Religious discussion without foundation

[SteveII]

After my last post, I was curious what AI would say if Eponovost pasted in my posts with simple prompts instead of whatever it is he is doing. So here is a chat thread from ChatGPT that was set to have no memory of any other chats (so clean slate). Not one word has been edited from my posts or the AI responses.

PROMPT: What is this guying talking about?

To you first point: Not broadly speaking. There are only a handful of major worldview categories:

1. Naturalism
Only the natural, physical world exists. No supernatural realities.
• Key Beliefs: Matter and energy are all that exist; everything has a physical cause.
• Epistemology: Empiricism, science, reason.
• Anthropology: Humans are advanced animals.
• Ethics: Constructed or emergent; no ultimate grounding.
• Examples:
○ Scientific Naturalism
○ Materialism / Physicalism
○ Atheistic Humanism
○ Secular Existentialism

2. Theism
An infinite, personal God exists and is the source of all that is.
• Key Beliefs: God created the world, reveals truth, and grounds morality.
• Epistemology: Revelation + reason + experience.
• Anthropology: Humans are made in God’s image.
• Ethics: Objective, grounded in God's nature.
• Examples:
○ Christianity
○ Judaism
○ Islam
○ Theistic Existentialism (e.g., Kierkegaard)

3. Transcendentalism
Ultimate reality is spiritual or non-material but impersonal.
• Key Beliefs: All is divine or part of a cosmic unity; the self is divine or illusory.
• Epistemology: Intuition, mystical experience.
• Anthropology: The self is either divine or something to transcend.
• Ethics: Harmony, detachment, enlightenment.
• Examples:
○ Pantheism (God is all)
○ Panentheism (God in all)
○ Eastern worldviews: Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism
○ New Age Spirituality

4. Postmodernism
Truth and meaning are culturally and linguistically constructed.
• Key Beliefs: No objective truth; reality is filtered through language, power, and context.
• Epistemology: Suspicion of metanarratives and objective knowledge.
• Anthropology: The self is fluid, socially constructed.
• Ethics: Relative, plural, often justice-oriented but not absolutist.
• Examples:
○ Critical Theory (in its philosophical sense)
○ Radical Constructivism
○ Some forms of moral relativism

ANSWER: This person is laying out a simplified **taxonomy of worldviews** — broad philosophical or spiritual frameworks that people use to understand reality, knowledge, human nature, and morality. They're arguing that, broadly speaking, all worldviews fall into just a few major categories:

---

### Here's a breakdown of what they're saying in plain terms:

#### 1. **Naturalism**

* **Everything that exists is physical** — no gods, spirits, or souls.
* Knowledge comes from **science, observation, and reason**.
* Humans are **biological beings**, not fundamentally different from other animals.
* Morality is **constructed by humans** or emergent from evolution or social needs.
* **Examples**: Atheism, scientific materialism, secular humanism.

#### 2. **Theism**

* A **personal God** exists and created everything.
* Truth is found through **divine revelation, reason, and experience**.
* Humans are **made in God's image**.
* Morality is **objective** because it’s grounded in God's nature.
* **Examples**: Christianity, Islam, Judaism.

#### 3. **Transcendentalism**

* Ultimate reality is **spiritual but impersonal**.
* Truth comes through **intuition or mystical insight**.
* The human self is **divine** or **needs to be transcended**.
* Morality is about **harmony or enlightenment**, not commandments.
* **Examples**: Hinduism, Buddhism, New Age beliefs.

#### 4. **Postmodernism**

* There’s **no universal truth** — what we call “truth” depends on culture, language, and context.
* Skeptical of big stories ("metanarratives") like religion or science explaining everything.
* The self is **fluid**, shaped by society and culture.
* Morality is **relative** but often focused on **social justice** or deconstructing power.
* **Examples**: Critical theory, radical constructivism, some kinds of relativism.

---

### What’s the point of this?

The speaker seems to be trying to **categorize all worldviews into four basic types** based on their assumptions about reality, knowledge, human nature, and ethics. It's a **framework for understanding ideological differences**.

They also seem to be setting up a contrast — possibly to argue that only one of these (likely Theism, judging by tone and structure) makes coherent sense or is most reasonable.

---

### Is this valid?

It’s **one framework**, but it’s simplified. Real-world beliefs often blur these lines. For instance:

* Some people mix naturalism and postmodernism.
* Some theists have postmodern views on truth or ethics.
* Buddhism doesn’t fit neatly in one box (it's transcendental but also non-theistic).

