(April 24, 2017 at 9:35 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(April 24, 2017 at 8:57 am)Harry Nevis Wrote: Except, of course, that the birthday person is known to exist, we can find out with certainty what flavor of cake it was, and there are first hand eye witnesses to the party.
Well, let's strain the analogy a little, in an obviously leading way...
Suppose the birthday party was supposedly held in the early 1820's in Sri Lanka. Now let's say that the only reason people know about it is because:
a) 3 or 4 people wrote about it in unsigned diaries passed down by some descendants of the participants.
b) The details of the diaries vary but they all mention that it happened on a boat.
c) Several old birthday cards to the celebrant have been found.
d) A well-know explorer made fleeting reference to the party..
e) The diaries all tell the story of a rich guest lost a priceless diamond necklace into the water.
f) It is well known that treasure hunters have been trying to find the necklace since the supposed party happened.
So did that party actually happen and is it reasonable to believe there is lost a priceless necklace?
Again, fine analogy. You can believe both the party and the necklace being lost. It has no effect on yourself or your existance. We know both birthday parties and diamond necklaces exist. If you're trying to show how different the belief in god and belief in old birthday parties are the same, you're doing a poor job.
"The last superstition of the human mind is the superstition that religion in itself is a good thing." - Samuel Porter Putnam
