Finally! a 'definition' of god that I understand.

Yawn back, ana. Have you said anything interesting that I missed?

"And you really can't see that that is offensive to believers?"

That's up to them... nobody has a right not to be offended - and
it takes two to tango; there is no offense until someone decides to take offence...

Yawn...

Oh well, that's all right then.

Logical argument for its own sake.

Intellectual exercise.

I,m not in the least bit cross. I'm enjoying myself.

Why are you so cross that they don't? Why not just leave this thread if it's not gone the way you wanted it to?

People have taken an idea personally. If they'd just looked at the idea and thought huh! daft! instead of thinking it referred to their "cherished being", they wouldn't be offended, just as I'm not offended by the cherished beings. I just think huh! daft!

Im short, it's not personal. Why make it so?

Told you some people didn't get it.

lily, I didn't say your god (or any god) was an inert gasbag. I said that god as an inert gasbag was a definition of god that I understood.

Wrong, ana. I have only objected to the posts which say the OP is offensive and that it shouldn't have been said. And yes, you can call that defensive – of free speech.

Just to be annoying (why else? [sarc]), I'm going to start another thread with quotes from atheists.

I'm going to put it in the religion and spirituality forum because atheism is inextricably linked with religion and because there isn't an atheism forum.

Anyone who dislikes atheist thoughts can leave it alone or join in as they see fit, but they shouldn't be surprised if there is stuff in it they don't like, just as atheists aren't surprised when they come across religious stuff they don't like.

anno, quite. And suggesting that 'complainers' are 'whingeing' and/or being 'po-faced' sounds rather defensive. It seems that no objections to the OP are acceptable unless they express appreciation of the 'inert gasbag' concept and accept the possibility that their beliefs are 'illusions'. Which some are quite understandably not about to do...

Re petallus last post, I guess if the god idea is not a "cherished being" but something else much less easily defined, then it is difficult if not impossible to insult. In which case, I agree.

Re jings pokey post (aren't they all? ), I understand that you say it is offensive which means, presumably, that you think it offensive or think others will find it so. I don't agree that it is in the least bit offensive. It's just an unusual way of thinking about something. To me it was a very useful way of thinking about something. As I said later in the thread, I found a certain calm in it.

I'm sorry that you or anyone found it offensive but that really has nothing to do with me. The being offended is to do with your interpretation, not mine. It occurred to me that it wouldn't have the same appeal to everyone, but what does? Does anything?

Once again, the fact that someone might find something offensive is not a reason for not saying it.

Nelliemoser* Actually, it's journalists, not physicists who use the term "god particle". Apparently, the latter rather dislike it because it's a silly term.

A Humanist, yes, but I see absolutely no point in trying to persuade believers to abandon their convictions. I'm content to state my position and leave it at that. Why bother to bait people who are contented with their illusions beliefs?

I think Bags needs to broaden her reading material.

"Finally there's a definition of God that I understand. He's an inert gas bag"

And you really can't see that that is offensive to believers?



I don't believe you!

I like Bags' science posts, too. I think she should stick to science. And 'the God particle' doesn't imply God is a particle, while 'He's an inert gas-bag' sounds quite derogatory.

I cannot see at what point BAGS OP became offensive. Almost incomprehensible in concept and deeply philosophical yes but offensive no!

Theoretical physicists talk about the "God particle" which starts the whole concept of what if anything existed before the big bang which created the universe. Its utterly mind boggling.
Add to that a few Buddhist concepts about everything in the universe being impermanent and illusory just like these hypothetical god particles and we end up perhaps being only figments of our own imaginations. Are we real at all?

Bags posts a great number of science based items I like my mind boggled.

There is insulting and there is "insulting". There is being serious about your faith and there is being po-faced about it.

I'm an atheist but I don't find faith unfathomable. I think I have noticed that some of the most vociferous atheists on Gransnet are those who had the 'benefit' of a religous upbringing/education.

But back to the question of whether insulting someone's faith is the same as insulting someone's lack of it, I don't think it is because the first position involves belief in and (usually) love of a cherished being whereas the second position does not.

I imagine insulting God, to a believer, would be a bit like insulting their parents or children or something else they held dear, which surely not many of us would want to do.

Also the Church is such a soft target. How many of us would make jokey rude comments about Islam say?

So, instead of saying that is offensive, why didn't those who didn't like the OP idea tell us what their idea of god was? That would have been a far more "grown up" approach than the slights and whinings that were posted.

Some people did respond like that of course, and that was great. It's actually quite easy to dismiss the complaints because they are only a side issue to what the thread is for.

Projecting?