1 person likes this
UMO - an Undetectable Mythological Object
I have many times in conversation with christians used the term "God", "a god", "your god" or "the judeo-christian god" when discussing hypothetical properties, actions, morals or aspects of some kind of theistic entity, usually the object of the other person's beliefs.
More often than not, however, the believer seems to get confused by me using the word "god" in any of the above fashions. To theese people, the absolutely, all categories, most significant feature of anything remotely connected to the term "god" seems to be that it exists. They don't seem to be able to keep in mind that I am as sure of the non-existence of any god-like creature as I am of the non-existence of mr Santa Claus, although I am capable of discussing features of an imaginary god as well as of Santa.
So when I point out that the god of the bible is a dilettante with despicable morals, saying: "Aha! I thought you said there were no god! Got you!" isn't a valid comeback.
Therefore I have started using the term "UMO" from time to time, as a reminder that I'm referring to an imaginary object and not something that I believe exists in any way or form.
It can look like this:
"If your UMO really were that omnipotent he or she would really not have any problems making a believer out of me. I believe lots of things that are mysterious and not in our everyday experience. All I need is good, consistent evidence that doesn't contradict what is demonstrably true about nature. That or a very direct contact/epifany. Neither of those alternatives should really be a problem for a UMO potent enough."
Now, for the many christians that are able to truly remember my position, the term "god" works just fine in our conversations and thus I don't bring out the UMO just for the sake of it.
Also, naturally UMO works fine for all mythological objects, from unicorns and teapots to Allah, Jehovah and FSM.
I have many times in conversation with christians used the term "God", "a god", "your god" or "the judeo-christian god" when discussing hypothetical properties, actions, morals or aspects of some kind of theistic entity, usually the object of the other person's beliefs.
More often than not, however, the believer seems to get confused by me using the word "god" in any of the above fashions. To theese people, the absolutely, all categories, most significant feature of anything remotely connected to the term "god" seems to be that it exists. They don't seem to be able to keep in mind that I am as sure of the non-existence of any god-like creature as I am of the non-existence of mr Santa Claus, although I am capable of discussing features of an imaginary god as well as of Santa.
So when I point out that the god of the bible is a dilettante with despicable morals, saying: "Aha! I thought you said there were no god! Got you!" isn't a valid comeback.
Therefore I have started using the term "UMO" from time to time, as a reminder that I'm referring to an imaginary object and not something that I believe exists in any way or form.
It can look like this:
"If your UMO really were that omnipotent he or she would really not have any problems making a believer out of me. I believe lots of things that are mysterious and not in our everyday experience. All I need is good, consistent evidence that doesn't contradict what is demonstrably true about nature. That or a very direct contact/epifany. Neither of those alternatives should really be a problem for a UMO potent enough."
Now, for the many christians that are able to truly remember my position, the term "god" works just fine in our conversations and thus I don't bring out the UMO just for the sake of it.
Also, naturally UMO works fine for all mythological objects, from unicorns and teapots to Allah, Jehovah and FSM.