> 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
>> Which one? There are hundreds to choose from.
> No there isn't, because there isn't any evident existing one
> on the list.
Well that was kind of the point - There are hundreds of gods
described and named, all equally unsupported by any evidence..
>> 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.
In my part of the world, the religious are a minority of
oddballs, particularly in younger age groups. Overt religious
belief can prompt suspicion that the person may be unbalanced and
potentially dangerous. That religion is outdated mythology is an
assumption that mostly goes without saying. Hence the rational
decision from my point of view is to try to help the religious
grow out of their delusions.
>>> 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.