Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Science does not deal in 'faith'. You and 'Answers in Genesis' may think it does...but you'd be wrong.
If something were true, it wouldn't be proven wrong would it?
Yep. The OP was putting a not new point - that Atheism is also a 'Faith'. This is one of the many equivocating fallacies of Theist apologetics.
Belief = Faith = religion, therefore (wangle, wangle) since atheists believe in some things, science or No God, they have a religion of science or unfaith.
Entirely wrong and a fallacy. While it is not always easy to define exactly what a religion is, atheism is not one. I'd say while I think of it, that religion is characterized by Dogma - insisting that something is true when there is no good reason to believe it.
Atheism is completely the opposite - it only believes something is true when there is good reason to believe it and that something is untrue when there is good reason to disbelieve it.
Atheism is totally different from religious belief.
The points about how do we know what's true and suggestions that we claim to have all truth or know everything are simply fatheaded.
Science and the mental tools of logic are the only reliable methods of coming to conclusions. Speculation and guesswork is not. What we don't know we can say we don't believe until we do know. That is all atheism and indeed, science needs.
Theists with education and certificates know this well enough or ought to.
Science and the mental tools of logic are the only reliable methods of coming to conclusions. Speculation and guesswork is not. What we don't know we can say we don't believe until we do know. That is all atheism and indeed, science needs.
Theists with education and certificates know this well enough or ought to.
I refuse to hop on to the current definitional carousel, Arequipa. But what you say here is true enough regarding generically applicable (to others) conclusions . . . but you denigrate the subjective without justification. Equating the subjective to "speculation and guesswork" is disingenuous. The left brain disciplines are not the only way to get structured information about reality. Your unwillingness to develop the right brain discipline to consciously distinguish among those experiences in altered brain states that are emanating from your subconscious (and alterable by conscious will) and those experiences over which there is no conscious control and are unalterable . . . does not justify your dismissal of the validity of such experiences as a basis for conclusions (for the individual).
Yep. The OP was putting a not new point - that Atheism is also a 'Faith'. This is one of the many equivocating fallacies of Theist apologetics.
Belief = Faith = religion, therefore (wangle, wangle) since atheists believe in some things, science or No God, they have a religion of science or unfaith.
Entirely wrong and a fallacy. While it is not always easy to define exactly what a religion is, atheism is not one. I'd say while I think of it, that religion is characterized by Dogma - insisting that something is true when there is no good reason to believe it.
Atheism is completely the opposite - it only believes something is true when there is good reason to believe it and that something is untrue when there is good reason to disbelieve it.
Atheism is totally different from religious belief.
The points about how do we know what's true and suggestions that we claim to have all truth or know everything are simply fatheaded.
Science and the mental tools of logic are the only reliable methods of coming to conclusions. Speculation and guesswork is not. What we don't know we can say we don't believe until we do know. That is all atheism and indeed, science needs.
Theists with education and certificates know this well enough or ought to.
Why do you Atheists attribute SO much meaning to the word faith? Its almost laughable to see how scared you are of the word. Having faith does NOT constitute a RELIGION, and nowhere in my OP did I make the claim or even hint that it did. Everyone has faith in somthing. Lets pretend for a minute that your best freind wanted to borrow $100. Now, you cannot gaurantee me that he/she will pay it back, but based on you previous experiences with this person, you have faith that they will. Would this also constitute a religious belief??? Think about it.
For example, you beleive that there is infact no God. Now, there no NO concrete evidence to prove that thereis no God, { or that there is a God } but you have faith in the fact that there is a perfectly logical, scientific explanation for everything without invoking a God. Since you do not know what that explanation is yet, { a theory of everything } you have faith that there is one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
Is this a riddle?
No riddle, just trying to show you that while faith may be an important part of religion, you can have faith without it being religious
Lets pretend for a minute that your best freind wanted to borrow $100. Now, you cannot gaurantee me that he/she will pay it back, but based on you previous experiences with this person, you have faith that they will. Would this also constitute a religious belief??? Think about it.
......... you have confidence that they will based on prior experience and/or knowledge of the persons character.
It would probably be faith if you lent it to a complete stranger.
......... you have confidence that they will based on prior experience and/or knowledge of the persons character.
It would probably be faith if you lent it to a complete stranger.
Ok, but can we agree that somone can have """"faith""""" in somthing without it being religious? That is the point that alot of people seem to be missing or denying, one of the two.
I refuse to hop on to the current definitional carousel, Arequipa. But what you say here is true enough regarding generically applicable (to others) conclusions . . . but you denigrate the subjective without justification. Equating the subjective to "speculation and guesswork" is disingenuous. The left brain disciplines are not the only way to get structured information about reality. Your unwillingness to develop the right brain discipline to consciously distinguish among those experiences in altered brain states that are emanating from your subconscious (and alterable by conscious will) and those experiences over which there is no conscious control and are unalterable . . . does not justify your dismissal of the validity of such experiences as a basis for conclusions (for the individual).
I do not denigrate the subjective without justification. You hold it up as evidence without justification.
