(May 3, 2010 at 7:03 am)fr0d0 Wrote: That being a strict requirement, I, and everyone else, have no choice but to believe without empirical evidence. Why harp on about it?
A strict requirement for what? It's retarded to believe in something without evidence and you treat God as an exception so you can bang on about hope and positivity and the 'benefits' you get from it. As I said: The reasons you have given are not reason to believe that the God belief is true. You're just throwing nonsense about now. I've already repeatedly read you saying that evidence isn't possible/it's a necessary requirement to believe without it. But my point is, possible or impossible, and whether you want to believe without it or not - how the fuck is it rational to believe without evidence? If there's no evidence, why believe? Strict requirement you may believe, but it's a retarded one. Enjoy your placebo.
I didn't say empirical evidence, I said evidence.
Believing without evidence and banging on about how Christianity brings you hope and positivity is no reason to rationally believe, it's just a placebo. False hope.
EvF
