XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: me@nothere.biz   
      
   On 01-December-2014 1:27 AM, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   > On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 11:07:06 -0700, Bob Casanova  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 22:55:43 +1100, the following appeared   
   >> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :   
   >>   
   >>> On 22-November-2014 5:04 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 10:45:03 -0700, the following appeared   
   >>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Casanova :   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 11:35:16 +1100, the following appeared   
   >>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 19-November-2014 5:21 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 22:22:42 +1100, the following appeared   
   >>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> 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:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?   
   >>>>>>> Mur won't provide objective evidence because he presumably   
   >>>>>>> has none, and tries to shift the burden of proof to his   
   >>>>>>> opponents; don't sink to mur's level. Objective evidence is   
   >>>>>>> simply evidence that any disinterested observer can observe.   
   >>>>>>> It's not up to anyone but the claimant to provide the   
   >>>>>>> evidence, and once the claimant has what he/she considers to   
   >>>>>>> be objective evidence it's up to him/her to present it. This   
   >>>>>>> is pretty basic.   
   >>>>>> but you're being unrealistic for the simple reason that there would be   
   >>>>>> no objective/physical evidence of a spiritual encounter. would you   
   >>>>>> expect the persons face to be glowing? or them to be floating off the   
   >>>>>> ground? but religious faith has changed ppls lives. that is objective   
   >>>>>> evidence, is it not?   
   >>>>> That faith can change peoples' lives is indeed objective   
   >>>>> evidence, but only that faith can change peoples' lives.   
   >>>>> It's not evidence that there is any factual basis for that   
   >>>>> faith.   
   >>> a changed life is objective evidence that faith can change lives, but it   
   >>> is also evidence that there is a factual basis producing the result.   
   >>> that could be just be some psychological mechanism, or it could be that   
   >>> there is some spiritual force, or other power at work. faith by itself   
   >>> can't do anything. I could have faith that I won't die from cancer, but   
   >>> that won't stop me dying unless something happens to prevent me from dying.   
   >> Bad example; you have no effective control over whether you   
   >> die of cancer. You *do* have control, however, over how you   
   >> act, and that can be influenced by what you believe. And   
   >> without evidence that what you believe is correct that's   
   >> *all* you have.   
   >>   
   >>>>>    *Any* faith can change peoples' lives, even faiths   
   >>>>> which are contradictory to each other, which would not be   
   >>>>> possible if one faith were "true" and the others "false",   
   >>>>> and only the "true" one worked for the change.   
   >>> I need to know what you're talking about. we need specific examples.   
   >> Sure. Take any two religions, Catholicism and Islam. Belief   
   >> in each can affect how their adherents act, and those acts   
   >> are emphatically *not* identical, just as the tenets of the   
   >> two religions aren't. Since only one (at most) can be   
   >> correct, but both cause their respective believers to act in   
   >> certain *different* ways, at least one of them is causing   
   >> actions solely on the basis of incorrect belief.   
   >      Probably all of them are to varying degrees. The similarity between all   
   of   
   > them is that they encourage people to try to establish a relationship with   
   God   
   > REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT HIM OR HOW THEY REFER TO HIM. That's one   
   of   
   > the starting lines you atheists can't get as "far" as even though I've   
   pointed   
   > it out for you countless times.   
   >   
      
   indeed   
      
   --   
   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/   
   http://www.barenakedislam.com/   
   "The right to free speech includes the right to offend"   
   "ISIS's actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith"   
   -Barack Obama, idiotic President of the USA   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)