[QUOTE=axn;378641]No. "It" is actually a neuter pronoun referring to anything non-human.
/explaining-the-joke[/QUOTE]

So does IT describe GOD? If so, that would mean "god" is an it,
hence not a (human) HE or SHE. That is, if "it" exists at all.
Many would be offended by such a reference as "it" applied to
their (adjective) origin-figure. Even using "She" upsets some.
Not here though. This forum is very open-minded.

[QUOTE=chappy;378638]...
My descent from theism to atheism briefly paused in an epiphenomenalist stage that could have been described in that manner.
...
[/QUOTE]

I think that direction of realization (theism to atheism) is more an
ascent to the higher truth than a descent. A descent from what?
Perhaps from something more basic? It isn't.

It's a deity thing, we wouldn't understand.

[QUOTE=chappy;379157]It's a deity thing, we wouldn't understand.[/QUOTE]

You understood before I did, so thanks.

I've been atheist for so long, it didn't occur to me "deity" could be
a "higher" concept. No offense to any "deists" reading this.

[QUOTE=davar55;379202]You understood before I did, so thanks.

I've been atheist for so long, it didn't occur to me "deity" could be a "higher" concept. No offense to any "deists" reading this.[/QUOTE]For an interesting take on the nature of deity, take a look at links contained in [url]http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-topic/45b177d3ef3b1[/url]

A variant of Clarke's 3[sup]rd[/sup] Law is that god[s] can be implemented with a sufficiently high level of technology.

[YOUTUBE]5joYY3VrBtM[/YOUTUBE]

Let's put the whole thing to the test!

There is some justice after all!
 

[QUOTE=chappy;379279][YOUTUBE]5joYY3VrBtM[/YOUTUBE]

Let's put the whole thing to the test![/QUOTE]

A right wing religious nut case has openly admitted leaving a bible
"for people to read" in a place where pushing one's religion on others
is forbidden by law.

[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/02/jeffrey-fowle-north-korea_n_5643464.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl37%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D510437[/url]

North Korea can get something right!

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;379666]A right wing religious nut case has openly admitted leaving a bible "for people to read" in a place where pushing one's religion on others is forbidden by law.

[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/02/jeffrey-fowle-north-korea_n_5643464.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl37%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D510437[/url]

North Korea can get something right![/QUOTE]While I agree with your observation on North Korea, I'm prepared to argue the case on your first assertion.

In my view, there's a big difference between leaving something for others to choose to access and pushing a product. At the most it could be regarded as creating an attractive nuisance (I believe that's the American jargon) and one should perhaps leave a bible in places where it is likely to be accessed only be responsible adults.

Disclaimer: I am not a Christian. Neither am I a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Mormon or Hindu for that matter. I have talked with representatives of each of those faiths and have read at least a little of each of their religious books.

Added in edit: I distinguish "Mormon" from "Christian" because the former (apparently uniquely as far as I know) claim to have revealed-scripture additional to the bible shared with other Christian sects.

[QUOTE=xilman;379675]While I agree with your observation on North Korea, I'm prepared to argue the case on your first assertion.

In my view, there's a big difference between leaving something for others to choose to access and pushing a product. At the most it could be regarded as creating an attractive nuisance (I believe that's the American jargon) and one should perhaps leave a bible in places where it is likely to be accessed only be responsible adults.

Disclaimer: I am not a Christian. Neither am I a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Mormon or Hindu for that matter. I have talked with representatives of each of those faiths and have read at least a little of each of their religious books.

Added in edit: I distinguish "Mormon" from "Christian" because the former (apparently uniquely as far as I know) claim to have revealed-scripture additional to the bible shared with other Christian sects.[/QUOTE]

In this case, by the accused own admission he was trying to convey
Christianity to the North Koreans. I can not prove, but strongly suspect that
in private the accused would refer to them as "heathens". I think it is
clear that he was trying to push Christianity in a place where it is not welcome.

Some atheists (and some theists and some agnostics) can get along
with their opposites (and of course some can't). But only so long as
they either tolerate major differences of opinion or keep quiet.
It's in the political or public grround where one can't keep silent about
the implications of one's concepts of essential beingness, and more
importantly about the implications (which one considers errors) of one's
opposite's opinions. Religious tolerance is important, though it is simply
not possiblee to tolerate certain points of view.

But this thread is about non-pedanticism, and atheism, so I respectfully
stop here.

[QUOTE=davar55;379928]It's in the political or public grround where one can't keep silent about the implications of one's concepts of essential beingness, and more
importantly about the implications (which one considers errors) of one's
opposite's opinions.[/QUOTE]Please justify that statement.

It is far from clear to me that one can't keep silent in such a situation.