Well the stuff you are referring to as coming from the imagination is the main point of the debate. We don't care if some guy said, "Good day, sir," or that someone drowned because they couldn't breathe underwater. When I say you're saying religious texts are false, I'm talking about the important stuff that applies to this debate.
Your assumption may be true, but you can't claim it as absolutely true. That would be like saying, "There is no evidence of any gods, so none exist." Instead, it should be, "There is no evidence of any gods, so it is possible none exist, so I choose to believe none exist." It is possible that no one has had any contact with any gods, but it is also possible that they have.
I didn't claim it's absolutely true, I said it after I said there are no record of any encounters with god, so it's clear I said it as a inference to what I know. Also, I didn't say god don't exist, I actually think there might indeed be a higher existence of some kind controlling the world events to some extend, what I'm saying is that if this being indeed exists, it is most likely not akin to any of the way too personified gods described by the religions. I would highly doubt god would have a physical form like a homo sapien or some combination of animal parts if god has any physical form at all. That's what I'm trying to say, I said nothing like god doesn't exist or religious people are stupid or whatever, which seems to be always what you are getting at.
Guest Posts