Theism is Primitive Thinking

a book is only given as much credit as the reader assigns to it..
the non-reader relies on the readers reviews...

i believe all three books have a clue..just a matter of those religions not being extremist....and discuss the differences instead of fighting about it..who knows..we just might learn something new....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But a book is never proof.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Does that make it proof?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Then, a book can be valid, invalid or anything in between, depending on what the reader assigns to it, making it entirely self-defeating futile exercise.

Credit is assigned where credit is due.

Sheep following sheep.

They're all extremists. You've had centuries to discuss the differences and all you ever do is fight about it.

No. You. Won't. Learn. Ever.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Mod Hat,

Anyways.... getting back to topic....

 

how many times do we reference a dictionary as proof?
a Phonebook? do you own a PDA?...

 

NMS,

Only a fool does.

Reference to documentation can only provide supporting evidence, not proof. That is the distinction I believe Dywyddyr, Q, and others are making.

These kinds of distinctions you should know.

Anyways, this isn't a discussion on the nature of proof...

 

Okay: that goes back to my original question: why are the three religious books claimed to be proof but not the libraries full of evolutionary biology books?
And no: those things mentioned aren't proof.
Ever heard of "errors"?
If someone's listed in the phone book as "Smuth" does that mean it's proof their name IS "Smuth"?
Does it actually prove they have a phone? Or that if they do, that the number listed is correct?

PDA?
What's that got to do with anything?
And yes, I do.

 

There is a little known fact of history, about a time when man believed there was no god. For 10000 years there were no theists to be heard of or seen. Atheism was in its heyday. How do we know this, well its quite simple really. Atheists did not have a bible and since none has ever been found therein lies the truth...proof that atheism dominated the globe before the rise of theism.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

which bring up my point about not everything that is in those text are false just because they are in those texts..
difference being in those who believe in the literal translation and not in the intent..

a point about authorship.

 

um..lack of evidence does not make it true..

 

It doesn't? Interesting

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

lack of evidence also does not make it false..

lack of evidence is not evidence...

...im going to bed...to bed i am going..my brain fell asleep three posts ago...lol

 

Which is nothing at all to do with the claim that those three books are proof.
Yes, some people believe that they are the "word of god" or whatever, but that's merely an unsubstantiated belief.

Um, adding stuff to my "To Do" list is a point about authorship?

 

So the assumption is that Theism requires a Bible? :bugeye:

Peace be unto you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If you have no evidence for unicorns or leprechauns, do you still consider them valid?

 

well, what are the premises? and do you mean valid or sound?

 

i don't claim they are proof..i believe there is understanding in each of those books that can bring a person to the realization of truth..(and when i say three,i am sure there are others that can qualify)

believing the bible((if it is true it should apply to the other religious texts as well.)) to be written directly from god IS a mistake..the bible was written by man..i will agree with the 'inspired by god' element to the authorship..but it it still written by man..AND cannonized by man..(check link)

a person who thinks the bible as god made, has only to look at the very last verse in the bible and ask himself which book is the author talking about?
to me it is clear that god didn't put that last verse in there..Man did after he cannonized the bible..ergo the bible is susceptable to mans own humanity

but that does not mean there is no usefull knowledge in the bible..it only means (to me) that our understanding of god is incomplete because of the books and testaments that did not get into the bible..
and maybe there were texts meant to be together that got seperated into those different books...

 

The assumption was that atheists have never required a bible. I merely told the story from an atheist perspective using theistic reasoning. Using the bible for evidence of god is no different than having the lack of a bible as evidence for the existence of atheists.

In the minds of theists such as Squirrel, it is very important for atheism to precede theism. For no other reason than the chronology of events dictating what's more primitive. In this case the first thought on the subject of god is more primitive than the second. The idea of no god then becomes more primitive than the idea in which god is. Theism reflects a knee jerk type of beginning whereas atheism suggests a second more deliberate thought out opinion.

My questions are thus:

Would it be more logical for the first thought on god's existence to be theistic in nature?

Can you have an atheistic thought without a theistic thought preceding it?

Can atheism exist without theism?

Is theism is the forerunner of atheism?

If you want to use chronology as a measuring stick for primitivity then does theism win the tale of the tape?

 

no just wasn't necessary and thought of , apparently

 

well no proof of theism so far