XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
From: lunch@nofreelunch.us
On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 17:51:59 -0500, "R.Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On 12/8/2014 7:02 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 8/12/2014 12:24 AM, mur.@.not. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 14:38:52 +1100, Sylvia Else
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>> .
>>>> On 1/12/2014 1:28 AM, mur.@.not. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, why do billions of people believe for absolutely no
>>>>>>> reason?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a question that's been asked many times here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Has it ever been given a respectable answer? If so, what was
>>>>> it? Here's a
>>>>> question that's been asked a number of times, but so far has never
>>>>> been given a
>>>>> respectable answer:
>>>>
>>>> I think a respectable answer, or at least hypothesis, is that it's
>>>> explained by a mixture of human nature and the indoctrination of
>>>> children. This is not to say that it is necessarily the right answer,
>>>> but as long as it remains a reasonable possibility, nothing much can be
>>>> deduced from the fact that many people believe.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> WHAT type of evidence do atheists think there "should be"?
>>>>> WHERE do atheists
>>>>> think the evidence they beg for "should be"? WHY do atheists think
>>>>> it "should
>>>>> be" to God's benefit for him to provide us with whatever particular
>>>>> evidence
>>>>> they keep whining about?
>>>>
>>>> It's hard to know, a priori, what kind of evidence there might be.
>>>
>>> You people seem to believe there should be some. Let's start with
>>> why you
>>> think that is, and maybe from there we can get to what you think it
>>> should be.
>>> Try to figure out why you think there should be some and where you
>>> think it
>>> should be.
>>
>> It is not my position that there should be some. My position is that if
>> there is none, then there's no more reason to believe in God than there
>> is a reason to believe in anything else for which there's no evidence.
>>
>For many people there is evidence of a design, which implies a designer.
Calling something evidence does not make it evidence. The believers want
to believe that their god exists and created. Facts have nothing to do
with it.
>For others, perhaps even you, there can _never_ be any acceptable
>evidence. In each case a preconditioned mindset may be involved.
>For some very personal reasons.
You cheerfully ignore those who are unpersuaded because no facts support
the designer hypothesis.
>> So, from my perspective, if you want to say that there's a better reason
>> to believe in God than to believe in something else, then you'll have to
>> provide some evidence.
>>
>This is curious. If you had such evidence, would you then believe? No,
>you would not. If you had irrefutable, empirical evidence then you would
>_know_, consequently belief would be unnecessary.
And why is your god such a pathetic thing that it has to hide all
evidence of its existence?
>> Yes, it's possible that God exists, but systematically avoids providing
>> evidence for His existence. In that case, clearly, there will be none.
>> But in that case, even though, ex hypothesi, God exists, the question
>> remains why believe in God rather than something else.
>>
>God is a generic term. The term could apply to a force, energy or an
>intelligent agent/designer.
There is no evidence for any such designer.
>>> If there truly were no reason there would be nothing to believe in.
>>
>> Why? What's to stop people from believing in something for no reason?
>>
>Here you are making an assumptions. Since there is _apparent_ design in
>nature, many people think this is not just apparent, but actual design.
No, there is not apparent design in nature.
>Therefore, many people think that acceptance of the existence of an
>intelligent designer is the more reasonable option. Thus people who
>believe do have their reasons.
But their reasons have nothing to do with facts.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
