Dis n Dat

There is nothing like that. It's a made up argument with loading. And is irrelevant to this. All of that is absolutely irrelevant to the particular discussion.

You made an absolute claim. Or are you saying "some"? Okay. This claim is different and I agree with this. This is a common theme in sociology of religion. Agreed. Earlier, you did not say "nearly always". Cheers.

Kali. Is cited in Jathaka story of Veren Vera. Jathaka stories are all made up. Lilith is a God that sleeps with men if you sleep face down. Lilith is created because there is no basis in the Bible. Sahasas is a God that has a 1000 eyes. He was a player and slept with a powerful priests wife and he cursed him to have a 1000 vaginas on the body. Then another powerful person turned all of them into eyes. This God cut the rope of sticks a woman tied on her stomach to pretend the Buddha made her pregnant. This is written in the Atthakatha of the Tipitaka. Atthakatha are made up stories that explains particular verses. Sahasas is made up. In India there was a man who made a statue of Donald Trump and worshiped him as God. This concept of God is made up. Sorry if I am offending anyone, but Sai Baba claims to be God, but he got caught doing a trick pretending it's magic and the video is on youtube. This concept of God is made up.

If no study is "causal", then no study can be taken as absolute truth of any kind of causation. And I gave a few other reasons.

Evidence for what?

Have studied the study you provided? It's a correspondence study, not causal, and is giving a sample size thus cannot be universal, based on questions, which means it could easily be caught up in problems with research. It's not evidence to your universal claim that people make their Gods in their own image. Unless you change your claim to "some people" then it's an acceptable logical statement for anything like that is a logical possibility. I think you should try your best to be a little decent in your discussion unless you catch me pretending I know something when I don't or something like that.

I always ask for evidence to claims made. Always. Thanks for the generalisation, but I said I asked a question in that instance. Not throughout the whole thread. Thanks.

I did not claim that you made that exact statement. I asked a question. Ignoring your attempts at insults for what ever personal reason you have, you have answered my question so thanks. Cheers.

My bad. I have said many many times that if this is not his original claim, I apologise. Please tell me. Is the definition of "atheism", disbelieving in some Gods or most Gods? Is that being an atheist?

Is that your claim? That most people today don't believe Odin created the universe?

I didn't make any claim like that. As i have said, the reasoning that because a lot of God concepts were made up by men, that does not mean God doesnt exist. That's a fallacy of composition. If you didn't make that claim, as I said, I apologise. If you do think this, then your reasoning is flawed. It's logically fallacious. See, can you provide even one piece of evidence to your claim? I did. At least one.

It's a logical argument mate.

Sure. It could be. Even if everyone on earth disbelieve in God, God could still exist. Or as you said "real". Yes I did say that. I even gave you an example. So some concepts were invented, but that does not mean all were.

No. I am not suggesting anything of the sort. I am only saying that you are making a composition fallacy. OK. I didnt provide evidence to anything I didnt claim. Someone's belief somewhere could be true. If I misunderstood your original claim I apologise. Cheers.

Sure. There is a God called Ayyanayaka, and it is very known that the villagers intentionally invented this God who lives in a special looking tree. That's a great question. But that's not the answer to the question I asked. This is a burden of proof fallacy. But maybe for another thread. The idea that because some concepts were made up does not mean all of them are false. It 's the definition of a composition fallacy. Illogical.

Nope. Some concepts were definitely invented. But that's not evidence that all were invented. That's a composition fallacy.

Is that evidence that human beings invented God? Is not that just a tangent on a chicken or egg argument?

Please provide your evidence to this claim.

Ciao.

Nice. True. I think you could be a little more humble like Swanston who already answered me and I agree I had misunderstood the first comment. If I later pretend and use logical fallacies over and over again, then you can get worked up like this if you wish. Humble request. So what's your point? One person is atheistic about 99% of Gods? Is that even the meaning or definition of the word atheist? Does atheist mean "rejecting some God or most God's"?

It would always depend upon your concept of God. It also depends on your epistemology. Even as an atheist, if a person is addressing someone's concept of God, he should understand it. So without understanding the posters idea about God even if it's a third party understanding, it just cannot be responded to. Unless of course it's just some sarcastic comment without any substance. Hope you understand. But if you personally think the other persons God concept is like a rock or a thing that exists in the physical world, then the OP is valid. But if you think God is metaphysical, it's nuanced. Most people do not believe in a physical God. In fact, as i remember over 50% of the world are either Muslim or Christian and they all believe in a metaphysical God. Also, the Hindu's believe their God or Brahman is metaphysical and physical in the sense of pantheism so they philosophically would respond to the OP by saying you feel God everywhere. He is the wind, the ground, and you yourself. Also some Muslims like the Ibn Arabi followers in the Sufi school will say the same. Hope you understand.

How is that evidence?

How is that?

What do you mean by "your presence here is limited"? See, you cannot reason by saying "though I don't have evidence it does not mean it's not true" and go on to have faith in a matter you can't provide evidence for. Anyway, even if there are a million concepts of God, "that does not mean does not exist". Same reasoning as yours swansont. It's not good reasoning to provide as evidence for the existence of God. What is your epistemology? Are you a rationalist, empiricist, what is your stance?

OK.