So, he's not *wrong* — but he's using broad generalizations that are useful for discussion or teaching, not as strict academic categories.

PROMPT: how about when he follows up with this: "Just to clarify from the outset: I've been dividing worldviews specifically on the basis of metaphysics and epistemology --which has been the context (and my obvious interest) for all of these worldview conversations. Of course, worldviews can also be compared by ethics, anthropology, theology, or cultural expression, but my aim was to capture their fundamental assumptions about what is real and how we come to know it.

Within that framework, the reason for grouping traditions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and New Age thought under a "transcendental" umbrella is because they share core metaphysical ideas (such as impersonal spiritual reality, monism, or illusion) and tend to privilege intuitive or mystical experience as primary epistemic tools. That doesn't erase their differences--it's simply a high-level comparison of worldview structure, not a claim that they're all the same religion.

I never claimed postmodernism or these traditions don't use reason--only that they do not treat reason as the final arbiter of truth in the way classical theism or Enlightenment naturalism typically do. Postmodern thinkers explicitly critique reason's universality, and many Eastern traditions treat logic as a provisional or instrumental tool, not the path to ultimate truth.

The point about the self being "divine or illusory" isn't a contradiction within a single tradition--it reflects metaphysical differences within the transcendental category. Again, these are groupings, not doctrinal summaries.

If you believe a different typology would serve better--while still organizing worldviews in a way that captures their metaphysical and epistemological commitments--I'm open to it. "

ANSWER: This follow-up is a clarification — and a pretty thoughtful one — where the speaker is addressing potential misunderstandings about how and **why** they’re categorizing worldviews the way they are. Here's what's going on in simpler terms:

---

### ? **What is he saying?**

1. **He’s focused on metaphysics and epistemology.**

  * **Metaphysics** = What is ultimately real?
  * **Epistemology** = How do we know what we know?
  * He’s **not** primarily classifying worldviews by ethics, theology, or culture, though he acknowledges those are valid axes too.

2. **The "Transcendental" category is a structural grouping, not a theological claim.**

  * He knows Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and New Age spirituality are different religions or systems.
  * But he groups them because they share **similar metaphysical assumptions** (e.g., all reality is one; the material world is an illusion; the ultimate is impersonal) and rely on **intuition or mystical insight** rather than just rationality or empirical evidence.
  * He's saying: *This is a helpful way to compare, even if it's high-level and abstract.*

3. **He doesn’t say they reject reason — just that they don’t elevate it to the highest authority.**

  * Unlike **Naturalism** or **Classical Theism**, which often treat reason or revelation as supreme,
  * Postmodernism and many Eastern traditions **question the universality or sufficiency of reason**.
  * They use it, but they don’t *trust* it in the same way.

4. **"Self is divine or illusory" isn’t a contradiction.**

  * He acknowledges these are different views **within the "Transcendental" umbrella**, not within a single tradition.
  * For example:

    * Some forms of Hinduism say the self (*Atman*) is divine.
    * Buddhism says the self is illusory (*Anatta*).
  * He’s not conflating them, just grouping them based on shared metaphysical and epistemological tendencies.

5. **He’s open to better typologies.**

  * He’s saying: *If you have a better way to group worldviews — as long as it’s still focused on metaphysics and epistemology — he’s willing to hear it.*

---

### ? What’s his goal?

He’s trying to offer a **conceptual map** for understanding the deep structure of different worldviews. He wants to avoid shallow comparisons (like just comparing rituals or ethics) and instead zoom in on **what they assume reality is**, and **how they believe we come to know truth**.

---

### ? Is it a valid framework?

Yes — **as a heuristic**, it’s pretty solid:

* It’s **not claiming all members of each group are identical**, only that they share some **philosophical DNA** at a structural level.
* It acknowledges internal diversity but argues for **recognizable patterns**.

That said, like all frameworks:

* It’s **a simplification**. You lose nuance when you compress complex systems.
* There are **borderline cases** that don’t fit neatly (e.g., some progressive theologies blend theism and postmodernism).
* And yes, **some people may find other axes more useful**, such as ethics, soteriology (salvation), or political implications.

---

### ✅ Summary

This guy is:

* Not making absolute claims,
* Not being dogmatic,
* Just offering a high-level, metaphysical-epistemological map of worldviews,
* And showing awareness of its limits and openness to refinement.

