Theism And Atheism

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Ignoring the various bits from the OP that seem to contradict its declared aim, I agree that theism and atheism are not what I see as significant differences. I met one of my best friends who is a theist because of posting on here. I love him dearly.

There are others who I like and respect, Anchorman, Gabriella (whether violent or not). I don't think atheism shows anything other than not believing in a god. Many atheists are arses.

Would agree that there are no significant differences between atheists and theists. When I was an atheist I think I discussed religion about the same amount as I do now as a theist. As a theist I might read alternative meanings and narratives into things that I might not have done before, but as an atheist I still had a lot of spirituality in the sense of getting caught up in idealistic notions and values of right and wrong, bravery, loyalty, heroics, honour etc.

Thanks NS - I like and respect you too.

[Dicky Underpants]

NTS

I don't see the contradiction in the 2 statements.

TS says he did not come here to play games - so that means that wasn't his intention when he joined.

That does not contradict his statement that in the to and fro of posting and responding he may in the moment post things to provoke either for amusement or to get a response or express his personality. Every poster on here is expressing their personality - it would be boring if they weren't. TS also says he has an ego - pretty much every poster on here seems to be the same.

I might not agree with some/ a lot of what TS says but I mostly find his style of writing enjoyable/ entertaining to read. I think there's a flow to it - kind of like a breeze has blown in.

ETA: After reading Susan's post I guess I should add that I don't buy into TS's view of himself as brilliant - but it's still a good read and lots of new info I did not know about the Bible.

I would take what TS says about the Bible with a very large pinch of salt. Ask Anchorman

[ekim]

NTS



I might not agree with some/ a lot of what TS says but I mostly find his style of writing enjoyable/ entertaining to read. I think there's a flow to it - kind of like a breeze has blown in.

Let's hope it doesn't just become an exchange of hot air.  The topic so far indicates to me that being ignostic is more appropriate i.e. that the 'god' object of belief should be better defined to avoid confusion in discussion.  If the individual believes in what the words Elohim, Jehovah, Allah, Brahman etc represents then he/she should give some indication what it means to them.  It may not be the same as what it meant to the originators of those words.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I would take what TS says about the Bible with a very large pinch of salt. Ask Anchorman

Ah ok. I haven't read the Bible thread in the Christianity section but in other posts he quotes stuff. Are you saying his quotes are not accurate or out of context or were you referring to the Bible thread that I haven't read? Might go have a look at it now. I don't know a lot about the Bible but it's interesting getting different perspectives.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Let's hope it doesn't just become an exchange of hot air.  The topic so far indicates to me that being ignostic is more appropriate i.e. that the 'god' object of belief should be better defined to avoid confusion in discussion.  If the individual believes in what the words Elohim, Jehovah, Allah, Brahman etc represents then he/she should give some indication what it means to them.  It may not be the same as what it meant to the originators of those words.

Yes true. But not sure if it's possible to get a definition everyone will agree on so probably the term will remain unknowable.

God is a very individual concept and it would be impossible to put into words all the feelings, hopes, ideals that the concept conjures up for each individual. Also words can be construed and interpreted in so many different ways so it's probably best to stick to basics, as more words that are used to describe the concept means the endless possible meanings of those words. I did an A'Level in English and I remember analysing just one line of poetry or a sentence in a story could take up a half a page as you try to think of all the various ideas the poet or author is trying to convey and imagery they are trying to conjure up to evoke mutiple feelings and ideas in the reader. 

Similarly, the basic concept of God for me is something unique, eternal, everlasting ie. no beginning no end, not of this world ie supernatural, therefore incomprehensible. There are aspects or attributes that people can relate to but each aspect has multiple meanings or interpretations. 

[Theoretical Skeptic]

Fine - let's start from the places where theists and atheists agree - the most obvious being that if there are n purported gods, atheists do not believe in n gods while theists (if monotheist) do not believe in n-1 gods n-a small number gods (if not monotheistic). Given that there are thousands of purported gods this means that theists and atheists agree in their lack of believe in almost every god you can think of.

Okay. That's a good point. On that we agree. But for the sake of clarification I would point out that the emphasis here should be on the word believe rather than gods. I think you have to be careful not to lump all theists into a Christian box. Shintoism, for example, has the fairly recent addition of the Nihongi and Kojiki. Both of which in the past I've posted, illustrated, proofread and corrected the text of on previous websites I've run. They have what they used to call eight million gods, which has now become countless gods by their own estimation. These gods - these two quasi sacred texts, in fact - were created as mythological instruction primarily to Japan's youth. They weren't meant to be taken literally.

