Moonwood the Hare wrote:Okay I'm game tell; us why things exist in the first place.
I don't know. Nothing wrong with not knowing. But it's fulfilling and fun and wonderful trying to find out.
Oh, but theists don't need to, do they? "God Did It" suffices. In fact, I've never run across people who were more certain of why things exist at all than those people who are theists. They seem to know unreservedly!
But how do you know they were fundamentally mistaken. I know you have this idea that ancient people were sort of trying to do science but couldn't and got religion by mistake but there really isn't any evidence to support that; it's speculation on a very flimsy basis. What if people were not even trying to do what you think they were trying to do. But I will hold fire until I get your answer to the question you have claimed to be able to answer: why do things exist in the first place?
You based this on the completely fasbricated premise that I somehow laid claim to be able to answer why things exist in the first place. Well, since I didn't lay claim to that, you're now standing there with egg on your face having to say, "Oh, yeah, sorry, KTR, you didn't make that claim."
Ok, now that you have apologized for making that strawman statement, I know they are fundamentally mistaken because there is absolutely no corrboration for it, and there are literally tens of tousands of known competitive "also rans" in terms of these explanations. There is nothing in the Christian mythology to assert it is any more "Correct" about the nature of existence than that of the Iroquis mythology. And we pretty much know there are not "Long houses in the sky" as the Iroquios have suggested.
I don't think ancient people were "trying to do science" since they weren't aware of what science was. While you dismiss my analogy to humanity being like a child, what they were doing is precisely what a child does as it goes from touching and analyzing simple blocks, to stacking them, to scoping out plans to build, to making complex architectural structures. This is an anlaogy to learning, not to architecture, though architects did start simple and become more skilled and complex. But that is the point. Ancient people were trying to explain their world, and this simpler form is what they came up with. Just like a child tasting a block doesn't equate to a 101 story building with elevators, their earlier premises don't equate to what we now know about existence.
Theists have consciously trapped themselves into the "stacking the blocks" stage, insisting that doing so is what makes skyscrapers have complex systems and elevators. Well, the premise is at its core "right" -- but it's a lot more than "simply stacking blocks".
Well because people lived a long time ago does not mean they were wrong about everything and a belief in God does not imply a refusal to accept new ideas.
No-- but it does mean they have some block against discarding old ones that haven't panned out.
I mean what actually surprises me about the atheist on this forum is how little they know about modern thought.
I disagree. I think the atheists here have a fair grasp of epistemology-- in both a modern and historical context.
Anyway I'm glad you have finally admitted that you do not know what people get from the concept of God since you have told us enough times that you do know.
And... where have I said I know what people get out of it?
There's nothing wrong with security and comfort but how about challenge? purpose?
Nothing wrong with any of it, properly balanced.
I mean you can get all these things without God
Wait. We can? Then why don't we just do that? If it's possible to gain these things without god, then why god at all? Here you are saying that a god exists and has a plan which involves our safety, comfort, and offers us challenge and purpose-- and yet we can completely ignore all of that and get it without him?
But do people need to find something in God that no one could ever fund in any other way?
If you are asking me if I think they can do it without god, then yes, I think there is nothing in the god belief they get that they couldn't have elsewhere, shy of falsehood and distraction. If it is their goal to adopt distraction and falsehood, well, even then they can do so without gods, but adopting god is a pretty low-investment way of adopting distraction and falsehood.
And if they did find that could they ever communicate it?
Well, you'd think in a god-ordered universe, this wouldn't be an issue. But unfoirtunately, your god has apprently made it impossible for others discoveries to have any kind of cachet as we evolve as a species. Seems like people have their own ideas, and their own directions, and hey, he apprently created a world wherein eating an apple by oneself is unshareable knowledge. If you see him, you might want to ask him "Why?"
Yes, there are people who just don't have any interest in religion but most of them do not spend their time arguing against it.
And there are some who do. And there are many who make not a dime off it, and others who write books, lecture, make films... and make a living off of it. And the point being? What? That there's some lack of purpose or meaning to you for other people to have an enjoyment having such discussions?
You know that does not surprise me at all given the arguments you tend to use against theism - the psychological ones I mean not your abortive attempts to construct an empiricist epistemology.
I don't consider them "abortive"; though all systems can stand tightening and tweaking. What I do know is you theists, regardless of your attacks on those of us who critique your worldview, have yet to offer a single shred of demonstration that your beliefs are valid.
In only 10,000 years, and counting! That's gotta be a mean record. Come back in, let's say 9,850 years and see if the atheists have fared as poorly.