XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 12:39:39 +1100, felix_unger  wrote:   
   .   
   >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, 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.   
   >>   
   >> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)