The ancient Jews and early Christians were neither monotheistic or polytheistic. They were, like myself and JWs, henotheistic. Though generally described as polytheistic I think henotheistic actually applies to Shintoism as well. The point being that there is a difference between belief in gods in a literal sense as in existing and the belief that there are gods in the strict sense that a god doesn't have to exist to be a god.

Both atheist and theist will acknowledge the exitance of gods in this sense. So, the ancient Jews of the Bible would venerate the concept of gods in the strict sense that I've been criticised for presenting when they followed the "valueless gods" of the surrounding nations, like their sacrificing their Children by fire to those types of gods. Gods are often only a mascot of sorts. A symbolic representation of that sort of behaviour. (trying to write British English. Maybe I shouldn't. I have enough trouble with American English) The resulting practices could be sexual, social, cultural, material.

Though the Jews and Christians believed Jehovah to exist in a literal sense, it wasn't necessarily the case with the "false" gods they went after. More often than not it was symbolic representation resulting in bad behavior.     

[Theoretical Skeptic]

Obviously not, otherwise you'd be finding out what it was, rather than making it up.

There you go again. How do you know?

Make up your mind.

Very well. Tell me what you believe.

[Dicky Underpants]

Ah ok. I haven't read the Bible thread in the Christianity section but in other posts he quotes stuff. Are you saying his quotes are not accurate or out of context or were you referring to the Bible thread that I haven't read? Might go have a look at it now. I don't know a lot about the Bible but it's interesting getting different perspectives.

From the various phrases he uses, it would appear that he's quoting the Watchtower 'translation'. Certainly his views agree in many respects with the Jehovah's Witnesses, which he admits.
His whole approach is largely 'pre-critical', and he seems to know practically nothing of the findings of the 'critical period' of biblical research e.g. as detailed in Albert Schweitzer's book 'The Quest of the Historical Jesus' (originally called From Reimarus to Wrede). It would be nice think that he was acquainted with the work of Julius Wellhausen regarding the Old Testament, or at least, more recently Richard Elliott Friedman. But I suspect he isn't. His approach is largely that of the literalist believer.
And his attitude to historical research is also a pile of pants.

[Dicky Underpants]

TS
Hey! Here's a first - I agree with what you say about the henotheistic beliefs of the ancient Hebrews.

[Nearly Sane]

As are many theists. Including myself.

Do you think it's political? Social? Can it be compared to political party divisions? The atheist vs. theist thing, I mean.

I don't vote. Don't influence legislation in any way. What if all believers were of that ilk? You wouldn't have much to say in opposition if, not unlike comparisons having been made here with theists, if we believed in leprechauns, ghosts, fairies? Unless we made it political? Or do you think it's about quantity? Number of believers compared to unbelievers. Which is impossible to accurately number in my opinion.

I mean, you can say being atheists just means not believing in gods, but you also think that being theist means just believing in gods. It matters little? That seems hard to believe. All the fuss for nothing?

I think being a theist itself does just mean that. I treat people as individuals and whether they are atheist or theist only tells me one almost completely unimportant thing.

[Theoretical Skeptic]

NTS

I don't see the contradiction in the 2 statements.

TS says he did not come here to play games - so that means that wasn't his intention when he joined.

That does not contradict his statement that in the to and fro of posting and responding he may in the moment post things to provoke either for amusement or to get a response or express his personality. Every poster on here is expressing their personality - it would be boring if they weren't. TS also says he has an ego - pretty much every poster on here seems to be the same.

I might not agree with some/ a lot of what TS says but I mostly find his style of writing enjoyable/ entertaining to read. I think there's a flow to it - kind of like a breeze has blown in.

Yeah! How'd ya' like me now?!

Seriously, I've seen a lot of very intelligent unbelievers criticizing theism in a way that would seem juvenile and facetious. It's a transmogrification. Mocking. I don't see much wrong with it. To me it expresses their contempt in a manner which they see worthy of what they criticize. I don't like putting on a show. I have a similar approach, only on the other side of the fence. Take it for what it is. I see an ugly trend taking shape here, though. The discussion is becoming more and more about me. I don't want that at all, believe it or not.

ETA: After reading Susan's post I guess I should add that I don't buy into TS's view of himself as brilliant - but it's still a good read and lots of new info I did not know about the Bible.

