Do Athiests Rely on Faith?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Alethe
Student
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 1:02 am
Location: Seattle, WA

Do Athiests Rely on Faith?

Post #1

Post by Alethe »

Atheists claim that life was created naturally and spontaneously from tiny chemicals into comparatively large, complex organisms (cells). They use "could have" a lot in theories, but when it's further explored, those theories run into scientific laws that say it "could not have". It is a massive jump from those tiny chemicals to cells and actually defies natural laws. Some of these laws include, but are not limited to:
  • *Probabilities: The sheer number of permutations required for even the simplest of molecules (proteins or ribozymes) defies laws of mathematics.
    *Limited Materials: No experiment, no observation, nor study of any pre-biotic Earth conditions (including space) is able to come close to producing all the components required for life in the same place at the same time (amino acids, nucleic acids - particularly troublesome, sugars, and fatty acids).
    *Homochirality: All experiments that produce life-required components also produce their mirrored image (racemic mixture), which prevents them from forming anything useful.
    *Energy: The necessary energy required to create peptide or phosphodiester bonds is also used to break those bonds, preventing them from forming the long chains necessary for life. An example; any lightning strikes that would form bonds would break the bonds the very next strike (consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics especially in an open system).
    *Oxygen: Oxygen prevents bonding, but also creates ozone, protecting from the sun's UV rays. Life can't form with oxygen and life would burn up without it.
    *Water: Water is a byproduct when peptide bonds form. Water also works in reverse to break down the bonds (hydrolysis). Therefore, proteins could not form in or around water (consistent with Le Chatelier's Principle).
You see, I like science. I can trust science because it performs in consistent ways. The natural laws above actually inhibit or prevent life from forming.

Atheists have to believe that to create life abiogenetically that these natural laws broke down and didn't work, that science didn't work. Since they have to believe that science doesn't work all the time, there must be some supernatural law that supersedes known scientific law.

That sounds a lot like faith. Why do atheists rely on faith? And what is it in the supernatural that they actually have faith in? :confused2:

Inigo Montoya
Guru
Posts: 1333
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:45 pm

Re: Do Athiests Rely on Faith?

Post #51

Post by Inigo Montoya »

Alethe wrote: [Replying to post 45 by DanieltheDragon]

Really? I ask for scientific evidence that atheists don't rely on faith and you give me arbitrary numbers for logic?

I can just as easily apply arbitrary numbers. Let's see. I'm going to say no god = 5,492,493,992.24219649. There. Now using your "logic" I win. Your leap is exponentially bigger than my leap because, because, because, my dad can beat up your dad. Neener, neener. :roll:

Seriously, tho. Let's stick with the topic at hand. The deafening silence of scientific evidence against my original list (especially water) appears to demonstrate how little atheists understand how serious the problem of their own existence is.

Alethe, I'm convinced. You've done a compelling job making a negative case for science's ability to explain how life arose.

Would you now share a positive case for how God did it, what you reference when you use the word "God," and lastly why you believe it's the correct explanation.

Alethe
Student
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 1:02 am
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Do Athiests Rely on Faith?

Post #52

Post by Alethe »

[Replying to post 47 by DanieltheDragon]

I wasn't trying to be "uncivil", I just felt your numbers were arbitrary and was just trying to use humor to demonstrate that. Humor doesn't always translate well to a reader. If you took offense, I apologize.
Other people have thoroughly debunked your claims no sense in beating a dead horse.
Really? Where? What did I miss? I thought I was still waiting on my simple claim of water. Who answered it?
Isn't " we exist, but I don't know how we got here" simpler than " We exist, magic provided that existence, and it was guided by a specific god"
This is an inaccurate representative of the claims. Atheists are not agnostic in saying "we don't know". They say "god does *not* exist". Therefore, it's more like this...

Atheists: I exist. God doesn't exist. I shouldn't exist because natural and physical laws prevent my existence. Random magic must have created me. Random magic goes against natural and physical laws, therefore scientific laws are not consistent. I can't trust science because those laws are not consistent if they can be overridden by random magic.

