XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 22:58:09 +0000, 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, Chicken Runz wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> "felix_unger"  skrev i meddelelsen   
   >>>>>>> news:cgeitjFjt09U1@mid.individual.net...   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> On 30-December-2014 1:27 PM, Chicken 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.   
      
       No, that's not what's in question at all. He's apparently aware that faith   
   is faith, and it seems he's also aware that faith is faith REGARDLESS OF how a   
   person comes to have faith in something. It also appears that he's not stupid   
   enough to be somehow tricked into unlearning...LOL...which you amusingly though   
   dishonestly refer to as "understanding". Hilarious!   
      
   >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".   
      
       He's trying to get away with a dishonest trick. What he thinks he could   
   gain   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)