XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: malte_runz@forgitit.dk   
      
   "felix_unger"  skrev i meddelelsen news:chec85Ft503U1@mid.individual.net...   
   >   
   > On 06-January-2015 10:20 PM, Malte Runz wrote:   
   >   
   > > "felix_unger"  skrev i meddelelsen   
   > > news:cgeitjFjt09U1@mid.individual.net...   
   > >>   
   > >> On 30-December-2014 1:27 PM, Malte Runz wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >> > "felix_unger"  skrev i meddelelsen >   
   > >> news:cgdpvbFdtgnU1@mid.individual.net...   
   > >> >   
   > >> > (snip)   
   > >> >   
   > >> >> ... atheists cannot prove God does not exist, you can only believe   
   > >> it >> to be the case, and so you have faith that belief is correct.   
   > >> >   
   > >> > And so do you, have faith, when you believe in the non-existence of   
   > >> > invisible pink unicorns in a parallel universe, right?   
   > >>   
   > >> I have faith (confidence) in a belief that such a proposition is   
   > >> nonsense is true   
   > >   
   > > And I have confidence that there are no gods. Now, would you say that a   
   > > theist also has "confidence" in the existence of a particular god?   
   >   
   > of course. religious belief is based on faith not proof.   
      
      
   What would you call belief based on 'proof', so I can refer to that type of   
   belief in the future? (By 'proof' I mean 'overwhelming scientific   
   evidence'.)   
      
   >   
   > > Or is his faith different from the 'faith=confidence'?   
   >   
   > no.   
      
   Oh, yes it is. You make the distinction yourself. 'Belief based on faith vs.   
   based on proof.'   
      
      
   (snip)   
      
   > > You believe that it is true that there are no pink invisible unicorns.   
   > > Is your belief utterly faithbased or are you letting a little sliver of   
   > > rational thinking creep in and help you form an opinion?   
   >   
   > it's both faith and reason, but in this case 99.9% reason   
      
   Do you have an example of a belief that is 99.9% faith (again for future   
   reference)?   
      
      
   > >> ... ie.. one has faith that ones belief is correct. Is it not so?   
   > >   
   > > I believe that a tiger will not appear out of the blue in my bathroom   
   > > when I go to brush my teeth. It is not a question of faith.   
   >   
   > it's a belief that you have, if you happen to think that. it's also   
   > something that you happen to believe is true. to say you have faith that   
   > your belief is correct is just another way of saying that. but in this   
   > instance the amount of 'faith' in your belief is miniscule since you   
   > already know that it can't happen. so we could say that for all intents   
   > and purpose, there is really no faith involved. ...   
      
   Good. But that means that there /is/, after all, a difference between   
   religious faith (based not "on proof") and belief where "there is really no   
   faith involved".   
      
   > ... however, if your bathroom were in a thatched bungalow in the African   
   > jungle, where tigers are know to roam, that had only open unglazed   
   > windows, you would need to have a great deal more faith that any such   
   > belief was correct. this is the problem with you atheists. ...   
      
   Why does everybody say there is a problem with atheist?   
      
   > ... you see everything in black and white, and fail to consider each case   
   > or situation on it's merits. it's also the reason that I keep saying you   
   > lack common sense.   
      
   Bull! I was very clear from the beginning that I was talking about MY   
   bathroom, and your answer shows that you understood, that I was NOT talking   
   about about a bungalow in Africa (allthough I could've, because there are no   
   tigers in Africa!). I always ask you to be specific, don't I, and beg you to   
   give examples? You're the one painting everything with a broad brush and   
   dilute the meaning of very specific terms. You start out saying 'belief   
   takes faith' and when I start poking, you go 'except when it doesn't'.   
      
   >   
   > > I believe that the airplane, I'm sitting in, will take off and fly me to   
   > > my destination. No faith needed there, either.   
   >   
   > if you have such a belief I would say it's completely unjustified. planes   
   > crash during takeoff or flight, or when landing. you certainly need faith   
   > to believe it won't happen! you could argue that the amount of faith you   
   > need is small, due the the likelihood of the plane coming to grief in some   
   > manner being very small based on airline crash statistics, but you cannot   
   > know that your plane will not crash, so you have to have faith that your   
   > belief that it won't crash is correct.   
      
   I must have been unclear, since you're missing the point. I doesn't take   
   faith to believe a plane will be able to fly. It's a belief based on   
   scientific knowledge and experience. Yes, maybe the pilot will have a heart   
   attack on the runway and we'll taxi back to the gate and never take off at   
   all, but that's irrelevant in this case.   
      
   >   
   > >   Call it 'faith=confidence' if you like, but don't equate it with the   
   > > faith of the theist that there is a god.   
   > >   
   >   
   > I don't understand what you mean. faith is faith.   
      
   Yes, but we're talking about belief, and beliefs can, as you say yourself,   
   be based on either faith or proof.   
      
      
   --   
   Malte Runz   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)