deity', even if no one worships it, is insulting to our God and therefore to us.

And no, there is no equal, or even similar, 'structure', even 'cosmetically'. To assume there is, yes, that's also an insult.

And I know this is hard for you 'logicians' to understand, but man's logic regarding God's existence or nature is necessarily flawed. We are not God. God is beyond man. But then again, that's WHY you guys can't believe in Him. You can't logically 'demean' yourselves to consider a being more 'perfect' than yourselves.

Originally posted by Agerg
Try to think of FSM and other such devices as analogies, they aren't meant to look the same - merely behave the same.

And that's precisely where and when the analogies FAIL.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I agree. But it is not being used as an argument for denying the existence of a creator God. What gave you the impression that it was?

Oh, please, that is EXACTLY the purpose of it.

Originally posted by FMF
Billions of non-Christians also believe there is only one God and that it isn't the Christian one.

And there are millions of Christians and non-Christians alike who DO believe in the EXACT same 'God of Abraham' BY NECESSITY.

Of course they believe in only one God, because there IS only one God.

It is only the most narrow-minded of believers who believe they are not one and the same God. You will find these people among the Christians, the Jews and the Muslims. Narrow-mindedness does not belong to only one religion, or even only to religion at all.