Stephen Hawking dumped into Hell

[untermensche]

The concept of god is childish stupidity.

Such a thing would have no need for the company of apes.

Why would a god want something from an ape?

Does it want something from cockroaches too?

 

[Lion IRC]

More atheistsplaining
You claim (anthropomorphic) insight into what God would or wouldn't care about as if you think God is rational yet in the same breath you say God is childish stupidity.
You're all over the shop.

 

[untermensche]

More atheistsplaining
You claim (anthropomorphic) insight into what God would or wouldn't care about as if you think God is rational yet in the same breath you say God is childish stupidity.
You're all over the shop.

There is no such thing as a god as far as any human could know.

But anything described as having ultimate knowledge would have no use for an ape.

The stupidity is in the thought that an ultimate being would collect dead humans like stamps.

 

[jab]

More atheistsplaining
You claim (anthropomorphic) insight into what God would or wouldn't care about as if you think God is rational yet in the same breath you say God is childish stupidity.
You're all over the shop.

Actually quote what you are critiquing, you --untermensche wrote, "the concept of god is childish stupidity"--doesn't say God is childish stupidity, but means that a certain concept that a theist holds indicates an area of childish stupidity in a theist's mind. Very disingenuous of you.

 

[Lion IRC]

OK let's talk about untermensche's childishly stupid idea about the concept of what God conceptually doesn't and doesn't care about.

 

[untermensche]

You are stuck with the stupid childish conception of some all-knowing being.

If something knows everything already what does it need with a bunch of dead apes?

 

[Politesse]

You are stuck with the stupid childish conception of some all-knowing being.

If something knows everything already what does it need with a bunch of dead apes?

So you are arguing that God would feel one way if God existed, but when someone disagrees, you chide them for taking the existence of God seriously at all. Does that not also apply to your own argument?

You are arguing, in essence:

"Superman is a fictional character, and you are stupid to believe that he is real because you think he would like asparagus. Whereas in reality, I know that Superman would hate asparagus."

 

[untermensche]

I am discussing the human conceptions of gods.

That is all that exists.

And some conceptions are childish nonsense. Any claims of infinite qualities are absurd nonsense.

A bumbling stupid god that doesn't think things out very well explains the world better.