RAZD writes:
Technically speaking we have evidence of religious beliefs in all cultures. We don't have evidence of faith in invisible pink unicorns or tiny green toilet goblins in any cultures (although one might wonder when watching TV ads)
On the contrary, we do. It may not be the belief in these specific entities, but how is an invisible pink unicorn or a tiny green toilet goblin any different than, say,
kappas? Or the
kelpie?
There is plenty of evidence of faith in these and any number of seemingly absurd creatures and although some or even most of the modern "belief" is just a tacit acknowledgment of one's culture done with a wink and a smile, sometimes it is real and has real implications (google fairy belief in Iceland and its impact on development).
Just because you think introducing magical creatures into a discussion about gods isn't worthy of consideration doesn't mean that it is not a valid point.
People believe in all manner of ridiculous things, including gods (whether they are the clockmaker type or fire and brimstone sadists).
Also, couldn't it be safe to say that, based on your arguments for a creator god based on cross cultural belief for such a thing, a similarity between magical water dwelling creatures who will eat children if they are bothered (like both of my examples above and many, many others) provides enough evidence for you to believe in such creatures?
If not, why not?
"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -
The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea
™ Version 4.2
