XPost: alt.atheism, alt.flame.jesus.christ, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: me@nothere.biz   
      
   On 21-January-2015 11:09 PM, Malte Runz wrote:   
      
   > "felix_unger"  skrev i meddelelsen   
   > news:ci8kt4Fmv8U1@mid.individual.net...   
   >>   
   >> On 21-January-2015 9:04 AM, Malte Runz wrote:   
   >>   
   >> > "felix_unger"  skrev i meddelelsen >   
   >> news:ci0u57F3a2U1@mid.individual.net...   
   >> >>   
   >> >> On 18-January-2015 12:34 PM, Malte Runz wrote:   
   >> >>   
   >> >> > "felix_unger"  skrev i meddelelsen >   
   >> >> news:chvtrhFn36rU1@mid.individual.net...   
   >   
   > (snip)   
   >   
   >> >> ... anyway you have now agreed with me that it takes faith to not   
   >> >> believe in God, and to believe in God. ...   
   >> >   
   >> > Just as much as it does to not believe in the pink invisible   
   >> unicorns > and all the other absurdities we atheist use to poke fun   
   >> at theist's > belief.   
   >>   
   >> and WHERE is your justification that your non-belief is superior? ...   
   >   
   > Instead of "superior" we could say 'more rational' if it makes it   
   > easier to swallow.   
      
   so your justification for derision is purely mental. I see.   
      
   >   
   >> ... you do not KNOW that there is no afterlife. you do not KNOW that   
   >> divine spiritual experiences or revelations do not occur. you do not   
   >> KNOW that no spiritual beings or entities exist. you do not KNOW that   
   >> no prayers are answered. and so on..   
   >   
   > You do not KNOW that there are no invisible unicorns, and so on.   
      
   and my point is there is no evidence for them, but there is evidence for   
   God- or the proposition that there is a God 'if it makes it easier to   
   swallow'   
      
   > If there is no valid scientific evidence to support an assertion, and   
   > there is none for any of the ones you mention (remember "valid   
   > scientific" is name of the game).   
      
   It's never been the game. that's just something you've now introduced   
      
   > Therefor I don't regard them as plausible. Should you be able to   
   > provide the kind of evidence I need, of course I will reconsider my   
   > position. Why wouldn't I?   
   >   
   > (snip)   
   >   
   >> > If it takes faith to not believe, it's either a case of lack of   
   >> belief > in something that is known to be true, like   
   >> 'macro-evolution' or our > heliocentric solar system, or because one   
   >> has faith in an idea that is > not backed by evidence and is   
   >> incompatible with the 'known truth'.   
   >>   
   >> let me correct/expound that for you..   
   >>   
   >> "If it takes faith to not believe, it's either a case of lack of   
   >> belief in something that is known to be true, like 'macro-evolution'   
   >> or our heliocentric solar system, or because one has faith in an idea   
   >> that is not backed by evidence, or is incompatible with the 'known   
   >> truth', or when there is evidence to support belief"   
   >   
   > If there is evidence you don't need faith. If there is no evidence,   
   > and you still want/need to believe, then faith is what it takes.   
      
   nonsense. evidence can be inconclusive   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >> >   
   >> >   
   >> >> ... and the simple reason for that is because, as I explained in   
   >> the >> airplane example just today, beliefs are about things that are   
   >> not >> known for certain to be true.   
   >> >   
   >> > What about a belief that a specific event has taken place, even   
   >> though > it wasn't directly observed, but only infered by   
   >> interpreting valid > scientific evidence? A belief that can be   
   >> altered depending on new > evidence? Likewise, it's unnecessary to   
   >> say that it 'takes faith' to > believe in, let's say, the possible   
   >> existence of alien lifeforms in an > ocean under the frozen surface   
   >> of Europa (the moon, of course). But it > takes a lot of faith to   
   >> still believe in Nessie!   
   >>   
   >> I've already said that the degree of faith needed varies with the   
   >> belief. ...   
   >   
   > If one were to say 'I believe there is life on Europa!', then yes,   
   > faith is an ingredient. But my point is that a belief that it is   
   > plausible that life could exist on Europa does not involve any degree   
   > of faith.   
   >   
   >   
      
   and so your point is the belief that there is no God requires no faith   
   in it's veracity because it's a plausible belief. but since you cannot   
   know God does not exist, how can it require NO faith to believe it's true?   
      
   >> ... the only reason you are so opposed to that is simply because you   
   >> do not want to admit that it takes faith to believe that God does not   
   >> exist; ...   
   >   
   > Further down I tried to explain why it does not take faith to not   
   > believe in gods for a person with my background.   
   >   
   >> ... and that's because there are reasons to believe God exists.   
   >> (evidence for God) ...   
   >   
   > Not for me. I see no valid scientific evidence that supports the   
   > assertion that God, or gods in general, exist.   
      
   and I see you changed the premise again   
      
   >   
   >> ... You want to claim there are no reasons to believe (no evidence)   
   >> and no faith needed, simply because you want to believe that God does   
   >> not exist. it's all about preserving an atheist position with you.   
   >   
   > If there were valid scientific evidence, of course I would believe,   
   > why wouldn't I? There isn't, though, yet you still expect me to   
   > believe. Sorry, no can do. And it's not a choice, either.   
      
   I don't 'expect' you to believe in God. I'm simply arguing that against   
   two claims that atheists have made in this forum; that there is no   
   evidence for God, and it doesn't take faith to believe God does not   
   exist; and I still maintain my position is valid, and that the atheist   
   position is biased. It takes faith to believe that God does not exist   
   because of the evidence that does exist. maybe it takes much more faith   
   for some than others relative to the level of conviction or doubt   
      
   >>   
   >> >   
   >> >   
   >> >> > Only the apologetic for theism will claim that "faith is faith".   
   >> >> The > rest of us try to be much more specific and careful when we   
   >> use >> words > with ambiguous meanings.   
   >> >>   
   >> >> I believe you're creating a problem where there isn't one simply   
   >> to try >> to justify not believing in God. ...   
   >> >   
   >> > When you think that I need to justify my lack of belief in gods, it   
   >> > tells me that maybe you don't really understand what it means to   
   >> not > believe in God. When you have never believed, when you have   
   >> never been > expected to believe, when you grow up in society, where   
   >> nobody talks > about God, where religious ideas are never voiced in   
   >> public,   
   >>   
   >> I simply don't believe that there is such a place in western   
   >> civilization. where is it? ...   
   >   
   > That's how I grew up in Denmark in the 1960's and 70's. We had 'Bible   
   > stories' in first and second grade, and as I have said before, I   
   > couldn't destinguish the stories in the Bible from the stories of H.C.   
   > Andersen and the Grimm brothers.   
      
   so you were exposed to religious ideas   
      
   >   
   >> ... also, I don't believe any adult in western society has never   
   >> encountered the idea of God, or religious ideas or ppl, at least at   
   >> some level, and considered the idea of God. ...   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)