He's doing what a good philosopher or worldview analyst does: **categorizing for clarity, not erasing difference.**

PROMPT: Is it largely accurate or can I trash his posts with your help?

ANSWER: The short answer: **It's largely accurate**, at least within the context he's defined (metaphysics + epistemology), and **no, you can't fairly trash his posts** — not if you're aiming for intellectual honesty.

---

### Here's a fair breakdown:

#### ✅ **Where he’s strong / accurate:**

1. **Clarity of Categories** – He makes a legitimate distinction between Naturalism, Theism, Transcendentalism, and Postmodernism *based on foundational beliefs* about reality and knowledge. This is a common method in philosophy of religion and worldview studies (e.g., James Sire, Ronald Nash).

2. **Nuanced Clarification** – He doesn’t oversell the categories. He admits overlap, diversity within categories, and invites alternative typologies. That’s a **philosophically responsible move**.

3. **Epistemological Insight** – He's right that:

  * Naturalism tends to privilege **empiricism** and **rationalism**.
  * Theism leans on **revelation** and **reason**.
  * Transcendental views often emphasize **mystical knowledge or intuition**.
  * Postmodernism critiques **rationalism’s claims to universality**.

4. **He's not equating religions** – He's grouping based on **structural similarities**, not saying all transcendental or postmodern systems are identical.

---

### ? Where you *could* critique (but not “trash”):

1. **Overgeneralization Risks** – Some of his categories **flatten real complexity**:

  * For example, Buddhism has schools that lean naturalist (e.g., Zen), theistic (Pure Land), or anti-metaphysical (Theravāda).
  * Some Christians adopt postmodern epistemology (e.g., postliberal theology) while remaining theists.
  * New Age spirituality is a **mixed bag**—not all of it fits cleanly into “transcendentalism.”

2. **His labels could be debated**:

  * “Postmodernism” as a worldview is tricky, since it often *deconstructs* worldviews rather than offers one.
  * “Transcendentalism” might confuse people into thinking of Emerson or American Romanticism, though he clearly means **transpersonal monism or impersonal spiritualism**.

3. **Missing Hybrid Views** – There’s little space for:

  * **Pluralists** or **constructive syncretists** (e.g., someone who blends Buddhism + Christianity or science + mysticism).
  * **Process theology**, **panentheism**, or **non-reductive naturalism** — views that straddle multiple categories.

4. **Implicit Value Judgments** – He doesn't claim superiority, but some might detect a quiet bias in how he frames rationality and truth (depending on his broader context — especially if he ends up arguing for theism as the “most coherent” worldview).

---

### ? Can you *critique* him? Yes.

Can you *trash* him? Not if you want to remain intellectually honest.
But if you want to **pressure test** or **refine** his categories, you’ve got options.

---

### ? Want help crafting a counter-post?

Here’s a possible structure:

* **Agree with the value** of organizing worldviews by metaphysics/epistemology.
* **Propose refinements**:

 * Maybe add a category like **"Hybrid"** or **"Non-Reductionist Integrations"**.
 * Point out blurred lines: e.g., Buddhism’s non-theistic forms challenge the “Transcendental” label.
* **Challenge rigid typologies**: Emphasize that many modern thinkers **defy clean categories**, and lived worldviews often span multiple domains (ritual, community, politics) that can’t be reduced to metaphysical beliefs alone.
* End with **a fair challenge**: ask whether labeling postmodernism as a worldview is valid when its point is to *undermine* worldview meta-structures.

Let me know if you want me to help you write that post.

[epronovost]

I love the fact that even ChatGPT, a fairly rudimentary language module, managed to pick up on the fact SteveII categories were biased toward theism as well as pretty much every single point that were made to you. This leaves him with the fact that ChatGPT is programed to be "nice" to its interlocutor, not challenge them openly and not take into consideration any sort of motives they might have had. It also cannot know when a person makes an error. This is leaves us with post 76 as a testament to SteveII ability to generate a tone argument to dismiss or obfuscate the defects of his argument.

Also, is this exercise an attempt at producing a "worldview summary" in an effort to draw the conversation about his specific theistic beliefs to a place where he thinks any sort of argument against it can be dismissed as invalid as too small in scope? In the past, Steve has faced numerous clear "defeaters" for many of his claims regarding his form of theism.

