Was this a response to my question? You are a complete waste of my already short attention span.
Limbo
- Thread starter alexb123
- Start date
And who here does this? Do you think that any lunacy you think of exists by this logic? Does it ever cross your fevered mind to consider evidence when making claims for the existence of things?
lightgigantic said:
The Kangaroo is just a deity, like many of the other equally laughable deities invented by man. Just because no organised religion or body or worship has invented it yet, does not mean it has less merit than that of the ones (thousands of them) that have already been invented or worshipped in some way.
There are literally millions of morals, motives, concepts, stories etc which all cultures have tagged their different gods with, that it remains rather obvious that all of them are manmade at the root.
Well, I'm afraid it is a fact until you have something other than faith to give.
who said anything about "any lunancy" - there are very specific guidelines for determing what is religion and what is not religion - and from my experience on sciforums, none of which is tangible to an atheist who cannot distinguish between what constitutes a principle and what constitutes a detail in religion.
As for evidence - there are many ways to determine the nature of something's existence - as for understanding god, the "flashlight" method is not reccommended - actually if you want to accept the flashlight method then it fall sback on the problems and issues of who is wielding the flashlight - like for instance a highschool drop out who considers all professors eggheads and the books they write full of crap could not be expected to determine much about an electron by wielding his flashlight
Well actually you are the one who has the ball in your court - you are the one stating that god is false, in very brave words, yet when you are asked to reveal your logic and premises you become shy - all you have to tell us is why all scriptures in all times and places are quite obviously fabricated stories
Fortunately, I happen to be a well educated adult with much life experience and many interests. You talk about understanding god as if a god exists. All you ever do is talk about how unqualified we all are to see that god exists. We don't have the right epistemology. That's philosophically bankrupt and you know it. No matter who wields the flashlight, the earth exists. Atoms exist. Clouds exist. Nothing that any human currently accepts as "existing" got that way without evidence and proof. Except for god. How silly.
Because we are adults who could recognize tall tales since grade school. The content is ambiguous, open to wild interpretation, and self contradictory. It's childish in its naievete. That's why.
These things exist but the knowledge of their existence has not been current in all times, places and circumstances - in other words for a person to know ANYTHING (particularly interms of direct perception, which is a methodology you hold particularly close to your heart) they must first come to the platform of qualification - the more elevated the knowledge, the more distinguished the qualification - if a person is not enthused to come to that platform, what can be expected ...?
(BTW - I never said "we all are unqualified")
So in other words your premise is that because you have heard stories that did not appear to match up with your current world view that were obviously fictional creations, therefore all narrations about incidents that don'e tally with your world view are equally fictious ..... do you want to clarify this premise or expand it before we analyize it?
This does not change the fact that the entities I mentioned are either observable or cause an observable effect that begs a question. "Why is this desktop so hard? What is it made of?" Leads directly to the discovery of atoms. What phenomena are you trying to explain with your god hypothesis?
I'm stating that religion is false, not necessarily wether or not there is a god. The universe remains a mystery which means that god can't be completely ruled out. I have a feeling that the true nature of how the universe came to be is beyond our guess, which means I pretty much rule out a sentient creator. Besides, for humans to guess correctely based on our first guess, would truly be amazing.
But your reliance on scripture is something I am pretty certain has lead you towards delusion. Nevermind the contradictions and obvious forced attempts at self-fulfilling prophecy, but what about the scriptures left out? There are many other gospels that were left out pressumably because they were even more embarrassingly filled with silliness. Like the one that tells the story of Jesus abusing his powers as a child, turning a ball of mud into a small animal etc... Pure fantasy.
Observable to whom?
We're not going to analyze such a blatant twisting of my words into a strawman that you can beat on. Sorry. The premise is that inconsistent, selfcontradictory, wildly unspecific, and factually incorrect (re natural phenomena) documents are not to be considered as worth basing a philosophy on.
A child can see clouds. A child can feel a desktop. What are you getting at? And don't play stupid by saying "well, I cant see atoms". I never said that. I said they certainly have an observable aspect (desktops) that beg the "what is it made of" question that leads humanity to the discovery of atoms.
Fire
Maybe you should clarify this statement - you say that its beyond us to determine whether god exists and yet you conclude by saying there is no sentient creator
Maybe you should clarify this statement - you say that its beyond us to determine whether god exists and yet you conclude by saying there is no sentient creator
Actually I have never read the bible in full - I operat e out of vedic scriptures which are a lot more comprehensive than xtian texts - but you still need to clarify the points in your opening before we can proceed because you are determining what god is capable of according to your limited senses but you determine earlier that the senses are too limited to be accurate in the first place
Can a child see saturn's moon?
Does a child calim that a "moon" of something called "saturn" has a profound effect on their lives and should be worshipped? And if they did, you can guess what my next statement would be.