Me: I exist. God exists. I shouldn't exist because natural and physical laws prevent my existence. God understands natural and physical laws. He used those scientific laws to create me. I can trust science because its laws are consistent in the universe.

Now which claim is a greater leap?

------------------------------------------------------------

I am not going to turn this topic into what my definition of "God" is, or how I got to that position. That was not the intent of my original post. If you want to believe your "god" is "trans-dimensional sentient beings from another universe where the laws of chemistry physics and biology allow for abiogensis to occur", more power to you.

I've hinted at my position a little, and I'll add another little hint - I'm LDS. But, that's really a topic for another day and under a different forum - as I can't *prove* it scientifically. But, after a lot of thought, study (of logic, philosophy, and theology) and prayer, it's a position I've come to that I'm most comfortable with.
Alethe - A "not"/léthó "concealed" – literally, "what can't be hidden."

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9874
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: Do Athiests Rely on Faith?

Post #53

Post by Bust Nak »

Alethe wrote: Atheists: I exist. God doesn't exist. I shouldn't exist because natural and physical laws prevent my existence. Random magic must have created me. Random magic goes against natural and physical laws, therefore scientific laws are not consistent. I can't trust science because those laws are not consistent if they can be overridden by random magic.
BUZZ, that was an inaccurate representative of the claims. This:

Atheists: I exist. I should exist because natural and physical laws caused my existence. I can trust science because those laws are consistent and does not involve any magic or gods.

is an accurate representative of our claims.

Now which claim is a greater leap?
The theists' claim, of course.

Jashwell
Guru
Posts: 1592
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 5:05 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Do Athiests Rely on Faith?

Post #54

Post by Jashwell »

[Replying to post 50 by Bust Nak]

*Atheist: I do not hold belief in the existence of a deity. (specific deity xor in general)

While I hope we don't end up on that thread again, I'm sure we can agree that naturalism and atheism are two completely different subjects.

Since Alethe might not have seen that thread
Most people on this site (among other contexts) who profess atheism are weak atheists. This is likely what you call agnosticism.
Last edited by Jashwell on Thu Sep 04, 2014 11:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
KenRU
Guru
Posts: 1584
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 3:44 pm
Location: NJ

Re: Do Athiests Rely on Faith?

Post #55

Post by KenRU »

..deleted
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg

User avatar
KenRU
Guru
Posts: 1584
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 3:44 pm
Location: NJ

Re: Do Athiests Rely on Faith?

Post #56

Post by KenRU »

[Replying to post 44 by Alethe]

I would rather believe in a designer who controls the magic (i.e. has knowledge of how to use natural and physical laws to create life), than the uncontrollable magic that atheists believe in that randomly formed it. How is that a greater leap?
"Uncontrollable magic" is only your belittling assertion. No atheist (that I know) believes this. No matter how you want to slice it, or spin it, at the bear minimum saying "I don't know" requires absolutely no faith or leap of logic. A belief in a supernatural being does. In fact, most theists I know (family, friends, people on various forums) are proud of their immeasurable faith. I'm surprised you are not.

Please show it's unbelievable data, or retract your statement.
You have not shown that science relies on natural laws to stop working in order for abiogenesis to occur. And, even if you did, once again, "not knowing" (and working to find out the solution) is a much more logical (simpler/less faith required/less suspension of disbelief) position to hold.

Your words: "I would rather believe in a designer who controls the magic ..." shows that you prefer the belief in a divine entity, rather than any other alternative, regardless of the leap of logic or faith required.

Which is fine. But let's not pretend it is something it is not.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg

DanieltheDragon
Savant
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
Location: Charlotte
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Do Athiests Rely on Faith?

Post #57

Post by DanieltheDragon »

[Replying to post 49 by Alethe]
Atheists: I exist. God doesn't exist. I shouldn't exist because natural and physical laws prevent my existence. Random magic must have created me. Random magic goes against natural and physical laws, therefore scientific laws are not consistent. I can't trust science because those laws are not consistent if they can be overridden by random magic.

Me: I exist. God exists. I shouldn't exist because natural and physical laws prevent my existence. God understands natural and physical laws. He used those scientific laws to create me. I can trust science because its laws are consistent in the universe.

