XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 19:58:13 -0600, Free Lunch wrote:
.
>On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 13:12:47 -0500, " R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 12/21/2014 11:14 AM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>> 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.
>> >
>>Hello Mr. Free! I'm glad to hear from you.
>> >
>>I can't deny that there are people who want to believe in a higher power
>>that is in control of events when they themselves are, to a large extent
>>at the mercy of things and events which they have no control. And
>>you are right in that they do not rely on facts, but rather faith. But
>>by the same token there are those who I suspect do _not_ want there to
>>be a God to which they are accountable.
>>>
>>>> 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.
>> >
>>Perhaps they are just _unwilling_ to accept the possibility that there
>>are facts which tend to lend support for the design hypothesis.
>
>Please name any facts that support a design hypothesis over evolution.
If there is a God associated with Earth it seems clear that he made use of
the evolutionary method of creation. That's one of the basic starting lines you
can't get as "far" as. The question always remains: what if you could?
>>>>> 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?
>> >
>>Here again Mr. Free, If one does not want to see evidence, then he is
>>able to find alternative explanations for virtually any fact or
>>observation.
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>> >
>>Have you really honestly searched for such evidence?
>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>> >
>>Well, according to the the outspoken proponent of atheism, Dr. Richard
>>Dawkins and the late Dr. Francis Crick there is "apparent" evidence.
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>How can you be sure?
>>
>>
>>--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
