XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: Dean"@gmail.com   
      
   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.   
   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.   
   >   
   > 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.   
   >   
   > 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.   
   >   
   >>     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.   
   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.   
    >   
   > Sylvia.   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)