XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: sylvia@not.at.this.address   
      
   On 15/11/2014 8:19 AM, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   > On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 23:30:20 +1100, 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.   
   >   
   >      Not having it I don't have a belief that he exists. But having plenty of   
   > evidence in general I do consider the possibility that he does. There's no   
   > reason to believe there should be objective evidence. Evidence of the truth   
   of   
   > that fact is that those of you who think there should be can't imagine what   
   it   
   > should be, where it should be, or why any should be made available to humans   
   in   
   > general. That means the absence of it is meaningLESS, and certainly no   
   reason at   
   > all to put faith in the possibility that there's no God associated with   
   Earth.   
   >   
   >> Sylvia   
   >>   
   >> [*] I've argued elsewhere that objective evidence could in principle   
   >> exist even if God does not, but that need not concern us here.   
   >   
   >      It's certainly something to take into consideration since the reason   
   that   
   > there is none could be because God does exist and prevents it from being   
   > available. Another area where you are clueless is your inability to imagine   
   the   
   > obvious possibility that God exists and deliberately withholds proof of his   
   > existence for reasons of his own.   
      
   I note that you are unable to debate without using insults.   
      
   Your latter scenario would be an example of the second possibility I   
   offered, which is that God exists but there is no objective evidence. It   
   doesn't matter why there's none - the same question arises - why would   
   people believe if there's no objective evidence?   
      
   It's no answer to say that there's no reason not to be believe. There   
   are any number of things that could be believed in the absence of   
   evidence. Some explanation would be required as to why the particular   
   choice of belief in God was made.   
      
   Sylvia.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)