And as I previously explained to CS, you would also have to show evidence that the bronze-age caveman didn't also create its god as a fictional character. ...
Ah, no -- the onus falls on you because this is your claim, not ours.
Well, I don't doubt that a bronze-age cavemen COULD have imagined a rabbit-god, then created an Easter Bunny church, and through time, have it expand. And wouldn't you know? There is just such an example, a temple to a rodent, not a rabbit, but a rat, in India, Karni Mata Temple.
Curiously, they apparently do not worship them as god/s or as supernatural beings:
quote:The temple is famous for the approximately 20,000 black rats that live, and are revered in, the temple.[1] These holy rats are called kabbas, and many people travel great distances to pay their respects. The temple draws visitors from across the country for blessings, as well as curious tourists from around the world.
Worship
The temple is thrown open to the public early in the morning at 4.00 a.m. Charan priests perform Mangla-Ki-Aarti and offer bhog (special food) in worship. Devotees make offerings to the rats, which roam about the temple in large numbers and are considered auspicious. There are two kinds of offerings made: the 'dwar-bhent' is attributed to the priests and the workers, while the 'kalash-bhent' is utilised for the temple maintenance and development.
They are seen as holy animals, much like many animals in India and by Hinduism. At best they are seen as evidence of reincarnation, also a common Hindu theme (they would consider you and I to be reincarnated spirits as well), so there is no special supernatural attribute here to speak of. Perhaps you can investigate and tell me more.
And yes, RAZD, their beliefs in this god come through believing adults. ...
quote:Out of all of the thousands of rats in the temple, there are a few white rats, which are considered to be especially holy. They are believed to be the manifestations of Karni Mata herself and her four sons.
Priests, Monks, Rabbis, Imams etc etc etc are holy. The Pope is holy. Holy is not supernatural. Thousands of people travel to see the Pope, but they don't believe he is himself a god or supernatural being afaik.
Karni Mata (Hindi: करणी माता or Karniji) (date of birth and death unknown but traditionally believed by followers to be 2 October 1387 — 23 March 1538,[1]) was a female Hindu sage born in the Charan caste. She is worshiped as the incarnation of the goddess Durga by her followers.[1] She is an official deity of the royal family of Jodhpur and Bikaner. She lived an ascetic life and was widely revered during her own lifetime. At the request of the Maharaja of Bikaner, she laid the foundation stones for two important forts in the region. The most famous of her temples is in the small town of Deshnoke, near Bikaner in Rajasthan, and was created following her mysterious disappearance from her home. The temple is famous for its black rats, which are treated as sacred and given protection in the temple. Contrary to some reports, the temple is not affiliated with Jainism. Another temple dedicated to her during her lifetime differs from others in that it does not contain an image or idol of her, but rather contains a foot-print to symbolize her visit to that place. Karni mata is also referred to as Nari Bai.
A holy person that did not perform any supernatural actions etc. More like Buddha or the Pope than a supernatural being.
... The similarity of children believing in the Easter Bunny as a god is uncanny, wouldn't you agree? (or are you gonna split hares?)
More than a bit of a stretch, imho, to make this into a bunny-rabbit bearing eggs supernatural god being, so no, I do not see any resemblance to the easter bunny caricature fictions.
Nor do I see any reason to disbelieve that she was real ... do you?
Sooo, do you, RAZD, beleive that the Easter Bunny rat manifestations of Karni Mata herself, are: 1. indeed gods 2. merely skeptical but very open to more evidence, 3. athiest about them?
They are rats, and as far as I can see the concept of reincarnation (which I am skeptical of), has not been invalidated. Do you have some methodology or equipment that can tell?
Certainly I am not atheistic about rats existing, as that would be rather silly, given the massive amount of objective empirical evidence that they, like bunny rabbits, exist.
Nor are they claimed to be god/s. Reincarnated spirits are not god/s ... unless you consider (believe) every living thing to be godly ... not that there is anything wrong with that.
And certainly I am open minded (albeit skeptical) of reincarnation, but I don't see that as making people into supernatural beings per se.
Okay, sometimes.
And sometimes that choice is to do nothing until better information is available ... as here: I see no need to investigate reincarnation at this time, but if you are interested, then feel free.
I haven't disagreed with this.
So I am happy to let those that are concerned investigate further, whether it is Ivory Billed Woodpeckers, Sasquatch or reincarnated spirits.
