Atheists have faith

shadowcomplex

Atheists often justify their stance in their belief that GOD does not exist because there is no evidence to suggest that such a being exists and that faith isnt something they suscribe to but the thing is Atheists dont know most of the mechanisms of the scientific facts that they believe they in , they just take it on faith that what they are told is true

Penn

shadowcomplex wrote: »

Atheists often justify their stance in their belief that GOD does not exist because there is no evidence to suggest that such a being exists and that faith isnt something they suscribe to but the thing is Atheists dont know most of the mechanisms of the scientific facts that they believe they in , they just take it on faith that what they are told is true

Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby - Penn Jillette

The thing about scientific facts is that you don't need faith to believe in them. They are facts. I believe things which are facts, because they are facts. No faith required. They're verified... facts.

There are no scientific facts that GOD exists, that's why you need faith to believe in him

Genghiz Cohen

This is an interesting and unique look at the atheist thought pattern.
I'm sure a lively debate will follow.

amacachi

I sometimes wonder if we should close this forum for a few years to see if anything new happens.

robindch

Film at nine.

thirtythirty

shadowcomplex wrote: »

Atheists often justify their stance in their belief that GOD does not exist because there is no evidence to suggest that such a being exists and that faith isnt something they suscribe to but the thing is Atheists dont know most of the mechanisms of the scientific facts that they believe they in , they just take it on faith that what they are told is true

fact/fakt/

Noun:

• A thing that is indisputably the case.
• Information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.

All things that are facts have been verified and proved as such, and can be done so repeatedly and on demand. You're confusing the semantics of faith in each context i.e. believing in individual facts that the bigger picture is derived from vs believing in a concept derived from no facts.

MagicMarker

Shadowcomplex scraping the bottom of the barrel for this month's quota on pointless A&A contributions I see.

seamus

Quick note:

You don't have to be a sciency person to be atheist.

There is a heavy correlation between the two certainly, but they're not mutually inclusive.

You can be bat**** crazy and believe in all sorts of crazy and still be atheist.

Of course, this argument is the last bastion of the muddled theist. Rather than try justify your own viewpoint, try to demonstrate that your opponent's viewpoint is just as lacking in substance as your own.

Of course, this is a tacit admission that your viewpoint is a big pile of nonsense but you're going to stand by it anyway.

shadowcomplex

Penn wrote: »

Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby - Penn Jillette

The thing about scientific facts is that you don't need faith to believe in them. They are facts. I believe things which are facts, because they are facts. No faith required. They're verified... facts.

There are no scientific facts that GOD exists, that's why you need faith to believe in him

No matter what way you try to spin it you still have to take a leap of faith that the expert telling you the scientific fact is right,you dont have to personally know the mechanisms of how the science works, you do know certain scientific facts have been disproven in recent years, where does that leave you

Zillah

shadowcomplex wrote: »

Atheists often justify their stance in their belief that GOD does not exist because there is no evidence to suggest that such a being exists and that faith isnt something they suscribe to but the thing is Atheists dont know most of the mechanisms of the scientific facts that they believe they in , they just take it on faith that what they are told is true

My response shall take the form of an illustration:

A priest says he can heal the sick because of the power of God. Ok, I say, show me. He cannot show me.

A scientist tells me he can put a satellite in orbit because of his understanding of physics. Ok, I say, show me. Then he (with others, time and funding...) does.


There is a difference between blind faith and reasonable deference to the education and ability of others. The very fact that we're having this exchange through electrically powered computers via fibre optic cabling through a transcontinental digital communications network rather than, say, by angels or psychic powers, should demonstrate that to you quite clearly.

Sarky

Could you name 5 of these certain facts and show us how they've been disproven, please? Not that I wouldn't take your claim on faith, you understand, I'm sure you wouldn't just say something without evidence to back it up.

But the thing about facts is that you can check them out, do the research and see they're true for yourself without having to bother with any of that quaint, archaic belief nonsense...

