XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: me@nothere.biz   
      
   On 16-November-2014 5:14 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:   
   > On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 10:29:45 +1100, the following appeared   
   > in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :   
   >   
   >> 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'.   
   > So they have objective evidence which shows that the   
   > experiences were real, and not simply something they believe   
   > happened? If not, how is such belief verified?   
      
   how could ppl prove they have had some experience of/from God?   
      
   >   
   >> if ppl have had real experiences, and if faith has resulted   
   >> in real experiences, then it is objective evidence   
   > But once again, testimony, no matter how strongly the person   
   > believes it, is *not* objective evidence.   
   >   
   > Once more, if there is no objective evidence, belief that   
   > something happened is indistinguishable from any other   
   > belief, including belief in Bigfoot or anus-probing aliens.   
   >   
   >>>>> [*] 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 I post/read only from/in sci.skeptic. I have mentioned   
   > this a number of times.   
      
   yes you have. and I've been aware of that for a long time.   
      
   >   
   > When multiple crossposts exist "this group" is ambiguous at   
   > best; if I note that such threads are inappropriate in "this   
   > group" you'd be within your rights to correct me. Not so, of   
   > course, if I noted that such threads are inappropriate in   
   > sci.skeptic, which I've also done 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.   
   > No surprise, given the misspelling.   
      
      
   --   
   rgds,   
      
   Pete   
   -------   
   It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)