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

by hooberus 59 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  LtCmd.Lore

  To say that God created the universe is nothing more than an untestable speculation.

  So is saying there is no God

  Not correct. Since you capitalized the word 'god' I can assume you are speaking of the Judeo-Christain god 'Yahweh'

  If so then saying that he doesn't exist would be a testable claim, since there are several things that would be true if the stories of him are accurate.

  For example if this god exists, then we would expect to see evidence for a global flood around 4000 years ago, evidence that the sun stood still for a day, and a completely eradicated Egypt from the plagues. If these claims are not true, then this god doesn't exist. So when I say there is no God, I have evidence.

  Also the concept of any infinately powerful god violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics, for a start. You must first prove that these laws can be broken, before I even consider your claims.

  ---

  Also your purported evidence for the existance of a diety applies to a WIDE range of bizzare beliefs.
  For example: Lastthursdayism.

  Lastthursdayism is the belief that a trickster god created the universe and everything in it only last thursday. But he made it to appear as if it has been here for billions of years, Including your memories. The universe began last thursday. The evidence? "The universe exists doesn't it?"

  Pretty much the same as YOUR evidence.

  Your beliefs are about equal with Lastthursdayism. They have JUST as much 'evidence' as you do.

  ---

  Finally, saying 'There is no god' is completely different from saying 'I don't believe in a god'.

  Lore - What Would Satan Do?
• 

  Deputy Dog

  SoL

  The facts are that there is plenty of bad science out there. We may not agree on some details, but, we both know that it true. The Haeckel's thing was the first thing that came to mind. Nobody knows everything about everything, and trusting all scientists and the peer revue system all the time, requires more faith or trust than I'm willing to give.

  I realize that there is much good science being done as well. I believe time will tell which is which.

  BTW I believe the same is true about Theology, there's plenty of good and bad. Just because the WT doesn't have a clue, doesn't mean that the answers aren't there.

  But believing in a god does explain everything?

  You're right. I never said it did.

  How does saying 'god did it' ever explain anything? It's not even a real answer, its just a way to promote ignorance.

  Just because the WT likes to "promote ignorance" doesn't mean that all who believe in God feel the same way.

  I believe that real science is a blessing sent from God.

  Is this your understanding of my faith? I think you're the one who needs education.

  "Oh well then please educate me."

  OK Great! Get your bible out and meet me on another tread one of these days
• 

  Deputy Dog

  LtCL

  Not correct. Since you capitalized the word 'god' I can assume you are speaking of the Judeo-Christain god 'Yahweh'

  You seem to have the same problem the WT does. You "assume" you know all about the "Judeo-Christain" God.
• 

  SickofLies

  The facts are that there is plenty of bad science out there. We may not agree on some details, but, we both know that it true. The Haeckel's thing was the first thing that came to mind. Nobody knows everything about everything, and trusting all scientists and the peer revue system all the time , requires more faith or trust than I'm willing to give.

  It may be true that bad science crops up from time to time, but having an undergraduate degree in physics I can tell you that one of the main principles that is drilled into the young science student is the need for skepticism. 90% of what is taught as the undergraduate level is all mathematical and merely a tool to allow you to understand some of the greater mysteries out there.

  Einstein said it perfectly:

  Imagine living 2000 years ago and finding a watch, you could come up with all kinds of elaborate theories to describe the watch and it actions, but without taking the watch apart you'll never know for sure.

  Unfortunately we cannot take the universe apart so we do the best we can. So all we really have are models of how things work, if the model can predict with accuracy what will happen then it is a good one, if it cannot then it needs to be revised. So one should be skeptical, but at the same time not cynical. It is better to educate oneself on what real science is and what it is not so that we can distinguish between the two.

  Just because the WT likes to "promote ignorance" doesn't mean that all who believe in God feel the same way.

  I believe that real science is a blessing sent from God.

  That is a vaild point and I won't argue it as it is not my goal to convert people to atheists. I mearly want people to question religion as a whole.

