XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
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.
>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.
Yet none of you can provide any reason to believe there should be any of
the
type of proof you dishonestly want to refer to as evidence. Those are facts.
Why
don't those particular facts mean anything to you? What restricts you from
appreciating the significance of facts like that? Cognitive dissonance is one
reason. Do you think that's the only reason?
>>>> 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.
There are reasons.
>If it were actually true that people wouldn't believe for no reason,
>then that argument would work,
It does work.
>but no evidence has been offered in
>support of the proposition that people wouldn't believe for no reason.
If there truly were no reason there would be nothing to believe in. That's a
fact. If you want to pretend the fact isn't evidence then that's evidence that
you can't think realistically about this topic, which is all we have evidence
of
from your direction.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
