XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
From: sylvia@not.at.this.address
On 7/11/2014 5:48 AM, mur.@.not. wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 11:09:41 +1100, felix_unger wrote:
> .
>> On 05-November-2014 6:22 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/11/2014 5:36 PM, felix_unger wrote:
>>>> On 05-November-2014 10:30 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/11/2014 10:26 AM, felix_unger wrote:
>>>>>> On 05-November-2014 10:23 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/11/2014 8:39 AM, felix_unger wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ppl believe because of the evidence
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, we needn't concern ourselves about the fact that people believe.
>>>>>>> We need only look at the evidence that causes them to believe.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is that evidence?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> in regards to what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You said people believe because of the evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>> So in regards to whatever it is that the people believe.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure what you're on about. ppl believe what they do for a
>>>> reason. the reason for any belief will vary according to the basis
>>>> for it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The reason most people believe in God is that their parents told them
>>> to when they had no intellectual defence. I was fortunate not to
>>> suffer that kind of child abuse.
>>
>> and so it would follow then that the reason most people don't believe in
>> God is that their parents told them not to when they had no intellectual
>> defence. IOW atheists raise atheists and religious parents indoctrinate
>> their children with their beliefs. but a strange thing about children..
>> they grow up to be adults who can think for themselves and make their
>> own decisions about what to believe or not. and of course many children
>> are not influenced about theism either way by responsible parents, such
>> as mine were, and adults make choices about what they believe regardless
>> of childhood influences, or lack thereof.
>
> There's also the aspect of the lying necessary to insist there is no
> evidence. The fact is that ALL evidence suggests God does exist since
there's NO
> EVIDENCE he does not. That fact works against what atheists WANT TO believe,
and
> claim to have put their own faith in even as they deny their faith. So the
> situation is that all evidence says God does exist yet atheists deny there is
> any, and atheists claim to believe what they say meaning they claim to have
> faith in their own belief while at the same time denying their own faith. On
top
> of all that stupidity their demand for evidence PROVES they think there
should
> be some proof of God's existence if he does exist yet they have not the
> slightest clue what they think it should be, where it should be or why it
should
> be there. They are truly like morons in regards to this topic, yet they like
to
> think of themselves as authorities and feel that their abosute cluelessness
is
> somehow intelligent. As is often the case, just describing the position
they're
> in is hilarious.
>
My position is more along the lines that if God exists[*], then there is
either objective evidence of that existence, or there's not.
If there is objective evidence, I'd like to know what it is.
If there's not, then, regardless of whether God actually exists, the
question is why you'd believe that He does, given the absence of
objective evidence.
Sylvia
[*] I've argued elsewhere that objective evidence could in principle
exist even if God does not, but that need not concern us here.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
