XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
From: lunch@nofreelunch.us
On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 13:12:47 -0500, " R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On 12/21/2014 11:14 AM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 17:51:59 -0500, "R.Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Calling something evidence does not make it evidence. The believers want
>> to believe that their god exists and created. Facts have nothing to do
>> with it.
> >
>Hello Mr. Free! I'm glad to hear from you.
> >
>I can't deny that there are people who want to believe in a higher power
>that is in control of events when they themselves are, to a large extent
>at the mercy of things and events which they have no control. And
>you are right in that they do not rely on facts, but rather faith. But
>by the same token there are those who I suspect do _not_ want there to
>be a God to which they are accountable.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> You cheerfully ignore those who are unpersuaded because no facts support
>> the designer hypothesis.
> >
>Perhaps they are just _unwilling_ to accept the possibility that there
>are facts which tend to lend support for the design hypothesis.
Please name any facts that support a design hypothesis over evolution.
>>>> 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.
>>
>> And why is your god such a pathetic thing that it has to hide all
>> evidence of its existence?
> >
>Here again Mr. Free, If one does not want to see evidence, then he is
>able to find alternative explanations for virtually any fact or
>observation.
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> There is no evidence for any such designer.
> >
>Have you really honestly searched for such evidence?
>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>> No, there is not apparent design in nature.
> >
>Well, according to the the outspoken proponent of atheism, Dr. Richard
>Dawkins and the late Dr. Francis Crick there is "apparent" evidence.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> But their reasons have nothing to do with facts.
>>
>How can you be sure?
>
>
>--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