  I believe religion should be given no more respect than astrology or psychics. That is to say that religion is for entertainment purposes only and not to be taken seriously.
• 

  LtCmd.Lore

  You seem to have the same problem the WT does. You "assume" you know all about the "Judeo-Christain" God.

  I didn't make any claims whatsoever about the Judeo-Christian god, other than that he

  1: flooded the entire world.

  2: held the sun still for a day.

  3: brought ten plagues on egypt

  4: is all-powerful

  IF you personally don't believe some of those four things, then just say so, and just respond to the ones that you DO believe.

  Unless you don't believe ANY of them. In which case, you can simply say so.

  No reason to be a smart-alec. If you can't communicate civilly, then you have no right to communicate with me.

  Lore - W.W.S.D?
• 

  writetoknow

  I would wonder why any person would have to defend any subject stating it is a 100% right all the time.

  Personally with that approach it sounds like religious fanatism in reverse. It seems people replace one set of beliefs with another and use the same all or nothing approach. It like people living in an imperfect world and demanding perfection.

  Perhaps it is inscurity needing to be right all the time or they feel like they are failures?
• 

  funkyderek

  Aw, hooberus. You try so hard. It's like you've seen logical arguments and are doing your very best to come up with one of your own. I usually tell you to keep trying but it's been more than five years now. Maybe you should just accept that it's not your thing. Anyway, on with the show:

  Indeed, persons who subscribe to a non-theistic belief system* have been generally forced to hold to the following beliefs:

  As someone else pointed out, non-theists are generally not forced to believe anything. But let's examine the beliefs you think we should be compelled to hold:

  That life came from non-life.

  I would concede that most non-theists believe this, although it's possible to believe that life always existed and not be a theist. Neither of these beliefs is more absurd than your belief that life came from non-life at the hands of a lifelike entity whose own existence requires no explanation.

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

  That belief is not exclusive to non-theists. Most theists agree with it as well, for the simple reason that it happens to be true. It is much more difficult for a non-theist not to believe it than for a theist, as the latter can appeal to miracles and deception to explain away the evidence - as you yourself try desperately to do, hoob.

  * 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.

  So what? Everyone believes something. BFD. Believing things based on evidence is different to believing them based on blind faith and religious indoctrination. I know the best you can do is to try and equate the two (as your belief system is unsupported by any evidence), but you must realise by now what a pathetic waste of time it is.

  Maybe you should take up flower-arranging or another hobby that requires a little less grey matter.
• 

  hooberus

  Believing things based on evidence is different to believing them based on blind faith and religious indoctrination. I know the best you can do is to try and equate the two (as your belief system is unsupported by any evidence), but you must realise by now what a pathetic waste of time it is.

  Are such beliefs as I listed really "based on evidence":

  As I stated previously, "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."

  The following are some of the resources:

  The Book The Biotic Message:

  http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm

  Preface

  The preface gives background about the book and its author.

  1. Evolution vs. the Biotic Message

  • Introduces the issues and major themes of the book
    • Evolutionists do not fully understand their own theory and its incredible flexibility.
    • Evolutionary theory is a structureless smorgasbord.
    • Many evolutionary illusions are created by evolutionists remaining silent on key issues.
  • Introduces a new creationist theory — Message Theory — to replace evolution.
  • Introduces the argument from imperfection — Stephen Gould's "Panda Principle" — and gives the first of several key reasons to overturn it. Unordinary designs (so called "imperfect" designs) are the expected result of a designer who is sending a message. They also form a unique style, which, like handwriting, allows us to identify that life had only one author.

  2. Naturalism vs. Science

  • Covers issues in the philosophy of science.
  • Explains the difference between scientific and non-scientific theories, particularly the key role of testability.
  • Documents that evolutionists themselves have thoroughly endorsed testability as the criterion of science in all the key creation/evolution court cases.

