Questions about noah ark

[goodwithoutgod]

One of my fav fallacies, that one. "you have faith in science"..or..."you have faith in love"..You can't compare something for which we have abundant evidence (love, the actions of a real person, knowledge that a mechanical vehicle works) to a faith claim, which by definition is that for which lacks evidence. Nice try though. The idea my wife probably loves me is not a radical hypothesis. The idea that a being created the universe is an extraordinary claim. Equating an extraordinary claim with a mundane one, and then suggesting they both "require faith" is disanalogous.

I actually have little issue with the "you have faith in X!" point when it's made as Drich used it, with a clear and unambiguous definition of what he meant when he said that, that makes it clear that the type of faith he's talking about is so broad, and encompassed in so many reasonable actions one might take, that it's not exactly something you could denigrate anyone for having.

The issue I take with Drich's claim, and this is the one I take with these "atheist faith" things in general, is that he then turns around and denigrates us for having it anyway, in the process hiding an additional premise that hasn't been justified and is, on the face of it, ridiculous, which is that "all kinds of faith is exactly the same, and is identical to my religious views."

This is obviously false and, aside from being where the equivocation comes in, is merely an attempt to skirt the issue under discussion with word games, and in the process shows how little Drich is actually listening to what other people are saying to him. The point of contention, when it comes to these religious discussions, is that the "faith" (belief, confidence) that the theist has in god is unjustified, for a series of reasons that are explained subsequent to that initial contention. But it's like Drich only hears the first part, the "your faith is worthless," part, and so seeks to repackage any more reasonable, justified epistemological positions as faith too, which doesn't actually address the point of contention at all, it just puts it into different words, that are now completely irrelevant to the actual issue by virtue of the redefinition Drich had to go through to get there.

It's such a circuitous, dishonest attempt at maneuvering around a point to cover for his inability to face it head on, that the simple action of making the argument turns the point of the argument irrelevant.

exactly, well said. Perhaps my assertion was too brief, you did a much better job articulating that.