Galvasean

Theist to atheist: "You're as bad as me!!"

shadowcomplex

Sarky wrote: »

Could you name 5 of these certain facts and show us how they've been disproven, please? Not that I wouldn't take your claim on faith, you understand, I'm sure you wouldn't just say something without evidence to back it up.

But the thing about facts is that you can check them out, do the research and see they're true for yourself without having to bother with any of that quaint, archaic belief nonsense...

I will later but im going out on the p-i-s-s now and thats a FACT

Delirium

shadowcomplex wrote: »

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-f...o-be-wrong.php

But you're just taking someone else's word for it!! :P

token56

shadowcomplex wrote: »

No matter what way you try to spin it you still have to take a leap of faith that the expert telling you the scientific fact is right,you dont have to personally know the mechanisms of how the science works, you do know certain scientific facts have been disproven in recent years, where does that leave you

You dont have to take a leap of faith, if someone claims a scientific fact then there will be methodology presented along with it to allow anyone who wants to to verify the facts themselves. Most people never will but it doesn't change the fact that it is there.

Science changes because nothing in science is sacred, no scientific fact is sacred. All science ever is, is a collection of evidence that leads us to believe a certain position or point of view. That evidence is always changing and position can always change. If something that once thought of as right is proven wrong we have learned something and the scientific process works. Religion is different, it makes an assumption and no matter the evidence sticks to it.

shadowcomplex

Zillah wrote: »

My response shall take the form of an illustration:

A priest says he can heal the sick because of the power of God. Ok, I say, show me. He cannot show me.

A scientist tells me he can put a satellite in orbit because of his understanding of physics. Ok, I say, show me. Then he (with others, time and funding...) does.


There is a difference between blind faith and reasonable deference to the education and ability of others. The very fact that we're having this exchange through electrically powered computers via fibre optic cabling through a transcontinental digital communications network rather than, say, by angels or psychic powers, should demonstrate that to you quite clearly.

Thats fair enough but now you understand the mechanisms because you have been shown, but thats only 1 example. You can't learn all scientific facts you have to assume or take it on faith that the majority are right

MagicMarker

Ooops, looks like shadowcomplex posted a heap of shíte and took too long to delete it, causing much embarrassment indeed.

Penn

shadowcomplex wrote: »

No matter what way you try to spin it you still have to take a leap of faith that the expert telling you the scientific fact is right

Well that's not a scientific fact then. If it's a fact, it's peer-reviewed, investigated probably more than once, there are control conditions etc etc.

shadowcomplex wrote: »

you dont have to personally know the mechanisms of how the science works, you do know certain scientific facts have been disproven in recent years, where does that leave you

On a warm bed surrounded by bitches.

shadowcomplex

MagicMarker wrote: »

Ooops, looks like shadowcomplex posted a heap of shíte and took too long to delete it, causing much embarrassment indeed.

:pac:

MagicMarker

shadowcomplex wrote: »

Thats fair enough but now you understand the mechanisms because you have been shown, but thats only 1 example. You can't learn all scientific facts you have to assume or take it on faith that the majority are right

The average person doesn't care about all scientific ''facts'' and doesn't spend all that much time thinking about them.

Only one example is needed to blow your argument out of the water.

mooliki

shadowcomplex wrote: »

you do know certain scientific facts have been disproven in recent years, where does that leave you

With a new discription of the known universe. You test theories, disgards what's proven false, adapt and learn.

Still, as someone pointed out before, there is a difference between an atheist and one who follows specific scientific research. Atheism is simply the absence of one particular belief.

