Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mannahnin wrote:Ok Grog, sorry.

Can you see the difference between my space ork examples?

.

Yes I can.. but I don't think they are the same thing as what dogma was presenting. And I also think you are arguing something different than dogma, even though you may think you are arguing the same thing. Or maybe you don't understand it yourself. (no insult intended)

Anyway you didn't answer my question.... are you trying to equate not believing in space orks to not believing in God?

If so, it would be like comparing the flying spaghetti monster to God.

Anyway, the reason why I do not think they are comparable is that we know that space orks, santa claus and the flying spagetti monster were made up creations, we can actually document when and where they came from. You can't do that with God.

If I have missed your point I apologize.

GG


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:I would be willing to bet that Stephen Roberts isn't the first guy to use that line, because I have heard it parroted by a few other famous athiests.

Ahtman wrote:
Becuase other people quoted him doesn't mean he isn't the originator.

No but it shows that they sure aren't very original.

generalgrog wrote:In fact the reason for the dismissal are coming from two totally different world views and experiences.

Ahtman wrote:
Oh, so you would consider yourself Jewish or Muslim than? Or perhaps Catholic? They aren't from radically different worldviews or experiences.

Athiests and Christians don't have different world views?

generalgrog wrote:An Athiest hasn't yet experienced God

Ahtman wrote:
The number of converts to athiests or other religions says that is a bunch of baloney.

So someone that doesn't believe in a thing has experienced that thing?

generalgrog wrote:whereas a true Christian has, and therefore has no need to believe in any other false gods

Ahtman wrote:
And a true Scottsman knows that is a load of dogmatic hooey. Just in case though I talked to a Hindu priest and he agrees, you shouldn't follow false gods like the Christian one. Come over to Brahman. A true Hindu has experienced the oneness with the ultimate supreme and knows the truth. He just wants to help you.

Yes... I agree, poor form on my part..I should have phrased that differently.

GG

No, of course I'm not trying to equate space orks to god. I already explained why I chose the example I did.

We know the origins of your god as well as we know the origins of my gods. But you seem to have no trouble labeling mine "false".

This is the point of Ahtman's quote. If you have difficulty comprehending an atheist's perspective, a useful thought experiment may be to imagine feeling the same way about your god as you feel about mine.

I feel like we are having the conversation from A Bug's Life .

Flik: Here, pretend this is a seed.

Dot: But it's a rock.

Flik: I know, I know, but let's for a minute pretend it's a seed, lets use our imaginations. You see our tree? Everything that is in that giant tree is contained inside this tiny seed. All it needs is some time, a little sunshine and rain, and voilá!

Dot: This rock will be a tree?

Flik: Seed to tree, you have to stay with me. Now, it may seem that you can't do anything, but that's just because you're not a tree yet. You just have to give yourself more time. You're still a seed.

Dot: But it's a rock.

Mannahnin wrote:No, of course I'm not trying to equate space orks to god. I already explained why I chose the example I did.

We know the origins of your god as well as we know the origins of my gods. But you seem to have no trouble labeling mine "false".

This is the point of Ahtman's quote. If you have difficulty comprehending an atheist's perspective, a useful thought experiment may be to imagine feeling the same way about your god as you feel about mine.

Wait, you keep saying that you have gods and also talk about athiesm. Are you a polytheist, pantheist or an athiest?

GG

You should be able to infer the answer to that fairly easily.

But it's entirely beside the point.

GG the Sweet wrote:Athiests and Christians don't have different world views?

An atheist and a Christian can agree on everything except the belief that Jesus was the Jewish messiah and son of God. They don't have to have different world views. Thinking that we should be nice to each other, shouldn't steal, shouldn't murder, that America is really nifty and all sorts of things are not exclusive to Christians.

Ahtman wrote:I feel like we are having the conversation from A Bug's Life .

Flik: Here, pretend this is a seed.

Dot: But it's a rock.

Flik: I know, I know, but let's for a minute pretend it's a seed, lets use our imaginations. You see our tree? Everything that is in that giant tree is contained inside this tiny seed. All it needs is some time, a little sunshine and rain, and voilá!

Dot: This rock will be a tree?

