Intellectual dishonesty, Intellectual deceit knows no bounds, and once a person has started down that track, there is pretty much no turning back, as you have shown clearly in your post above.
Attaching a fallacious argument and deliberate intellectual deceit to a religious position that it is an a priori position, has been used a million times. Your plagiarism stands out a country mile, and to plagiarise utter garbage and try and hold it as estabished truth, reeks of either intellectual ignorance, or just down right deceit as you try and distort the facts of reality to suit your own belief.
The above, like so many of the passages in your posts, is just a rant. Read it! It consists entirely of accusations and assertions with no instances given as examples, no arguments to flesh out your points, no quotes to prove the alleged plagiarism, but just unqualified statements and rash uninformed opinion. Nothing youve written here relates to, or answers in anyway the quoted passage.
If original thought didn't exist we would still be living in caves and knowledge and technology wouldn't go any further than it is today if original thought has all be used up. Your attempts at intellectual deceit to try and give your own belief credibility is laughable and a huge slap in the face for all people who are advancing the cause of knowledge and technology for and on behalf of mankind.
Oh dont be so dramatic! Are people who are advancing the cause of knowledge and technology really distraught and discomforted because an anonymous person on a message forum said something they might or might not agree with?
The reason I say original thought is a dubious concept is because nobody produces complete ideas, we borrow, amend, extend, reconfigure and generally compound ideas from experience. An example, in the simplest possible terms, is the idea of Pegasus, which is derived from the figure of a horse and the wings of a bird. The possible associations are infinite, and although it is said that nobody can have my experience because it is entirely subjective, anybody can have my thoughts, and vice versa.
You are correct, I will never get the hang of intellectual dishonesty and intellectual deceit, and I certainly will never align with any belief, such as the one you are trying to project here, that tries to promote it.
I just cant help but notice the rather spooky way you fixate on terms that Ive used previously and then play them back to me!
And par for the course, the sentence youve written above says absolutely nothing in answer to my quoted passage. Not a single thing!
As an agnositic (which is my position of belief), I personally don't know if a deity exists or not, evidence is fairly balanced between the two extreme beliefs of a deity existing and a deity not existing. However I am certainly not going to change this position by adding intellectual dishonesty and intellectual deceit to it, to get to your position of belief.
After maybe a dozen or so posts, it has just dawned on me that you dont actually know what my position is on the question of religious belief! And btw Im not out to change anyones beliefs; I only challenge arguments.
Just like fossils, gravity et al, deities et al, are alledged to have existed before mankind so called "invented" them. That Adam and Eve are mythical characters, again shows your intellectual dishonesty, intellectual deceit, and intellectual ignorance. Adam and Eve could be any base character from any base root, ancient culture (hunter and gatherer) around the world, not only does the scenario align perfectly with other base root cultures and our own scientific knowledge to date, commonsense should tell most people that base root cultures had to start from somewhere. Personally I would suggest some reading pertaining to bioligical eve might do you intelligence the world of good.
Can you not see that it is the alleged nature of those beliefs that is being legitimately challenged? And btw, fossils were not known or alleged to exist before they were first discovered to exist. And Adam and Eve are exactly of a piece with the notion of God, in other words they are both components in a mystical belief, and the fact that they may correspond with the beliefs of ancient cultures isnt an argument for their actual existence. And to say they had to start from somewhere is committing not one but two fallacies. You are appealing to numbers (Argument from Other Believers or argument ad populum) and affirming the consequent: If God exists, people will believe in him. People believe in him, therefore God exists.
Does it not occur that the starting from somewhere may just be a human need or disposition to believe there is more than just a finite existence, or that there is a kindly father figure who will ultimately take care of us?
As for your belief that Adam and Eve are mythical characters, such is your belief, many people hold a belief based on a lack of knowledge (or ignorance of knowledge) and a lack of evidence (or ignorance of evidence), you are not alone and in some very intelligent company. People will do most anything to hold on to a belief, such is faith for you, it has a strong conviction, and for very good reason.
Now then, are you not aware that it isnt just people like me but folk with religious faith that view A&E as mythological, symbolic, or allegory? The story of Adam and Eve, or the Ark, may be requisite for BACs, fundamentalists, or certain others, but believers dont universally accept it. My second point is that my argument that those characters are myths is not held as some form of faith, but is due to an evident contradiction, where two imperfect, contingent creatures are able to usurp and defy their omnipotent and benevolent creator. If the logical contradiction can be answered, then my objections no longer apply.
Sounds more like you are talking about yourself here, but just don't know it.
My LOL, is a genuine laughter, as is the smile on my face when I read some of the garbage you are trying to promote as some form of fact. It is an answer, you just don't know it. I already have the knowledge and education which gives me the answer, that it is impossible to talk commonsense and logic to a madman, I also have the experience to go with it. You have your own position of belief, irrespective of how unreasonable it is in the face of reality and known facts, it is a reasonable position to you, to your own logic and intelligence.
Why am I happy to leave you with your own knowledge and intelligence? Simple really, it is a matter of respect, your brain, your intelligence to do with as you please.
Your responses are becoming ever more irrational and over-the-top! You are not talking to a madman but to someone on a forum who expresses ideas and arguments. If you disagree with me then give your counter arguments if you have any. And Im not promoting anything as fact; my arguments stand or fall on their own merit. So if you think they are wrong, then please state why they are wrong, instead of just complaining all the time.
LOL, then let me blunt here. There is an old truism which you really should look into and it goes like this, "What we see in others, is only in ourselves."
Uh! What do those remarks about have to do with what I said above!