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

I sometimes think the odd poster on here could be the inert gas bag. Naming no names of course.

There is the odd bag or two of nitrous oxide too, plus a few of carbon monoxide. Naming no names, of course.

It was an affectionate piss-take. See what I mean about people not getting it?
Du-uh, as Minibags would say!

I LOVE my inert gasbag.

Don't worship it or pray to it though.

PS just remembered: once when I said DH1 was inert, quick as a flash (and smiling) he said: "better than being a bloody halogen!"

Chuckle.

Going back a bit on this thread - but thinking I may be just an insignificant bit of dust that goes to make up the galaxy, whatever the individual components are, is a good place to be. It takes away the power, the egotistical nature of religion, and of what are called 'god(s)', however benign they are thought to be.
I am here, and will soon be gone, in the grand scheme of things.
Much like an ant. Busy, busy, but so what.
They do have a high organised and controlled existence though. Do they have god(s), or egos?

Must be in a philosophical mood.

Ants are known to have a bit of a sting, though!

Back to petallus post - It IS the same thing to "insult" someone's belief as to "insult" their lack of belief. In both cases it criticises their judgment in coming to a different conclusion to the one the "insulter" has reached.

HOW they reached that conclusion is usually not considered. In either case it may have been through the patterns set in childhood or through years of rigorous thought and and possibly agonising appraisal.

I think 'diddums', Bags is childish and bloody rude.

And typically Bags. Especially when she is floundering.

Bags - "I would abolish blasphemy laws"

I think we have, haven't we? Within the last couple of years. In this country at any rate.

It was always a victimless crime...

Of course it's childish and rude, but so is saying "you can't say things like that because someone somewhere might be offended", whichis essentially what the complainers are saying. Look on it as a retort in kind. What else can one say to such moaning?

How many times do we have to say that it's just tough if religious people find something offensive, that it's their problem, that they won't stop others like me from saying what we regard as innoffensive and perfectly good things to say just because someone somewhere might be offended because they WANT to take offence?

If your god can't deal with the idea of a god being called/though of an inert gasbag, he, she or it is pathetic. And if people can't deal with it on their god's behalf (why do they need to? it's a bloody god for god's sake!), they are too.

Why is religion so fragile?

Anyone who is bored with this thread has dozens more to go at, so that's a daft thing to focus on as well.

feetle, that's good if true, but you wouldn't know it the way people whinge.

I stand by my opening post. I think it's a great way to think of a universal god and clearly some other people think so too.

I go back to my original comment; it isn't the Christians on Gransnet who keep raising the topic of God, it's the self-defined nonbelievers. There's a difference between thinking someone is misguided and keeping on poking them with a stick. To get a reaction? To help them see how wrong they are? Because the whole question of faith disturbs you?

The last one – the whole idea of faith is disturbing. Unfathomable. I guess atheists keep trying to fathom it.

WHICH IS WHAT MY OP WAS ABOUT! It was not a poke, nor is it offensive.

I expressed my liking for an idea. Faith people said it was offensive and poked me. I reacted.

What is it called when someone accuses you of doing what they are doing themselves?

That's not a poke either. I,ve forgotten the word.

Projecting?

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.

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?

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

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.