XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: malte_runz@forgitit.dk   
      
   "felix_unger"  skrev i meddelelsen news:ci8kt4Fmv8U1@mid.individual.net...   
   >   
   > 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)   
      
   > >> ... 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? ...   
      
   Instead of "superior" we could say 'more rational' if it makes it easier to   
   swallow.   
      
   > ... 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..   
      
   You do not KNOW that there are no invisible unicorns, and so on. If there is   
   no valid scientific evidence to support an assertion, and there is none for   
   any of the ones you mention (remember "valid scientific" is name of the   
   game). Therefor I don't regard them as plausible. Should you be able to   
   provide the kind of evidence I need, of course I will reconsider my   
   position. Why wouldn't I?   
      
   (snip)   
      
   > > 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"   
      
   If there is evidence you don't need faith. If there is no evidence, and you   
   still want/need to believe, then faith is what it takes.   
      
   >   
   > >   
   > >   
   > >> ... 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.   
   > ...   
      
   If one were to say 'I believe there is life on Europa!', then yes, faith is   
   an ingredient. But my point is that a belief that it is plausible that life   
   could exist on Europa does not involve any degree of faith.   
      
      
   > ... 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;   
   > ...   
      
   Further down I tried to explain why it does not take faith to not believe in   
   gods for a person with my background.   
      
   > ... and that's because there are reasons to believe God exists. (evidence   
   > for God) ...   
      
   Not for me. I see no valid scientific evidence that supports the assertion   
   that God, or gods in general, exist.   
      
   > ... 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.   
      
   If there were valid scientific evidence, of course I would believe, why   
   wouldn't I? There isn't, though, yet you still expect me to believe. Sorry,   
   no can do. And it's not a choice, either.   
   >   
   > >   
   > >   
   > >> > 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? ...   
      
   That's how I grew up in Denmark in the 1960's and 70's. We had 'Bible   
   stories' in first and second grade, and as I have said before, I couldn't   
   destinguish the stories in the Bible from the stories of H.C. Andersen and   
   the Grimm brothers.   
      
   > ... 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. ...   
      
   Which I didn't claim was the case.   
      
   > ... you're simply lying, or fooling yourself, or trying to. ...   
      
   No, it's your strawman. I'm sure quite a few people believed in God, but I   
   never encountered anybody talking about their religion in public. I never   
   went to Sunday School (I don't even know if they existed in my village). I   
   was never exposed to religion in my childhood. I went to the seaside and   
   looked for fossils, though, saw cave paintings and ancient strange, and   
   somewhat scary, sculls of Neanderthals in France and Germany. How do you   
   think that compares to tales of talking snakes and seven dwarfs?   
      
   A little perspective:   
   http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/us/28beliefs.html?_r=0   
   ***   
   Though they [Danes and Swedes] denied most of the traditional teachings of   
   Christianity, they called themselves Christians, and most were content to   
   remain in the Danish National Church or the Church of Sweden, the   
   traditional national branches of Lutheranism.   
      
   At the same time, they were “often disinclined or hesitant to talk with me   
   about religion,” Mr. Zuckerman reported, “and even once they agreed to do   
   so, they usually had very little to say on the matter.”   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)