Re: and ANOTHER opportunity for Tangle to review his position ...
That speaks of the desire of people to be kind. Which is nothing at all to do with this:
It has everything to do with this if you've decided that this this spirit of kindness in humans is "god".
Now does it? Come on be honest, one is describing a desire in people, the other is a standard definition of a god.
Yes, a standard definition of god that can be matched to that spirit.
Ho hum, I really don't mind what they call it, I'm sure we both know what I'm asking.
And that's where you'd be wrong because you have NO idea how they might mean if they were to ask me if I believe in Christ. I have a friend believes in Christ but doesn't believe in God. I have a friend who openly idents as a "Christian Satanist" (and not as a joke).
You have a VERY small world view of what people might mean when they use the words "Christ" and "God." I personally have found it more productive to not assume I know what a persons choices might be among the myriad of life philosophies and rather ASK them what it is they mean by the labels they apply. If I'm in Trenton, Georgia, I might be able to take a damn good stab at what a questioner might mean by "Christ" ... not so much in Boulder, Colorado or Santa Cruz, California. (and I've spent long periods of time in all three)
Your results may vary (whether you admit it or not).
Have you ever been asked any of them?
I assume you are re-asking your original question from a few posts ago - this one:
quote:These people that use these apple pie and motherhood phrases I assume are actually god fearing Christians? Do they never ask you if you believe in Christ?
The answer is no, they are not Christian and also no, I can't recall any of my friends who claim some version of 'nature' or 'spirit of kindness' as their god asking me if I believed in Christ.
I'm done Tangle. Thanks for the exchange. I find your world view on this particular topic to be quite narrow and ignorant, but I'm ignorant on many other topics where you would likely shine so that's no big deal at all. I promise that I agree with much more of what you have written during my time on this thread than I disagree with.
Re: and ANOTHER opportunity for Tangle to review his position ...
TAD writes:
You have a VERY small world view of what people might mean when they use the words "Christ" and "God." I personally have found it more productive to not assume I know what a persons choices might be among the myriad of life philosophies and rather ASK them what it is they mean by the labels they apply. If I'm in Trenton, Georgia, I might be able to take a damn good stab at what a questioner might mean by "Christ" ... not so much in Boulder, Colorado or Santa Cruz, California. (and I've spent long periods of time in all three)
There must be something about this thread that leads people to misrepresentation and misunderstanding.
I am fully aware of the massive variety of weird and wacky views individuals have about both their religions and their beliefs. Despite your accusations, atheists tend to have a very wide understanding of the large number of belief systems out there because they're not tied into one and can look at them all from a position of objectivity. You can safely put that incorrect assumption aside.
But I'm not interested in your friend's views, I'm trying to find out yours. However, you only seem interested in telling us your position in response to theirs which is interesting but not at all informative. Your friends seem keen to say what they believe and don't believe, but you do not. Why is that?
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
Ah, no -- the onus falls on you because this is your claim, not ours.
Sorry no, until you provide one "real" god, the default natural position is that every god is a fictional entity. Of the two claims, your claim is supernatural, special-pleading, thus, the onus is on your anus.
RAZD writes:
[Karni Mata] . . . is A holy person that did not perform any supernatural actions etc. More like Buddha or the Pope than a supernatural being.
Chuckle, I think not. You glossed over the fictional silliness associated with Karni Mata, regarding the Goddess Durga. Karni Mata is worshiped through the reincarnated rats as the incarnation of the goddess Durga by her followers:
quote:Durga is the most popular incarnation of Devi and one of the main forms of the Goddess Shakti in the Hindu pantheon.[2] Durga is the original manifested form of Mother Parvati or Adi-Parashakti. Durga is Adi-Parashakti herself. The Devi Gita, declares her to be the greatest Goddess. Thus, she is considered the supreme goddess and primary deity in Shaktism, occupying a place similar to Lord Krishna in Vaishnavism. According to Skanda Purana, the goddess Parvati accounted the name "Durga" after she killed the demon Durgamaasura. Goddess Parvati is considered to be the complete incarnation of Adi Parashakti or Goddess Durga, with all other goddesses being her incarnations or manifestations. Adi Parashakti or Mahadevi, the supreme power, is called Durga Shakti as per Devi-Mahatmya. Adi Parashakti or Devi Durga is a Hindu concept of the Ultimate Shakti or Mahashakti, the ultimate power inherent in all Creation. This is especially prevalent in the Shakta denomination within Hinduism, which worships the Goddess Devi in all her manifestations. She is Goddess Lakshmi and Goddess Saraswati in her mild form; Goddess Kali and Goddess Chandi in her wrathful form. Durga is also called Padmanabha-Sahodari and Narayani, the sister of Lord Vishnu. According to Shaivism and Shaktism, she is supreme, but to bring back lord Shiva in Sansar, she was reborn in human form (Sati and Parvati) to marry Shiva.
