XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   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.   
      
       There are people who believe in God for reasons they don't like.   
      
   >>> 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.   
      
       Atheists are unwilling to accept any and all things that support the idea,   
   so how could they possibly be realistic about which things are stronger   
   evidence   
   than others? They are like total morons...no, more like idiots...regarding this   
   particular topic and afaik any and all aspects of the possibility that there's   
   a   
   God associated with Earth. The way I like to refer to it is that they can't get   
   as "far" as the starting line regarding a number of basic things like the   
   possibility of God's existence, all evidence that he does exist, the fact that   
   if he does exist he hasn't provided us with proof of it, the fact that if God   
   exists people refer to him in a number of different ways and have a number of   
   differing beliefs about him, etc.   
      
   >>>> 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.   
      
       He just clearly displayed the fact that he can't get as "far" as one of the   
   particular basic starting lines I referred to above.   
      
   >>>> 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?   
      
       Not only has he not, but he also hasn't recognised it when it has been   
   presented for him. He displayed yet another basic starting line he can't get as   
   "far" as.   
      
   >>>>>      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.   
      
       He displayed it again. He likes to consider himself to be an authority on   
   things he can't get as "far" as the starting line with.   
      
   >>> 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?   
      
       He can only have faith in his own unevidenced belief which happens to be   
   naive, stupid and ignorant at "best", and also wrong.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)