One was arguing on the thread Jesus hates figs! when it is that a particular comment regarding the number of people who do not believe in God and the numbers who do not believe that man landed on the moon caught the eye. Here is that comment: Jesus hates figs! Mr. Loser POST #106
Quote = LOSER
“Actually, the Muslims accept both God and Jesus. The number of people who doubt their existence is about the same number as those who doubt men have gone to the moon.”
After reading, to ensure that the comment was indeed {accurate,} one looked around to see if the facts were in accordance with the statement:
I. Moon landing conspiracy theories
Quote = Article:
“There is ample third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings, and commentators have published detailed rebuttals to the hoax claims.[1] A 1999 poll by The Gallup Organization found that 89% of the U.S. public believed the landings were genuine, while 6% did not, and 5% were undecided”
II. Did Men Really Land on the Moon?
III. Who Believes in God and Who Doesn't?
Quote = Article
“Only 3% of Americans can be considered to be hard-core atheists, convinced that God does not exist.
Another 4% are agnostics of a sort, leaning toward a belief that God does not exist, but not sure that this is the case beyond a doubt. “
Now, if one must say so, with an initial glance this posting did not at first appear to be anything {spectacular} or {unusual.} In fact, it actually could be described as something that seemed quite {mundane.} The fact that the number of people who doubt the existence of God and Jesus being around the same as the number of those who doubt that men have actually gone to the moon, does not immediately jump out at the {casual} observer as being a piece of information that would be of any {immense} significance. But believe it or not, it is. And here is why:
When it is that you examine and look at more than just the numbers, a number of Things of interest should come in focus:
First, it is that in both cases, we have present, groups of individuals who believe?
Secondly, it is that in both cases, we have present, groups of individuals who doubt and disbelieve?
Thirdly, it is that in both cases, we have present, groups of individuals who, even though they have been presented with some form of {evidence} that should point to the existence of that which is believed to exist, have concluded that there is no {evidence} that points to the existence of that which is believed to exist?
In other words, in the case of man’s landing on the moon, we have people who, even though they have witnessed the official pictures and have heard the stories about men landing and walking on the moon, still doubt and disbelieve, and therefore have come to the conclusion that there is no {evidence} that points to the existence of man having landed and walked on the moon? And in the case of the existence of God, we have people who, even though they have witnessed various creations in Reality and have heard and seen the stories about these creation, still doubt and disbelieve, and therefore have come to the conclusion that there is no {evidence} that points to the existence of any God or gods having created these various creations.
Now, it is that the atheist is an individual who holds the view and who will therefore argue that the reason why he does not believe in God or any gods, is because there is no {evidence} that points to the existence of this God or any other gods. In other words, essentially, the basis of the atheistic argument centers around this fact: The lack of [evidence {alone}] or the supposed lack of the existence of [evidence {alone,}] is the reason behind his disbelief. Therefore, simply present him with [evidence {alone}] and he too will believe. Simply present him with [evidence {alone}] and he too will acknowledge that there exists a God or that there exists gods.
But is it really that simple? Do you simply need to present an atheist with [evidence {alone}] and he too will believe that there is a God or that there are gods in existence? Is that all that it takes? Well, it should appear to those whose minds are awake that this is not quite the case. This is because, again, in respects to moonwalking, there are people who, even though they have witnessed all manners of official pictures and stories about men landing and walking on the moon, still doubt and disbelieve that man has even been to the moon. This fact alone is more than enough {evidence} that shews, that the presentation of [evidence {alone}] is not all that is needed.
So, what may an observer glean from the aforementioned facts? Well, it would appear that an observer should gather a couple of Things:
1. Presented evidence is so that it {alone} does not convince of existence.
2. Presented evidence is so that it does not convince of [existence {alone.}]
3. Presented [evidence {alone}] does not force an individual to acknowledge the existence of that which they do not wish to acknowledge.
Questions: Are we to assume that atheists are any different from those who, even though they have seen and heard the {evidence} that points to man’s moonwalk, still insist that there is no {evidence} of that walk?
2. If it is that we are to say that atheism is {right} and that those who say that man has not been to the moon are {wrong,} then what is it that makes it so? Or what is it that makes Atheism {right} in its assertion that there is {no evidence} of a God or any gods and makes {wrong} those who assert that there is {no evidence} that man has moonwalked?
3. What is there left to convince an individual of existence when even {official} pictures, videos, and word of mouth are unable to convince them?
4. Is it that you can force an individual to acknowledge the existence of something that he does not care to acknowledge?
Reply With Quote
Quote by: barts
Bookmarks