damnthing

Yeah I understood that. I just pointed out that however inadvertently it was, 'prey' is appropriate for much of organized religion, especially some of the x tian versions. No insult was intended or implied to the OP

Unintentional as it may have been, 'prey' is something I would very closely connect with some very popular religious denominations and with even more members of those denomination. Happy Yule Happy Dies Natalis Solis Invicti Happy Saturnalia Praise be the great and almighty FSM RaMen Happy New Year, be well and healthy

It takes no energy to be an atheist whereas it takes a LOT of energy to not be an atheist. One has to decide if there's a god, which god to worship and appease, how much worship is necessary to keep the angry god satisfied. An insecure, needy, prone to violent rage and killing god takes a lot of energy to soothe and keep soothed. Yet people choose to devote so much of their time and life basically paying attention to something that is nonexistent and a subject of delusional episodes and can only, really only be approached through a rock solid state of cognitive dissonance. Yeah, way less work...no work in fact, to be an atheist. An apatheist is for someone who still feels like they want to leave the door open and are just to....well, apathetic to just slam the door shut and move on with their life.

It sounds like you're just spamming the site

ϱod people are silly

More babble from the bibble. Anyone who quotes from the bibble as if to prove a point clearly suffers from some form of mental illness. It would be like quoting from Harry Potter and referencing all the other Harry Potter books as additional proof. Why do we suffer the weak-minded?

Wait...what? If you're an atheist, why the 'jewish' qualifier?

Historically it was more of a 'jesus for jews' kind of a thing. It is a bit confusing, if a jew is for jesus doesn't that, by default, make him an x tian?

We hope...

I've been popping in for a while, but it's often quiet...

I kid, a few good friends are all that's needed. Quality over quantity all day long

Some of the friends I have...might as well be my enemies instead

"So if someone wears a cross they should put it inside their shirt? How about a star of david? " Did not say or suggest that...at all "I thought it was appropriate to wear necklaces outside of the shirt and not hidden away?" It's neither appropriate nor inappropriate, wearing a cross, any religious symbol, was not my point. "Or is this just your special rule for religious pendants?" Intentional or not this is what came across as 'attitude'. In any case perhaps go back an read the conversations leading up to my comments, it's about context. "Is it only the cross? It is indeed, in this particular case. It's a bout a person who is shilling his product (which, while another discussion altogether, is perfectly acceptable), but wearing his cross as he does on his tv ads is done for one reason only, to signify HIS religious position. Note any recent pictures of him in Washington or elsewhere, not a sign of the cross (pun intended). His use of the cross was a signal, it was indeed a prop, a way to let people know where he stands on major issues in the hopes that they will 'support' him by buying his product. If you have read anything about him you'll know that his business practices defy his supposed x tian principles. As this is the first time 'we' have chatted I'll chalk up both our comments as simple not being able to read the other's intent clearly due to unfamiliarity and chat-room sound deadening. And Jonathan's take was dead accurate of my intent and probably much more clearly stated than I could/would have. But then he's more practiced in the art of both philosophy and nuance. I tend to be more direct, think sledge hammer whether necessary or not.

Come at the question without the attitude and I'll be glad to clairify

Yes but...I'm not talking about someone who wears a cross on a chain that maybe visible depending upon what the wearer is wearing, nor am I talking about nuns or priests or the like who wear a cross outside of their clothing as part of their uniform. Not even talking about a person who, as a result of some physical maneuvering has flipped their cross onto the outside of their shirt,etc. What I am talking about is someone who buttons his shirt up to to the top button with the cross intentionally 'isolated' from accidentally NOT being seen. I get the yarmulke, it's part of a person's daily dress and will be visible, not to show off but because of their religious requirements. Wearing that cross outside of the shirt intentionally is no less than praying on the street, matthew 6:5

The first time I saw a tv add for a certain pillow company I immediately knew the guy was a cryster. How? Because he had his shirt buttoned up to the top button but was wearing his plus sign on a chain outside his shirt. Why? To specifically let people he was a cryster. There is/was absolutely no reason to announce that other than to just put it in people's faces. Turns out he (no surprise, really) is a uuge drumpf fan. And turns out (nice surprise) a number of companies will no longer carry his product because of his support for drumpf and the insurrection (and unsurprisingly) all of the conspiracy theories. So yeah, having to make one's religious belief know when unnecessary AND unasked, is virtue signalling to the nth degree and a stunning display of self-righteouness. But then...isn't that always the way...

I meant as it was a more appropriate forum and any 'interference' could be removed

So why not move the discussion over to - http://ulc.net/forum/forum/153-earthnature-based-indigenous-religions/ where the conversation can be more broadly discussed while limiting it to poly/pan etc to the exclusion of monotheism. It would be an interesting discussion to follow along with (because I really have nothing to offer other to it)

Insofar as I can see, a polytheist can present their viewpoint just as easily as a monotheist. I can not believe in many gods as easily as I can not believe in one god. Regardless of who defines what, in the end it's up to the person believing to define for themselves what it is they believe in. Maybe because in western society monotheism is more the 'norm'. But then there are a lot of hindus, my partner is hindu and from him, family and friends I've been exposed to some of their beliefs and traditions. They have an interesting cafeteria approach to polytheism; the ones I know typically have a shrine to a particular god and honor that one primarily. That's not to say others aren't honored throughout the year for certain times or events but that mostly (and these are all desi) it's one god that is relevant to them.

I suppose that's true but since muslims as a general rule aren't trying to force their way into the american public sphere, they aren't the threat that x tians are

Who says it was a monotheist who made that definition? And shouldn't there be a common definition for words? Otherwise how would be communicate effectively?

If cheeses is just a mystical shaman then I can get it. If instead they accept cheeses as the son of dog then...nope, not agnostic

I accept that irrationality is paramount in most religions. But agnostics are almost by definition rational since they believe only what is knowable, whereas any form of theism/deism is irrational as it supposes some kind of supernatural being/creator be it knowable or unknowable. I can only believe in that which is provable, or very nearly so. There is not full agreement that at the center of our, and many other galaxies a black hole, or that black holes even exist, but enough scientific evidence suggests that that is indeed the case. We know 'gravity' exists as it's provable, but it is not definable in that we're not sure how it works, only that it works. Thus The Satanic Temple, who exhorts members to accept and believe in the provable, in science and in natural laws. It's a perfect fit for any humanist. Save that it has as its center a concept that is anathema to x tian beliefs. Satan is a metaphor for knowledge, learning, exploration, curiosity; antithetical to the x tian religio-pathy that predominates and presupposes an adherent need not think for themselves, simply drink the Kool Aid and all will be fine...if not now then after you die (talk about making promises that can't be kept nor sued for making false promises).

A contradiction. "The agnostic believes only what is knowable. He rejects revelation and the doctrine of the Trinity as “past human understanding.” He is neither theist, deist, nor atheist, as all these are past understanding." "A theist believes there is a God who made and governs all creation; but does not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, nor in a divine revelation." As I read it one can be either one or the other but not both.

So, agnostic theist: a contradiction or an oxymoron? Discuss