…then someone would surely invent at least one… which is the most likely explanation of why we have so many in this world to choose from.
How hard would it be to determine that the origins of a religion developed today were not based on any supernatural interventions? I mean no matter how much thought went into it, or no matter how much time it took, someone would be able to figure out it’s shortcomings or the loopholes in it’s claims.
Now how hard is it to extrapolate that exercise to a religion developed thousands of years ago?
This is not to question the morality, or the value, or the benefits of religion to you, but rather when I take a careful look at your religion, I do not see a supernatural explanation.
What do atheists think of Christians? Perhaps something similar to what Christians might think occasionally of Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims.
What do atheists think of Muslims? Perhaps something similar to what Muslims might think occasionally of Hindus, Buddhists, and Christians.
What do atheists think of Buddhists? Perhaps something similar to what Buddhists might think occasionally of Hindus, Muslims, and Christians.
But not exactly… it’s just something to ponder.
“The decline of religion in the West has brought a decline in community spirit. Could the secular world draw useful lessons from religious life? Alain de Botton offers new ways to find shared meaning.”
TestingGod: I do often ponder these questions and issue, but am not a fan of “Ends Justify the Means”
It is easy to prove to yourself that God is imaginary. The evidence is all around you. Here are 50 simple proofs:
God Character Theory: God(s) exist(s) as (a) fictional character(s), knowingly or unknowingly developed within the human brain or by a committee of individual minds.
Hypothesis: Because no empirical evidence of God(s) exist, all concepts regarding God(s) have been conceptualized, and then documented by the human mind.
Hypothesis: Because concepts of God(s) are not based on an existent entity to which they can be checked or calibrated, concepts about God(s) will diverge over time (will not be universal).
Just throwing these out there to review, hone, refine…
“A natural science that involves the study of matter and its motion through spacetime, along with related concepts such as energy and force.”
Testing God: Using the word physics in the same sentence as metaphysics does not elevate metaphysics.
Metaphysics: the context in which it is used gives a useful reading on my bullshit detector.
“Now, new computer simulations show that a false sense of optimism, whether when deciding to go to war or investing in a new stock, can often improve your chances of winning.”
Testing God: Maybe I’ve been wrong about the occasional benefits of faith, perhaps it was narcissism I was thinking of? I do think they are quite distinguishable.
“Some experts have suggested that overconfidence can be a good thing, perhaps by boosting ambition, resolve, and other traits, creating self-fulfilling prophecies.”
Actually, If it cannot be scientifically proven to exist, i don’t believe it.
But misrepresentation is fun too :)
Great strawman!
(Source: wunderfall)
