[
[/quote]
The scientific probability and lack of evidence of is what matters. It doesn't matter if the idea was created by man, because if you think about it the best discoveries were first created in the mind until they were shown to actually be scientifically true.
Whether God was created in the mind or not doesn't matter, all human ideas are created in the mind. What matters is that the "God" idea whether its the original supernatural one or any "new" supernatural one, its still extremely scientifically improbable.
[/quote]
Sorry,but between the creation of God and the creation of discoveries
there is a world of difference.
The question of who made a discovery has no relevance to it's truth
as long as we are sure that it was made by a human and not by a monkey.
You ask a believer in God who created Him and he will consider the question itself as a blasphemy.
This is just the Achilles' heel of any monotheistic religion.
God in the view of a believer existed before the beginning of time so that the creation of him by man,if prooved convincingly by atheism,
is a deadly blow to his belief.
I don't deny the importance of the scientific disprove but it has at least two weak points:
1) it does not totally disprove the existence of God,it recognizes it's limits and therefore has to recure to pathetic examples as the chamber pot of Bertrand Russell spinning (and dripping)in space
2)it has little influence on the common believer for whom science is an area far away from his understanding.
Does atheism intend to remain a philosophic discussion between academics or does atheism see itself as an ideology meant to be spred between large communities?
The promoters of religion adopt willingly the position of theists and creationists who evolve almost unharmed from the fight with atheism
for their brainwashing activities.
Do you think that atheism should not use the arm of "God created by man" only because it it is not in line with the scientifical disprove?
I have not still mentioned the aspect of irrational thinking related to the belief in God which I leave for a next thread.
You have not taken any position to the problem of Destiny.
[/quote]
The scientific probability and lack of evidence of is what matters. It doesn't matter if the idea was created by man, because if you think about it the best discoveries were first created in the mind until they were shown to actually be scientifically true.
Whether God was created in the mind or not doesn't matter, all human ideas are created in the mind. What matters is that the "God" idea whether its the original supernatural one or any "new" supernatural one, its still extremely scientifically improbable.
[/quote]
Sorry,but between the creation of God and the creation of discoveries
there is a world of difference.
The question of who made a discovery has no relevance to it's truth
as long as we are sure that it was made by a human and not by a monkey.
You ask a believer in God who created Him and he will consider the question itself as a blasphemy.
This is just the Achilles' heel of any monotheistic religion.
God in the view of a believer existed before the beginning of time so that the creation of him by man,if prooved convincingly by atheism,
is a deadly blow to his belief.
I don't deny the importance of the scientific disprove but it has at least two weak points:
1) it does not totally disprove the existence of God,it recognizes it's limits and therefore has to recure to pathetic examples as the chamber pot of Bertrand Russell spinning (and dripping)in space
2)it has little influence on the common believer for whom science is an area far away from his understanding.
Does atheism intend to remain a philosophic discussion between academics or does atheism see itself as an ideology meant to be spred between large communities?
The promoters of religion adopt willingly the position of theists and creationists who evolve almost unharmed from the fight with atheism
for their brainwashing activities.
Do you think that atheism should not use the arm of "God created by man" only because it it is not in line with the scientifical disprove?
I have not still mentioned the aspect of irrational thinking related to the belief in God which I leave for a next thread.
You have not taken any position to the problem of Destiny.
