XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.philosophy, sci.logic   
   XPost: alt.talk.creationism, alt.atheism   
   From: ingilt@yahoo.co.uk   
      
   On 04/04/2016 19:10, Bob Officer wrote:   
   > Sylvia Else  wrote:   
   >> On 4/04/2016 10:53 AM, mur@. wrote:   
   >>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 14:24:51 +1100, Sylvia Else    
   >>> wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 28/03/2016 12:44 PM, mur@. wrote:   
   >>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 20:25:56 -0400, Dale  wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like   
   that?   
   >>>>>> Blind Faith?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Do only theists utilize blind faith?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Strong atheism is more faith dependant than any other religious belief.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> How do you quantify faith dependency?   
   >>>   
   >>> Believing it to be true without there being any evidence at all to support   
   >>> it, or any evidence that could support it. As yet I've never encountered a   
   >>> strong atheist--or anyone else for that matter--who could even imagine   
   evidence   
   >>> that could support it.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> No, the question is how do you quantify it?   
   >>   
   >> Sylvia.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Everything In a theist's mind is colored by dogmatic faith and beliefs.   
   > Since the strength of beliefs can be scaled, they feel that a person's lack   
   > of belief can also be scaled. They fail to understand in the absence of   
   > evidence, a claim can be dismissed. The concept of any deity existing isn't   
   > supported by evidence. The logic end is to state the discussion is held in   
   > abeyance until evidence is produced.   
      
   For form's sake, one should mention that a hard-evidence hard-science   
   proof is not the only permissible and legitimate technique in the   
   pursuit of god.  One can shift to logical and/or philosophical tracks.   
   At its simplest, one merely posits "there is/isn't a god" and attempts   
   to prove the statement through logic and philosophical argument alone.   
   In fact, this is what most commonly happens when atheists and believers   
   debate (at least those who have more than two neurons to rub together   
   and who realise that trying to offer tangible evidence is a mug's game).   
      
      
   >   
   > I hold that discussions with theist is as silly as the old debate about how   
   > many angels can dance on a pin.   
   > One needs to 1st prove their are angels or produce evidence of angels   
   > existing before the discussion starts. To do otherwise is just futile and   
   > wasteful of resources.   
   >   
      
   Futile and wasteful ... only for its primary purpose, the resolution of   
   the question whether a god exists.   
      
   There is, however, a secondary purpose: to oppose, counter or at least   
   mitigate the religious mindset and so to reduce its impact on all our   
   lives.  Uncontested, the god-ridden mindset will happily attempt to   
   order society from the very shape and functioning of the nation down to   
   the day to day decisions of the individual according to the spurious   
   diktats of the deity.  For all our sakes, this must not be allowed.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)