Dades

I shall counter this nonsense with a topical quote:

Christopher Hitchens wrote:

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Also, scientific facts have nothing specifically to do with atheism. A curious, non-indoctrinated child could find plenty of reasons to reject religious assertions without ever opening a science book.

token56

shadowcomplex wrote: »

Thats fair enough but now you understand the mechanisms because you have been shown, but thats only 1 example. You can't learn all scientific facts you have to assume or take it on faith that the majority are right

But you can try if you really wanted to. Also its not faith in a fact its trust in a process that arrives at that fact, and you only need to see that process a couple of times to trust that other facts derived with the same process will be accurate given the body of knowledge available at the time. The trust in the process, and therefore the fact arrived at the end of the process is based on evidence and not a position of faith.

Galvasean

shadowcomplex wrote: »

I will later but im going out on the p-i-s-s now and thats a FACT

You sure you haven't already started drinking?

[/cheap gag]

shadowcomplex

Dades wrote: »

I shall counter this nonsense with a topical quote:



Also, scientific facts have nothing specifically to do with atheism. A curious, non-indoctrinated child could find plenty of reasons to reject religious assertions without ever opening a science book.

Yes but its the arguement atheists use 99% of the time to counter theist beliefs, if it can be used for your arguement isn't it only fair that it can be used against?

MagicMarker

shadowcomplex wrote: »

Yes but its the arguement atheists use 99% of the time to counter theist beliefs, if it can be used for your arguement isn't it only fair that it can be used against?

Of course it can, that's why scientific claims without any evidence to support them are dismissed until such evidence is provided.

Zillah

shadowcomplex wrote: »

Thats fair enough but now you understand the mechanisms because you have been shown, but thats only 1 example. You can't learn all scientific facts you have to assume or take it on faith that the majority are right

Ok...but you realise that anything considered to be a fact by modern science can be looked up too, right? You and I both know about satellites so we consider that one fairly given, but because other things are mysterious to you you remain suspicious of them.

Anything is possible when you don't know what you're talking about.

Dades

shadowcomplex wrote: »

Yes but its the arguement atheists use 99% of the time to counter theist beliefs, if it can be used for your arguement isn't it only fair that it can be used against?

I guess it could if (a) it was the only argument, or (b) you could cast reasonable doubt on the particular science in question.

As it is, (a) is not the case and regarding (b) I don't quite know what scientific arguments you have in mind that people take on faith.

Are you suggesting (for example) that because we are not all evolutionary biologists we require faith to believe all actual evolutionary biologists?

Ellis Dee

People whose minds are made up already only find facts confusing.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

shadowcomplex

Dades wrote: »

I guess it could if (a) it was the only argument, or (b) you could cast reasonable doubt on the particular science in question.

As it is, (a) is not the case and regarding (b) I don't quite know what scientific arguments you have in mind that people take on faith.

Are you suggesting (for example) that because we are not all evolutionary biologists we require faith to believe all actual evolutionary biologists?

If you go out of your way to look at the proof/evidence then NO

If you dont bother YES

token56

shadowcomplex wrote: »

If you go out of your way to look at the proof/evidence then NO

If you dont bother YES

Wrong I'm afraid, like I said earlier the trust is in the process that people use to arrive at the facts and the process used to confirm them, not the facts themselves. The same process applies across all scientific fields. Seeing it applied enough times in some fields and seeing that it works is evidence that allows you to trust it can be applied to any scientific field.

Mark Hamill

Galvasean wrote: »

Theist to atheist: "You're as bad as me!!"

"And that makes me better than you"

Mark Hamill

shadowcomplex wrote: »

If you go out of your way to look at the proof/evidence then NO

If you dont bother YES

You have heard of the peer review process, right? Because its there so that everyone doesn't need to verify what a scientist says (although they still can, if they feel like it).
I think you are misrepresenting the atheists who base their arguments, in part, on science. They base them on the science that has been tested and peer reviewed, not just anything any scientist ever says off the top of their head. They wont even have heard of a particular scientific theory until it has been published. Its not the same as just taking what a priest says on faith, not even remotely

Zillah

shadowcomplex wrote: »

If you go out of your way to look at the proof/evidence then NO

If you dont bother YES

Ah, but you see, no human being has the time to even remotely have a chance of personally checking all of the individual facts. So we have to rely on the agreed principles by which we perform fact checking. Hence, once one understands the scientific method we can be quite sure that the results derived by it are reliable. Then of course there is peer review, where we don't have faith in the results claimed by a single scientist, but by the validated consensus of an entire community of dilligent experts.

