XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: malte_runz@forgitit.dk   
      
   "felix_unger"  skrev i meddelelsen news:ci0u57F3a2U1@mid.individual.net...   
   >   
   > On 18-January-2015 12:34 PM, Malte Runz wrote:   
   >   
   > > "felix_unger"  skrev i meddelelsen   
   > > news:chvtrhFn36rU1@mid.individual.net...   
      
   (snip)   
      
   > >> ... where is the problem?   
   > >   
   > > The problem is, that you equate the importance of 0.1%  faith it takes   
   > > to not believe in gods with the 99.9% faith it takes to believe in one   
   > > of them, when you compare the rationality behind atheism and theism   
   > > respectively.   
   >   
   > okay, so now we're getting somewhere. however, I NEVER said it takes only   
   > 0.1% faith to not believe in God. ...   
      
   No, I did, and I have my reasons.   
      
   > ... Personally I think it takes much more than that. ...   
      
   I guess you have your personal, subjective, reasons.   
      
      
   > ... anyway you have now agreed with me that it takes faith to not believe   
   > in God, and to believe in God. ...   
      
   Just as much as it does to not believe in the pink invisible unicorns and   
   all the other absurdities we atheist use to poke fun a theist's belief.   
      
      
   > ... wasn't your original claim that it takes no faith to not believe in   
   > God? I think it was. ...   
      
   It was. The 0.1% I took from you and the pink unis, and basically filed them   
   under 'since one can't prove a negative...'.   
      
      
   > ... and what does it matter how much faith it takes for either belief   
   > anyway?  ...   
      
   It matters a lot, and you have been a fine example of why. 'It takes faith   
   to believe in God and it also takes faith to not believe in God. Hence the   
   two POW's are equally (in)valid.' And they most definitely are not.   
      
      
   > ... it would vary with each person how much faith they had in their belief   
   > being true. some ppl would be more sure of their belief being true than   
   > others. the fact remains that ppl have faith that their beliefs are true.   
   > ...   
      
   If it takes faith to not believe, it's either a case of lack of belief in   
   something that is known to be true, like 'macro-evolution' or our   
   heliocentric solar system, or because one has faith in an idea that is not   
   backed by evidence and is incompatible with the 'known truth'.   
      
      
   > ... and the simple reason for that is because, as I explained in the   
   > airplane example just today, beliefs are about things that are not known   
   > for certain to be true.   
      
   What about a belief that a specific event has taken place, eventhough it   
   wasn't directly observed, but only infered by interpreting valid scientific   
   evidence? A belief that can be altered depending on new evidence? Likewise,   
   it's unnecessary to say that it 'takes faith' to believe in, let's say, the   
   possible existence of alien lifeforms in an ocean under the frozen surface   
   of Europa (the moon, of course). But it takes a lot of faith to still   
   believe in Nessie!   
      
      
   > > Only the apologetic for theism will claim that "faith is faith". The   
   > > rest of us try to be much more specific and careful when we use words   
   > > with ambiguous meanings.   
   >   
   > I believe you're creating a problem where there isn't one simply to try to   
   > justify not believing in God. ...   
      
   When you think that I need to justify my lack of belief in gods, it tells me   
   that maybe you don't really understand what it means to not believe in God.   
   When you have never believed, when you have never been expected to believe,   
   when you grow up in society, where nobody talks about God, where religious   
   ideas are never voiced in public, the whole idea of God being real is no   
   different from belief in invisible pink unicorns being real, and a lack of   
   belief in either requires no faith at all. And, honestly, not even the 0.1   
   'cus ya can't prove it ain't so' %, I granted you earlier.   
      
   > ... and I have faith in that belief being true!   
      
   If only you'd realize that ancient holy books are not evidence of the myths   
   they tell, you wouldn't need faith to not believe.   
      
      
      
      
   --   
   Malte Runz   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)