That is, monotheistic as in One without another. If there is no “other”, then God cannot be individuated.

Sure it can be. The adhearants to the Abrahamic pantheon do it as a matter of routine.

Your understanding of the three Abrahamic religions is superficial and flawed. At their core, none of those religions postulate an individuated God. Some of their adherents who misunderstand the teachings may falsely believe in an individuated God but the religions do not. Your argument is only with the fundamentalists/literalists who mistakenly think God is an individual. Because you think in terms of God being an individual you too are a fundamentalist.

This may help - because God is everywhere, all the time, God cannot be seen or even understood using linear rationality (because it is mired in time and space). Accordingly, some attempt to apply human relationship models to their RELATIONSHIP with God, i.e. parent-child, master-servant, friend, etc. This could be one source of the mistaken belief that God is an individual.

The other reason is simply ego. Some are so enamored with their abilities to think and create that they mistakenly attribute their form to God the “Creator” of all.

Your understanding of the three Abrahamic religions is superficial and flawed. At their core, none of those religions postulate an individuated God.

Simply wrong. That’s exactly what they do. Islam being the most extreme of the lot in proclaiming “There is no god but God.”

You failed AGAIN to improve on your mistakes. Your “debating” tactic seems to be to keep repeating your bias on the assumption that the more times you repeat your nonsense the more likely it is that someone will believe it. That is a logical error appropriately known as argumentum ad nauseum.

If you want to know why polls are unreliable, it helps to know that they are never any better then the honesty of the people taking the poll and the honesty of the people who voluntarily respond to the poll. Until you can find a foolproof way past these problems, polls are and will remain useless as ANYTHING other then a moderately useful way of understanding what the opinions of a given demographic just happen to be.

If you can’t or won’t understand that, then you and I really have nothing further to discuss.

factfinder - 01 October 2011 11:12 AM

Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 01 October 2011 09:17 AM

The issue of church taxation is a red herring. Despite the “loss” of tax revenue from churches, that “loss” is more than made for by the increased generosity of those who attend churches.

And these same people, if they’re being generous because the mean to be generous and volunteer more time and money would be doing the same thing if churches, synagoges, temples, mosques and assorted other places of worship didn’t exist.

Genuinely altruistic people just do business that way, and without being motivated by some imaginary guy or gal in the sky looking over their shoulders.

You, of course, miss the point. “Genuinely altruistic people” do not “do business that way” as the poll so amply demonstrated. The poll showed that if they were not churchgoers they are less apt to be as generous than churchgoing people. Churchgoing people are more generous with time and money BECAUSE they attend church and are imbued by the lessons learned there. Those who do not go to church are less generous because they are unaware of those lessons, they have not overcome their ego sufficiently, and have not formed the appropriate mental state to be genuinely generous.

Your comments are wishful thinking, not in line with the poll. Also, they are not on topic regarding taxation.

Oh, yes, no major religion claims God to be an individuated entity. You might want to get your facts straight.

  Churchgoing people are more generous with their time and money because they are morons.