Gggg102:
the issue with the 4999 gods is the same with individual gods.

they are 1. scientifically inaccurate.
2. unable to be proven undeniably.
3. give false and extraordinary
promises to their followers that
fails.

butterflylion:


Now I really need to stop.

You say the words in bold yet said the below earlier.




How can you make such assertions such as "they are false, they contradict science, they make inaccurate claims etc despite admitting YOU HAVE NOT GONE THROUGH THESE GODS?

this is dishonest.

butterflylion:


Yet they know this despite NOT GOING THROUGH THEM.

Thank you for your time. I am done here with you.

butterflylion:


Yet they know this despite NOT GOING THROUGH THEM.

Thank you for your time. I am done here with you.

Gggg102:



because the few that I have observed fall under these categories.

if the others that I haven't observed are not in this category, they won't be losing followers. if a god is accurate, why would he become unpopular? he should be becoming more popular.

e. g Greek gods and mythology
Atlas carried the heavens on his back.
we all know this for example is impossible so we know it is false and then the followers reduce.


why do you think most of these gods are unpopular, have very few followers?

because their inaccuracy is obvious.

I have not gone through them because most of them are dead to humanity. their belief died out.

why do you think their belief died out?

the fact that I have not gone through them is telling enough on their existence.


why don't we hear from them any longer?

will a god who wants to have a relationship with us fade into oblivion?

butterflylion:


Now see your comment below


You say you have observed A FEW yet declared MOST OF them are dead to humanity.


Thank you for your time. Have a good day

Gggg102:



is English a problem to you?
does the fact that most of them are gone mean I can't observe the ones that aren't?

I said most of them not all. which means some are still present. even from the most that have faded, you can still observe a few e. g Greek gods, Norse gods...

butterflylion:


You cannot observe a few and then declare for most when even you said their characteristics differ.

If you had indeed gone through them, even through the Norse gods you mentioned then you would realise that Norse gods gave birth to Norse paganism which was the inspiration behind the Neopagan religions of Asatru and Odinism, which originated in the 20th century and that they are both subsets of the larger Germanic neopaganism or Heathenism which is very modern.

So how have they faded out?

You are being dishonest.

Gggg102:



yes they have faded out. they have lost popularity.
they are not as relevant as they were. they have been transformed into subjects of human imagination. to use as we like.

why are they called MYTHology?

why would a god lose popularity?

SMH.

As a theist I am actually being openminded while you are being extremely close-minded.

You see God as a figment of YOUR IMAGINATION and so jetissoned it. Others do not see it the way you see. So when you make your assertions you specifically speak for yourself.

What I want is for you to show me how YOU got to the point of factually declaring that the entire 4999 gods are imaginary.

butterflylion:


You still do not get it.

This is my comment earlier




The adherents do not see it as a mythology no matter how many times you say it because of the factors I listed earlier.

It's not what they are called by those who do not follow them that makes them true. It's simply their personal opinions which Is devoid of what the adherents perceive.

Gggg102:



then what makes them true

butterflylion:


Their own INDIVIDUAL perceptions and experiences (if any) and not what another who does not share their roots or ideals says.

It may not be universally true and does not need to be (as far as the adherent is concerned ".

Gggg102:



I am talking about universal truth.


what makes a god universally true?

budaatum:

So, I, who has done the work writing it in the first place, should now go back and dig it up for you?

To be honest, I wouldn't mind, normally, but just not for you considering how you are quick to affect my tiny sensitivities, and how you react to similar opinions.

Just pick through any thread with atheism in the title and you'd see the same sentiments expressed, or, wait till someone more deserving of my time turns up and read my responses then. I will bear you in mind, I promise.

greygoblings:
God exists (but not in a religious sense), if not there cannot be the kind of order we have in this universe. Creation itself cannot be by chance, every time man tries to define existence, the more we see the workings of a divine being. I am an agnostic person by nature but I surely believe that there must be an un-explainable force behind existence and time itself and such force is so great that matters regarding humans are insignificant to the cosmos and universe that this force controls.

butterflylion:


I so love this comment of yours.

