I thought this was quite the interesting thought. I was gonna write this
as a response to one of a other discussions, but thought that I'd like
to get a bigger audience in on this one.
Many, if not all, good atheist believe that God simply does not exist. But I beg to ask the question: "If he doesn't exist and nothing in creation lends to the existence of God, why do we have so many thoughts about God? Are not our thoughts shaped by our environment? If our environment does not support the existence of a God, why do so many of us rule him into the equation? Is it that we are inclined to desire a god. Are we naturally inclined to think about one irrespective of our environment?"
The light bulb was created based on something that already existed, light! So I imagine Ben Franklin was inspired by the sun. Even the delusional has inspiration of thoughts based on things that exist. So why do we think about God if he doesn't even exist?
I still have seen no evidence whatsoever that He had to exist before He was invented by us. Best I can do is ask again, what do you think is so special about your concept of God that (say) a brilliant writer couldn't make up?
Btw, Michel isn't speaking or me. As long as you're sincere and respectful, I encourage your participation. Well, but I do appreciate the comic, because in general it seems like an accurate portrayal of creationism "science", and intelligent design theory. Sorry. :)
Why didn't the past humans take destiny into their own hands, instead of passing to a deity.
I don't think I understand this question, even after reading the whole paragraph. It's not possible for anyone to have complete control of their destiny. I wouldn't call it an inferiority complex so much as humility. The humility of admitting that one always needs to learn more, and perhaps never be able to declare an ultimate truth. All we can do is work together at understanding the same reality, and in the case of debates about what God is, science cannot and will probably never claim to know what God is or isn't, except from a psychological/neurological perspective.
I think this is actually my bottom line. It isn't up to science to try to describe or understand God, and it never will be. When I say I don't believe in God, it's after scientific reasoning where I can say with 99.9% confidence that there is absolutely no scientific evidence for God. If someday there is evidence, I will reconsider. Meanwhile, when I hear people say things like "you better hope you're right", or "you're just going to Hell then", I have evidence that A LOT of people will believe in something just because they want to, regardless of evidence or science.
His point is that people would not recognize Jesus if they saw him because artistic renditions of this mythological character depict him as a white man and not of Jewish decent. He has to use Jesus to make his point because he's talking about Jesus. And he could make a similar argument about Hercules. If modern artists were depicting him as a white man, people today would not recognize Hercules in person because he would look Greek.
I don't understand why Christians act like atheists are not allowed to talk about Yaweh, Jesus or other "Christian" mythological characters. If you don't believe Zeus existed, you're still allowed to have an opinion on the stories and characters of Greek mythology.
People tell stories about fictional characters to teach lessons about life or for entertainment. It's been going on for a long time. Christianity is not off-limits to critique just because those critiquing don't believe the tale to be true.
Simple, we like to do two things, we like to anthropomorphize things (give things living characteristics) like seeing the man in the moon(US/EU), rabbit in the moon(JP), face on mars, animals in clouds, etc... Note how the Japanese and Americans/Europeans see something different in the moon like they saw different gods.
We like to give things purpose, this was mentioned earlier and largely ignored but this is not some isolated thing. The tree example was given but I have heard of kids asked why there are waves, clouds, and other natural things and they almost always chose the option with purpose like keeping the sand clean, to give shade and so on. We know why there are waves through science we have now that we didn't have then, we learned about water evaporation and that it is the cause of clouds but without this knowledge we want to give these things purpose and what other thing than something obviously more powerful than us to do it.
This then takes us back to the anthropomorphism of things unknown, suddenly we have an eternal father figure, like the elders of tribes, that has a particular fascination with us procreating, the projection of our will to live on.
You may think your question is new but it has been answered already many times over and often used by one religion to explain to another why they created their gods.
I think you think someone else posted that but to answer your question, yes, that is the paradox. Once you use that reasoning for validation of a creation of something you can't retest then you just validated every god ever created. Fortunately common sense tells everyone that not all of this can be real (especially when one says the other can't exist).
I simply refuse to believe any without any proof avoiding the paradox all together. Sadly religions can't see the state they put themselves in by using this as a reason why others falsely crated gods when it simply invalidates their own as well.
I'm not doing anything by default. I am asking questions and attempting to stir thought. I've made a few points and that's it. All the points i've made, I made them clearly...on the other hand, I decided to take this discussion on a wide angle. So nothing wrong with discussion God and gods, I am perfectly comfortable with it and not at all threatened. I know what I believe, trust me.