Why do you Atheists attribute SO much meaning to the word faith? Its almost laughable to see how scared you are of the word. Having faith does NOT constitute a RELIGION, and nowhere in my OP did I make the claim or even hint that it did. Everyone has faith in somthing. Lets pretend for a minute that your best freind wanted to borrow $100. Now, you cannot gaurantee me that he/she will pay it back, but based on you previous experiences with this person, you have faith that they will. Would this also constitute a religious belief??? Think about it.
We have to keep on explaining the word 'Faith' because of these deceptive tinkerings with the semantics to try and score a point. It is false to equate beliefs based on evidence or experience ("based on you(r) previous experiences with this person,")with faith based on no adequate evidence. Semantics aside, the two kinds of belief or faith are not the same. Atheist beliefs are not the same as religious beliefs. And I seem to recall that the OP was indeed trying to argue that it was.
Quote:
For example, you beleive that there is infact no God. Now, there no NO concrete evidence to prove that thereis no God, { or that there is a God } but you have faith in the fact that there is a perfectly logical, scientific explanation for everything without invoking a God. Since you do not know what that explanation is yet, { a theory of everything } you have faith that there is one.
If one is going to claim a logical basis for theism, one had to produce credible evidence that there IS a god. It is not upon atheism that the burden of proof lies to prove there is not a god. We do not have to have a logical scientific explanation for everything. All that we need is to look at the theist claims and see that that they do not stack up. It is this fallacious theist view that atheism has to make a case that we have to refute time and time again (pace the cheap jibe of being 'afraid' of the term). That is what we constantly have to explain again and again. That is a matter of logic and to refuse to accept or understand that means that the arguments of that person are worthless, as they are founded on illogic.
Quote:
No riddle, just trying to show you that while faith may be an important part of religion, you can have faith without it being religious.
That's true, but it doesn't mean faith (or belief) based on sound evidence is no better or valid than Theist faith or belief based on claims which do not stack up. That is the concepts to keep in mind, whichever term one uses.
P.s You have made all these arguments in the OP.
"Atheists need to have faith that the findings and opinions of like minded scientists are unbiased, and are a true account that has not been affected by their personal beleifs." That is what the scientific method and Peer review is intended to do. Anyone trying to attack the corpus of knowledge (unless it appears to help theist arguments, of course) loses credibility.
"5.] At this point in time, both need to have """FAITH""" in order to beleive what they beleive" That is the fallacy of equivocation explained above. They are not the same.
"both are purely speculative arguments. Neither can prove or disprove what they beleive to be true."
The burden of proof is on the theist. That is a matter of logical fact. it is Theism - god which needs to be proved. It is not atheism which needs to be proved, though there is a good enough case, in fact.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-18-2011 at 11:07 AM..
Reason: Ps. the o. p
Lets pretend for a minute that your best freind wanted to borrow $100. Now, you cannot gaurantee me that he/she will pay it back, but based on you previous experiences with this person, you have faith that they will.
No. If it's based on previous experience then it would be trust not faith. Faith is when you believe something will happen or is true when there is no evidence that it is. Trust is when you believe something based on the evidence that it has happened before.
An example of this would be a simple chair that you use every day. You have used the same chair to sit on every day for the past 20 years and in all the times you have sat on it, it has never collapsed under you so, based on that verifiable evidence, you trust that it will not do so this time either. However, if you sat on that chair every day and every time you did, it collapsed under you but you believed that the next time you sit on it, it would not collapse, then you would be using faith because the verifiable evidence does not support your belief that the chair will not collapse.
I was asked to chime in on this post and so here is a possibly (?) unique thought on all of this, although it sounds similar to some already posted...
I have seen many atheists on this site (not trying to pick on anyone specific, but I think it may be because many atheists on here are geared more toward philopshy than sicence) claim "scientific evidence" for conceptual scientific ideas...for example there are a lot of concepts thrown out about the origination of life via purely natural devices, and yet there has been absolutley no evidence to show that life could arise from nothingness, other than life's existence (but creationists have a concept on that too and neither is provable or disprovable at this point). But the proof offered is simply conceptual, and nearly every experiment or advance shown by them to "prove" life's origination can be debunked rather quickly. I am not trying to take over this thread with that topic....what I am saying though, is many people believe in science almost like a religion. They have faith science will be able to find answers for everything (it very well may, but we are a long way from that...again different topic). Some say they have confidence in science. OK. But really, this word confidence is just a synonym of the word faith (a belief in something that can nto be seen or experienced) since we all would agree sicence has not figured everything out yet.
Now having said that, I am arguing a philosophical point and I am no philosopher.
Also, to say there is no absolute truth is silly. There is certainly absolute truth (i.e. if your cells do not receive oxygen they will die).
Ok, but can we agree that somone can have """"faith""""" in somthing without it being religious? That is the point that alot of people seem to be missing or denying, one of the two.
Yes, IF it is understood and accepted that faith (or belief) based on sound reasons and faith (or belief) not based on sound reasons is not the same thing nor are they equal which is what you were trying to argue in the OP. Don't try to deny it and stop thinking that you can fool us.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