Lately, he seems to be entertaining the possibility that since he doesn't have the facts on hand nor the debate skills to obfuscate the data in an inconspicuous way, he seems to be attempting to dismiss those "defeaters" and arguments based on the fact that none of those argument were "defeaters" for the "whole of the worldview". Of course neither could they nor were they designed to do such a thing in the first place.

In other words, arguments that shows the ahistorical nature of the Gospel's narrative for example, are completely irrelevant to the metaphysical assumption that supernatural beings exist and thus have no impact on the reasonability of his form of theism as a whole. On the flip side, arguments against the special creation of humans by divine beings have no impact on moral philosophy, etc.

If, individually, every component of SteveII's worldview could be challenged, as a whole, there is no single argument that could address and challenge the entirety of his worldview all at once in a cogent manner without it being just as flimsy in construction as the worldview it attempts to deconstruct (or so you could think). Ergo, if there are no "defeaters" for his entire worldview then said worldview is rational and the ability to generate some "defeaters" to some limited or portion of the worldview is irrelevant because they fail to address or counter other part of it. Said parts can then be leveraged to rescue the imperiled portion through a process of rationalization or post hoc reasoning. In this sense a worldview is not a philosophical edifice from which removing some key pieces can crumble it, but a philosophical hydra.

[Dānu]

[Paleophyte]

my aim was to capture their fundamental assumptions about what is real and how we come to know it.

            



It looks like you're trying to formulate an epistemology. Would you like me to help with that?

[Paleophyte]

Correct Usage: ChatGPT, what are the major groupings of worldviews?

Incorrect Usage: ChatGPT, am I right on the interwebs?

Cringey Usage: ChatGPT, tell me that the atheists are being mean to me!

[Rhythmcs]

Knows so much about this uncomplicated subject he has to ask chatgpt. Fire the writers.

[Cavebear]

A few months ago, I used ChatGPT to suggest the most productive city-development in my favorite computer game Civilization 2. I wasn't asking for any cheats (and received none). But it did give a fairly rational reply.

It was mostly about cost/benefits, which had more long-term benefits, and the order of developing the advances. I considered the response rather accurate. It did well about cities themselves (temples, marketplaces, settlers, and early military units. It did not seem to understand the use of terrain quite that well. Terrain (grasslands, plains, hills, rivers, etc) effects movement, productivity, and military defense. It definitely didn't understand much about fights amobg military units.

But the initial early-game advice was very good (and helped me in a new game). And I saw no hallucinations. I may ask it a question about the most efficient choice spaceship construction vs flight time, but I don't think it will understand that very well.

It depends what you are asking the AI and how much verification you seek independent of it.

I search trustable sites for very specific information. I engage in forums for discussion of less-specific and debatable information. AI seems to fall in between. Mostly a summary of many other sites on a subject, but also to be verified carefully before quoting it...

[Cavebear]

my aim was to capture their fundamental assumptions about what is real and how we come to know it.

            



It looks like you're trying to formulate an epistemology. Would you like me to help with that?

OMG! The Paperclip...

[epronovost]

my favorite computer game Civilization 2.

A man of fine taste I see.

[Cavebear]

my favorite computer game Civilization 2.

A man of fine taste I see.

Do you play any version of Civ? I would be glad to discuss it here, off-topic, or by email.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I read this article this morning and thought about posting it here.

My feeling is that if you're outsourcing your thinking, you're not thinking.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I read this article this morning and thought about posting it here.

My feeling is that if you're outsourcing your thinking, you're not thinking. AI makes Wikipedia look accurate.

[Cavebear]

I read this article this morning and thought about posting it here.

My feeling is that if you're outsourcing your thinking, you're not thinking. AI makes Wikipedia look accurate.

You have an accuracy problem with WIKI? Please elaborate. I've found it very accurate.

[SYZ]

...My measured and thorough responses do not warrant the continued condescension and I am tired of it. You don't know what the hell you're talking about and using AI write your responses to snippets rather than complete ideas. Perhaps your first prompt should be "Explain what Steve is saying when he posted this list... and here is his follow-up clarifying his point..." rather than "trash this ... with as much mischaracterizations as I can get away with."

There's an easy response to this dummy spit you moron.
If you don't like it, just piss off—and do us all a favour.
Your so full of shit that your skin must be turning brown
by now!

[Deesse23]

Steve's measured and thorough responses.... Condescension TOWARDS him.
Introspection does not seem to be his strong suit. Complete lack of self awareness seems to be a more accurate description.

[SYZ]

Steve's measured and thorough responses.... Condescension TOWARDS him.
Introspection does not seem to be his strong suit. Complete lack of self awareness seems to be a more accurate description.

