View Single Post
 
Reply
Posted 2015-03-18, 05:37 PM in reply to Demosthenes's post starting "You're born an atheist. You become a..."
!King_Amazon! said: [Goto]
I thought this thread was a pretty interesting read. It's fun to see how my views have shifted over time. At this point, I'm probably agreeing with Demosthenes's original arguments, while D3v is making the same or similar arguments as I was making ~7 years ago.
I honestly can't believe I tried to argue the Christian theology, while simultaneously actually arguing a borderline Agnostic theology. My views have changed in a way that I can only describe as "progress."

!King_Amazon! said: [Goto]
Just because we aren't born with the knowledge of something doesn't mean it's necessarily untrue. I did not know 2+2=4 when I was born, but I'm fairly certain it's true now.
I actually sometimes wonder if 2+2 might not be 4. Like, give or take a couple thousand years, what if we figure out it's not. It won't happen, it's fucking retarded... but what if. I've always been one to question authority, especially when the "fact" has been told, and not proven. A written fact, that is driven into ours heads without evidence. You could ask any child who has been to first grade what 2+2 is, and they will answer 4. But 3+1 may become a problem. Why? Because we do not teach HOW 2+2=4, only that does =4. So, as a child, I decided repeated experiments to prove if 2+2 was 4. It involved counting various things, in groups of two, then in two groups of two, adding up to 4. Conclusion was that under all circumstances, 2+2=4. However, after being taught "God is not real" or "God is real", all experiments come back inconclusive, as God is often reported as an emotional comfort, or being met after death.

Demosthenes said: [Goto]
You're born an atheist. You become a theist by incessant proselytizing. And no, they are not equally absurd. The 'magic man' hypothesis is far more absurd.
This brings up a curious point: Who was the first theist. Who invented the "magic man" hypothesis? Did they believe this hypothesis? They could not have been proselyted if they were the first. Why did they believe it, if they had no proof?* How did they come up with it, if there was no previous evidence of the magic man to spark the idea of a magic man?? There must have been some kind of evidence of a magic man, with no viable explanation (at the time).

And no "fire hot" is not evidence. Any fucking moron would realize rubbing two things together makes them hot, because, contrary to popular believe, pretty much anything can be rubbed together. Had they started trying to rub things, they would quickly discover why "fire hot".
Skurai

Last edited by Skurai; 2015-03-18 at 05:41 PM.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Skurai has an imagination enthroned in its own recess, incomprehensible as from darknessSkurai has an imagination enthroned in its own recess, incomprehensible as from darknessSkurai has an imagination enthroned in its own recess, incomprehensible as from darkness
 
 
Skurai