I will accept your word on that.
Jolly good.
And you consider this statement reasonable? Amazing that such an obviously acute mind should come to such a conclusion.
Ok, look at it this way. If we assume for the moment that the cause of the universe was natural (as opposed to something supernatural) would that mean that a brick necessarily has the capability to cause the universe? No, clearly not. What about something bigger? Could we safely argue that a star could cause a universe? No, again there’s no logical line of argument there. A galaxy? A supercluster? No.
So if we assume that something “natural” outside the universe caused it, that does not mean that anything natural inside it shares that capability. The argument obviously also goes the other way, just because nothing natural inside the universe has that capability doesn’t mean that anything outside shares that lack.
Not a bit. Common sense is a testimony that we are all basically alike. Since, historically, man has believed in a god of some kind, it should lead us to ask why. My answer is that he has looked boldly at the universe and decided, quite honestly, that it and its " workings " belong to a " god " with the power to " bring it off. "
And of course plenty of other answers are available. For example that it resulted from the evolutionary advantage given in assigning intent to perceived incidents, whether those incidents were actually driven by an agent or not. Or that belief in deities provided a useful stabilising influence on early human cultures. Etc
And to dismiss this as lacking argumentive or truth value is more than arrogant and smug. It smacks of intellectual elitism. A hex on the common herd, what could they possible know compared to we who are so well educated and so brilliant?
Noting that “common sense” has led many people from the same data to different conclusions is not elitist, indeed it could be argued to be quite egalitarian. At least it isn’t saying that anyone who reaches a different conclusion is lacking common sense.
Come now Constance, isn’t that really what you want? You don’t want God to exist. The evidence is the history of your posting. Consequently, you don’t want religion - at least the Christian religion to exist.
Not at all, religion is (in some ways at least) useful. It provides people with a comforting set of beliefs, some people behave better with religious beliefs than they would without them, it has a stabilising effect in some cultures etc. Alas it does also have some negative effects - it causes some people severe cognitive dissonance, it makes some people act worse than they otherwise would, and it causes destabilisation and violence in some cultures.
Ideally you’d want the positive effects of religion without the negative ones. Whether or not this is achievable is of course a different question.
And while I can’t picture you " screaming and stamping their feet, " many of your fellow atheists are doing just that. It is well known, so it won’t do to deny it.
If you say so, it’s not something I’m aware of, but there again I don’t pay too much attention to my “fellow atheists” so it’s quite possible I’m simply haven’t noticed such goings on.