Yes.  Self-awareness theory is based on the idea that you are
not your thoughts, but the entity observing your thoughts;
you are the thinker, separate and apart from your thoughts.
                                                          [Duval & Wicklund, 1972]

And this points up Steve's main issue;  he's unable to act as the
"thinker", separated from his internalised thoughts—which then
drive him to making purely subjective, and inappropriate critiques.

[Paleophyte]

I read this article this morning and thought about posting it here.

My feeling is that if you're outsourcing your thinking, you're not thinking. AI makes Wikipedia look accurate.

You have an accuracy problem with WIKI?  Please elaborate.  I've found it very accurate.

Well, according to ChatGPT...

[Thumpalumpacus]

You have an accuracy problem with WIKI?  Please elaborate.  I've found it very accurate.

I'm not surprised you'd be satisfied with it.

[epronovost]

A man of fine taste I see.

Do you play any version of Civ?  I would be glad to discuss it here, off-topic, or by email.

I only ever played Civ2. It was one of my childhood game; I spent hours watching my older brother playing it too. These are some of my fondest memory with him.

[Rhythmcs]

2. Theism
An infinite, personal God exists and is the source of all that is.
• Key Beliefs: God created the world, reveals truth, and grounds morality.
• Epistemology: Revelation + reason + experience.
• Anthropology: Humans are made in God’s image.
• Ethics: Objective, grounded in God's nature.

I'm going to start here, on the off chance you actually give a shit and would like to learn, and because..as I suggested before, it may help you to begin understanding others worldviews by understanding some things about your own, and theism in general.  Also, because I doubt you'd have the compulsion to go to bat for all of the theisms you believe are dead wrong like you would in some imagined contest between atheism and theism - so we shouldn't even have that hurdle standing in the way of discussing the subject.

Your first example of a key belief of theism is not, in fact, a key belief of theism.  It's a pregnant list of your own beliefs.  The only key beliefs of theism are that a personal and intervening god exists.  The nature of that personality and intervention is as diverse as the list of gods man has created.

Your listed epistemology is also a list of your own beliefs but not a necessary (or even common) component of theistic belief sets.  Not as a whole or in part.

Your listed anthropology is..yet again, something you believe, but not necessary or common to theism. When a given theistic belief set posits that gods created us, not a given, they very often posit that we are profoundly different than those creator gods. Much more often both gods and people are in a sort of community of being.

Your listed ethics are both not necessary or common to theism, and also mislabeled by you in your own description thereof.  "Objective and grounded in gods nature" is a logical contradiction.  The correct term for a morality grounded in any given subject's nature is...wait for it.....subjective.  An objective morality cannot, by definition, be so grounded.

As far as your list of naturalist ideas...which does not actually exclude theism or religion btw, just to blow your mind... I'm willing to say you got it more or less right with one massive misunderstanding over ethics. The majority opinion of ethical academia right now is a form of natural realism...the second being a form of non-natural or intuitional realism..which, despite the unfortunate naming convention...doesn't actually contain anything "non-natural" per se. It's a synthetic division. More like the claim that we, even as natural beings, just know™ some things and while those things can or might be typified or demonstrated by natural observation and explicitly rational explication - they need not be. The kinds of ethics you've likely been taught as THE naturalist opinion or the majority naturalist position - non cognitivist/relativist/subjectivist - are actually minority reports and practical or descriptive but not metaphysical moral skepticism. They're minority reports in academia, but almost entirely non-existent beyond the walls of that ivory tower, too, as a point of interest.

The sum effect being that you've failed to realize that there's no necessary difference between theistic and naturalist worldviews...and the only major difference between your own theistic worldview and an utterly common naturalist one as you've described the theistic worldview in comparison being that you contend man is not an advanced animal, reality is dualistic, morality is subjective, and a positively massive number of people from all sorts of disparate worldviews who think otherwise are plain and simply wrong. Likely not your intention, eh? Mostly because it chops the legs out from under so-called scientific creationism, metaphysical monism, objective moral systems, and independent construction as a heuristic indicator of truth. All things which feature heavily in your beliefs and rationalizations about them in contrast to others. These things, in the process, causing your worldview to fail by the criteria you yourself suggest worldviews ought to be judged. The totality of this taken into account, and even if a person very very very strongly believed in gods and had good reason to, suggests a fair and rational (if compromised, in the god bothering hypothetical) mind would surmise that some form of realist natural religion (and even natural gods) was the more credible proposition than the specific variant of laundered christianity you're offering up for our consideration.

