Claus as much as you support the position a deist god belief is compatible with the evidence, (actually the lack of evidence), you have never been able to justify how one should know about the presence of a god which doesn't do anything detectable by scientific observation. Are you claiming such a god communicates via secret messages which cause no brain activity? Or shouldn't we be able to detect this god with modern brain scans when it was in the act of communicating?
No, no, no. I'm not supporting Deism at all, and I am not arguing that we should accept the existence of a god not detectable by scientific observation. Nor am I claiming any forms of communication with any gods.
This is a stretch, Claus. First, children may believe in imaginary friends, or they may know such friends are made up.
Yes, of course. Children believe in imaginary friends when they are at a stage in their development where they can't tell the difference. That doesn't change the nature of what they believe in: That the "object" of their belief is imaginary.
What if you think your imaginary friend did create the universe? Why doesn't that make you insane?
Are you seriously claiming here that normal adults commonly believe in imaginary beings besides god beliefs?
Whoa, whoa. Why do you throw in "commonly"? Where did that come from?
It isn't a question of how common deism or imaginary childhood friends are. It's a question of what makes the nature of the beliefs different.
Are you justifying god beliefs on this absurd premise?
Again, no, and I object to your attempt of vilifying me by placing me in the believers' camp. You know perfectly well that I'm an atheist. I have never argued in favor of any deity or any supernatural phenomenon. Which you also know.
Regardless of how people - adults or children - come to their beliefs, do you find the beliefs of an adult Deist and the beliefs of a child when it comes to imaginary friends equally absurd? The idea that you can talk to someone - if that someone is really there or not - is absurd, whether it be a deist god or an imaginary friend?
Don't know, I'm not a child psychologist but I suspect at some point in early childhood Santa and the Easter Bunny and the belief one's stuffed animals have feelings all fade away.
Not so fast. We aren't talking about Santa or the Easter Bunny, because they both
do something: Give us presents.
We are talking about imaginary....somethings, whatever they are...who are merely listening to you.
It is a stupid concept. At least the child has an excuse, an underdeveloped brain.
It isn't about excuses. It's about the kind of belief they both have.
I told you the difference. Maybe you have a different idea but you have certainly not presented a convincing argument to me.
Why not? I don't see the difference at all.
Everyone here dissing Dawkins for his position actively challenging god believers.
Wait a second. There is a difference between
challenging god believers and
not being nice to them. Dawkins does the former, but not the latter. I don't see Dawkins running around, arguing that we shouldn't treat believers decently. He is saying that believers should treat atheists decently.
The discussion here is about people who disagree with Dawkin's position, in case you didn't notice.
Yes, I have. Have you noticed that not all believers are of the fundamentalist Discovery Institute ilk?
