This a logical fallacy BTW:
"People are not religious by nature, but only become thus through outside influences... "
It's called Post hoc ergo propter hoc in logic. B just doesn't follow from A. There's no logical connection between them.
Logical fallacy number 2:
"Another reason why I am inclined towards believing, is the fact that we, humans, cannot invent something that cannot exist, for the mere mentioning of something, makes it exist..."
You say in the same sentance that humans can make something exist from nothing, (mentioning X -> creates X) while you at the same time deny it.
Who says that we didn't just make up religion to explain how our world works in scientific models that where understandable to the minds of early humans? There's no proof against it and you claim it as fact.
It is encouraging that you at least atempt to justify your beliefs. There's not a whole lot of that going on in this forum. Something I find more than just a little bit unsettling.
take care![]()
-Tom






Reply With Quote
