Fahrenheit
its a generic all-inclusive argument by atheism
”
Whether it is or isn't is not relevant as you still need to specify which one of the 2850 gods, not including hindu gods, you are referring too. Incidently Atheists put arguments forward not Atheism, Atheism is simply a meaningless title to define them as a group, they are simply like minded people.
if the atheist argument doesn't specify, a rebuttal of that argument is not required to specify
“
Originally Posted by LG
so what are the great cultural contributions of mermaids?
”
They are equal to any gods, they have the same concistency as gods. if you have verifiable prove of a difference, feel free to post it, thank you.
yes?
so what are the great
cultural contributions of mermaids, since you think they are of the same consistency as god?
“
Originally Posted by LG
you can add faeries, orks, unicorns and satyrs too if you think it bolsters your argument
”
It's not relevant whether it bolsters mine, it's more relevant that it destroys yours.
still waiting for a cultural contribution .....
“
Originally Posted by LG
If we are social animals, its kind of ironic how that society always coalesces around theistic/metaphysical issues.
”
Does it, we must live on different planets.
assuming you are not posting from Mars, I would assume so
But admittedly there are a lot of people who think their in touch with imaginary beings.
and admittedly there are a lot who are not
so once again, its ironic how society
always coalesces around theistic/metaphysical ideas
“
Originally Posted by LG
As for Aesops fables and Arabian nights, the theistic/cultural influences in them are more apparent and direct than the midday sun. (To say the least, I think you would have assigned yourself a very difficult task if you set out to explain how the morality/metaphysical concepts these works contain is somehow independent from the cultures they arose from ... ok maybe you could do it on sciforums, but amongst an educated forum, I doubt it)
”
The point was made a won, just throwing red herrings around does not help you argument.
Coming from a person who has just opened up with two red herrings, its not clear on what authority you transgress dominant academic ideas on the topic. I mean fair enough, academics can get it wrong, but if your argument boils down to something like "because I say so" it doesn't warrant a lot of discussion.
Morals can come from any book, thats because we as the writers have a basic morality already.
on the contrary, morals develop from a social environment and social environments develop from philosophy - in other words we are "trained" in morals - anyone who comes with ten feet of sociology will probably tell you the same thing
“
Originally Posted by LG
so what does that tell you about the truth?
”
That the truth is the truth and the imagination is purely the imagination. No connection should or need be made.
ok
I guess the topic gets kind of interesting when one starts to approach what
constitutes truth and imagination, aside from self referential banter.
“
Originally Posted by LG
Its boring, uneventful, uninspiring?
I guess that would make communist russia the high point of our civilization.
Would you want to live there?
”
No but it seems you would like to. As you seem to think the truth is boring, uneventful, uninspiring.
well anything less is imagination ... according to you
“
Originally Posted by LG
So all that is universally valuable in life has its roots in delusion?
”
It has it's roots in the Imagination, if you wish to call the Imagination, Delusion thats your perogative.
well you just openly declared that truth and imagination are diametrically opposed several paragraphs up ....
:bugeye:
However if a person lived their life according to there Imagination, then I would have to agree with you and call it Delusion.
In that case I guess its lucky that there is always a minor element of misanthropic sociopaths to act as vanguards for the truth