(November 16, 2008 at 10:00 pm)lukec Wrote:(November 15, 2008 at 1:29 pm)josef rosenkranz Wrote: 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.
I'm a little unsure of what you mean, so correct me if I misunderstood. I think what you're saying here is that atheists can and should use the argument that God was created by man, even though it is not a scientific argument. Now, although it's a good point, and I support it, I highly doubt that it will be of any use in a debate with a theist. Their beliefs are founded on the idea that God has always been, and an argument which assumes that their God was in fact created by them will hold no water, since it completely undermines their belief system.
Lukec Hi
You understood me right but not entirely.
Did I say that the proof that God is a creation of man is unscientific?
Quite the contrary ,even RD in the chapter "roots of religions " in the TGD agrees that God is a creation of man but he underlines the unusefullness of it to the human society.So many books were written on this issue but the frame of this forum is too little as to expose them.
No atheist denies the complex historical,political,social,spiritual,psychological ,processes which led to the apearance of the symbol named God.
Now, in my opinion the proof that God is a creation of man is not comparable to no other phylosophic or scientific creations by man due to the very simple fact that no man ever sustained that any creation existed before beginning of time except the believers in God.
The ever preexistence of God is rooted deeply in any religion and that's why I say that the proof of his creation by man ,by Homo Sapiens who's existence on earth lasts for a mere few of ten thousands of years is a deadly blow to religion.
The scientific argument of atheists against theists is about an abstract God which they also affirm his pre existence.Where from do the theists take the very notion of this abstract God if not from the same man -manufactured one.
So this idea of the major importance of disproving God by proving his man-manufacture is the issue where my opinion is diverging from the opinion of other guys of this forum including Mr.Evidence of faith.
What is your opinion?
