Religious texts do not prove god's existence

[Phaedrus]

Imagine a clueless humanity reemerging long after a worldwide apocalypse. One of the immediate discoveries that has survived happens to be a Spider-Man comic. These people are so impressed that they believe and accept Spider-Man as a deity worthy of worship based merely on the text discovered.

From a logical perspective, modern man has done this with biblical and religious texts that are purely mythological in nature. Minus the reemergence after an apocalypse part.

 

[Left Coast]

It is odd to me that people would believe that an omnipotent God would use the same mechanism as any number of man-made religions to communicate his/her/their ideas to the world. Surely an all-powerful deity could come up with something more convincing, if he/she/they were interested in being distinguished from a fake?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Imagine a clueless humanity reemerging long after a worldwide apocalypse. One of the immediate discoveries that has survived happens to be a Spider-Man comic. These people are so impressed that they believe and accept Spider-Man as a deity worthy of worship based merely on the text discovered.

From a logical perspective, modern man has done this with biblical and religious texts that are purely mythological in nature. Minus the reemergence after an apocalypse part.

You haven't provided a significant enough proof that religious doctrines are myth.

 

[Phaedrus]

I can easily compare any religious doctrine to Greek mythology, thereby deducing that these religious believers have yet to accept their doctrines as the myth they are.

 

[infrabenji]

How can they? That would have to be a hell of a good book. What would that even look like? The Holy Quriblegitatoratavedama? It’s a smoosh like Baha’i you just smash all the religious books together lol.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You haven't provided a significant enough proof that religious doctrines are myth.

I'd say the proof is in the lack of proof.

Even then...

Whats the point using something that's completely lacking any substance to it?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'd say the proof is in the lack of proof.

Even then...

Whats the point using something that's completely lacking any substance to it?

Slight side note, perhaps...but what connection do you see between the literal truth of something and it's 'substance'?