XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: sylvia@not.at.this.address   
      
   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. The   
   general rule is that people making claims are the ones who have to   
   provide the evidence in support of those claims, and the rest of us will   
   know it when we see it.   
      
   >   
   >>> Why don't   
   >>> they build churches to other xt beings as well?   
   >>   
   >> So, why don't they?   
   >   
   >      Why don't they?   
   >   
   >>>  From your position you atheists   
   >>> are amazingly more intelligent than most people....or at least most people   
   are   
   >>> amazingly more stupid than you are, to consider the possibility of God's   
   >>> existence with absolutely no evidence that he exists at all. But from our   
   pov   
   >>> you atheists are the stupid ones, putting faith in the one possibility that   
   >>> there's no God associated with Earth while denying that faith at the same   
   time.   
   >>> Claiming there's no evidence for God's existence when no one would believe   
   he   
   >>> exists at all if there truly were none.   
   >>   
   >> Whether no one would believe He exists if there were truly no evidence   
   >> is very much the point at issue.   
   >   
   >      The fact that there would be no reason for them to develop a belief is a   
   > significant aspect of the situation. Just because it's not to you doesn't   
   mean   
   > it's not significant. That only means you can't appreciate it.   
   >   
      
   I think you're trying to argue, again, that people wouldn't believe for   
   no reason, therefore there must be a reason.   
      
   If it were actually true that people wouldn't believe for no reason,   
   then that argument would work, but no evidence has been offered in   
   support of the proposition that people wouldn't believe for no reason.   
      
   Sylvia.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)