(When considering the WHOLE supernatural back-story, the Easter Bunny doesn't seem half as silly, eh?)
Okay, let's re-cap, I believe gods, like the Easter Bunny, are only from the imagination of man, indeed, they do not exist anywhere else. Because I cannot prove a negative (that something doesn’t exist), and using Occum's razor (the simplest solution is usually the correct one), the onus would be on you to show that just one measly god exists outside of man’s imagination.
But I am open-minded, let's continue testing. You are starting to pile up pre-qualifications for gods, so let's start to list them as we go along, (I suspect there will be many more as we progress):
Although a child's magical belief system in the Easter Bunny isn't any different than the magical belief system of adults in gods, you believe that a real god needs to be believed by adults. Okay, check.
You believe that a real god needs to be believed by an adult for life. (Hmmm, that doesn't allow Cat Steven's or fighter Muhammad Ali to revise their worshipping?) Okay, check.
You wrote "There are no churches to the Easter Bunny AFAIK." You believe that gods need to have a church (a place of wordship?). (I was rather impressed that a reincarnated rat with a fanciful ancestral history of gods has it's own brick and mortar temple in India, but it seems you quickly downplayed that pre-qualification.) Okay, check.
You believe that gods need to be more than just a tad-bit supernatural. (Reading Durga's reincarnated/incarnated super-duper previous life(s) is pretty supernatural spectacular to me, but you poo-pooed it). Okay, check.
So let’s move on and try out this animal-god for "godliness":
the Egyptian crocodile-headed Sobek, god of fertility.
1. Believed by adults. Check. 2. Believed by adults for their entire lifetime. Check 3. A temple is built for him, Kom Ombo. Check. 4. Creator of the world. That sounds kind of supernatural to me. Check.
Sooo, do you, RAZD, believe that the Easter Bunny, rat manifestations of Karni Mata, the crocodile-headed Sobek, is: 1. a real god, thus you are a deist/theist 2. possibly a god, but without further research using tax-payer money, you will merely be skeptical, but very open to more evidence, thus agnostic 3. a fictional character created by bronze-age cavemen, thus you are an atheist about Sobek?
To me, so far, a Venn diagram would show the Easter Bunny, rat manifestations of Karni Mata, and the crocodile-headed Sobek inside the same circle, labeled as fiction. But I ackowledge this is just a small sample . . . so far.
Sorry no, until you provide one "real" god, the default natural position is that every god is a fictional entity. Of the two claims, your claim is supernatural, special-pleading, thus, the onus is on your anus.
Except ...
... that I am agnostic and believe that the evidence against god/s is as poor and inconclusive as the evidence for god/s. Now, I am open-minded to either being true, but as such I am not making a claim either way.
You, however, have made a positive claim that god/s do not exist and thus bear the onus of supporting your position with objective evidence.
Okay, let's re-cap, I believe gods, like the Easter Bunny, are only from the imagination of man, indeed, they do not exist anywhere else. Because I cannot prove a negative (that something doesn’t exist), and using Occum's razor (the simplest solution is usually the correct one), the onus would be on you to show that just one measly god exists outside of man’s imagination.
Yet Occam's razor is not evidence or a measure of reality, it is just advice on where to spend energy on initial investigations. If you are not doing any investigation then it is just a crutch you use to prop up your unevidenced belief.
Neither is the absence of evidence the evidence of absence, as this is a logical fallacy. Any perceived absence of evidence is only evidence for an lack of perception of any evidence. Others may have different perceptions.
... are only from the imagination of man, indeed, they do not exist anywhere else.
Your premise includes your conclusion, and thus is begging the question, another logical fallacy. Theists disagree, so I do not find this to be a convincing argument.
Now I think you will agree
that there is not sufficient objective empirical evidence that demonstrates conclusively that god/s exist nor that they do not exist ... so we eliminate the (A) position,
that there is no need to form an opinion whether god/s exist or not ... so we can eliminate the (B) position.