Someone else further down in the thread makes the same point and it baffles me. I consider myself to have the intellectual capacity of, say - Winnie The Pooh - and I stole that line from an old British Sitcom. Nothing I say is particularly clever or original. Most of the meat of it would be familiar with, as I've pointed out, JW children of a very young age.

A great deal of my own thinking comes not from any intellectual ability but from a unique willingness to look at everything through unbiased critical skepticism. Thus the name Theoretical Skeptic. Most people, believer and unbeliever alike, are rigid in their beliefs and will promote them almost as if they were infallible. As if they were wrong or were to misstep reality would crash in around them. I don't think like that. I have had, from a very early age, a profound distrust of authority and the general consensus.  This is reflected in my belief in politics, religion - everything. 

[Theoretical Skeptic]

I think it is more a case that it sounds as if you are starting with attack and arrogance because you are accustomed to being responded to as most responses here have been, i.e. with logic and reason.

I'm sorry, but that seems like a far too easy conclusion for you to have drawn from our exchanges so far. It's typical though. As long as I agree with your take on things then that could only be perceived as logic and reason. Any deviation of that would naturally be illogical and unreasonable. You're going to have to do better than that to impress me.

That sounds as if you are placing yourself in a victim role. In other words you are not here for an interesting discussion regardless of whether there is agreement or not at the end of it,  but to win a battle.

The only real victory in this sort of exchange is an interesting discussion. To expect agreement would be foolish and compromise the interesting discussion. 

Why not try a change of tactics Give the members of the forum you have joined the benefit of any doubt you might have about them, and respond with a quiet confidence rather than an aggressive tone.

Since you've asked politely I will do exactly that from here on out. 

Then I would say that you give reading and posting far too important a place in your life. It is a hobby, not ‘real life’.

There was a time long ago when I gave it far too important a place in my life. Not any more.

Straightforwardness is good and far better than sly hints and nudges which always reflect badly on the person, not the intended recipient, but I certainy don’t think your posts has shown much in the way of fairness so far.

That isn't good in my eyes. Fairness is extremely important to me.

Try expressing it not only firmly but with courtesy.

As you wish.

In my opinion, you have already made it personal, i.e. emphasising how brilliant you are, or rather believing that is what you are doing.

That was certainly never my intention. I don't look at it like that.   

I think you are already finding that this is one forum where that doesn’t work.

Let's not get carried away. I think you may overestimate the forum. 

[Theoretical Skeptic]

I would take what TS says about the Bible with a very large pinch of salt. Ask Anchorman

My personal advice is to take everything everyone says with a very large pinch of salt. That would include you, myself and Anchorman as well.

[Theoretical Skeptic]

Let's hope it doesn't just become an exchange of hot air.  The topic so far indicates to me that being ignostic is more appropriate i.e. that the 'god' object of belief should be better defined to avoid confusion in discussion.  If the individual believes in what the words Elohim, Jehovah, Allah, Brahman etc represents then he/she should give some indication what it means to them.  It may not be the same as what it meant to the originators of those words.

I agree and I think I've tried to do that. I've pointed out that my concept of gods is different, and how it is different and I've concluded that subject by compromising or taking into account that the majority of the posters here differ from me in that regard.

[Theoretical Skeptic]

Ah ok. I haven't read the Bible thread in the Christianity section but in other posts he quotes stuff. Are you saying his quotes are not accurate or out of context or were you referring to the Bible thread that I haven't read? Might go have a look at it now. I don't know a lot about the Bible but it's interesting getting different perspectives.

I've heard DU's sort of criticism before and I think it means that it's his opinion that I shouldn't be taken at all serious. Steve Wells, the owner of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible once invited me to post on his blog, Dwindling In Unbelief, telling me he would like a believer's perspective since he had a lack thereof, then when I posted a couple responses he told his readers to ignore me because that's what he was going to do.

People, huh? I can't figure them out.

[Theoretical Skeptic]

Similarly, the basic concept of God for me is something unique, eternal, everlasting ie. no beginning no end, not of this world ie supernatural, therefore incomprehensible. There are aspects or attributes that people can relate to but each aspect has multiple meanings or interpretations.

But, you see, that's just one specific God. 

[Theoretical Skeptic]

TS
Hey! Here's a first - I agree with what you say about the henotheistic beliefs of the ancient Hebrews.