How did your agnosticism still hold on to a God who is not seen in a religious sense?

You Believe there is an unexplainable force that is so great. How can it be unexplainable and yet you call it God and say it exists?

I need to learn.

greygoblings:


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

greygoblings:


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

greygoblings:
Well, the religious ideology of God is such that there is a being somewhere in the heavens that concerns himself with the affairs of Men. He sits on a throne.... I don't believe in this. This ideology is naive. Despite this, I thing the concept of God cannot be fully explained by man.

God exists (but not in a religious sense), if not there cannot be the kind of order we have in this universe. Creation itself cannot be by chance, every time man tries to define existence, the more we see the workings of a divine being. I am an agnostic person by nature but I surely believe that there must be an un-explainable force behind existence and time itself and such force is so great that matters regarding humans are insignificant to the cosmos and universe that this force controls.

butterflylion:


I am not talking about universal truth because that Is also based on individual adherents and what they hold dear.

All we do is compare and contrast based on methodology, approach and experiences.

Veering away to universal truth and what makes a god universally true would entail me delving into relationships and as I already said earlier, I am not interested in relationships or good and evil on this thread.

butterflylion:


I am not talking about universal truth because that Is also based on individual adherents and what they hold dear.

All we do is compare and contrast based on methodology, approach and experiences.

Veering away to universal truth and what makes a god universally true would entail me delving into relationships and as I already said earlier, I am not interested in relationships or good and evil on this thread.

Gggg102:



who talks about truth that isn't universal?

so you just assume that a god is true because people believe it.

then this is polytheism not monotheim

Derivatives of the concepts of God have come in a threefold manner for all God concepts there is and they are experience, revelation, and reason.

As it stands, experiences of God in all concepts are astonishingly in various forms though have produced equally rated concepts of what is perceived as a divine being.

These experiences have come about by things that are external and universally there for all, things like a star filled sky, or through something as external and private like a rock or bush. These Experiences though are often internal and effable for example, vision, or can be said to also be internal and ineffable, as portrayed by those who practice mysticism.

Revelations of such nature are often linked to experiences of a God or gods or a type of it, this is all inclusive for those originally having it and the one simply embracing it as an authority.

So if I speak from the side of a specific God or god I simply voice my experience or opinion and not speaking ON BEHALF of the other who has his or her own opinion or experience which can comparatively be put alongside mine.

butterflylion:


Would you say that our attempts at explaining God is what brought about the various monotheistic concepts of God?

By the way, "Throne" there depicts a kingdom or authority and not a literal throne.

If God does not concern himself with the affairs of Men yet created the universe for the same man how then was that not concerning himself with man?

So to you can God be an inanimate force or a living force that could be termed "a being" based on your comment below





I need clarity.

Being is the general concept encompassing objective and subjective features of reality and existence. Anything that partakes in being is also called a "being", though often this usage is limited to entities that have subjectivity (as in the expression "human being". The notion of "being" has, inevitably, been elusive and controversial in the history of philosophy, beginning in Western philosophy with attempts among the pre-Socratics to deploy it intelligibly

TheSorrowfulMan:



The topic says "Let's discuss God"

Should I take it food section?

greygoblings:


I thought you said you understand agnosticism? You need to understand first that I am not an Atheist. I just don't believe in God the religious way. "Being is the general concept encompassing objective and subjective features of reality and existence. Anything that partakes in being is also called a "being", though often this usage is limited to entities that have subjectivity (as in the expression "human being". The notion of "being" has, inevitably, been elusive and controversial in the history of philosophy, beginning in Western philosophy with attempts among the pre-Socratics to deploy it intelligibly."

God exists (but not in a religious sense), if not there cannot be the kind of order we have in this universe. Creation itself cannot be by chance, every time man tries to define existence, the more we see the workings of a divine being

TheSorrowfulMan:



The topic says "Let's discuss God"

Should I take it to food section?

butterflylion:


I keep telling you that you read but are yet to understand whatever I type.

I am not talking about a universal truth oga. I do not wish to be distracted and all that. This was why I said the below earlier. Please try and read to understand and stop trying to derail me.