XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: me@nothere.biz   
      
   On 21-January-2015 9:04 AM, Malte Runz wrote:   
      
   > "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 at theist's   
   > belief.   
      
   and WHERE is your justification that your non-belief is superior? you do   
   not KNOW that there is no afterlife. you do not KNOW that divine   
   spiritual experiences or revelations do not occur. you do not KNOW that   
   no spiritual beings or entities exist. you do not KNOW that no prayers   
   are answered. and so on..   
      
   >   
   >   
   >> ... 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.   
      
   so you say   
      
   >   
   >   
   >> ... 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'.   
      
   let me correct/expound that for you..   
      
   "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, or is incompatible with the 'known truth', or   
   when there is evidence to support belief"   
      
   >   
   >   
   >> ... 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, even though   
   > 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!   
      
   I've already said that the degree of faith needed varies with the   
   belief. the only reason you are so opposed to that is simply because you   
   do not want to admit that it takes faith to believe that God does not   
   exist; and that's because there are reasons to believe God exists.   
   (evidence for God) You want to claim there are no reasons to believe (no   
   evidence) and no faith needed, simply because you want to believe that   
   God does not exist. it's all about preserving an atheist position with you.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >> > 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,   
      
   I simply don't believe that there is such a place in western   
   civilization. where is it? also, I don't believe any adult in western   
   society has never encountered the idea of God, or religious ideas or   
   ppl, at least at some level, and considered the idea of God.  you're   
   simply lying, or fooling yourself, or trying to. further, I have this   
   idea that no human lacks a sense of the divine within themselves; just   
   like we have a sense of morality, a conscience, and other things like   
   that that complete the human condition.   
      
   > the whole idea of God being real is no different from belief in   
   > invisible pink unicorns being real,   
      
   you're wrong, simply because there is evidence for God. The Pope   
   recently conducted a mass in the Philippines for six million ppl.! let   
   me know when there is a rally of six million ppl for the IPU will you?   
   it's just silly to compare the two, and only ppl with an atheist agenda   
   would even try.   
      
   > and a lack of belief in either requires no faith at all.   
      
   you can believe that if you like, but I disagree, and I'm not going to   
   argue anymore since nothing will convince you otherwise   
      
   > And, honestly, not even the 0.1 'cus ya can't prove it ain't so' %, I   
   > granted you earlier.   
      
   It seems to me that you're (still) desperately trying to mount a case   
   for there being absolutely no reasons to believe there may be a God. and   
   that can only be because you WANT to be atheist. no normal person would   
   have any difficulty in saying, or have any reason not to say, there is   
   evidence for God, or saying that the idea that there may be a God is   
   completely without merit.   
      
   >   
   >> ... 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.   
   >   
   >   
      
   you don't know what I believe or not since I haven't said. but   
   scriptures are evidence for God even if you don't think so   
      
      
   --   
   rgds,   
      
   Pete   
   -------   
      
   JE SUIS CHARLIE   
      
   "The right to free speech includes the right to offend"   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)