Really? Well, there ya' go. We do have things in common. Of course, you'll forgive me if my fragile old brain hasn't allowed me to familiarize myself with the regular posters here yet. Avatars are very helpful, but still. Are you an unbeliever or believer?

[Aruntraveller]

The discussion is becoming more and more about me. I don't want that at all, believe it or not.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

[Theoretical Skeptic]

I think being a theist itself does just mean that. I treat people as individuals and whether they are atheist or theist only tells me one almost completely unimportant thing.

Yes. I agree that theist and atheist doesn't include anything other than their intended meaning, but being one or the other has various effects on who we are, how we think, what we do to some extent, don't you think?

[Theoretical Skeptic]

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

We shall see.

[bluehillside Retd.]

TS,

Specifically or just in general?

Specifically the matter you asked whether you were wrong about.

Everything everyone says here regarding theism is opinion. You say I'm wrong. I say you are wrong. That's the game. Don't think I don't know who you are.

No it isn’t. Sometimes people only assert their beliefs to be true; sometimes people provide arguments to justify them. These are epistemically different positions that you cannot just reduce to “it’s all opinion”.   

Again, specifically or are you operating on the assumption that whatever I say about the Bible and God and gods is false? According to you whatever I have to say about the aforementioned subjects is wrong. My lengthy posts on historicity and Genesis chapter one, for example. I don't recall a well informed rebuttal of any of that. I just recall people like you, in some sense, saying I was wrong. I don't recall an argument, really. Do we need to revisit those?

I don't think so because, well, I'm just wrong, correct?

You’ve missed the point. What I actually asked you wasn’t about your textural analysis of Genesis - it was whether you believed its factual claims to be true. You said that you do, but you’re unable to explain why. I don’t just assume that whatever you say about the Bible/God is false – what I identify though is your inability to justify your beliefs rationally so you give me no reason to think you’re right.   

You may have to refresh my memory. I don't recall that. I'm not familiar with everyone here yet, but all I recall is people saying things like I'm wrong. No explanation. Just wrong.

That’s plainly not true. Whenever I identify that you’re wrong about something I take the trouble to explain to you why you’re wrong. To take an example, I’ve explained to you why diluting terms like “god” so far that they become stripped of their delineating theistic meaning so as hide behind your deracinated version is cheating. You could have tried to rebut that with a counter-argument of your own but instead you repeat the initial mistake, presumably in the hope the problem will just go away.       

[Laughs] Okay. Well, I'll have to try to remember that.

Yes. If you do have an argument that isn’t wrong to justify your beliefs, why not tell us what it is? Why keep is a secret? Why paint yourself as just another faith head, epistemically indistinguishable from the leprechaunist? 

Now I think you are telling the truth as you see it. No argument from you. I'm just wrong. Not much point in it, is there? Except for perhaps that I see and am willing to acknowledge the possibility that I'm wrong and you are right. That's why I call you (fundamentalist militant atheists as a collective) ideologues. Now, in my nearly 30 years of debating these atheists I've actually come across a few that were well informed outside of tradition and capable of making good points. Arguments. I'm not saying it isn't here, I'm just saying I haven't seen it. But I'm still interested in hearing your argument. So . . . anytime. [looks at watch]

Again, yes you have seen the argument. There is no method to distinguish faith claims from just guessing; there is a method to distinguish reasoned claims from just guessing – it’s called logic, and it’s verifiable with real world applications. Try comparing jumping out of a 20th storey window because it’s your faith that you’ll land safely with my reasoned argument that it won’t end well. Reducing all epistemic claims to equivalence (“OK, I might be guessing but so are you”) is sometime known as “going nuclear”. Here’s why it’s a bad idea:

http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2011/09/going-nuclear.html       

No, I have to correct your ignorance of language, which is why that is what I first attempted to do, announcing at that time that it was a futile excursion.

Not even close. It’s not a correction to keep eructating the claim that words with multiple meanings can be treated as if they mean the same thing.   

[Sigh] Colloquial and metaphoric applications of the word God doesn't negate the meaning of the word. Examples of various Gods, gods, and goddesses are not meanings of the word. All you have to tell me is what does it take to be a god. If you say religious, supernatural, colloquial, metaphoric or give only examples of the word God (or god) you are not giving it's meaning. It's meaning is implicit in the application as well as the example but not given in it's use. To do so would be the same as saying that the meaning of the word man, prince, king, lord et cetera used in a similar way would be definitive of those words or negate their meaning.

