"Why Do Men Reject God?"

Originally posted by googlefudge
Ours.

On account of the fact that both of our references agree and you have not in fact given a wiki reference in this discussion.

I actually gave a reference when I reminded you of the correct definition of science.
I also used wiki without referencing it, to wit:

A fairy tale is a type of short story that typically features European folkloric fantasy characters, such as fairies, goblins, elves, trolls, dwarves, giants, mermaids, or gnomes, and usually magic or enchantments. Fairy tales may be distinguished from other folk narratives such as legends (which generally involve belief in the veracity of the events described)and explicitly moral tales, including beast fables.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_tale

Recognize it?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I actually gave a reference when I reminded you of the correct definition of science.
I also used wiki without referencing it, to wit:

A fairy tale is a type of short story that typically features European folkloric fantasy characters, such as fairies, goblins, elves, trolls, dwarves, giants, mermaids, or gnomes, and usually magic or enchantment ...[text shortened]... ales, including beast fables.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_tale

Recognize it?

Yes, we recognise it. And the same article supports our view that talking animals are a standard technique used in fairy tales.

So that's three out of three for us.

If you are going to post something to support your argument, you really should read the whole thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_tale

Colloquially, a "fairy tale" or "fairy story" can also mean any farfetched story or tall tale; it's used especially of any story that not only isn't true, but couldn't possibly be true.

EDIT: And here is my original usage listed right in the top section of your wiki page.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby in Reply to Pianoman1
"Why Do Men Reject God?"

"A Loaded question, GB! To reject something implies that there must be something there in the first place to cast off or refuse. Atheists do not "reject" God; they do not believe in his existence."

> Agreed. The author assumes an accepted premise in developing his theme. However, isn't disbelief ...[text shortened]... s as well as within an individual's lifetime. It's a crucial decision with eternal consequences.[/b]

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby in Reply to Pianoman1
"Why Do Men Reject God?"

* "A Loaded question, GB! To reject something implies that there must be something there in the first place to cast off or refuse. Atheists do not "reject" God; they do not believe in his existence." -Pianoman1

> Agreed. The author assumes an accepted premise in developing his theme. However, isn't disbelief tantamount to rejection? Also, isn't it true that there are those who reject God without thinking of or labeling themselves as Atheists?

* "Most people in the world, throughout the ages of history, have believed in some concept of a Supreme Being.

It is entirely natural to want to explain the Universe in terms of a "Supreme Being". Since time immemorial this has been the easiest option. Many people, I do not include you, are simply not inclined to debate the matter too deeply, and are happy with the idea of God." -Pianoman1

> Insightful; there is a deeply seated intellectual need to "explain the Universe" in whatever terms seem effective. Rejection doesn't occur as an event; much rather as an ongoing process, heavily influenced by relationships and circumstances.

* "Since unbelief is neither reasonable nor the norm, one cannot but wonder why some people become atheists" (author)

A contentious statement! Also, Since most of the world's population is not Christian one might suggest it is unreasonable and not the norm to believe in Jesus." -Pianoman1

> That sentence alone almost resulted in doing this thread in a different manner (I'll comment further). It's naïve at best.

"It seems to me to be entirely reasonable to hold the view that without substantial evidence, agnosticism is the only intelligent and logical stance." -Pianoman1

> Intellectual, Psychological, Emotional, Physical and Age Related Comfort Zones play significant roles in the decision. These vary between individuals as well as within an individual's lifetime. It's a crucial decision with eternal consequences.
_______________________________________________________

"(I'll comment further)" Pianoman1, here's the reply as promised. This thread, warts and all, completes an unlikely trilogy. Motive/Objective was to encourage agnostics, atheists and others without labels who are in a state of rejection of God's Grace to objectively re-examine the personal reasons underlying their points of view which have resulted in unbelief.

1st: "RHP/Spirituality Forum Reference Section" Thread 156452: Provides convenient access to relevant scripture.

2nd: "Did Laidlaw, Broun, Stoppard, Chesterton and Goethe get it wrong?" Thread 156490: Provocative quotations.

3rd: Why Do Men Reject God?" Instead of this thread, I had initially planned to launch one titled: "66 Most Convincing Reasons for Becoming an Atheist" (66: one for each book in the Bible). Realized those reasons are already being posted daily to this forum; and that the considered observations of published authors might cross-fertilize fresh thinking.