So that leaves us with my position (C) that I can wait for further information before making an informed decision ...
... and your position (D) where you jump to a conclusion based on your opinion\beliefs rather than evidence and logic.
Curiously I think the (C) position is more akin to a scientific approach, than the (D) position of leaping to a conclusion based on poor, logically questionable thinking. Position (C) says "we don't know, we should find out more before deciding" while (D) says "I already know and don't want to waste my time looking" ...
Curiously theists also think they know the answer (the theist says "I know, god-did-it"), and I don't see any qualitative difference in the degree of evidence available between your position and theirs.
But I am open-minded,
Are the anecdotal rumors that the Ivory Billed Woodpecker (believed by biologists to be extinct since the last mating pair was killed in the '50s, ironically to confirm their identification) exists deep in the Louisiana swamps ...
True, Don't Know or False?
But I am open-minded,
Are the anecdotal rumors that the Yeti (which might be an unknown bear related to polar bears) exists high in the Himalayan mountains ...
True, Don't Know or False?
But I am open-minded,
Are the anecdotal rumors that the sasquatch exists deep in the northwest mountain forests ...
True, Don't Know or False?
But I am open-minded,
Are the anecdotal rumors that the god/s exist deep in the spirit world beyond our ability to measure them (but not beyond an ability to experience them, perhaps, via spiritual or religious experiences, as some people claim) ...
True, Don't Know or False?
But I am open-minded,
Are you?
There is a difference between skepticism and pseudoskepticism ... the open-minded skeptic is as skeptical of their own beliefs as they are of others.
Chuckle, I think not. You glossed over the fictional silliness associated with Karni Mata, regarding the Goddess Durga. Karni Mata is worshiped through the reincarnated rats as the incarnation of the goddess Durga by her followers:
So you are now saying that the belief that people are reincarnated as rats translates to belief that one of the rats is a reincarnation of a holy person who some believe is - in addition - a reincarnation of one of the aspects of the Hindu henotheistic amalgamation, that purportedly was a supernatural being ... moving the goalposts a bit there. The rats are not believed have any supernatural powers per se.
Your original claim was that the Easter Bunny was a supernatural being. It wasn't, as I pointed out, but you still seem fixated on this. The rats still do not compare. People can believe in the rats being reincarnations of people without involving any supernatural beings or any supernatural powers.
2. possibly a god, but without further research using tax-payer money, you will merely be skeptical, but very open to more evidence, thus agnostic
Actually "Possibly initially based on a spiritual experience that is not confirmed nor invalidated in the present day" -- it is anecdotal and unconfirmed, nor is it invalidated as a possible religious\spiritual experience. Have you investigated the history to determine the origin?
And this is still different than taking a fertility symbol (rabbits) and making a caricature that is seen dressed up in children story books. Again, you should investigate origins rather than "disneyfied" stories.
What's next - Australian aboriginal dream-time spirits?
Enjoy _________________________ the "Hindu Hypothesis" that all god/s experienced, are different aspects of god/s, where the perception is tempered by the personal beliefs of the person and the culture they live in.
I am agnostic and believe that the evidence against god/s is as poor and inconclusive as the evidence for god/s.
So, you are claiming that it's a 50/50 proposition?
After thousands to tens of thousands of years of shamans of all stripes making claim after claim about the existence and desires of their particular deities, all the while providing no evidence that stands up to scrutiny, you still claim it is a 50/50 proposition?
That's pretty silly, considering how rational you are in other areas.
What's the fancy Latin term in logic for "argument based on wishful thinking?"
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
I am agnostic and believe that the evidence against god/s is as poor and inconclusive as the evidence for god/s.
Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist
Pick one.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
I am agnostic and believe that the evidence against god/s is as poor and inconclusive as the evidence for god/s.
Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist
Pick one.
I'll pick both, Steve ... what's my prize?
You really don't pay attention do you? You whine and bitch and moan about people not "getting" what you post but you ignore what they are saying ...
And yes Coyote, 50% Deist + 50% atheist = agnostic.
Pick one.
Why?
No objective evidence either way, no compelling reason to make a decision: ↠ (C) inconclusive and unsure of both pro and con, abstain
What psychological pathology drives - compels - you to make a decision when none is necessary?
Logically if god/s exist they would be deist like god/s, based on the evidence available, and logically if god/s don't exist it would not matter what designation was used.
