Now, Aqueous I invite you to clarify your statements.
Religion according to Aqueous Id: -
“all religions are nothing more than the perpetuation of myth, legend and fable passed down from cults of antiquity which were steeped in superstition and ignorance of the laws of nature.” – Aqueous Id
Ultimately your pronunciations relate to the perceived reliability of religious history and the exegeses of holy books. These are interesting topics but irrelevant to the present discussion. If you disbelieve in the existence of God based on the conclusions of a subset of archaeologists and historians, you’re engaging in the study of the fallibilities of man and the robustness of his scholarly and scientific methods; as such, your grievances about religious history have no bearing whatsoever on the question of the existence of God.
Without equivocating, it's safe to say that God does not exist for a multitude of reasons, but the overriding one - the one that makes all inquiry moot - is that this is nothing more than "hearsay upon hearsay" (Thomas Paine), that "men invented the gods" (Critias) and thus there is nothing for the lowly creature to reach beyond his grasp to discern, other than the fantasy that created all religions in the first place.
This is fluff. Do you actually have a legitimate reason at all, let alone a ‘safe’ one? Your Thomas Paine quotation is completely out of context (he was discussing the Virgin Birth), and as for your Critias quotation – man invented the computer too, so what is your point exactly? This then brings us to your 3rd reason, “there is nothing for the lowly creature to reach beyond his grasp to discern“, which brings us full circle to my original point about the limits of empiricism and the intellectual and perceptive faculties of man.
The rejection of the evidence of evolution and the Big Bang in deference to superstition, myth, legend and fable also speaks to the limitations of humans, but neither of these is an indictment against atheism.
Equivocation of theism with rejection of the Big Bang, superstition, myth, legend and fable is fallacious.
First, humans evolved from apelike protohumans which follows a long evolutionary succession over a billion years or so. To say otherwise is to live in denial of evidence
A billion years! Goodness grief! How you managed to reach all the way back into the pre-Cambrian and imagine that a period characterized still by Proterozoic unicellularity was, rather, marked by human divergence from ‘apelike protohumans’ is disturbing. Hand in your evolutionist card at the front desk.
Rather than wasting our time casting aspersions against science, academia, and the evidence of nature
Equivocation of theism with casting aspersions against science, academia, and the evidence of nature is fallacious.
The evolution of H. sapiens sapiens was completed millions of years before there was even a written language from which any estimate can be made about when the earliest conceptualization of infinity arose.
The clerk at the front desk is still waiting. Firstly, evolution of Homo sapiens sapiens is never completed – we are still evolving. Secondly, the emergence of Homo sapiens sapiens took place 200,000 years ago, not “millions of years” ago.
These are your personal forays into renouncing logic altogether since you already know religious argument withers under the scrutiny of valid logic. … You will quickly lose your religion and return to your application of logic as a matter of survival.
More fluff. Please do not keep us in suspense, we are looking forward to you sharing the ‘valid logic’ which will wither theism.
What's been defended is the sanctity of education. […]Eventually if you ever play your hand we'll probably converge on whatever gripe you have against academia and atheism and then we can skip the generalities.
Equivocation of theism with attacks on the ‘sanctity of education’ and gripes against academia is fallacious.