* "Since unbelief is neither reasonable nor the norm, one cannot but wonder why some people become atheists" (author)

"A contentious statement! Also, Since most of the world's population is not Christian one might suggest it is unreasonable and not the norm to believe in Jesus." -Pianoman1

> "That sentence alone almost resulted in doing this thread in a different manner (I'll comment further). It's naïve at best":

At worst its a simplistic generalization which ignores personal, biographical variables that synthesize unbelief. Overarching hope was/is that this trilogy might serve to focus thoughtful conversation on the most critical decision we make in life. -Bob

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]"Why Do Men Reject God?"

"Most people in the world, throughout the ages of history, have believed in some concept of a Supreme Being. They may have had a perverted sense of Who that Being is, but they were convinced that there is a Personal Power greater than man. Given the evidence available, faith is reasonable. That is why the psalmist decl ...[text shortened]... e other reasons for rejecting the possibility of a Supreme Being and accepting the consequences?[/b]

I reject your god because I want to burn forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ...
.
.
.
.
... and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ...



in big fat never cooling lake of fire. Oh yes indeedy, given the impossibility of not believing in your formulation of god, it follows that I must wholly believe your god exists and have made a conscious decision to hate him, and resign my flammable soul to an eternity of hideous suffering.

Hope this helps 🙂

Originally posted by Agerg
I reject your god because I want to burn forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and eve ...[text shortened]... ate him, and resign my flammable soul to an eternity of hideous suffering.

Hope this helps 🙂

1) "God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from Himself, because it is not there. There is no such thing." 2) "To enter heaven is to become more human than you ever succeeded in being on earth; to enter hell, is to be banished from humanity." 3) "A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell."

4) "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important." 5) "There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'" -C.S. Lewis

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
1) "God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from Himself, because it is not there. There is no such thing." 2) "To enter heaven is to become more human than you ever succeeded in being on earth; to enter hell, is to be banished from humanity." 3) "A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun ...[text shortened]... will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"[/i] -C.S. Lewis

Have you ever heard the expression "Less is more" ???

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Have you ever heard the expression "Less is more" ???

Minimalist styles of expression are often appropriate. Were you replying to my post or Agerg's?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Yes, we recognise it. And the same article supports our view that talking animals are a standard technique used in fairy tales.

So that's three out of three for us.

If you are going to post something to support your argument, you really should read the whole thing.

Actually, you're wrong again.

When the opening line of the definition includes eight different characters as typical--- none a talking animal--- and further explicitly distinguishes a fairy tale as distinct from moral tales or beast fables, I'd say the original characterization of Genesis as a fairy tale is, again, in error.

You can only find mention of talking animals when considering the disputed territory of what ought to be/is considered a fairy tale. The former list is not disputed as belonging in the annals of fairy tales, whereas some would include talking animal stories as part of the same group. Apparently, of those scholars who study such literary devices, most would not.

But that's not really the point, is it? Despite googlefudge's inability to be either precise or even accurate in his criticism of the Bible, he has continued to fail to support his assertion that he has replace fairy tales with science as it relates to the creation of life on earth.

Originally posted by googlefudge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_tale

Colloquially, a "fairy tale" or "fairy story" can also mean any farfetched story or tall tale; it's used especially of any story that not only isn't true, but couldn't possibly be true.

EDIT: And here is my original usage listed right in the top section of your wiki page.

Which, again, underscores your ill-advised use of the moniker.

It isn't simply possible for the creation of the world to occur as stated in the Bible, it absolutely is the account of the creation of the world and its contents.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Actually, you're wrong again.

When the opening line of the definition includes eight different characters as typical--- none a talking animal--- and further explicitly distinguishes a fairy tale as distinct from moral tales or beast fables, I'd say the original characterization of Genesis as a fairy tale is, again, in error.

You can only find mention ...[text shortened]... ion that he has replace fairy tales with science as it relates to the creation of life on earth.

Oh dear, your thinking really is very shallow.

Fairy tales absolutely can be distinguished from morality/beast fables. The fact that the latter may make more use of talking animals has nothing to say about the fact that fairy tales also use them 'often', as the article you cite states. If you asked 100 literary scholars whether talking animals was a standard literary device of fairy tales, they would all say yes, and it has even been acknowledged by the article you posted.

