NON-THEISTIC belief systems REQUIRE LOTS of FAITH (e.g. people from FISH)

by hooberus 59 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

hooberus
I once saw Dawkins refer to his views as a "belief system". Indeed, persons who subscribe to a non-theistic belief system* have been generally forced to hold to the following beliefs:
- That life came from non-life.
- That people came from FISH (fish are in mans actual ancestry in evolutionary phylogenetic trees).
- That unintelligent natural processes are sufficient to explain of all the incredible complexity and design around us [this can thus be called the "unintelligent design" movement
* Even those who claim to have "a lack of faith in God" always also have some sort of a belief system and (to be logically consistent) they believe the above points.
Brother Apostate

Yep.
Atheists have faith, too.
The difference is where they put their faith, what object(s)- God or man.
BA- Puts faith in God.
serotonin_wraith

Let me help you with this construction.
I once saw Dawkins refer to his views as a "belief system".
First, do you have a link to this because I'd like to see it in context. If he was talking about his scientific beliefs, then sure, that's a belief system. However, atheism is not a belief system. You may have the two confused. You can be atheist yet believe humans sprung out of flowers 60 million years ago. Atheism says nothing about what a person DOES believe.
You're being atheist too when you reject thousands of gods. I bet you don't even think about it. Just because you don't believe in Ra or Dionysis, you know that would say nothing about what you DO believe. In short, atheism is a lack of belief, and that's it.
So, no atheist is forced to believe:
That life came from non-life [probably many times]

But if we're on the subject, it only had to happen once. All life came from ONE ancestor. Every living thing today shares similar DNA.

That people came from FISH (fish are in mans actual ancestry in evolutionary phylogenetic trees)

Yes, if you go very far back our ancestors used to live in the sea. But we're talking millions and millions of years here, in in all that time a lot can happen to a species. It's possible for fish to breathe on land. There are examples of fish today that do that very thing for months at a time.

That unintelligent natural processes are the cause of all the incredible complexity and design ["unintelligent design" movement] around us.

Absolutely. The species you see today have to be the kind that have adapted well to their environment. A better 'designed' wing on an insect for example, will give it an edge over an insect with a poorly 'designed' wing. It's more likely for the 'better designed' species to go on reproducing. Most species actually go extinct. 99% of all animals that have ever existed are now gone, in fact.

* Even those who claim to have merely "a lack of faith in God" if they are also to have any sort of overal thinking worldview must also adopt the above points.

No must about it. They can believe anything they want. Most people use rational thinking and look at the evidence however.

hooberus

However, atheism is not a belief system. You may have the two confused. You can be atheist yet believe humans sprung out of flowers 60 million years ago. Atheism says nothing about what a person DOES believe.

You're being atheist too when you reject thousands of gods. I bet you don't even think about it. Just because you don't believe in Ra or Dionysis, you know that would say nothing about what you DO believe. In short, atheism is a lack of belief, and that's it.

I never said on this thread that atheism is a belief system [I never even used the word atheism], but instead that non-theistic belief systems also require lots of faith. I will say though that every person that I have encountered that claims a "a lack of belief" in a god has always also had some sort of nontheistic belief system. Anyway this thread is not intended to be directly about atheism, but instead about non-theistic belief systems.

serotonin_wraith

Even those who claim to have "a lack of faith in God" always also have some sort of a belief system and (to be logically consistent) they believe the above points.

Not quite. If they want to believe evidence (not faith) then they will believe the points as I described them, because they are backed by evidence. Being logically consistent isn't the same, I don't think. It would be logically consistent if I thought my house could fly into space if I also thought it had rockets attached to it from NASA. Those two beliefs are consistent, but neither are actually backed up by evidence.

There's a good video on 'designed life' and how it looks so designed here- http://richarddawkins.net/growingupintheuniverse

It's the second video down: 'Designed and Designoid Objects'. It may help answer some of the valid concerns you have about life seeming to be designed.

hooberus

Even those who claim to have "a lack of faith in God" always also have some sort of a belief system and (to be logically consistent) they believe the above points.
Not quite. If they want to believe evidence (not faith) then they will believe the points as I described them, because they are backed by evidence.

Are things such as "life coming from non-life" really "backed by evidence" or instead beliefs held by faith about the unobserved past (and even held against much evidence)?

Well written criticism of such beliefs are available, and well documented.

Persons who believe such things would do well to examine their beliefs from such resources, keeping in mind the claim (made by most non-theists) that the "burden of proof" is on the advocate of any belief system), not on the critic.

One can then determine (perhaps) if the non-theistic belief system advocates have really proven their beliefs beyond a reasonable doubt, or if they are instead speculative, or even against the evidence.

serotonin_wraith

I never said on this thread that atheism is a belief system [I never even used the word atheism], but instead that non-theistic belief systems also require lots of faith.

My apologies then. But I wouldn't agree that these other beliefs require faith.

Are things such as "life coming from non-life" really "backed by evidence" or instead beliefs held about the unobserved past (and even held against much evidence)?

Wouldn't you agree that when our universe began there was no life in it? Wouldn't you also agree that there is now life? So doesn't it seem logical to conclude that something happened which made it so that life started? Life is made up of the same elements found in the universe, such as stardust, which is non living. We don't know what the exact process was. Even the Biblical story of life coming about when God breathed into dirt is a life from non life process. I don't know of any evidence that goes against thinking life came from non life, because the universe has not always had life in it. So something happened.

hooberus

Are things such as "life coming from non-life" really "backed by evidence" or instead beliefs held about the unobserved past (and even held against much evidence)?
Wouldn't you agree that when our universe began there was no life in it? Wouldn't you also agree that there is now life? So doesn't it seem logical to conclude that something happened which made it so that life started? Life is made up of the same elements found in the universe, such as stardust, which is non living. We don't know what the exact process was. Even the Biblical story of life coming about when God breathed into dirt is a life from non life process. I don't know of any evidence that goes against thinking life came from non life, because the universe has not always had life in it. So something happened.

Um, ... I was refering to the belief that life came from non-life by purely unintelligent natural processes [I thought that everyone would get that].

serotonin_wraith

I was refering to the belief that life came from non-life by purely unintelligent natural processes

The truthful answer is that nobody knows. But we use reasoning skills to determine what seems more likely.

We do know that stars form naturally, that planets form naturally, that evolution is natural. So far, there is nothing supernatural about the universe that has been discovered. We didn't know what thunder really was, or what volcanoes were all about. Humans used to think that there was an intelligence behind these things. But we were proved wrong. In all our searching for answers, the supernatural explanation ends up disappearing.

This has happened in 100% of cases so far, so it's not using faith to believe life to non life was a natural process. We have good reasons for thinking this way. Would we be using faith if we thought the big bang wasn't the result of a mad scientist in an even larger universe creating this one? No. As there is no reason to think a mad scientist made this universe, we tend to reject the idea. It's the same when we talk about an intelligence behind life starting on Earth. If it's shown that there was an intelligence, I'll believe. Until then, I don't think it's wrong to reject the idea, just as most people would reject the mad scientist explanation.

stillajwexelder

I belive the God Jupiter was worshipped 200 years ago

I believe the God Thor was worshipped about 1000 years ago

I believe the God Odin was worshipped about 1000 years ago

I believe the the God Ammon- Ra was worshipped about 4000 years ago

I HAVE A THEISTIC belief system

NON-THEISTIC belief systems REQUIRE LOTS of FAITH (e.g. people from FISH)

Share this