XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic
XPost: alt.christnet
On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 14:08:49 +1000, Sylvia Else
wrote:
.
>On 26/09/2014 8:35 AM, mur@.not. wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 18:37:36 +1000, Sylvia Else
>> wrote:
>> .
>>> On 19/09/2014 7:21 AM, mur@.not. wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 19:54:14 +1000, Sylvia Else
>>>> wrote:
>>>> .
>>>>> On 14/09/2014 1:57 AM, mur@.not. wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 23:14:54 -0400, Olrik wrote:
>>>>>> .
>>>>>>> Le 2014-09-10 14:47, mur@.not. a écrit :
>>>>>>>> Would they be able to post at all?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What lies?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no evidence
for God's
>>>>>> existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be nothing
for
>>>>>> anyone to believe in.
>>>>>
>>>>> The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the absence
>>>>> of evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>> As an argument for the existence of God, it really doesn't work. It just
>>>>> leaves open the question of why people believe.
>>>>
>>>> If there really was no evidence there would be nothing for them to
believe.
>>>
>>> If you believe that, I'm forced to ask you what the evidence is for it?
>>>
>>> Generally, all that's required is to conceive of something to believe,
>>> and then believe it. Evidence is an optional extra.
>>
>> How do you imagine it happened then? Since none of you can explain
what sort
>> of evidence you think there should be, or where it should be, or why it
should
>> be there if God exists, try explaining how the evidence you say doesn't
exist
>> came to be in the first place. Try explaining in detail how you think the
books
>> of the Bible came into existence from the very start, and why they did.
>
>Some people wrote them,
You need to try to explain WHY they would write them.
>just as people write stuff now. A lot of what
>people write now is not true (and some doesn't even pretend to be).
>There's no reason to think it was any different back then.
You still need to explain WHY they would write them. And back then people
were killed for things like lying about God much more frequently and legally
than they are today, so that's one reason to think it was "any different back
then". So far you've got nothing.
>> Then go
>> on to explain how the supposed lies were kept going and most importantly how
>> billions of people were persuaded to believe the supposed lies.
>
>Most of them weren't persuaded, they were indoctrinated at an age where
>they had no defence.
The people who wrote the material you're being challenged to explain were
NOT at an age where they had no defence, and the first people to promote the
ideas were not just going around talking to other people's children. That would
get them killed quicker than presenting it to adults. So you still have
nothing.
>Essentially, they were psychologically abused as
>children, and in turn proceeded to psychologically abuse their own
>offspring (and we see parallels in other forms of child abuse).
>
>Of the rest, well we see cults appear often enough even in these
>somewhat more enlightened times, and belief in paranormal stuff persists
>despite any number of debunkings that show that money and power are the
>motives for the deception.
What sort of money and power do you think rewarded the first people who
promoted Christianity?
>Apparently, in some people (too many!)
>there's a desire to believe that makes them vulnerable to deception.
Why can't we say the same exact thing about the possibility that there's no
God associated with Earth?
>All it takes is for someone with charisma (and probably insanity and/or
>psychopathy) to manage to gather a sufficiently large crowd of
>congenital followers, and you've got yourself a religion.
>
>Evidence? There doesn't have to be any.
That's a blatant lie, and that particular lie seems to be one of the
foundations of the strong atheist faith.
>>Don't just say
>> some lame copout infantile mindless crap like you did above, but try
explaining
>> IN DETAIL something that's at least some little bit respectable so there
>> actually is something to consider. We know you people have no clue about
what
>> evidence you think should exist. Let's see if you are any less clueless
about
>> how the evidence you claim doesn't exist actually came to exist.
>>
>
>A real God could do stuff I'd have difficult explaining, (things that go
>against the very basics of fundamental physics as we understand them)
>though in practice I might suspect I was seeing an advanced technology
>rather than evidence of God.
It's very amusing in a pathetic way that you're unable to consider the most
obvious and likely of possibilities, which of course is that if God does exist
he is FAR MORE technologically advanced than we are.
>From that perspective, I suppose it's
>arguable that I could never be convinced as to the existence of God.
Your inability to consider the most obvious and likely possibility in
relation to God is evidence of God's existence by being evidence of Satan's
influence on weak human minds.
>Fortunately, that issue doesn't arise. We do not see around us anything
>that remotely qualifies as evidence for either a God, or an advanced
>technology.
Another one of the most basic and obvious aspects of our situation is that
if God does exist he is NOT ready to provide proof of his existence to everyone
yet, whether he ever will be ready to do so or not.
>It occurs to me that a real God could just make me believe, and not
>bother with crudities such as evidence. The fact that God, if He exists,
>has not chosen to do so is surely evidence that either God doesn't
>exist, or that He doesn't care about whether people believe.
Some call that thinning the herd. Do you think there's anyone who really
cares if you personally are "thinned"? Do you think God should care if he
exists? If so, what could possibly make you think he should???
>On that
>basis, whether or not God exists, you should not care whether other
>people believe either. I wonder why you do.
I wonder why you do. Why do you think you care enough to try to discourage
people from considering a possibility that could reward them with a good
afterlife if such a thing exists? Do you have any idea about that?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
