The argument from morality is scary.

[Brian37]

I'm still not sure how this is relevant to anything in this thread..

.

sry my fault see post #48

Except there is no god conclusion. It's a starting point, it always has been. There has been no accepted line of thought that has started with axioms of maths or a scientific model that concludes with god - all theories that apparently prove the existence of god presuppose one exists, which is logically invalid. It's like assuming 1+1=8 and concluding the same.

Just the opposite, that is what god believers do.

Snarfwidget(assumption)<=1+potato

Good logic works like this.

1. Collect data through established standards
2. Plug data into established formulas through established methods.
3. Compare data to control groups to insure quality of data.
4. Hand data over to independent peer review to have your work verified or rejected. If verified, build upon it. If rejected, start over and discard bad data and or method.

Deity belief does not have that rigid standard.

Make shit up<=retrofit to suit your personal desires

Funny how none of the fans of any invisible pet deity have managed to beat everyone to the patent office or win a Nobel Prize in science with their "invisible sky daddy theory".

"god/s/deities/sky daddies" are a gibberish childish fantasy. It was when the Ancient Egyptians falsely thought the sun was a god, and you are not doing anything differently than they did in falling for your mental placebo.

It made sense that people made up gods when they didn't know better. But when people do that today it's like someone believing in Santa when they are 70 years old. You look silly to us. Just like it was silly for the Egyptians to believe the sun was a thinking deity. They had an excuse because they didn't know better, you have no excuse.