Finally, bear in mind, I don't ardently believe deep down in my heart every discovery made by the scientific community, I simply give them the benefit of the doubt until I have practical reasons for investigating any particular aspect in detail.

The Quadratic Equation

Penn wrote: »

Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby - Penn Jillette

But what is very strange is why a minority of non stamp collectors seem to make their lifes purpose, and can only define themselves, by constantly complaining about stamp collectors.

Galvasean

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

But what is very strange is why a minority of non stamp collectors seem to make their lifes purpose, and can only define themselves, by constantly complaining about stamp collectors.

Said the stamp collector on the non stamp collectors' forum.

robindch

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

constantly complaining about stamp collectors.

We do a lot of laughing too -- the stamps, after all, do not exist.

MagicMarker

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

But what is very strange is why a minority of non stamp collectors seem to make their lifes purpose, and can only define themselves, by constantly complaining about stamp collectors.

Well people probably wouldn't complain if stamp collectors didn't try and force everyone else to collect the same stamps they do.

Penn

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

But what is very strange is why a minority of non stamp collectors seem to make their lifes purpose, and can only define themselves, by constantly complaining about stamp collectors.

Hahahahahahahahahaha

Zombrex

shadowcomplex wrote: »

Atheists often justify their stance in their belief that GOD does not exist because there is no evidence to suggest that such a being exists and that faith isnt something they suscribe to but the thing is Atheists dont know most of the mechanisms of the scientific facts that they believe they in , they just take it on faith that what they are told is true

Faith is a type of trust. But that doesn't mean that all forms of trust are an act of faith.

I trust many scientists, but that doesn't mean I have faith in them. In fact that is the exact opposite of what science is about, you shouldn't have faith in scientists, though you may trust them.

Zombrex

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

But what is very strange is why a minority of non stamp collectors seem to make their lifes purpose, and can only define themselves, by constantly complaining about stamp collectors.

If you couldn't walk down the street without a stamp collector throwing some stamps in your face I imagine a great deal of your time would be taken up complaining about stamp collectors despite you have no interest at all in stamp collecting.

But as Robin points out it is inaccurate to state that atheists spend most of their time complaining about theists. There is also a sizeable amount of time taken up laughing.

The Quadratic Equation

Ellis Dee wrote: »

People whose minds are made up already only find facts confusing.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Descibes anti-theists very well.

Sarky

I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I

Can't you come up with something better? Holy Spirit not so good at inspiring retorts?

Galvasean

Sarky wrote: »

Can't you come up with something better? Holy Spirit not so good at inspiring retorts?

You know who else was good at making up good retorts?


HITLER!

Zombrex

Galvasean wrote: »

You know who else was good at making up good retorts?


HITLER!

:eek::P

robindch

^^^ Galvasean's poed hisself and has to buy the first round at the next beers!

Ellis Dee

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Descibes anti-theists very well.

Can you give us an example of even one fact that theists can produce and verify as a fact?:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

The Quadratic Equation

Galvasean wrote: »

You know who else was good at making up good retorts?

HITLER!

Stalin was better at it.

Galvasean

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Stalin was better at it.

Bigger mustache too. I think Hitler only gets the Godwin's because of his awesome fashion sense.



Sorry.

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

^^^ Galvasean pood himself at the beers!

Indeed ¬_¬

robindch

Zombrex wrote: »

There is also a sizeable amount of time taken up laughing.

Judging by the relative sizes of the humor and hazard threads, I believe that atheists + agnostics laugh at theists around three times as often as they worry about them.

Ha!