Flik: Seed to tree, you have to stay with me. Now, it may seem that you can't do anything, but that's just because you're not a tree yet. You just have to give yourself more time. You're still a seed.

Dot: But it's a rock.

You have defined. This thread.

generalgrog wrote:OK.. so educate me then. What's the difference between "a lack of belief in santa" and a "possible belief in the lack of santa".

GG

No, you've gotten it wrong again.

Position 1 = a belief in the lack of Santa

Position 2 = a lack of belief in Santa

For Position 1 to be correct, there cannot be a Santa anywhere.

Position 2, by contrast, makes no claim to correctness. Its literally a statement of indifference.


I can't explain it more clearly then that. If you still don't understand, then its on you.

Ahtman wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Mannahnin, I can believe in a specific God and not be part of that religion out of choice

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Stephen Roberts

I still find that a poor quality quote.

One cannot believe in both one and no-God simultaneously. So I contend we are not both atheists.

I find this shocking. That fact that you seem to miss the point of the quote is also equally shocking. It has more to do with understanding how atheists think than denying god. I would be willing to be you don't believe in Kali, Shiva, Krishna, ect ect. Take how honestly you believe that it is wrong and you'll see how atheists feel about your religion.

How atheists think is denying God, one way or another.

I don't believe in Krishna etc, I also don't have issues with people who do.
The person you quoted obviously does have issues, if we take his own words as evidence, as he claims to shape his own theology around the rejection choices of others.

Essentially it comes down to religion: go pick one. We have pantheons, monothestic deities, animism, etc, even the choice not to accept any at all.

Ahtman wrote:
There are faiths that aren't mutually exclusive, it's just that you learned that from yours.

Here it comes, the claim that those of a particular faith cannot see beyond it. A propoganda tool used to give the accuser a false mental edge as the one who is 'knowledgable'.
Yes some faith are not mutually exclusive, which is why I pointed to that in my earlier reply:

Most faiths are mutually exclusive, and thus to choose one is to reject the others, this choice can vary from person to person.

Orlanth wrote:
The person you quoted obviously does have issues, if we take his own words as evidence, as he claims to shape his own theology around the rejection choices of others.

No, that's not what that quote entails. Roberts very clearly arrived at his own conclusion (to the extent that anyone can do so), he is merely using the choices of others in order to communicate his choice analogically.

Orlanth wrote:
Here it comes, the claim that those of a particular faith cannot see beyond it. A propoganda tool used to give the accuser a false mental edge as the one who is 'knowledgable'.

No, Ahtman didn't make a general claim about all people of a particular faith. He made a specific claim about you, and your faith.

I would have thought the distinction was obvious.

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:OK.. so educate me then. What's the difference between "a lack of belief in santa" and a "possible belief in the lack of santa".

GG

No, you've gotten it wrong again.

Position 1 = a belief in the lack of Santa

Position 2 = a lack of belief in Santa

For Position 1 to be correct, there cannot be a Santa anywhere.

Position 2, by contrast, makes no claim to correctness. Its literally a statement of indifference.


I can't explain it more clearly then that. If you still don't understand, then its on you.

However you are not applying your indifference very well.

Talking about Santa is a smokescreen. Santa is not presumably everywhere. However God is how to word it neutrally: reputed to be omnipresent.

So is God in your computer, is God in your car, is God at your workplace. You have to really make a choice to these statements: yes or no.

Here the waters muddy and where the division of understanding occurs. Grog and I and the other Christians or members of other similar faiths cannot say: YES.
However we can only believe yes. That belief however taken is a yes. Furthermore I believe so is similar to I wish so and I hope so, they are all forms of yes.
Likewise, I am not sure, I dont know, I dont want to think about it are all forms of NO. Noone can say a categoric no, there is no proof in no-God.

If I said there was a seven toed sloth in Borneo you could believe disbelieve or not consider the matter, your lack of belief could be neutral.
However if I said there was a seven toed sloth God everywhere, then your entire worldlook, if taken with any honesty, would either have to accept or reject the claim. There is no neutral option regarding an omnipresent deity, you beleive or you do not, its a boolean set with no third option.

Those who believe God often claim he intends it this way, the Bible also makes frequent comment as such, though it just makes the statement, it does not give the above logic.

Orlanth wrote:
However you are not applying your indifference very well.

