Position 1 and 3 are faith based and position 2 lacks the faith to take a firm position.
That's where we get back to semantics. You're using the term "faith" to apply to non-religious concepts. You might say "I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow." And while you can say that, it isn't the same thing as saying "I have faith that a god exists".
For the first, this is something that happens everyday. It is based upon the scientific method, observance, etc. It is therefore, not "faith".
So no, position 1 does not require faith. I don't believe in leprechauns. But that doesn't mean I have faith that leprechauns do not exist. If you use the terms in that way, they essentially lose their meaning.
Adam, what sicence knowedge/proof do you have that puts you in position 1. I assume you have proof
Of course you don't and so your position is the same in principle as number 3.
Ah, the old disprove a negative. Again, when you misuse terms, it makes your whole argument fall apart.
If I don't have proof of something/evidence/etc of something, I don't accept it. Since it is impossible to disprove a negative, your way of thinking would mean I'd have to attribute equal amounts of plausibility to any concept that cannot be disproven.
Example: I am god. Can you prove that I am not? Of course not. Do you believe me? Probably not. But under your way of thinking, since you can't prove it, its falls to "faith". False conclusion.
Kryst51 said:
So why is this kind of person an extremist? I would view an extremist who is one who interprets his/her religion (or commitment to it) as authorizing extremist actions like violence or some such, so much so that it goes against even the mainstream of that paricular religion/faith.
I would probably call that kind of person a radical. I don't know any radicals in my personal life.
An extremist to me is someone who tries to put their views on other people, but not in a violent way. One example would be "Values Voters". If a candidate says they support a woman's right to choose, this person would automatically not vote for them, regardless of what else they stood for.
Another example would be those Westboro people. From what I know of them, they don't physically hurt anyone, but they perform extremist actions (picketing soldier's funerals, for example).
Again, the average everyday religious person is religious because they want to be. They don't try to push their religious views on others. An extremist does, which is what differentiates them from an average religious person in my mind.
.
