XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
From: me@nothere.biz
On 15-November-2014 5:23 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 00:28:47 +1100, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :
>
>> On 14-November-2014 11:30 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>> do you accept that people may have/have had real experiences of God, or
>> are empowered by faith to change their life?
> I don't know about Sylvia, but *I* accept that there are
> people who believe they have had such experiences, and that
> faith (defined as "belief without proof") can certainly be
> life-changing. Neither of these has anything to do with
> objective evidence.
but I didn't say ppl who 'believe they have had such experiences' I said
'have had'. if ppl have had real experiences, and if faith has resulted
in real experiences, then it is objective evidence
>>> [*] I've argued elsewhere that objective evidence could in principle
>>> exist even if God does not, but that need not concern us here.
>> why not? this is the group to discuss such things.
> "This group"? Which of these groups...
>
> alt.agnosticism
> alt.athiesm
> alt.flame.jesus.christ
> alt.talk.creationism
> sci.skeptic
>
> ....is relevant to your claim? I know the last one is not. In
> fact, I'd say that *only* alt.agnosticism really qualifies
> regarding this issue, since unlike any of the others it's
> about what we can know, and not about any particular belief,
> either pro or con.
I post/read only from/in alt.agnosticim. I have mentioned this a number
of times.
>
> And does "alt.athiesm" really exist, given that the correct
> spelling would be "atheism"?
interesting. it would seem then that this thread (which I didn't start
btw) has never seen the light of day in alt.atheism.
--
rgds,
Pete
-------
It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png
Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
“The right to free speech includes the right to offend"
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
