NON-THEISTIC belief systems REQUIRE LOTS of FAITH (e.g. people from FISH) (page 2)

nvrgnbk

I believe what I can observe and what all people, universally, regardless of cultural influences observe.

I believe in matter and energy and what we describe as color and shades of color, warmth and lack of it, love and lack of it, water and lack of it, etc., etc.

We use different words to describe the above, but we all experience these things.

Spirituality is real. People experience it. Scientists have observed spiritual experiences in the brain.

Essentially the same brain activity is recorded, regardless of what the person's belief system is.

What about any of that requires faith?

What about any of that requires a Jehovah, a Jesus, or an Allah?

If both the theist and the atheist (non-theist) can be born, live, love, give, take, raise children, or not, marvel at the Universe, or take it all for granted, and finally die, some at peace, some terrified, what need is there for theism?

Is it just a sweet delusion?

LtCmd.Lore

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.

There are several problems here.

1: Atheists (people who do not believe in god) existed long before we had any knowledge of abiogenesis or evolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism So therefore we are not 'forced' to believe any of those things. We don't HAVE to believe that evolution is an acceptable answer, all we believe is that 'god did it' is NOT an acceptable answer.

2: You seem to be confusing the definition of the word faith. There are several DRASTICALLY different meanings.
In modern culture we use the word faith to mean anything from:

a: Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
b: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

I agree that, using the FIRST definition, to believe evolution we have to have some 'faith' in the scientists.

In other words, I trust that all the geologists, biologists, chemists, physicists, mathematicians and astronomers DIDN'T all get together and decide to 'make up' this grand unified theory of evolution (and then lie to the public about it as a group for centuries).

Just like I have faith that all the doctors, biologists and chemists DIDN'T all get together and decide to 'make up' this grand unified concept of germ theory (and then lie to the public about it as a group for centuries).

But you seem to be invoking the equivocation fallacy, by implying that BOTH definitions of the word faith must apply. That the belief in the theory of evolution and (following the same logic) germ theory are beliefs that have no logical proof or material evidence.

3: This argument seems to be setting the belief in god as the default worldview. Since theists make a positive claim which is extraordinary in nature, the burden of proof is on the theist to prove that there is a God. Most theists do not "believe in" fairies, but you would not consider a request to prove the non-existence of fairies to be reasonable. There is no reason why anyone should believe in fairies or God without positive evidence.

It's not the atheists job to prove that god doesn't exist. It's your job to prove that he does, and our job to decide whether we accept your evidence or not. If the god is not logically consistent then one is justified in their disbelief, even if they don't know 100% for sure that the god doesn't exist.

Finally, I will point out that germ theory is a non-theistic concept, because it replaced the concept that diseases where inflicted by gods or demons. Do they both require 'Lots of faith'?

Lore - What.Would.Satan.Do?

SickofLies

Such stupidity, according to your definition of faith it is impossible not to have faith, so why bother bring it up at all?

Deputy Dog

hooberus

Could we add to that?

no intelligence begat intelligence
no morals begat morals

writetoknow

Science theroies and facts change as new discoveries are made. Science is a progress of information being defined and redefined. Thus, to suggest a 1000-years from now the views of scientist will not alter is an act of faith. To believe that what is known about science today is some how a holy grill is an act of faith.

Furthermore, when any group defends a set of known facts it becomes or requires faith in the information or the founder of that information. To state a person can go back billions of years and accurately known the facts is an act of faith.

1000 years from now science may prove there is a God. On the other hand, they may come up with further proof there isn't a God. Nonetheless, it will always be a theory promoted by belief in the word of the scientist or science as fact to that person or persons depending on their agenda.

stillajwexelder

1000 years from now science may prove there is a God. On the other hand, they may come up with further proof there isn't a God. Nonetheless, it will always be a theory promoted by belief in the word of the scientist or science as fact to that person or persons depending on their agenda

That is a blade that cuts both ways. 2000 years ago we believed in Thor/Jupiter etc - now it is the Judaeo-Christian Abrahamic God. 2000 years from now maybe it will be faith in a different god - Allah perhaps. Or Richard Dawkins

writetoknow

My point exactly it all depends on what you "choose" to believe or put faith in.

Deputy Dog

2000 years ago we believed in Thor/Jupiter etc

Who is we?

Qcmbr

Ironically - faith is to believe in something that is true (otherwise it bears no fruit). Faith isn't a religiously cornered market its just a concept.

Evidence is at the root of any belief. When that evidence is misinterpreted then faith is based in the wrong thing - misunderstanding of the causality of things is the basis of misplaced faith (sacrificing babies does not ensure crop fertility). Science has its share of oopsie moments just as much as religion has - no-one should be claiming dogmatically that they understand all scientific laws or dogmatically that they know of God. This doesn't mean that there are some very good rules that provide excellent results in the macro world but don't always work on the micro(Newtonian physics and one of the sets of ten commandments :)

The most important skills for intelligence IMO is the ability to have absolute faith in a concept to try it out and then absolute courage to accept the results (i.e. if a 6 day creation doesn't work then stick it in the bin with other 'rubbish' such as the earth centric universe and miasma.) Believe, try, analyse and move on.

Midget-Sasquatch

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:

Actually they haven't "been generally forced" to belief the subsequent points you list. They have come to accept them as likely accounts of what has happened in the past based on alot of tangible objective evidence. Evidence they can assess for themselves and also raise further questions about and debate about with peers.

On the other hand, many of them have been forced to accept certain theistic belief systems with no evidence and to do so without question on pain of death. Remember the Spanish Inquisition? Or why not try talking about or teaching your christian beliefs to some Abu Sayyaf members? I wouldn't recommend that last one if you like keeping your head.

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

Share this