The fact that a poster provided a list which does not include talking animals does not mean that the poster was providing an exhaustive list. These characters may well be more common even than talking animals (I haven't done the studies but I think it is most likely the case) but this has no bearing on whether the use of talking animals is a standard technique of fairy tales.

You claim that I can only find mention of talking animals when considering the disputed territory of what should be considered fairy tales. This is not true. I have posted what many would regard as the pre-eminent collection of fairy tales. You cannot dispute that Grimms Fairy Tales are fairy tales without making yourself look even more foolish than you are already.

And, lo and behold, they have plenty of talking animals in them. But, and you need to think about this, they are not morality beast fables (like Aesop).

The point is that your claim was that talking animals was not part of the techniques commonly associated with fairy tales, which is patently wrong.

And you are right, this is not the point, so you (and others) may wonder why it is worth pursuing this issue so far. And it is this.

Googlefudge never said that he knew through science what the origins of life are.

Yes, I know you think he did. But I am an independent observer and I did not take his statements to mean this. I have looked back over the previous posts and still don't think it. He even clarified what he did mean when you misunderstood this.

However, you have made up your mind that this is what he meant and are pursuing it without listening to anything said since. You are, in fact, arguing with yourself. No one else is having the debate you are having. If you claim victory, you are claiming victory over yourself.

Just as you have decided that fairy tales do not commonly include talking animals as a literary device and will stubbornly continue to insist your position has some validity (which it doesn't) despite the evidence contradicting your position (including, ironically, the very article you relied on for your position).

The very best you could claim is that Googlefudge was unclear about what he meant (you'd be wrong, but it would be a better place than where you are at the moment). In which case you could ask him to clarify (which, of course, he has already done but again you have ignored) and are seemingly content to pursue this mythical debate.

And you think we would want to enter into a debate with you about why science has proved that a literal interpretation of Genesis is 'nonsense'?

The Fairy Tale is more likely to feature a talking animal than a fairy.

Elements Found in Fairy Tales

A fairy tale is a fictional story that may feature folkloric characters (such as fairies, goblins, elves, trolls, witches, giants, and talking animals) and enchantments, often involving a far-fetched sequence of events......

Magic and Enchantments
~ Do you see magical things happening? Do you see talking animals/objects? You might see fairies, trolls, elves, goblins, etc.

A fairy tale, or wonder tale, is a kind of folktale or fable. In these stories we meet witches and queens, giants and elves, princes, dragons, talking animals, ogres, princesses, and sometimes even fairies.

In the world of fairy tales, many of the expectations of realism are suspended. Not only can animals talk but mirrors can too, and so can bones and brooks.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Oh dear, your thinking really is very shallow.

Fairy tales absolutely can be distinguished from morality/beast fables. The fact that the latter may make more use of talking animals has nothing to say about the fact that fairy tales also use them 'often', as the article you cite states. If you asked 100 literary scholars whether talking animals w ...[text shortened]... te with you about why science has proved that a literal interpretation of Genesis is 'nonsense'?

Just can't leave well enough alone, can you?
Don't say I didn't try to let you off easy...

If you asked 100 literary scholars whether talking animals was a standard literary device of fairy tales, they would all say yes, and it has even been acknowledged by the article you posted.
Wrong.
There are distinctions to the literary devices for a reason: scholars have determined specifications which help them clarify and catalog the differing forms, to more accurately label the respective types.

For instance, as I'm sure you are very much aware, the Aarne–Thompson classification systemReveal Hidden Content is the preeminent index tool for any serious student of folktales, which you appear to be.

In this index, taxonomy begins with.... wait for it... animal tales, with six or so further classifications within that motif.
Distinct from animal tales, the next classification is fairy tales, it, too, with seven major classifications as well as sub-categories within.
Then there are religious tales; realistic tales; tales of the stupid ogre/giant/devil; anecdotes and jokes; and, finally, formula tales, each with their own various subs.
In short, the distinctions are made simply because some motifs are presented consistent enough to be considered a type, separated from other groups for the purpose of more accurate identification and classification for better analysis.

Also noteworthy: actual literary scholars use indexes such as this for their study.