So my Tangled friend ... what drives you to decide things when you have a lack of evidence?
Are the anecdotal rumors that the Ivory Billed Woodpecker (believed by biologists to be extinct since the last mating pair was killed in the '50s, ironically to confirm their identification) exists deep in the Louisiana swamps ...
... True, Don't Know or False?
Are the anecdotal rumors that the Yeti (which might be an unknown bear related to polar bears) exists high in the Himalayan mountains ...
... True, Don't Know or False?
Are the anecdotal rumors that the sasquatch exists deep in the northwest mountain forests ...
... True, Don't Know or False?
Are the anecdotal rumors that the god/s exist deep in the spirit world beyond our ability to measure them (but not beyond an ability to experience them, perhaps, via spiritual or religious experiences, as some people claim) ...
And yes Coyote, 50% Deist + 50% atheist = agnostic.
And yet you promote yourself as a Deist not an agnostic. Strange but true.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
Firstly — I am afraid that insisting your own definition be applied and agreeing that there is no context in which you won't object and resist an alternative definition being applied are one and the same thing to all practical intents and purposes. You are making a distinction without a difference re terminological stubbornness.
Secondly - Our old friend Sam made all the same arguments about generic leprechauns as you are doing about generic gods. Message 443 You responded simply by asserting that pixies, nisse, lutin, tomte, dwende and all the other multi-cultural equivalents to leprechauns didn’t qualify. So now I must ask you on what basis does this generic concept you talk of, qualify as a god? Generic or otherwise. What properties does this thing have such that it is a god and thus your belief in it qualifies you as a theist?
Thirdl — It seems blindingly obvious to me that those who understand that defining a concept will make it more susceptible to refutation will seek to ambiguify the concepts that pertain to their particular cherished beliefs. Thus this idea that generic gods are somehow more believable seems pointlessly and obviously counter-acted by the obvious fact that generic gods are the inevitable result of that very human inclination. They are the inevitable retreat end-point of theistic belief if better defined concepts can be, and arguably have been, discredited.
I never took RAZD's deism as more than being different.
Different to what? It's just someone who believes in god. There's rather a lot of them.
In any case, deism is just atheism with a few more words allowed into the vocabulary.
Ok, I'm taking a risk and assuming that this isn't sarcasm; the two words - deist and atheist - are near perfect antonyms, only bettered by theist and atheist.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
that I am agnostic and believe that the evidence against god/s is as poor and inconclusive as the evidence for god/s. Now, I am open-minded to either being true, but as such I am not making a claim either way.
Errm, . . . you just made a claim in your first sentence. As coyote succinctly writes, you ARE claiming a 50/50 proposition.
RAZD writes:
You, however, have made a positive claim that god/s do not exist and thus bear the onus of supporting your position with objective evidence.
To be specific, I made a yawn-producing, potentially falsifiable claim that gods do not exist outside of man's imagination. You may falsify my claim by presenting a real god any time that you wish. I'll wait.
In the meantime, I will present gods of human history as evidence to further support my claim that all gods are fictional . . .
. . . just like the imaginative Easter Bunny.
So let's keep moving on. There are an awful lot of gods to consider RAZD.
Remember, if I find just one god you are atheist about, then you must submit a real god to balance your 50/50 claim.
RAZD writes:
Yet Occam's razor is not evidence or a measure of reality, it is just advice on where to spend energy on initial investigations. If you are not doing any investigation then it is just a crutch you use to prop up your unevidenced belief.
Patience RAZD, patience. We are investigating as quickly as we can.
RAZD writes:
Neither is the absence of evidence the evidence of absence, as this is a logical fallacy. Any perceived absence of evidence is only evidence for an lack of perception of any evidence.
If true, then you could never distinguish the child's belief in a modified version of the Easter Bunny with an adult's belief in a god. The result, a venn diagram with both the modified Easter Bunny and god in the same circle.
RAZD writes:
Your premise includes your conclusion, and thus is begging the question, another logical fallacy.
My premises does include a TENTATIVE conclusion. But an open-mind demands we test it. As we are . . .
RAZD writes:
Now I think you will agree A. that there is not sufficient objective empirical evidence that demonstrates conclusively that god/s exist nor that they do not exist
Hold on there Baba Looey, you just admonished ME for supposedly concluding my claim. We are in the middle of testing our claims, why are you rushing to rule that I have no evidence? (Wow, talk about projecting)
dronestar writes:
But I am open-minded,
RAZD writes:
Are you?