(Bigger sigh…) Yes colloquial use of the term “god” do “negate” the religious meaning. This relationship between language and reality really has got you foxed still hasn’t it. If someone wants to say “I believe in god” they intend that term to have a meaning – and when the context is religious that meaning requires his god to have some basic religious properties (typically non-materiality for example). What he isn’t saying though is that those same properties somehow become invested in an object that someone happens to think to be very good or to “venerate”. If you expand the contextual meaning of "god" to include any other meaning the statement “I believe in god” becomes white noise. Which use of the term “god” is the speaker trying to tell us he believes in?               

The definition of atheism doesn't specify which God or gods are in question. The term disbelief or lack of belief isn't exclusively a religious connotation.

Yes it is. It’s an epistemic response to the claims religious people make about their religious gods. Disagreeing with someone’s opinion about Clapton on the other hand doesn’t thereby make me an atheist – it just means we have different tastes in music. 

The disbelief or lack of belief isn't a trust as in, for example, the Latin word credit, it's a question of existence. The only way an atheist can adhere to the term atheist by definition is to limit the use of the word God and gods thereby excluding most applications and negating the meaning of the word itself.

This is more of the same nonsense. Atheism is merely a response to the claims religious people make about their religious gods. Different, colloquial uses of the term “god” have no relevance to that.     

The result is an ignorance, not only of the use of God and gods in a Biblical and theological structure but also the possibility that the concept of God and gods in their intended meaning in any language, primitive or otherwise, of any religious or secular application is erroneous.

Oh dear. The atheist can only respond to the claims about gods that are bought to his attention. More to the point, atheists can only respond to the arguments theists attempt to justify their beliefs in those gods. That’s it – nothing more, nothing less. Yes I am “ignorant” of most of the countless gods people have claimed over the millennia (as are you), but that has no impact on my atheism. Atheism isn’t the statement “there are no gods”; it’s just the statement “I have no good reason to think there to be gods”. That’s why I’m an atheist. What aren't you?         

In other words, an atheist may have many gods in their lives which they don't even know are gods.

Yes, but until someone can justify that speculation the atheist has no reason to think that to be the case and so proceeds accordingly.

This can be a problem if the atheist should become theist. So for Jehovah God of the Bible to say you shall have no other gods before me isn't a command to abstain from metaphoric or colloquial applications as can be seen in those very uses in context to the command itself. It begs the question what is or who are those gods?

That’s a second order problem, relevant only if you have persuasive reasons to think them to exist at all.

So the theists try to explain this away by dividing all other gods in comparison to the One True God as being false as opposed to the true, but that doesn't make sense because some were true (Moses, Jesus, the Judges of Israel) and some weren't. Satan, Molech, Ashtoreth, Dagon et cetera. The tactic of the atheist is to say no literal god ever existed, (by extension excluding any colloquial or metaphoric application) which doesn't make sense because, at least to them, Moses, Jesus and the Judges of Israel existed in a literal sense.

Atheism does not say that gods don’t exist/have never existed at all. That would be a statement of certainty that’s would be impossible to justify. That’s why an atheist need only confine himself to the statement, “I have no good reasons to think that gods do or have ever existed”. Sure as an atheist I proceed as if there are/were no gods, but epistemically that’s not what atheism requires.

I’ve corrected you on this several time now – why then do you keep misrepresenting atheism?         

And that doesn't even begin to address the complications of such an argument presents to Shintoism and Hinduism. The latter which was addressed briefly by Sriram in our discussions of gods and the former which I myself brought up. I think. If I didn't then I am now.   

It can certainly be argued that ultimately, at least given the very common misconception, pedantic and as far as I'm concerned we've given it more than enough time.

?

Yeah, sure. You just keep repeating that you are right and I'm wrong. No reason to give any reason. No real argument. Who's going to disagree with you? Pat yourself on the back for being obstinately obtuse with just the right smug self righteous ideological dispossession. Typical atheist tactic.

No I don’t. When I tell you that you’re wrong I also tell you why you’re wrong. Ironically, your charge of repetition describes you rather than me – when you’re given falsifying arguments, why won’t you try to rebut them with reasoning of your own rather than the same falsified assertions?     
 

Why would you make such an ignorant statement? You suggest that to be faithful exclusively applies to the theistic or religious?

