XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: me@nothere.biz   
      
   On 17-November-2014 4:56 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:   
   > On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 10:41:33 +1100, the following appeared   
   > in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :   
   >   
   >> 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?   
   > By having objective evidence that they did, perhaps?   
      
   such as? this is the question that mur keeps asking. what objective   
   evidence would you expect to see/have that someone has had an experience   
   of God?   
      
   >   The   
   > same need exists for those who believe they've seen Bigfoot   
   > or been probed by aliens before the experience is accepted,   
   > even tentatively, as real and not a product of imagination   
   > or wishful thinking. If you have another way to verify, as   
   > contrasted with "accept", what someone claims without   
   > physical evidence I'd be happy to read it. Note that not   
   > even a *reliable* lie detector (which doesn't exist) could   
   > do that, since it could only report what the subject   
   > believes to be true.   
   >   
   >>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
      
      
   --   
   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)