XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 10:19:15 +0000, 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.
You may have faith in that absurd concept being true, but I doubt you could
find strong evidence to back it up. I've never known anyone to have a belief
they didn't feel they had sufficient evidence for, but if you think you can
present some examples then try supporting your absurd seeming concept by
presenting them.
>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.
Why should he restrict himself to whatever restricted definition of the
term
Chicken wants everyone to restrict themselves to? The only reason that seems
reasonable would be IF his only interest was in trying to help Chicken maintain
faith that he is somehow correct, while of course denying his own faith.
LOL...again just describing the atheist's position is hilarious.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
