Can you nominate the passage that explains how to avoid a train while lying on railroad tracks?I suppose you can certainly safely ignore anything they've written. So long as you're not ignoring it while lying on a railroad track.
Some people believe what men have told them.But some people do determine nature as evidence. I'm wondering why you think that might be?
Again, well it doesn't really matter then which god created us since he obviously allows for wars. Right?
But if the creator lays down the requirement for you to pray, it's entirely up to you whether or not you respond.
Why would you assume any sort of method in creating the universe?
when you're talking about versions of my God, what exactly are you talking about? Give me some examples of these versions.
I think most Christians don't want to make headlines, international or otherwise. What's so great about making headlines?Ludo, I know full well you're not asking questions out of curiosity, but to make an accusation. For one it's evidenced by the fact that when you ask a question, you often provide your own answer before I do. In other words, my answer will be meaningless, except cannon fodder for suggestions of being anti-science, insecure, having a persecution complex, etc., because you've already created an answer in your mind.Here I would refer you back to the question I asked in post #283.
Sorry but your interrupting a debate with you proclaiming. Unless you intend to debate yoir comments are unnecessary and unwanted.
See post# 287Perhaps you can produce this atheist manifesto and we could check to see if you are truthful or a liar.
The tendency of humans to anthropomorphize and assume agency.Unless I misunderstand the question
I'm not sure what the difference between a natural or unnatural tendency is but humans do tend to display this tendency.Why do you assume that's a natural tendency?
Even if we entertained it from a strictly naturalistic evolutionary viewpoint, it wouldn't make logical sense.
I do not agree. The cave man that assumes a lion moved the grass is more likely to survive than the one who assumes it is the wind even if he is right more often. Nature favors the cautious and caution assumes (dangerous) agency.I will let you address this since the rest of your argument hinges on this point.
I'm not sure what the difference between a natural or unnatural tendency is but humans do tend to display this tendency.
Yes. I assume my dog loves me. This is anthropomorphize a nonhuman.You being human, do you display that tendency?
Let's say 2 tribes are at war. Tribe A tribal chief tells his warriors that their god is on their side, will fight for them, protect them, etc. Tribe B says they have no god, the warriors are on their own. Who's most likely to survive? Tribe A because they have that extra boost of confidence that B doesn't have? Or Tribe B because they are forced to fight a more do-or-die battle, and A is over-confident?All I am saying is that a primitive human who runs every time the grass moves is more likely to survive even if it is only a lion one time in fifty, or even one hundred, and that assuming a lion moved the grass is not that dissimilar from assuming a god moved the universe.
Unless you rigorously define divine and demonstrate some devinity (other than the desert) I'm afraid that I do not accept this as a valid term. Even if I did you would still need to explain the practical observable difference between a natural and a devine tendency.Since you're open to it not being a natural tendency, how about a (for lack of a more relatable term) divine tendency?
Let's say 2 tribes are at war. Tribe A tribal chief tells his warriors that their god is on their side, will fight for them, protect them, etc. Tribe B says they have no god, the warriors are on their own. Who's most likely to survive? Tribe A because they have that extra boost of confidence that B doesn't have? Or Tribe B because they are forced to fight a more do-or-die battle, and A is over-confident?And the problem with your scenario is it seems to assume the tribal view of a creator or deity is dangerous.
Let's say 2 tribes are at war. Tribe A tribal chief tells his warriors that their god is on their side, will fight for them, protect them, etc. Tribe B says they have no god, the warriors are on their own. Who's most likely to survive? Tribe A because they have that extra boost of confidence that B doesn't have? Or Tribe B because they are forced to fight a more do-or-die battle, and A is over-confident?And the problem with your scenario is it seems to assume the tribal view of a creator or deity is dangerous.
That wasn't the term I really wanted to use. That's why I said for the lack of a more relatable term. The problem with the term is that it automatically conjures up a religious image. I also didn't want to use the term unnatural because in the case of an outside agent being responsible for our existence, whatever a universe creator does as far as a creation process wouldn't be unnatural for the creator.Unless you rigorously define divine and demonstrate some devinity (other than the desert) I'm afraid that I do not accept this as a valid term. Even if I did you would still need to explain the practical observable difference between a natural and a devine tendency.
Tribe B, obviously. Tribe A are idiots who have no brains in their heads, can't reason or rationalize so they will lose. This is of course, unless Tribe B are also idiots and they believe Tribe A has a god.Let's say 2 tribes are at war. Tribe A tribal chief tells his warriors that their god is on their side, will fight for them, protect them, etc. Tribe B says they have no god, the warriors are on their own. Who's most likely to survive?
You have strayed into conjecture. We do not know enough about the two tribes to make an accurate prediction. As for "my scenario" I do not remember presenting any scenario that assumes a deity is dangerous.
Nature favors the cautious and caution assumes (dangerous) agency.
and that assuming a lion moved the grass is not that dissimilar from assuming a god moved the universe.
That is incorrect, theists make efforts to sound like primitive tribal folk, they do that entirely on their own with no help from anyone else. The rest of the modern world would like to ignore them, but they keep rattling their skulls and bones and beating their drums all day long.In today's modern world, in spite of efforts to make theists sound like primitive tribal folk
That is incorrect, theists make efforts to sound like primitive tribal folk, they do that entirely on their own with no help from anyone else. The rest of the modern world would like to ignore them, but they keep rattling their skulls and bones and beating their drums all day long.
Sec is trying to explain something to you about how nature works, pay attention and learn.
Theists are yet to enter the modern world as reason, logic and rationale are what represents it; and they have floundered.Well I don't consider atheist activists (especially militants) as representing the rest of the modern world.
I think obsession is a sign of weakness.
I think most secularists (like myself) whether religious or not can ignore what we don't agree with.
Yes. I assume my dog loves me. This is anthropomorphize a nonhuman.