Even more noteworthy: distinctions are made for a reason.
Those who really care about such stuff see the difference between each of the classifications and are studious in their considerations when determining which form the literary device follows. If the categories were as inconstant as suggested, they'd simply use the same phrases in describing them, which they don't.

You cannot dispute that Grimms Fairy Tales are fairy tales without making yourself look even more foolish than you are already.
I don't mind appearing the fool for you, Rank outsider; in fact, I consider it a privilege.

The Brothers Grimm were the quintessential inquisitive linguistic researchers. They were fascinated by the evolution of language: how sounds changed within a language through dialect, use and time. But they were woefully short of sample groups, so they fell upon a method which would both expand the sampling as well as increase the natural feel to the speakers' words: they asked folks to tell them a familiar story from their upbringing.

From these collected stories came the eventual Kinder-und Hausmärchen (Children's and Household Tales), in addition to other collections. It is assumed that you presume to allude to Children's and Household Tales when you reference "Grimms Fairy Tales," but I don't think you understand the exact nature of this collection.

Although it was an offspring of their earlier linguistic work, it was intended to catalog and classify the various forms of folklore they had collected in the process of their studies. The compilation was emphatically not strictly fairy tales, but rather may forms of literary devices, a type of precursor to the Aarne-Thompson classification system referenced earlier in this response. They were intending to catalog folklore--- and all its distinct and various forms--- for posterity.

Googlefudge never said that he knew through science what the origins of life are.
Here's the original quote.

However If you consider the bible story of creation as evidence then we are not going to agree as
I accept science and you are accepting nonsense.

You might be right.
I made the distinction based upon googlefudge's use of the phrase "bible story of creation" in juxtaposition with his claim of "accept(ing) science and you are accepting nonsense."
I don't think it's too far of a reach to assume he meant that he had a perspective which is superior to the account given in the Bible, as it relates to creation.

To side with googlefudge as a an "independent observer," you must first forgive his nearly complete mangling of words and phrases.

I suppose I should be more forgiving...

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Just can't leave well enough alone, can you?
Don't say I didn't try to let you off easy...

[b]If you asked 100 literary scholars whether talking animals was a standard literary device of fairy tales, they would all say yes, and it has even been acknowledged by the article you posted.
Wrong.
There are distinctions to the literary devices for a rea ...[text shortened]... ve his nearly complete mangling of words and phrases.

I suppose I should be more forgiving...[/b]

Well, we weren't taking about the academic classification of folklore tales. So most of what you post is irrelevant. We were talking about characteristic features of what we commonly refer to as 'fairy tales' today.

(Grimms' tales are 'fairy tales' by the way, because that is what we, today, call them and that is what everyone else thinks of when we refer to fairy tales. In case you hadn't noticed, language is not static and inflexible, and you just look silly by trying to impose historic and academic distinctions on a word which was being used in a colloquial context.)

Just as we don't identify or categorise Shakespeare's plays on the basis of whether they contain lengthy soliloquies or not, but lengthy soliloquies are very much a characteristic feature of Shakespeare's plays.

But you went much further than this, and simply claimed that talking animals were not normally associated with fairy tales.

If you look down the list of tales under 'fairy tales' you see plenty of talking animals. Including those we would most often associate with Grimm.

So, ask anyone using the term 'fairy tale' in its modern, everyday sense to list characteristic features of them, and talking animals will feature pretty high up that list. Which is why I can post numerous examples of people identifying talking animals with fairy tales, and you can't find a single one, as yet, which doesn't.

Googlefudge does think his view of creation is superior to yours. He knows yours is complete nonsense and he will defend that claim if you challenge him. Even if he has only a rudimentary and incomplete understanding of how the universe was created, which may involve competing possibilities, some of which are wrong, this would still be better than yours.

Better to know some possibilities which may be correct than to believe in something that definitely is not.

"...fairies, goblins, elves, trolls, dwarves, giants, mermaids, or gnomes..."

Interesting that you cited this as evidence of the list of creatures which are normally associated with fairy tales (implying, illogically, that if talking creatures were not on it, then this means they are not normally associated with fairy tales).

And yet, as far as I can tell, even on the list of fairy tales compiled by Aarne-Thompson you linked to, talking animals appear more frequently than many of these. Possibly even more frequently than all these combined.

Yet, these are all normally associated with fairy tales, according to you, yet talking animals are 'decidedly not'.