This doesnt really go anywhere because an athiest could just as easily say where did god from? Eventually you have to accept the fact that A. Either there was a never a beginning and there will never be an end. Or B. Something came from nothing.
How is some crazed, judgmental, self righteous deity watching my every move just ready to send my ass to a flaming pit supposed to be reassuring?! I don't konw about the whole god creating everything, but I will say learning what I have been about genetics lately, its like a badass programing language, the ultimate programming language....I find that odd, and entertaining. I want to learn how to program in it...
I call this bad ass technology scary as hell and I find it EERIE as hell any of us as human beings, whether "believer" or not find it entertaining. I question technology....and God gives answers. Technology most often produces heartache and devastation beyond reproach......all in the name of blasphemy.How is some crazed, judgmental, self righteous deity watching my every move just ready to send my ass to a flaming pit supposed to be reassuring?! I don't konw about the whole god creating everything, but I will say learning what I have been about genetics lately, its like a badass programing language, the ultimate programming language....I find that odd, and entertaining. I want to learn how to program in it...
So because we create and build tools that look and act like us (presumably to make interactions with our machines easier and more natural) that somehow proves that we were created by a man in the sky?
Exactly...just allow the veil to come off and see the forest through the trees....THAT'S FAITH, and with faith come MIRACLES.Well...yeah, duh...
Nope just one of many psychological patterns that would show our tendency to mimic a creator. Not proof as you call it. Just showing the possibilities.
Yet you find it funny that people can deny god in light of all of this. That sounds suspiciously like you think these patterns somehow amount to evidence that something created us. Really you are making god in your image. Creativity is one of the hallmarks that make us human. This ability to form abstract thought is something that anthropologists recognize as something that distinguishes us from other primates and have found other hominids such as Neanderthal also had this characteristic. I find it odd that anyone would think that our desire to create things, even likenesses of ourselves, have anything to do with whether or not we ourselves were made by something. To me it is a complete non-sequitur.
...and God has been letting mankind know we've crossed the borders a time too many in the sick society in which we live.
Wow, seriously? Are you now trying to make up a new type of logic or something? Even if we have the capability to create and alter life or build replicas, that doesn't give any credence to the idea that we were created. It doesn't even invite the possibility. Your conclusion does not follow your premise yet somehow you think that is logical. You can't even put it into a syllogism since you're missing a step that shows why the ability for us to create has anything at all to do with how we came into being.
non sequitur
By Richard Nordquist, About.com Guide
Filed In:
Definition: A fallacy in which a conclusion does not follow logically from what preceded it.
See also:
Etymology:
From the Latin, "it does not follow"
Examples and Observations:
- "Of course, overcrowded prisons that are awash with drugs, and a system which gives short-term prisoners no supervision or support on release, is almost calculated to fail. But this could equally be an argument--the one which the modern Conservative party is making--for a complete transformation of prison regimes and a system of support for offenders when they are released from jail. It's a logical non sequitur on a grand scale to argue that because short-term prison sentences currently aren't working, we should therefore stop using them at all."
(Nick Herbert, "The Abolitionists' Criminal Conspiracy." guardian.co.uk, July 27, 200- "The difference between the post hoc and the non sequitur fallacies is that, whereas the post hoc fallacy is due to lack of a causal connection, in the non sequitur fallacy, the error is due to lack of a logical connection."
(Mabel Lewis Sahakian, Ideas of the Great Philosophers. Barnes & Noble, 1993)- "A non sequitur is any pretended jump in logic that doesn't work cleanly, perhaps because of unfounded premises, unmentioned complicating factors, or alternative explanations, such as 'This war is righteous because we are French!' or 'You will do what I say because you are my wife!'"
(Steve Hindes, Think for Yourself. Fulcrum, 2005)- "Warming was caused by sunspots, or fluctuations in the Earth's orbit, or volcanic eruptions. Therefore it cannot be caused by mankind. The 'therefore' is the giveaway, the delicious non sequitur: just because Earth has warmed for one or another reason in the past is no reason why it cannot warm for a completely different reason in the future."
(John Llewellyn, "In a Confusing Climate." The Observer, Sep. 2, 2007)
You mean that one that's 85% Christian?
Sounds like you're in denial to me. You can't seem to answer simple questions about your logic so you resort to more attacks and blame my logic. Nice attempt to put your lack of ability to recognize your own fallacies as somehow my fault. What I don't understand is why you just won't answer the damn questions rather than attempt to restate your argument.
Quit crying. You made a post on RUI that was not made out to be an opinion. You made definitive statements that at the same time made a backhanded insult to those of us that create and use such technology that you and babs so readily deride.
