XPost: alt.atheism, alt.flame.jesus.christ, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: malte_runz@forgitit.dk   
      
   "felix_unger"  skrev i meddelelsen news:ciaigcFgekpU1@mid.individual.net...   
   >   
   > 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...   
      
   (snip)   
      
   > > 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'   
      
   The simple answer is 'no, there is no valid evidence'. I can't help it if   
   you believe that the existence of text is evidence for the contents, or that   
   if enough people believe old myths they somehow become evidence etc.   
      
   >   
   > > 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   
      
   There is no other kind of evidence when you're trying to determine the   
   existence of something that affects the physical world.   
      
      
   (snip)   
      
   > > 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 second it is recognized as being inconclusive it stops being valid   
   evidence.   
      
      
   > > 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 ...   
      
   I've no problem saying that I believe there is no god, but that's not what   
   we're debating here. We're talking about whether a lack of belief in God is   
   a question of faith or not.   
      
      
   > ... 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?   
      
   Because I'm prepared to alter my belief if (my kind of) evidence is brought   
   forward, for one thing. I don't care one way or the other what reality is.   
   All my beliefs are tentative, and I don't need reality to be anything it is   
   not.   
      
      
   >   
   > >> ... 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   
      
   On what grounds, do you think, I have rejected, right from the very start,   
   your typical, run of the mill, standard theistic 'evidence'? The Bible! At   
   least give me something I can test in some way.   
      
      
   > >> ... 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 see you changed the premise again". It's about 'a lack' of belief.   
      
   > ... 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. ...   
      
   I don't know what it takes to believe that old tales of miracles is   
   evidence, but I'm glad I don't have it. Lourdes... For fuck's sake!   
      
      
   > ... 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   
      
   I just told you that I didn't recognize the stories as religious ideas. I   
   wasn't told they were. I didn't even know what religion is. I thought the   
   stories were fairytales. The same teacher would read us 'The steadfast tin   
   soldier' in another class, and from another book.   
      
      
   > >> ... 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. ...   
   > >   
   > > Which I didn't claim was the case.   
      
   (I actually misread that paragraph first time around, as if you had said   
   that I had written that the society as a whole had not heard about God.)   
      
      
   > ahem.. ".. when you grow up in society, where nobody talks about God,   
   > where religious ideas are never voiced in public .."   
      
   We didn't have people knocking on our door with the good news, no religious   
   bill boards lining the roads, no streetcorner preachers or any of that where   
   I grew up as a small child. Later, when I was 13, I was 'confirmed',   
   Lutheran style, and of course we were told about Christianity. But again, it   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)