I'm indifferent to whether or not God exists, but I'm very engaged by people making bad arguments.

Orlanth wrote:
Talking about Santa is a smokescreen. Santa is not presumably everywhere. However God is how to word it neutrally: reputed to be omnipresent.

No, its actually an example.

Orlanth wrote:
Here the waters muddy and where the division of understanding occurs. Grog and I and the other Christians or members of other similar faiths cannot say: YES.
However we can only believe yes.

The question is about belief, so yes, you can say yes.

Orlanth wrote:
Noone can say a categoric no, there is no proof in no-God.

Yes, yes they can.

Orlanth wrote:
If I said there was a seven toed sloth in Borneo you could believe disbelieve or not consider the matter, your lack of belief could be neutral.
However if I said there was a seven toed sloth God everywhere, then your entire worldlook, if taken with any honesty, would either have to accept or reject the claim. There is no neutral option regarding an omnipresent deity, you beleive or you do not, its a boolean set with no third option.

No, that's absolutely wrong.

First, Boolena Sets contain, by necessity, at least 3 positions in any instance where sets interact. So, unless you're positing that there is only one question to be engaged, you have no recourse to presume that the response must be one of the two options that you've referenced. Really, I have no idea why you mentioned Boolean sets at all, because we're not actually debating anything that follows from set theory.

Second, you clearly don't understand the point that you're trying to make, because you've essentially agreed with me unintentionally. Note that not believing in God is not the same thing as believing that there is no God. The absence of belief in God is the neutral option, and it is encompassed by the same "not yes" response that categorizes people as atheists.

Yes. No. Maybe.


AmIdoingitright?

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
The person you quoted obviously does have issues, if we take his own words as evidence, as he claims to shape his own theology around the rejection choices of others.

No, that's not what that quote entails. Roberts very clearly arrived at his own conclusion (to the extent that anyone can do so), he is merely using the choices of others in order to communicate his choice analogically. .

Yes its his own conclusion as in he arrived at it by free will

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Here it comes, the claim that those of a particular faith cannot see beyond it. A propoganda tool used to give the accuser a false mental edge as the one who is 'knowledgable'.

No, Ahtman didn't make a general claim about all people of a particular faith. He made a specific claim about you, and your faith.

I would have thought the distinction was obvious.

It is not lost on me that the accusation was about my personal faith, I was merely pointing out that is is a rhetorical strategy used in general to denegrate an opposed point of view.
Besides Ahtman has ignored quite a large volume of threads from the past, in which I have consistently proven a reasonable understanding of religious issues from a Christian perspective and otherwise. The fact that you and he do not agree with my findings is no fair critique of this, having an informed opinion need not mean sharing your or his opinion.

generalgrog wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Dogma, i think i have argued with Orlanth and GG about this on about 6 seperate occasions. You can't get them to accept the point, because if everyone is Religious, then it makes their position look better. I would'nt bother going on about it anymore and merely agree to disagree.

The problem here is that athiests bristle when you tell them they have faith. I believe they are in denial, because in their world view, athiesm is superior to deism because[u] deists use faith. I.E. they are insulted by the notion that they use faith, because they see it as an equalization of world views and they "just can't have that".

So they will squirm and twist and fight to try and argue that they do not use faith. Classic denial syndrome. You should see dawkins' nostrils flare up when he is "accused" of having faith.

GG

I disagree. I believe we are both athiests.

I just believe in one less god than you do : )

frgsinwntr wrote:

I disagree. I believe we are both athiests.

I just believe in one less god than you do : )

I can't tell if you're being ironic here or not. Did you read the entire thread?

GG

First, thankyou for adressing my viewpoint politely. I am commited to showing you the same respect.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
However you are not applying your indifference very well.

I'm indifferent to whether or not God exists, but I'm very engaged by people making bad arguments.

That makes no sense, either the argument is irrelevant or it is relevant. If the argument is irrelevant it would not engage you.
This is clearly at some level a heart issue for you, that is no condemnation, its ultimately a heart issue for anyone.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Here the waters muddy and where the division of understanding occurs. Grog and I and the other Christians or members of other similar faiths cannot say: YES.
However we can only believe yes.

The question is about belief, so yes, you can say yes.

