XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: me@nothere.biz   
      
   On 21-January-2015 2:31 PM, felix_unger wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   correction..   
      
   "no normal person would .. say that the idea that there may be a God is   
   completely without merit."   
      
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>> ... and I have faith in that belief being true!   
   >>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)