by hooberus 59 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Ba,
: Atheists have faith, too.
Incorrect. Atheists are distinguished by their LACK of faith.
:The difference is where they put their faith, what object(s)- God or man.
They cannot put their faith anywhere: they have none, twit.
:BA- Puts faith in God.
Can't hurt to do that! May not help, but cannot hurt!
Farkel, who also puts faith in God, but only in moderation
P.S. Can you articulate the difference between theist and deist? Please help we dummies out on that...
Farkel
: Atheists have faith, too.
Incorrect. Atheists are distinguished by their LACK of faith.
:The difference is where they put their faith, what object(s)- God or man.
They cannot put their faith anywhere: they have none, twit.
I guess you aren't sure if the sun will rise tomorow or if gravity will work?
I guess you aren't sure if the sun will rise tomorow or if gravity will work?
This is a very different kind of faith than what religious people have. To have faith in something that is easily provable is completely rational, to have faith in something which is impossible to prove is not rational.
Most atheists, agnostics, humanists or whatever would argue for the need to put faith in only rational things.
A better argument to be had would not be over what is faith, but what is rational.
Example: Is it rational to believe what you are taught in science class knowing that in 100 years different things will be taught?
Answer: Yes, in 100 years there will very likely be many new discoveries, all of which will be made based on the building blocks that are being taught in schools today. People today are only able to make discoveries by standing on the shoulders of giants. While new discoveries will be made, the previous discoveries will not be invalided. For example, Einstein’s theory of general relativity improved upon Newton’s theory of gravity, however, if you take physics in high school today you will learn about Newton’s theory of gravity and not Einstein’s, why? Because for 90% of cases it still works perfectly and there is no need to use Einstein’s more complicated improved version.
The reason I can say with a great degree of certainty that even though there will be many new discoveries they will not completely invalidate the science being taught today is that everything that is being taught today in science can be verified by experimentation. The only way we could ever change any of the major founding principles of modern science would be to find experimental evidence that cannot be explained by one of today's theoretical models. In that case we made need to make a new theory to account for that experiment or perhaps modify an existing theory to account for some kind of extreme circumstance that we had not thought of before.
So, in summary, to reject modern science based on the idea that it will be different in 100 years is completely irrational. It is not based on evidence or proper understanding of how science works.
Now, let me turn he tables around on the theists for a minute.
Is there any rational basis for believing in god?
Atheists are distinguished by their LACK of faith.
They [atheists] cannot put their faith anywhere: they have none...
Another semantic argument originating in ignorance of the meaning of faith. All you need to do is open a dictionary to prove that atheists have faith:
Faith:
1. | confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability . |
2. | belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. |
So all of us have faith- although the object of that faith may differ. Faith in God, faith in men, faith in men’s hypotheses and theories, etc. Everyone has faith in something or someone. Faith is that part of our constitution that augments knowledge, reason and logic based on observable and non-observable proof.
In other words, not all things can be known absolutely, very little of what we know is indisputable fact. So, we come to conclusions based on the indisputable facts, and after reasoning on these facts, we fill in the blanks to explain everything that
is not indisputable fact. That leap that we all make in doing so is faith.
Can you articulate the difference between theist and deist?
Again, let’s go to the dictionary:
Deism:
1. belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism ). |
2. | belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it. |
Theism:
1. | the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ). |
2. | belief in the existence of a god or gods |
So Deists believe God set up the universe, set it in motion, and left it at that, in other words, He’s an observer who does not take an active role in the universe He created.
Theists, on the other hand, believe God did the same as in Deism, but rather than just being an observer, He maintains an active role in the cosmos. Theists believe God actively intervenes in the lives that He created, in ways that He deems necessary.
BA- Trouncing another semantic argument.
PS- You do bear a striking resemblance to your ancestor:
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.
I disagree, and I think that the evidence supports such disagreement. For example the idea that "life came fom non-life" by unintelligent natural processes has never been observed, and faces overwhelming scientific problems (even given genereous time, trials, and space considerations). This has been widely acknowledged. In reality the real reason why it it is believed is not because its a "likely account" "of what happened in the past based on alot of tangible objective evidence", but instead because the concept is demanded by the philosophy/methodology demands of "naturalism", which materialists (like non-theists) hold.
Farkel:
Ba,
: Atheists have faith, too.
Incorrect. Atheists are distinguished by their LACK of faith.
Lack of faith??? Oh I see, evolution musta happend, so it did happend. Please.
I would also like to politely say that this thread was not intended to be about atheism (as defined by some of its proponets as a mere "lack of belief in a god"), but instead about non-theistic belief systems. If you are a person who merely calims to have a "lack of faith in a god" and claims no worldview belief system at all, then you do not have a "non-theistsic belief system"
UNDER CONST
I would also like to politely say that this thread was not intended to be about atheism (as defined by some of its proponets as a mere "lack of belief in a god"), but instead about non-theistic belief systems. If you are a person who merely calims to have a "lack of faith in a god" and claims no worldview belief system at all, then you do not have a "non-theistsic belief system"
You defined a non-theistic belief system as belief in science in your first post.
Belief in science is a rational based belief that is based on evidence.
Belief in a deity is a non-rational based belief that is based on human tradition.
Edit: It is possible to have both a 'non-theistic' belief system and a theistic belief system at the same time.
I would also like to say that this thread was not intended to be about atheism (as defined by some of its proponets as a mere "lack of belief in a god"), but instead about non-theistic belief systems.
If you are a person who merely claims to have a "lack of faith in a god" and no other belief system at all, then this thread is not about you, (since apparently you have no beliefs to discuss).
You defined a non-theistic belief system as belief in science in your first post.
No I didn't.
Belief in science is a rational based belief that is based on evidence.
I think that everyone here believes in science, and also that beliefs with evidence are preferable to those without, however this does not mean that the things that I presented in the first post that non-theists believe in are therefore "science".
Belief in a deity is a non-rational based belief that is based on human tradition.
I disagree, howver this thread is not about belief in a deity.