Orlanth wrote:
Noone can say a categoric no, there is no proof in no-God.

Yes, yes they can.

How can they? There is no categoric no because there is no proof in no-God.
There is only a personal choice to disbelieve.
Likewise any yes is also not categoric, it involves a personal choice.
Both can be backed up with the evidence of ones choice, depending on what you prefer to beleive. Neither are categorically proven.

dogma wrote:
First, Boolena Sets contain, by necessity, at least 3 positions in any instance where sets interact.

I will concede that, I meant boolean switch On/Off, Yes/No, 1/0 not boolean set. Apologies for the confusion.

dogma wrote:
Second, you clearly don't understand the point that you're trying to make, because you've essentially agreed with me unintentionally. Note that not believing in God is not the same thing as believing that there is no God. The absence of belief in God is the neutral option, and it is encompassed by the same "not yes" response that categorizes people as atheists.

There is no neutral option, this point you are ignoring the fact that the question exists on a different scale to other choices. As the concept of the existance of God, or not, effects everything then any look at anything has to take into account ones choice in the matter.
The only way to have a neutral option is not never have heard of the concept of an onmipresent God, or to have completely forgotten it. At which point one may be a pure atheist, but would undoubtably not be aware of such.
You me and everyone else here has heard of the possibility of an onmipresent God, and thus the question arises of itself during point of our worldview. Sure one may not look at God all the time, but an essential choice is made, either its true or its baloney, any attempt at a neutral response has to fall into one camp or the other.

There is evidence to back this up, the fervour with which this debate is addressed. There is no such thing as fervid indifference, either one is indifferent or one has fervour. It would be vain to deny some measure of fervour for any participant of this arguement, as ones theological choices affect for good ior ill ones personality. Fervour is not of itself wrong, nor is is fanatical, but it can lead to fanaticism.
One does not sit on the fence anger, not if the fence one sits is in your own mind. For emotions to be engaged a personal choice has to be engaged. After all we are not robots.

Are we really still arguing about the difference between "I don't believe in a thing" and "That thing definitely doesn't exist"?

Heavens to Betsy.

Monster Rain wrote:Are we really still arguing about the difference between "I don't believe in a thing" and "That thing definitely doesn't exist"?

Heavens to Betsy.

Why not, both cases include:

1. a human choice
2. a 'no' result

Telling someone that they are both faith statements is the pressure point.

It just seems obvious that there's a difference between saying "I don't believe in God" and "God doesn't exist."

Maybe it's just me.

The argument may seem pety but there is a lot at stake.

Some theists proport that the difference between the two statements you made is insufficient to deny that a faith responce has been enacted.
Discussing this is the only relevant point. How atheists word the way they stand is less important to how they think.

Many atheists like to beleive that their opinion is not a faith choice, if this is considered true then they can divorce atheism from religion entirely, then at least some atheists can claim to be above relgious distinctions and potentuially free from the negative social history of religious movements.
If this is considered false then atheism can be fairly seen as yet another religion. Should this viewpoint prevail then it will raise claim that atheism is, of itself, no inherent solution to religious turmoil and its effect on society.

In terms of social application both arguments hold merit, historically societal atheism has proven to be a dangerous religious dogma used to oppress many. However other atheists can and have risen above religous differences for their own betterment or the betterment of others.

Orlanth is right, Atheists don't like to believe their opinion is a faith choice.

It winds me up something chronic!

And I REALLY hate it when people like Kent Hovind say "not believing in the Christian God is the dumbest Religion ever"

In my eyes, a lack of belief is not and never can be a belief. Anymore than a lack of trousers can BE trousers (
Oh but wait a minute....

Skin trousers!

Nice start Matty but it went all awry after the first three words.

Angst and skin trousers, and I thought stuff like purim, eucharist and hajj were strange tenets.

Well, at least i got three words right...

Yes Orlanth is quite a bit more eloquent than I, but I believe he is saying the same thing as I am. Now that dogma has explained the difference as he sees it, I agree that there is a technical difference in the two statements, it seems to me just a difference in degree. It seems almost as if one statement is one of athiesm and the other is one of agnosticism. Regardless of which choice you make, I still stand by the statement I made that belief doesn't exist in a vacuum. Belief or lack thereof is a result of experiences, whether that experience is through knowledge experience, emotional experience, or physical experience. This holds true for the polytheist, pantheist, athiest, agnostic and deist.

