NON-THEISTIC belief systems REQUIRE LOTS of FAITH (e.g. people from FISH) (page 4)

SickofLies

No I didn't.

Yes you did.

The title of this thread (e.g. people from fish) is the science of evolution. You used this example again in your first post.

writetoknow

It amaze me that people will argue over words defending the meaning of a word as though it is the holy grill of life!

Example what the word "faith" means! Some authority somewhere decided at some point in the history of man what the proper meaning of "faith" is - why? To form peoples thoughts into a uniform lanuage for communication.

Thus, is the history of lanuage, sciences, religion, law, etc..

So all groups set out words or phases and defend them until they are accept as a fact in the history of lanuage and man.

So we now have athiest defending they don't have "faith" in their beliefs or they don't have "beliefs". Subsequently, using every tact condemned by athiest against religion to get their beliefs accepted into the main steam of society.

So ask people what faith is - not the dictionary definition - and you will get a different answer for each person on earth - sound like religion to me. Ask people what "belief" means to them and you get the same treatment.

Power come from forming words into the accepted lanuage that can be defended in a court of law it does not mean it has anything to do with the human experience. It is nothing more then gaining power to control those that disagree with your theories .

The rest of the condescension, labeling, and acting as though it is an indisputable fact are part of the process of impowering words into the mainstream of lanuage to control the thoughts of the society.

Ultimately, people must act upon a belief in those words/word to inforce the correct definition of them and act in faith that you are right.

nicolaou

I have faith in my wife and I have faith that the sun will rise in the morning but of course, these aren't the sorts of faith you are referring to. I am an atheist with no faith at all - none. Don't believe me?

Put me to the test.

writetoknow

How do you define faith on whos authority?

nicolaou

If you have a conclusion arrived at through factual, verifiable and independant sources, where any experimentation or procedures are fully disclosed and are able to be repeated, then you have knowledge.

You can still hold to the same conclusion without those rigours of discipline but in that case you will need faith. The problem there is that anything can thus be believed - even the Bible says that "faith believes all things". Some things though, like a man walking on water, are unbelievable.

Faith or Reason - it's your choice.

nvrgnbk

We know the sun will come up, because it has always come up, in our experience. Is that faith?

There are no instances that we know of when it didn't, in our experience.

The believer prays seeking God's guidance or intervention.

When help fails to arrive, it is always explained away.

"God's silence is my answer."

"He knows what I need better than I do."

"Look how He's blessed me", while pointing to some accomplishment or possession that is within the realm of experience of non-believers as well.

"He's allowing us to be tested."

It never ends.

writetoknow

How do you know that the authorities that define faith or your thoughts are correct, correct enough that the definition will never change, correct enough to remove another person beliefs? And who is to say they are correct?

writetoknow

What of the prayers that are answered do you assume that person is lying? So you claim to be the ultimate authority to judge if a person prayers are answered or not?

nicolaou

What of the prayers that are answered

And which would they be? http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/112271/1.ashx

Midget-Sasquatch

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...

Just like a special creation from god?

...and faces overwhelming scientific problems (even given genereous time, trials, and space considerations). This has been widely acknowledged.

You think theres a very strong case against the 1st fo the 3 "beliefs" you've listed. My posting was generally applied to all 3. Would you like to discuss all the evidence available for the other 2 points as well? You see all of the genetic evidence available for those 2 points shows a plausible chain of descent with modification that can be stretched backwards to the simplest unicellular life-forms. I don't think that expecting a full blown genetic systems for the first "life-form" and setting the standard for the bacterium as we know it is solid proof against a completely materialist stance on the origin of life. Whose to say the first life-form was so equipped? Think even simpler and build from there. We have seen time and again how the genetic apparatus has been added to and modified over time.

Now I agree that there isn't enough data to definitely outline one particular way how abiogenesis ("life from non-life") occured. But there are interesting molecular fossils within ribosomes that hint at how the very basis of replication may have come about by random natural processes. Consider the experiments where polynucleotide rnas which could act as an enzyme (these particular ones could self catalyze) were eventually produced from mononucleotides. Selective processes also were able to yield self-replicating rnas from those molecules. Good tangible evidence that supports some form of the RNA theory of abiogenesis. I'm not saying this is the way life came about, but its an interesting collection if observations that hint at a route to further investigate. Please recall how I mentioned about views that can be tested and debated for its accuracy (unlike special creation).

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.

I would have to say that materialism demands much less from me than whats demanded by theistic belief systems since it has a rational basis as pointed out by SickofLies. The "demands" of the materialist worldview have actually benefited humans by stripping away the ignorance that superstitious worldviews have kept people shackled in for centuries if not millenia.

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

Share this