On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Icarus wrote:
> Alfred wrote:
>>> You can prove neither. The assumption should then be that God
>>> does not exist.
>> Actually, the assumption should be that God does exist.
Why's that Al? To save you the bother of twisting everybody's arm?
> Which one? There are hundreds to choose from.
No there isn't, because there isn't any evident existing one on the list.
> According to your point of view, we should assume they *all* exist...
> not to mention the fairies, leprechauns, demons, goblins, water sprites
> etc. etc...
Al doesn't believe in fairies, leprechauns, demons, goblins, water
sprites, etc. God is a boring alpha-urge that doesn't frolic, have love
affairs, & play tricks. God is a control freak that needs everyone to
assume that he exists to save him the bother of twisting everybody's arm.
> No, clearly the only rational point of view is to say "we'll believe
> it when you prove it, and not before".
Al wants you to make another rational decision. He wants you to go along
to get along. Too much truth leads to FUD. Do you want to be known as
someone who spreads FUD? That might get in the way of getting stuff &
having cool friends.
>> The only people that will be disapointed to have
>> their beliefs shattered will be athiests.
> No danger of that ever happening.
It's one thing not to believe something exists, but another to believe
all the wrong things about something that exists. That's what Al needs to
consider.
|
|
