Hacker News Reader

Comment by GreenWatermelon | Hacker News Reader

> It seems obvious to me that the gods of all religions are designed by human minds to be receptive to human interests, otherwise nobody would bother worshipping them

Nah that's just what atheists convince themselves. There's nothing obviously nor truthful about this conclusion or the line of reasoning behind it.

All arguments for and against the existence of God are inherently unfalsifiable, but that doesn't mean atheism is inherently more logical than theism.

In fact, from my point of view, the existence of God is way more logically sound than the alternative, and atheists are the ones following delusions and worshipping their own egos

View on HN

All arguments for and against the existence of God are inherently unfalsifiable, but that doesn't mean atheism is inherently more logical than theism.

I'm guessing you're one of those people who thinks atheism means a belief in the absence of a god, rather than its actual meaning, which is an absence of a belief in a god.

"Writers disagree on how best to define and classify atheism, contesting what supernatural entities are considered gods, whether atheism is a philosophical position or merely the absence of one, and whether it requires a conscious, explicit rejection; however, the norm is to define atheism in terms of an explicit stance against theism." (emphasis mine)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

There's no need for us to argue against the existence of God or other ludicrous hypotheticals, that's the whole point of Russell's Teapot.

As to the particulars of the imagined God, actually we do have some evidence for the parameters. The Princess Alice experiments in particular illustrate one desirable property, God (in the experiment, "Princess Alice") should provides behavioural oversight. An imaginary being can deliver effective oversight which would otherwise require advanced technology, but to do so the being must also believe in these arbitrary moral rules.

And that matches what we observe. People do buy Sithrak T-shirts, but, more or less without exception they don't actually worship Sithrak, whereas loads of people have worshipped various deities with locally reasonable seeming moral codes and do to this day.

I wasn't making an atheistic argument. I'm saying that if God exists and is the infinite creator of everything, it's suspiciously convenient that he also happens to be interested in human affairs. Why does theism have to go hand-in-hand with the belief that God loves us? The former may have philosophical merit. The latter, which makes the bulk of the religious, is what I am saying is made up. We can certainly assign moral value to our own lives, but to assert that God just so happens to assign equivalent moral value to us is what I view as hubris.

You haven't demonstrated why it's hubris, only claimed that it is so.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com