jpappl
Lg,
No what's childish is to continue to believe in fairytales.
I think you miss the point.
Its childish to relegate something to a fairy tale solely on the basis of one's direct perception ... especially if one stands hand and shoulders outside the discipline.
By the same logic, any idiot can relegate any of the high end claims of science, philosophy or anything to fairy tale, since all these things and many more require a degree of professionalism to verify, examine and comprehend.
I guess the only topics such a world view accepts are eating, sleeping and other animal activities that cover all common denominators
:shrug:
LOL, I can understand very well exactly what Obama thinks about a wide variety of subjects, this is a very poor example, maybe you can try again.
Obama is not a god.
golly gee huh
and you can understand all this without the requirement for a direct conversation ....
fancy that ....
You missed the point. We can speculate somewhat intelligently about aliens/ET because we have a lot of data to go on and more to come.
thats my point precisely - if your ideology prohibits the relevancy of the data (for whatever reason) - as in the case of atheists\agnostics who deem there is no way that anyone anywhere anytime can know anything about god - than the so called relevancy or intelligence of it amounts to a big fat zero (although arguably the intelligence behind such a supposition is a big fat zero)
God is a supernatural being that we can not know anything about. By it's very definition there is no way to further define it, or know anything about it.
there is nothing about the definition of god that makes it impossible to know anything about it - the fact that you label it "supernatural" indicates that even a person of your callibre knows something about it - in fact you could say that god is the most famous person in the world since you can practically go anywhere in any period of time and people will have some clue about who or what he is. Even the host of jokes about god that one is likely to encounter on an atheist hate site work out of a literary comprehension of who or what god is.
A cursory study about who or what god is could lead one to the conclusion that there is no way one can empirically approach god ..... which is certainly not the same as saying there is no way anyone can know anything about god
Yet here you are once again claiming that if only people would try harder they would understand.
Its not so much about harder but understanding the discipline in which the knowable claim lies.
For instance its not so much an issue about trying harder to measure distance with a thermometer. If anything its about trying less harder but using the right tool for the job - namely a tape measure.
Which is my question. What are you understanding ?
When you have nothing to go on. Nothing + nothing = nothing.
Even buddhist doctrines, which essentially relegate the essence to nothing, can literally provide you with enough reading to last your lifetime
What clues can be determined or found from nothing.
If a murder took place between 2 unknowns in a stainless steel room that was completely sterilized so that not one clue was available in any form, could you tell me who was murdered and who commited the crime ?
Now compare to what clues one can gain from a reading list that can outlast your life time.
I think the real question is why are you so intellectually lazy while simultaneously trying to vouch for the intellectual high ground?
If I asked you 5,000 years ago what a computer was giving you not one clue could you tell me what it is ?
now if I asked you what clues could you get from literally miles of books about a subject that is so well known in all time places and circumstances that you would be hard pressed to locate a geographical region in a time period that was in total ignorance of it, what then?
The problem here is that we truly have nothing to go on, so it's all speculation, it's all guesses. Yet some want to turn their guess into knowledge.
actually the problem here is that you don't have ability to approach issues of application - this is hardly surprising since its not something an atheist is really looking for in their so called investigation of theistic issues.
This is different than claiming there is no god. Which I am not doing. I am saying that man has created the gods, none of them are correct because they can't be.
and as I said earlier, if you don't bring the tools of professionalism to the question which designate a source as authoritative, your opinions are no more valid than Charles Manson's ideas on social harmony.
:shrug:
God can not be known. Only believed in. It's called faith and one needs to make that leap because one can't have that type of knowledge. Period.
ALL pedagogical models require faith to catalyze learning.
IOW one cannot have
ANY sort of knowledge without faith.
Its what bridges the gap between theory and application. If a person is so weak hearted as to always succumb to doubt, they couldn't even successfully proceed with following the instructions of a kiddy lab set