SnakeLord said:That's wrong for a start.
gods can exist, as can hairy invisible leprechauns, but there is currently no evidence to suggest they do.
Hope that has helped.
But that is more an agnostic veiw than an Atheist view.
SnakeLord said:That's wrong for a start.
gods can exist, as can hairy invisible leprechauns, but there is currently no evidence to suggest they do.
Hope that has helped.
TW Scott said:That god can't possibly exist becuase as of yet we have no contemporary evidence.
It is just another apeal to incredulity. It's all they have and one day it will be taken away.
Theists seem so eager to have atheists appear as dogmatic as they are. Apparently they envy our well-adjusted rationality.TW Scott said:But that is more an agnostic veiw than an Atheist view.
superluminal said:Theists seem so eager to have atheists appear as dogmatic as they are. Apparently they envy our well-adjusted rationality.
SnakeLord said:That's wrong for a start.
gods can exist, as can hairy invisible leprechauns, but there is currently no evidence to suggest they do.
Hope that has helped.
wow! this is beyond doubt the most incredibly stupid, statement, especially coming from a supposedly educated person.lightgigantic said:Therefore you find that large portions of the earth's population in all times and places (despite boundaries of time, geography, language and culture) have upheld a concept of god
to continue, as man populated the earth he broke off into smaller groups, which over time gained there own myths and legends, some as extentions of the earlier ones and also completely new ones such as elves, orks, dragons, unicorns, etc etc...lightgigantic said:while only a tiny portion of europe in a particular era of time by a certain class of people upheld that there were leprechauns (perhaps even less described them as hairy and invisible)
but they did, they used to leave out milk and whisky little feasts as offerings, to these little supernatural gods.lightgigantic said:but then they never attributed leprechauns to possessing divine capacities for the creation, maintenance and dissolution of the cosmic manifestation.
Yet another who doesn't know their agnostic stance from their atheist stance.TW Scott said:But that is more an agnostic veiw than an Atheist view.
dansufc said:any religion i dont care which just prove to me that your god is real! thanks in advance
Looking at that evidence objectively god becomes more credible than invisible hairy leprechauns.
pavlosmarcos said:wow! this is beyond doubt the most incredibly stupid, statement, especially coming from a supposedly educated person.
man from his emergance has formed societies, and myths and legends have been passed down, as he gradually populated the earth.
to continue, as man populated the earth he broke off into smaller groups, which over time gained there own myths and legends, some as extentions of the earlier ones and also completely new ones such as elves, orks, dragons, unicorns, etc etc... ]
SnakeLord said:What are you talking about? The only "evidence" {?} you have is that one is more popular than the other. Argumentum ad Populum... gotta hate the stupidity of it.
As an interesting side note; Pretty much every day I see someone give prayer to leprechauns: ("touch wood"/"knock on wood").
People also leave out milk for their dogs, and offerings and feasts for vice chancellors and the like - does that mean that they believe dogs and vice chancellors are controllers of the creation maintenance and destruction of the universe?
The point is that virtually all cultures attribute god to reality whereas only a tiny fraction attribute leprechauns to reality.
People attribute qualities to god that are not found in leprechauns
so all this indicates that seeking a definition of god through a definition of leprechauns is fallacious.
SnakeLord said:No, it's generally just to stop the dog going thirsty. There is however a slight difference between dogs and leprechauns. Interestingly enough, drink and food is quite often left out for supernatural entities - from santa to elijah and so on.
It could certainly point towards a common ancestor.
As far as god beliefs go, you can easily see the extent of beliefs spreading - from Sumerians -> Babylonians -> Akkadians -> Jews -> Christians/ Greeks -> Romans etc.
In the words of Dire Straits; "first came the churches, then came the schools.." Once a belief was formed, it would have been impossible for it not to spread and mutate/evolve.
What archeological record do you use? The fossil record? The timeline guaged by linguists? Or the time line guaged by monitoring estimations of tribal shifts?
What era do you place the Sumerian era?
Do the members of Dire Straits examine these questions in their spare time?
What evidence do you have that the (apparant) original perception of the sumerians was false or a product of imagination?
What actually is the original idea you are referring to?
What evidence do you have that it mutated?
Anyway i could go on and on but there are quite a few assumptions built into your presentation
I guess the main one innvolves the summerians as the source of all religious thought in the world.
I don't think he's being exact in his timeline - and is using it merely as representative of how things can, and might have, spread.lightgigantic said:Anyway i could go on and on but there are quite a few assumptions built into your presentation - I guess the main one innvolves the summerians as the source of all religious thought in the world.
you cannot be serious surely.lightgigantic said:So what you are saying is that the idea of god was originally formed in one location or society and that it spread all over the world and became corrupted into stories of fiction. Have you got any evidence where that society was located? Have you got evidence of this original concept of god? Have you got evidence of the progress of corruption up to the level of elves and fairies? Or is the whole idea influenced by a few fictional elements also?
nobody said it was, the idea/myth behind a god was formed in these societies.lightgigantic said:Even if we give you the benefit of the doubt and say that god was originally developed in one society
to the societies at the time it was'nt false( for instant a sun god, it brings warmth and light, makes food grow on trees) to man at the time the sun was a god, which in turn developed into something more over the eons.lightgigantic said:it still doesn't determine whether that perception was false,
yes and devils, demons, angels, unicorns, dragons, talking serpents, etc.......lightgigantic said:even is the consequent results of that perception are (fairies, elves etc)
The point is that it is not clear what your approach to god is
Like for instance your time line of the influence of the "god idea" is very sketchy
Like for instance archeologists have just uncovered a human settlement dating back to 9500 BC off the coast of India - where does that leave the summerians at 8000BC? I guess its time to rewrite the books (again)....
the logic behind this statement is that once a particular culture at a particular time held that vampires exist - this idea has influenced a variety of fiction writers who write books not with the view for dilineating reality but entertaining people.
Also if you play a game where the object is not to speak clearly or pass information on in a reliable fashion, it is not uncommon for the original message to be garbled.
Amongst the many scriptures of the world there is a scripture from a particular culture amongst the many cultures in the world that made references to incidents in ancient history - In this scripture there are words that bear similarity to a culture from a more ancient culture - All this is overwhelming evidence of - (I'm not sure even what your conclusion is - that they inaccurately perceived an objective phenomena? That they imagined the whole thing?)
and therefore all religions from all times are fallacious just like the before mentioned vampires and fairies and scripture is like the work of influenced fiction writers
I guess you might want to begin by addressing how even non fiction writers are subject to influence.
Why does influence suggest fallacy?