XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: me@nothere.biz   
      
   On 14-January-2015 9:58 AM, grabber wrote:   
   > On 13/01/2015 00:06, felix_unger wrote:   
   >> On 13-January-2015 8:27 AM, grabber wrote:   
   >>> On 12/01/2015 08:13, felix_unger wrote:   
   >>>> On 11-January-2015 9:19 PM, grabber wrote:   
   >>>>> On 11/01/2015 04:24, felix_unger wrote:   
   >>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Or is his faith different from the 'faith=confidence'?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> no.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> >   
   >>>>>>>> > I don't believe we're all brains soaking in pods in a matrix,   
   >>>>>>>> either, > even if I can't prove it, and it doesn't take faith   
   >>>>>>>> to not   
   >>>>>>>> believe it. I > live my life, as if we aren't 'soakers' and as if   
   >>>>>>>> there are no gods. All > three possibilites are equally absurd,   
   >>>>>>>> and   
   >>>>>>>> to make it a question about > faith shows a lack of understanding.   
   >>>>>>>> >   
   >>>>>>>> > But... why can't you and so many of the, openly, theistic   
   >>>>>>>> minded, >   
   >>>>>>>> understand that it does not take faith to not believe in   
   >>>>>>>> something, >   
   >>>>>>>> which takes faith to have belief in the existence of?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> it doesn't take faith to not believe, ...   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> So lack of belief in gods doesn't take faith. Great.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> ... but it takes faith to believe that a belief is correct/true.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> 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   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> ... 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. 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. 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.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   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.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>> What you have discovered here is that "evidence" isn't the only word   
   >>>>> that you want to use differently than do at least some other people   
   >>>>> here. "Belief" and "faith" turn out to be also in that category, at   
   >>>>> least while you're talking to Malte.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> It's clear that Malte is happy to say he "believes" things that he   
   >>>>> knows are probable rather than certain: it seems you are not.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> It's also clear that Malte is capable of distinguishing between   
   >>>>> "faith" meaning a high degree of confidence in a belief, and "faith"   
   >>>>> referring to a belief held in the absence of sufficient evidence. It   
   >>>>> seems you are either unable or unwilling to make this discussion.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> It's not surprising that you find you can't agree with people if you   
   >>>>> don't establish shared understandings of the words you want to use.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> all beliefs require a degree of faith in their veracity.   
   >>>   
   >>> That depends on what one means by "belief", and even more on what one   
   >>> means by "faith". Weren't you attending?   
   >>   
   >> I know you think you're being clever,   
   >   
   > No, I don't think it takes any particular cleverness to establish   
   > shared understandings of the words you're using in a discussion;   
   > what's in question is why you would want to go out of your way to   
   > resist gaining any such understanding.   
   >   
   > So when Malte says: "Call it 'faith=confidence' if you like, but don't   
   > equate it with the faith of the theist that there is a god", he is   
   > alerting you to the possibility that you and he may intend different   
   > things by "faith".   
   >   
   > And then when you say, in response, that "I don't understand what you   
   > mean. faith is faith", it seems that you wish to wilfully ignore this   
   > distinction. Why would you want to do this?   
      
   because there isn't one. faith is faith. it's only a matter of how much   
   is required to sustain a belief.. a little or a lot.   
      
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)