Also we have been talking about the "lack of belief" vs "unbelief" in regards to God. We haven't discussed the faith that athiests use, in regards to their version of the origin of the universe. The universal "Why are we here". What is their alternative explanation? Whatever answer they give is going to be based on faith. I even heard Dawkins say that humanity needs to suppress the "why" question because it is an unnecessary question. Why does dawkins think it unnecessary to ask why are we here?

One point I would like to address that has come up. And that is the notion that athiests can be good people and because they can be good people there is no need for a God. I would like to ask a few questions on this point.
A: Where did the athiest get the "will" to do good?
B: If there is no God and if our actions/behaviors are the result of purely random/inherited traits from our DNA through our ancestors, how can you say that there is evil? It seems to me that a consistent athiest would say that there is no good or evil and therefore there is no need to punish people for doing what they do "naturally". Why was Stalin/Moa/Pol Pot wrong for doing what they did? They were just excersizing there evolutionary right to engage in survival of the fittest. Why should an athiest care about morals and good works? (also before people start hand wringing about my survival of the fittest example, I'm not saying that survival of the fittest is evil, just the the way it was applied in athiestic societies)

If God does not exist than everything is permissible...Dostoyevsky

GG


Now I'm off to watch MAN-U beat Arsenal

generalgrog wrote:One point I would like to address that has come up. And that is the notion that athiests can be good people and because they can be good people there is no need for a God

No one brought that up, you just did. The only thing that might be close to that is when it was said that Christians and non-Christians can hold similar world views, which isn't even remotely close to what you are saying.

generalgrog wrote:Where did the athiest get the "will" to do good?

That is going to depend on the atheist as to what answer you get. For a spiritual answer it is going to depend on what religion of the person you ask is. The answer of a Sikh will be different than tat of a Buddhist, which will be different than a Lakota, ect ect.

generalgrog wrote:If there is no God and if our actions/behaviors are the result of purely random/inherited traits from our DNA through our ancestors, how can you say that there is evil?

The question of evil isn't now nor has it ever been limited to a simple Cristian answer, ignoring the fact the even within Christiandom you will get different answers to that question. Another aspect is that not all atheist or religions believe that evil exists. There are things we like (good) and things we don't like (evil) and that generally our capacity to understand events on a universal scale makes it impossible to comprehend.

generalgrog wrote:

If God does not exist than everything is permissible...Dostoyevsky

GG


Now I'm off to watch MAN-U beat Arsenal

Well I haven't read the whole thread. BUT i've seen you're argument before that atheism is a type of faith. The argument falls apart when you think of the implications that faith is a type of atheism.