This is called a straw-man fallacy. That is not my claim that is your claim.
You have yet to demonstrate the highlighted blue. You have made claims to science but I don't see them as hardly being accurate and when it is accurate it is taken out of context with liberties applied. There is nothing wrong with humor but humor can often be construed as uncivil especially when you are not familiar with the debater.

Additionally how can you trust science as being consistent with the universe when you claim that the natural and physical laws prevent you from existing. Lets break that claim down for a second

I exist: The natural laws observed by science says I should not exist. I can trust science because it is consistent.

The claim I exist is divided into two supporting parts


Science says I shouldn't exist

Science is consistent because I exist.

This is called cognitive dissonance; holding two simultaneously conflicting beliefs.

How can you trust something that says you shouldn't exist while simultaneously existing? The natural conclusion is either the science is wrong or you don't exist. You appear to resolve this by inserting God. However, there is a distinct problem. There is no evidence to suggest that god exists in the first place. God is your excuse not to address the problem of your cognitive dissonance.

By applying to the god concept to your beliefs you can happily ignore the conflict of the cognitive dissonance. Instead of actually addressing the problem.

Either you:

a.)don't exist

b.)science is wrong about the natural laws

c.)you are wrong about what science has to say about the natural laws

this is not to say that god doesn't exist but merely, your perception of what is real and what is not real has some glaring issues that have been glossed over.

You really have to first address these before you can even attempt to address the science on it.



so circling back I will reiterate my claim


Me: I exist, the natural world exists. I don't know the precise specifics as to either existences beginning.

You:" I exist. God exists. I shouldn't exist because natural and physical laws prevent my existence. God understands natural and physical laws. He used those scientific laws to create me. I can trust science because its laws are consistent in the universe."


That is a lot of claims I don't make you are making. You sir are without a doubt making many more leaps of faith than I am.
Post 1: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:48 am Otseng has been banned
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.

Alethe
Student
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 1:02 am
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Do Athiests Rely on Faith?

Post #58

Post by Alethe »

[Replying to post 51 by Jashwell]

While I appreciate the clarification, and I did not see that thread (was hoping you'd link to it), I use the actual definition of the word.

The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)".

This argument is directed to those who are naturalistic atheist. If you are "weak atheist", or of the belief that "you don't know", why not just call yourself what it is that you are... agnostic.

A / "without" gnostic / "knowledge"

That way you don't confuse anyone.
Alethe - A "not"/léthó "concealed" – literally, "what can't be hidden."

Inigo Montoya
Guru
Posts: 1333
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:45 pm

Re: Do Athiests Rely on Faith?

Post #59

Post by Inigo Montoya »

[Replying to Alethe]


Because you can be without knowledge and without a god belief simultaneously.

Jashwell
Guru
Posts: 1592
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 5:05 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Do Athiests Rely on Faith?

Post #60

Post by Jashwell »

[Replying to post 55 by Alethe]

That thread isn't worth linking, it was 30 pages of attritious back and forth on the definition of atheism or something. Fact is, many self professed atheists are weak atheists, enough so to merit including it in the definition. But if you want to argue etymology, this is why weak atheists don't say agnostic.
Agnostic: Without knowledge. Not (necessarily) without belief.
Atheist: Without theism. Without belief in a God.
(It's generally accepted that knowledge is a subset of belief, e.g. justified belief for some, though a proper subset - not all belief is knowledge)
Hence the various terms: weak atheist, agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, strong atheist, gnostic theist.

What label weak atheists use is up to them. Better to let the person assigning themselves the label to decide than the one assigning it to others.

As for strong atheists.. still none of what you said applies. They obviously don't hold the belief that a God is required. Until it's demonstrated that it is required (that something else is necessary), we should consider the alternative plausible (seemingly possible) and therefore not required. Otherwise we'd be begging the question.

So, the only part of what you said that applies to strong atheists is that they think a God isn't necessary, which (because of the use of necessary) leaves the burden with whoever hopes to prove it a requirement.
They still don't need to be naturalists, incidentally.

Post Reply