-and wouldn't you know it...that actually is a good rough description of the majority point of view among the heavily syncretized and rapidly diminishing demographic of self identifying christians in the western world. Contextualizing the broad overlap and cultural affinity between the larger demographic groups (in comparison to any specific christian variant) of spiritual but not religious, and openly atheistic and/or irreligious peoples in the same. Simply put, we in the west all have more in common than apart, but for the inclusion of specific and idiomatic gods which are, apparently, free riders in contemporary worldviews even within those groups themselves.

[Cavebear]

You have an accuracy problem with WIKI?  Please elaborate.  I've found it very accurate.

Well, according to ChatGPT...

OK, LOL! I get the joke. But have you ever found an error on Wikipedia?

To be fair, I asked ChatGPT about Wiki accuracy. Here is the reply. And it was pretty good..

Yes, Wikipedia can sometimes be inaccurate. While it’s an incredibly useful and generally reliable source for a wide range of topics, especially popular or well-documented ones, there are a few reasons why inaccuracies can occur:

Open Editing Model: Anyone can edit Wikipedia articles, which allows for rapid updates and crowd-sourced knowledge—but also opens the door to vandalism, bias, or errors.

Lack of Expert Oversight: Not all articles are reviewed by subject-matter experts. Some topics, especially obscure or controversial ones, may contain inaccuracies or reflect biased perspectives.

Outdated Information: Articles may not always be updated promptly, leading to outdated facts, particularly in fast-changing fields like science, politics, or technology.

Source Quality Issues: Wikipedia relies on cited sources, but those sources themselves may be flawed or misrepresented.

Edit Wars and Bias: On controversial topics, competing viewpoints can lead to "edit wars," where users repeatedly change content, sometimes skewing the information.

As I said, I've never caught Wiki in an actual error, but Chat GPT raised some "possibiities"...

[Cavebear]

You have an accuracy problem with WIKI?  Please elaborate.  I've found it very accurate.

I'm not surprised you'd be satisfied with it.

That is a bit ambiguous. May I politely ask you for some clarification? The possible meanings are not infinite, but they are numerous. And they could be positive or negative...

[Cavebear]

Do you play any version of Civ?  I would be glad to discuss it here, off-topic, or by email.

I only ever played Civ2. It was one of my childhood game; I spent hours watching my older brother playing it too. These are some of my fondest memory with him.

So, what did you like about it the best? I liked city construction and tech advances. Other players I knew (I was involved in multi-player games and a discussion forum) were utterly military, trade, or gold accumulation. And I focussed a lot on Wonders. Some seemed a lot more useful than others. If I got Pyramids, Great Wall, and Great Library, I was pretty much on the road to Alpha Centuri. Michelangelo's Chapel, Leonardo's Workshop, Adam Smith's Trading Co, and Hoover's Dam were icing on the cake.

In multi-player, I designed maps for other players to use. They weren't the usual AI maps, so players enjoyed them.

I once organized college chess tourneys in the early 70s, so I knew how to keep players balanced against each other. So I once organized a world-wide Civ 2 tournament for the best dozen players. New maps, 1 vs 1. It was maddening! Getting a player from Japan and a player from England (just an example) to play at the same time was nearly impossible. But we eventually had a winner. And no great surprise, they were the 2 whom I considered the best.

The winner was some guy who won at Deity level from a single island. The second was a military specialist in Florida who utterly mastered stacking units on mountains near a city and attacking from there. It was a long and amazing game. I even made a trophy (3" toy knight on a red wood pedestal) and sent it to the winner.

My apologies to those who are not remotely interested in Civ games...

[Paleophyte]

My apologies to those who are not remotely interested in Civ games...   :

As opposed to those of us who are deeply invested in the inane ramblings of Christian apologists?  Derailing this thread is the most humane thing you could do for it. 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm not surprised you'd be satisfied with it.

That is a bit ambiguous.  May I politely ask you for some clarification?  The possible meanings are not infinite, but they are numerous.  And they could be positive or negative...

It should be clear that I don't consider Wikipedia very accurate. Of course, it's not surprising you missed that part as well.

As for what is inaccurate on Wiki, look up some topics you're (cough, cough) expert on, and compare it to the dreck you'll find there.

Do this yourself. Your homework is not my job.