Do you believe in any of the following?
* Baldr - God of beauty, innocence, peace, and rebirth. Consort: Nanna
* Borr - Father of Óðinn, Vili and Ve. Consort: Bestla
* Bragi - God of poetry. Consort: Iðunn
* Búri - The first god and father of Borr.
* Dagr - God of the daytime, son of Delling and Nótt.
* Delling - God of dawn and father of Dagr by Nótt.
* Eir - Goddess of healing.
* Forseti - God of justice, peace and truth. Son of Baldr and Nanna.
* Freyja - Goddess of love, sexuality, fertility and battle. Consort: Óðr
* Freyr - God of fertility. Consort: Gerð
* Frigg - Goddess of marriage and motherhood. Consort: Óðinn Can also be pronounced Frigga
* Fulla - Frigg´s handmaid.
* Gmot - God of the moon. Brother of Re`es andWeth.
* Gefjun - Goddess of fertility and plough.
* Hel - Queen of Hel, the Norse underworld.
* Heimdallr (Rígr) - One of the Æsir and guardian of Ásgarð, their realm.
* Hermóðr - Óðinn´s son.
* Hlín - Goddess of consolation and protection.
* Höðr - God of winter.
* Hœnir - The silent god.
* Iðunn - Goddess of youth. Consort: Bragi.
* Jörð - Goddess of the Earth. Mother of Þórr by Óðinn.
* Kvasir - God of inspiration.
* Lofn - Goddess of love.
* Loki - Trickster and god of mischief and fire. Consort: Sigyn (also called Saeter)
* Máni - God of Moon.
* Mímir - Óðinn´s uncle.
* Nanna - An Ásynja married with Baldr and mother to Forseti.
* Nerþus - A goddess mentioned by Tacitus. Her name is connected to that of Njörðr.
* Njörðr - God of sea, wind, fish, and wealth.
* Nótt - Goddess of night, daughter of Narvi and mother of Auð, Jörð and Dagr by Naglfari, Annar and Delling, respectively.
* Odin god of war (also the King of the gods)
* Re`es-God of heat*Óðinn (Wodan) - Lord of the Æsir. God of both wisdom and war. Consort: Frigg.
* Sága - An obscure goddess, possibly another name for Frigg.
* Sif - Wife of Thor.
* Sjöfn - Goddess of love.
* Skaði - Goddess of winter Njörðr's wife.
* Snotra - Goddess of prudence.
* Sol (Sunna) - Goddess of Sun.
* Thor (Donar) - God of thunder and battle. Consort: Sif.
* Tiki- God of Stone
* Tree-Goddess of life*Týr (Ziu, Saxnot) - God of war and justice.
* Ullr - God of skill, hunt, and duel. Son of Sif.
* Váli - God of revenge.
* Vár - Goddess of contract.
* Vé - One of the three gods of creation. Brother of Óðinn and Vili.
* Víðarr- Son of Odin and the giantess Gríðr.
* Vör - Goddess of wisdom.
* Weth-Goddess of anger
How about from this list?
* Aakash
* Acyutah
* Adimurti
* Aditi
* Aditya
* Agni
* Amman
* Ammavaru
* Anala
* Anila
* Anumati
* Anuradha
* Ap
* Apam Napat
* Aranyani
* Aravan
* Ardhanari
* Ardra
* Arjuna
* Aruna
* Arundhati
* Aryaman
* Aslesa
* Asura
* Asvayujau
* Aswini
* Ayyappan
* Ayyanar
* Ayya Vaikundar
(those are just the A's from hindism)

If you don't, then you ALSO are an atheist. I don't believe in your god for the same reasons you don't believe in these. It has nothing to do with being faithful.

But then... I could just misconstrue what your talking about by not reading the rest of the thread. I just find the Atheists are faithful idea to be total horse when you look at it this way.

In addition... in the same way you're saying atheists cut down this tree...

THEISTS have prevented this one from going up...
http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-philadelphia/atheist-tree-of-knowledge-under-attack

Just saying.

I have no issue with those with faith, I'm probably consider myself Agnostic rather than Athiest.

However I do have a massive personal issue with Organised Religion, because I have no doubt in mind if Jesus walked the earth today based on what is written about him, you would not find him here.



The hatred sprouted by these so called organised religions (especially that one) against things such as Homosexuality means I could never be a member of 'their' combined faith.

Of course in the case of the individual I am friendly with many who consider themselves Devout Christians, which as I said above is no issue, as long as they don't try and bring me into the fold, we're all good.

I must pause and note mind, I do find it greatly amusing how 'God' is sacred, pure and true, while Gaia, Zeus and Odin and other pagan or ancient Gods are not.

My personal real belief is it has been a 'keep me in power' tool, while giving the down trodden something to look up to after a lifetime of toil.
Today it is used as a coping mechanism to the thought of death, even though Science is contridicting the truths of the 'book' with each passing year.

I have no other real views other than that, no Christian is going to convince me to go to church and pray for their version of 'God' and I don't expect to sway anyone away from their faith either.

Those are just my thoughts on the matter.

How do the other gods have any relevance to the Christian one?

Frankly, I don't know for sure if some spiritual being that calls itself Ptah is running around out there somewhere and I'm not sure what bearing it would have on my life if I did.

"Thou shalt have no other Gods before me" could easily be understood to mean that there are other powers out there. Pick a team.

Monster Rain wrote:"Thou shalt have no other Gods before me" could easily be understood to mean that there are other powers out there. Pick a team.

On a more serious note though, God was originally reffered to as 'The God in the Mountains', by the Egyptians I believe. I can't recall Moses' response to that though.