Clearly you don’t know what plagiarism means, and so I’ll explain it to you. It means where someone copies or reproduces another’s work, un-credited, or produces it as if it were their own. And ‘plagiarism of thought’ is a nonsense; there is no such thing. As has been pointed out many times, original thought is a dubious concept, since association and the conjunction of other ideas compound our thinking.
While I admit to being slightly flattered that you think the underscored sentence is plagiarised, I can assure you they are my own not very profound words. I challenge you to produce the original work you claim they are taken from (and the same goes for everything I write, that you think is copied, or hasn’t been credited) The fallacy of begging the question, which is what the sentence exemplifies, is obviously new to you as on several instances you’ve fallen straight into that error (as indeed you do again below). It simply means that you begin with your answer and then repeat it as your conclusion. Lastly, it discredits the person who derogates a thing without explaining why it deserves the derogation. And that is something you do with monotonous regularity.
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.
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.
I doubt you’ll ever get the hang of this. God isn’t the conclusion; God is the major premise! You’ve already said in your first sentence: if God, then religion; therefore no God, then no religions. And as Adam and Eve are themselves mythological characters they can’t be used to argue to God as the creator of those two, who are then used to argue to God as their creator! ROFL! That is a circular argument in the extreme! And you contradict yourself; you said that God existed before Adam and Eve experienced him, but then you say God is a conclusion established in experience!
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.
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.
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.
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.
If I may be blunt, I find you rather bizarre. You say you’re ‘happy’ to leave me in my ‘beliefs’ when you demonstrate very obviously that you’re not! You don’t make a proper case for anything, you spout opinion, back track on what you say, manipulate statements to mean something different from what you previously stated, and don’t seem to have a clear idea of where your arguments are going. You pick up on bits of information, which you then misapply while being oblivious to the fact that it looks foolish, and you think ‘LOL’ serves as an answer.
I don’t claim to be right in what I say, and I’m as prone to error as the next person, but I lay out my arguments and demonstrations, quote my sources, and give proper responses. Why can you not do the same?
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.
N.B. I've not bothered with the retorts. But if you feel I've not addressed something, then please repost it and I'll answer by retrurn.
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."
of course, it is me who doesn't understand.