“Faith” is a term religious people use in a context. I was merely showing you that your tactic of dragging multiple meanings into one so as to make meaningful contextualised discussion impossible applies equally to this term as much as it does to “god”, “divine” etc.     

Venerated colloquially or metaphorically speaking? What about your "devil's food" cake? Implicit in the Devil's existence? Angel food cake? What does devil mean? Slanderer. Angel? Messenger. What's that got to do with cake? Dark. Light. It's nonsensical.

Damn these words!

No, words are fine. What isn’t fine though is homogenising their sometimes multiple meanings as Trojan horses for specifically religious discussions. 
 

I dare say it's not such a mystery.

That’s what she says.

If I were mentally challenged the equivalent would be lost upon me but it isn't, you see. It's lost upon you. That's okay, though, because we can carry on as if the specific God in question regarding atheism and theism, for that matter, is as limited as you suggest.  I told you you wouldn't get it. I know that when you say God you mean one specific God or application of God's most commonly known in Western culture.

Ah, and there’s the straw man – another fallacy. I’ve not said that theism/atheism concerns a specific god at all, as you know full well. What I’ve actually said is that if you want to discuss god(s) in a religious context, then you need to use that term in its religious sense. If instead you want to talk about Clapton though then start a correspondence in Rolling Stone with no religious context at all. Just smashing different meanings together is called a category error – (yet) another fallacy.         

HEY! Don't knock my ability to rant in a most excellent fashion! Nor underestimate the, uh, the . . . whatsit? Jovial operation of error. Try to Google that, my illusive argumentative, and I'll show you a green dog, see if I don't!

I didn’t knock it – you’re very competent at reason-free ranting (and at describing same as “excellent points”). That’s not a good thing though. 
   

Man! (colloquially speaking) I thought I was arrogant!

With reason. If you can’t produce coherent and cogent reasons to justify your beliefs to others though, why would it not give you pause that you can’t justify them to yourself either? 

[Nearly Sane]

Yes. I agree that theist and atheist doesn't include anything other than their intended meaning, but being one or the other has various effects on who we are, how we think, what we do to some extent, don't you think?

in and of itself, no.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yeah! How'd ya' like me now?!

Seriously, I've seen a lot of very intelligent unbelievers criticizing theism in a way that would seem juvenile and facetious. It's a transmogrification. Mocking. I don't see much wrong with it. To me it expresses their contempt in a manner which they see worthy of what they criticize. I don't like putting on a show. I have a similar approach, only on the other side of the fence. Take it for what it is. I see an ugly trend taking shape here, though. The discussion is becoming more and more about me. I don't want that at all, believe it or not.

Someone else further down in the thread makes the same point and it baffles me. I consider myself to have the intellectual capacity of, say - Winnie The Pooh - and I stole that line from an old British Sitcom. Nothing I say is particularly clever or original. Most of the meat of it would be familiar with, as I've pointed out, JW children of a very young age.

A great deal of my own thinking comes not from any intellectual ability but from a uniquely and I think rare willingness to look at everything through unbiased critical skepticism. Thus the name Theoretical Skeptic. Most people, believer and unbeliever alike, are rigid in their beliefs and will promote them almost as if they were infallible. As if they were wrong or were to misstep reality would crash in around them. I don't think like that. I have had, from a very early age, a profound distrust of authority and the general consensus.  This is reflected in my belief in politics, religion - everything.

British humour is often a mix of intelligence, juvelinity and facetiousness. But yes the latter two can get a bit irritating when trying to have a discussion.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But, you see, that's just one specific God.

Yes - that's why I said I was explaining my concept. I can't speak for anyone else's concepts.

My point was that discussion is fun but it's all theoretical so we can just end up getting nowhere. Religions often contain various stories for the purpose of illustration but each story will be interpreted slightly differently by the reader and will have a unique meaning to them based on their own unique interpretations of their life experiences.

[SusanDoris]

I'm sorry, but that seems like a far too easy conclusion for you to have drawn from our exchanges so far. It's typical though.

If you had taken a bit longer before  writing a response, you'd have noticed that I edited my post because that was not  a courteous thing to say. I had not realised it was still there when I posted - I thought I had in fact deleted it.

As long as I agree with your take on things then that could only be perceived as logic and reason. Any deviation of that would naturally be illogical and unreasonable. You're going to have to do better than that to impress me.

I never write to impress anybodyand that includes you! You delude yourself if you think otherwise.

I will respond to the rest of your post later.