    The book later argues that evolution is not science — using the evolutionist's own criterion of testability. Some evolutionary leaders are quoted essentially admitting that. The book argues that the new creation theory is testable science, and evolution is not. This role reversal is noteworthy since it engages the debate on the evolutionists' terms using their own criterion of science. It is also a departure from previous creationist positions.

  • Debunks the evolutionists' attempts to define creation out of science:
    • Identifies cases where evolutionists use a double standard — one standard for creation theory, and a lesser one for evolution.
    • Shows that theories involving an intelligent designer are already accepted by evolutionists as testable science. Therefore, evolutionists cannot claim such theories are inherently unscientific.
    • Debunks the evolutionist's assault on the argument from design. Shows that the argument from design can be thoroughly convincing. For example, we often show that someone's death was not accidental, that it was designed — and we show it so compellingly that we execute the 'designer'.
    • Shows that some statements about the supernatural can be testable science. The key is that science must remain self-consistent, it cannot be allowed to contradict itself, and this sometimes forces us to accept some element of the supernatural. Gödel's Theorem (from the logic of mathematics) is discussed as a precedent setting example. This is a contribution to the wider philosophy of science as well as the origins debate.
    • Shows the anthropic principle is not testable, and so not science by evolutionists' own criterion. It reveals an illusion involving a three-shell game ruse, much like is later revealed for natural selection. more: http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm

  A critique of the RNA hypothesis by former prominent evolutionist author Dean Kenyon:

  http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm

  Is Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change?

  by Kevin L. Anderson

  http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_4/bact_resist.htm

  The book "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Human Genome" (written by a Cornell professor)

  http://www.creationresearch.org

  "The central axiom of evolution is that natural selection acts upon mutations to provide the genetic mechanism for common descent. However, Dr. Sanford, a former researcher at Cornell University, challenges that there are many reasons why this axiom is not a reasonable mechanism for evolution. He demonstrates that various phenomena, such as Haldane’s dilemma, show that mutations create a genetic burden that natural selection cannot compensate. Furthermore, because there are many more mutations than previously thought, the health of organisms is steadily declining, not evolving. This well written book is geared toward the educated layman and deals with many current aspects of genetics."
• 

  serotonin_wraith

  Well I'm a little confused. You mention the idea of life coming from non life without an intelligence behind it, and then your first link is about evolution. You do realise evolution says nothing about life from non life, right? If you didn't know this, then you've just learned something. If you did, maybe you could work on your writing skills. It looks like you're making a link between the origin of life and evolution.

  "Is life from non life really backed by evidence? ...Let's look at a site about evolution."

  It doesn't go together.

  So, SAINT PAUL science. I'm sure that's an unbiased site! There's loads there. Wanna pick out one thing you think debunks evolution? I'd rather not buy a book and give this fool some money.

  The RNA site. Looks interesting. A bit over my head though. He may have some good points, he may not. I have no idea. It talks about the origin of life, and as stated already, that's a mystery. It's something that's still being investigated. So when you say scientists say it was definitely a natural event, as far as I'm aware it's not established fact what happened. I've not seen anything about all the details being available. Looks like he thinks life started out small (DNA/RNA/whatever - he just questions how) so I wonder what happened to get life to this point? Evolution perhaps? The author doesn't say.

  Last site, another book. *sigh* Just one thing that debunks evolution please. Bacteria evolving is such a straightforward idea. You have a bunch of bacteria, and some is slightly different (mutation). Along come the antibiotics to kill the bacteria, and they get most of it, apart from a few that are resistant (due to their mutation). What's left to carry on the legacy? Why, it's the bacteria that were slightly different, so off they go growing in numbers, passing on the mutated information so that in the end, most have this mutation. In other words, the entire 'family' of bacteria has changed. Evolved. Ta da.
• 

  VoidEater

  I would say that intelligent life and the universe, from nothing, form a basis [for belief in God].

  I would say that intelligent life and the universe, from nothing, form a basis for asking questions. Anything else is subjective.