There is a difference between skepticism and pseudoskepticism ... the open-minded skeptic is as skeptical of their own beliefs as they are of others.
I see I need to often remind you that we are currently testing both our hypotheses.
RAZD writes:
So you are now saying that the belief that people are reincarnated as rats translates to belief that one of the rats is a reincarnation of a holy person who some believe is - in addition - a reincarnation of one of the aspects of the Hindu henotheistic amalgamation, that purportedly was a supernatural being ... moving the goalposts a bit there. The rats are not believed have any supernatural powers per se.
"So you are NOW saying?"
"moving the goalposts a bit there?"
I suspect you are being disingenuous. Did you really, initially, believe that people who build an elaborate rat temple, worship at the rat temple, employ adult priests at the rat temple, though impoverished provide sacred offerings to holy rats, and come from a culture who worship imaginative gods by the sackful was only about a common woman?
You stated that the mortal woman Karni Mata and the rats were not supernatural, nothing special. And when you suggested . . .
RAZD writes:
They are seen as holy animals, much like many animals in India and by Hinduism. At best they are seen as evidence of reincarnation, also a common Hindu theme (they would consider you and I to be reincarnated spirits as well), so there is no special supernatural attribute here to speak of. Perhaps you can investigate and tell me more.
"Perhaps you can investigate and tell me more."
I then presented a fuller history of the supernatural history of the rats and their associations with gods. To which you then replied . . .
RAZD writes:
moving the goalposts a bit there.
C'mon RAZD, don't do that. Are you for honest investigation or not?
Okay, so now, after you have been made more appraised of the supernatural rats and their associations with gods, are you:
1. Theistic about the supernatural rats and their associations with gods 2. Agnostic about the supernatural rats and their associations with gods 3. Atheist about the supernatural rats and their associations with gods
RAZD writes:
Your original claim was that the Easter Bunny was a supernatural being. It wasn't, as I pointed out, but you still seem fixated on this.
Yes, so far I am standing by my claim that children see the Easter Bunny as a supernatural being as adults see their god as a supernatural being. Both are fiction.
RAZD writes:
People can believe in the rats being reincarnations of people without involving any supernatural beings or any supernatural powers.
I suppose people can, but specifically, the people of India who worship at the rat temple do believe in supernatural rats and their associations with gods.
RAZD writes:
Again, you should investigate origins rather than "disneyfied" stories. What's next - Australian aboriginal dream-time spirits?
No, I already told you, the next subject is the Egyptian crocodile god Sobek. But first answer the question about the supernatural rats and their association with gods.
I am afraid that insisting your own definition be applied and agreeing that there is no context in which you won't object and resist an alternative definition being applied are one and the same thing to all practical intents and purposes.
Except that I had repeatedly accepted that the other usage was valid and could be used... so I could not have be insisting upon my own.
That's just not what insisting means.
Our old friend Sam made all the same arguments about generic leprechauns as you are doing about generic gods.
I don't care about leprechauns, they're fictional Irish folklore.
You responded simply by asserting that pixies, nisse, lutin, tomte, dwende and all the other multi-cultural equivalents to leprechauns didn’t qualify.
I don't know what any of those things are, except for pixies... are they leprechauns or not?
So now I must ask you on what basis does this generic concept you talk of, qualify as a god? Generic or otherwise. What properties does this thing have such that it is a god and thus your belief in it qualifies you as a theist?
I don't know the properties of god, nor do I really know the qualifications for being one.
It seems blindingly obvious to me that those who understand that defining a concept will make it more susceptible to refutation will seek to ambiguify the concepts that pertain to their particular cherished beliefs.
If you think I'm being dishonest, well, then fuck off.
Thus this idea that generic gods are somehow more believable
Where have I said that they are more believable?
I said they were less disbelievable.
Seems different to me, but I dunno. I the number -1 more positive than the number -2? Or is it just less negative? I wouldn't say that it is more positive, would you?
You seem to have completely ignored the generic evidence that pertains to the made-up-ness of generic gods. Namely the evidence that humans are inclined to invent such concepts in general rather than the specific reasons that specific entities are invented (which you seem to largely accept).
What makes it seem that way?
Because I'm fully aware of the evidence and explanations in that link, but I believe in god anyways? Is that it?
™ Version 4.2
