[
Replying to Clownboat in post #425]
I am unsure as to why you quoted me in your post Clownboat, as I do not see a connect between what I wrote and what the Oxford psychologist Justin Barrett opinions about why gods are invented.
True - I did refer to invisible beings by writing that I focus on those cultural things which are too similar to be merely coincidence and bear in mind that these can act as evidence for
any mind behind creation which might
use such as a means of
indication that there is indeed
more to this story than
meets the eye.
But I don't see the connect bridging that to what Justin wrote about those cultural similarities;
...belief in invisible, supernatural agents - such as ghosts, angels, dead ancestors, and gods...
Those things have been made
visible, through human conceptualizing and dressing up the mind behind creation that I was speaking about.
As such, they are not
invisible agents, and I am specifically referring to an actual invisible agency.
Not the "ghosts, angels, dead ancestors, and gods etc" that cultures have dressed that invisible agency up in.
So what Justin wrote does not address what I wrote. Justine just looks at the same thing I am looking at, and sees it differently - all dressed up by being given costumes.
Much in the same way The Flying Spaghetti Monster has been made visible - dressing it up through conceptualizing in order to produce a visible image that one can show to another.
My position has it that the agency of the mind behind creation doesn't cease to exist as a possibility, simply because the
costumes are inappropriate imagery.
