Do nonbelievers or non-theists have faith?

[KingandPriest]

In a separate thread, I suggested the following:

This is why most apologist say you need more faith to be an atheist than to believe in God

To this, an agnostic replied:

Yeah, I heard that silly slander before.. I read a book with a title like that, too.
That book was a HUGE disappointment, by the way.

Frank isn't very respected by outsiders to the faith.
Even the title of the book is messed up.

How many atheists have you EVER heard saying that they have "faith in their atheism"?

Would that be many or few?

To this I now ask:

1. Does a atheist have to proclaim faith in atheism to have faith?
2. Can a nonbeliever or non-theist have faith in anything at all?
3. When a person places money into a bank account, and then goes to a store to spend some of this money, is the action of using a debit card, check card or check book an act of faith?
4. Are generally accepted scientific theories statements of faith?

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 30 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Jack Hills, Australia, where rocks were found to contain the oldest known minerals on Earth, a 4.4 billion-year-old zircon. Just three of the very oldest zircons have been found, ones that date back to almost 4.4 billion years ago. Their extreme age always makes the dates suspect, because of possible radiation damage.Feb 23, 2014
https://www.google.com/search?q=age+of+ ... q=age+of+t...

http://www.livescience.com/43584-earth- ... ircon.html

The current estimate of the age of the solar system is supported by other observations as well. As more evidence is gathered, a better and more accurate understanding is attained. So is the current estimate unarguably exactly right? Probably not. Is the estimate close? The physical evidence suggests that it is. Subscribing to what the physical suggests isn't faith as long as it is understood that the estimate may well change as new evidence is gathered.

I dongt question the age of the solar system. Just the proclaimed age of the sun. It is proclaimed to be 4.6 billion as a fact when it is based on a position of faith. If we can base the age of the sun on faith in the nebular hypothesis, why can Christians base their belief in the faith that the bible is correctly describing God?

Faith in hypothesis A (nebular hypothesis) is acceptable, while
Faith in hypothesis B (the bible / God hypothesis/ what ever you want to call it) is unacceptable.

Why the inconsistency?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to KingandPriest]

I dongt question the age of the solar system. Just the proclaimed age of the sun. It is proclaimed to be 4.6 billion as a fact when it is based on a position of faith. If we can base the age of the sun on faith in the nebular hypothesis, why can Christians base their belief in the faith that the bible is correctly describing God?

Faith in hypothesis A (nebular hypothesis) is acceptable, while
Faith in hypothesis B (the bible / God hypothesis/ what ever you want to call it) is unacceptable.

Why the inconsistency?

Why the inconsistency? Because you are attempting to compare conclusions derived from directly studying the physical evidence at hand with conclusions based on the ruminations of ancient people who had no real idea of what was occurring or why. It's rather like comparing a modern book on physics to a comic book version of reality. Ongoing investigation may, in the future, reveal further details which will cause the physics book to become obsolete. But the comic book version of reality never had any connection to anything valid and real right from the start.

For example, comic books tell us that Superman has super powers because he was native to a planet that had a red sun, and here on earth with it's yellow sun Superman is endowed with many powers above and beyond that of humans native to a solar system with a yellow sun. Physics however tell us that some stars are red because they have used up much of their lighter elements, have expanded and are now burning at a cooler temperature. Which causes them to produce light at a red wave length. Now, try placing red light bulbs in your lamps, and notice that changing the color of the light does NOT give you super powers. Because the wave length of light has nothing to do altering physiology. In exactly the same way, ancient make believe does NOT alter reality. Reality can however be studied and understood. And when it is, one must be ready to let go of ancient ignorance and accept what physical reality has to tell us.

So am I really comparing Superman to God? ABSOLUTELY! Both are claimed to have powers which enable them to defy the laws of physics. And neither can in any way be shown to physically exist. The only obvious difference is that one has been declared to be extent, and the other is understood to be purely entertainment. Neither can be counted on to actually turn up in case of an emergency however.

[Divine Insight]

Adding the caveat of an earth that "contains living creatures" is totally different that plainly describing the formation of our solar system. When a date is chosen for the for the age of the sun, 4.6 billion and a smaller date of 4.54 billion is estimated, by simple mathematical deduction it can be inferred that the sun is older than the earth. Many on this forum have attempted to claim that the account in Genesis 1 is flawed because it has the earth being created ahead of the sun. I attempt to show that such a possibility can exist. I do not say the account in Genesis 1 is factually correct, only plausible.

I disagree that the account in Genesis 1 is even remotely plausible in the face of what we actually know about the physical universe. Genesis 1 could not possibly have happened as described in the Genesis.

Why not just perform calculations and allow the date range to stand on its own?
Why pick a date that has to conform to nebular hypothesis?

To believe that nebular hypothesis is right, is a form of having faith in nebular hypothesis.

I disagree. What your are calling the "Nebular Hypothesis" is actually more like confirmed "Nebular Theory". It's an explanation that is in totally supported by all observational evidence of the universe at large. And keep in mind that science isn't limited to only doing experiments in laboratories. When we look out into space we are actually looking back in time as well. So we can see a physical record of how solar systems naturally evolve. We have actual photos of solar systems in various states of development. So this is real date, not just a hypothesis.

Theists, especially those like Ken Ham, proclaim that "Scientists weren't there back there to observe these things". But he forgot that looking out into deep space also constitutes looking back in time. So scientists are able to observe things directly that occurred millions and even billions of years ago.

Your arguments appear to be based on an extremely naive and uninformed view of how scientists actually know what they know.

You ask:

Faith in hypothesis A (nebular hypothesis) is acceptable, while
Faith in hypothesis B (the bible / God hypothesis/ what ever you want to call it) is unacceptable.

Why the inconsistency?

There is no inconsistency here at all. Especially when speaking about the Biblical God.

As I have just stated above the "nebular hypothesis" has since been observed to be supported by vast amounts of observed data. To deny it at this stage would actually be irrational. There is no need to have mere "faith" in this idea. The evidence for it is overwhelming. Even computer simulations work very well to verify that this is what naturally happens to dust clouds under the influence of gravity. So "nebular hypothesis" is actually now a very well established "theory" (i.e. explanation) of how this process naturally occurs. And the observable evidence to support this is profound.

On the other hand the "Hypothesis" the ancient Hebrew religious folklore correctly describes a creator of our world, not only doesn't have any evidence to back it up, but it also makes outrageous and utterly absurd claims.

The God of the Bible is a self-confessed jealous God who becomes wrathful over apparently trivial things (like someone collecting wood on a day he calls the Sabbath). This God is necessarily male-chauvinistic and highly patriarchal. He command people, "Thou shalt not kill", and then goes no to command them to stone each other to death for all manner of sins, including demanding that a young woman should be stoned to death on her wedding night should it be discovered that she isn't a virgin.

I mean seriously, KingandPriest, there is no comparison here at all with scientific theories and evidence for how the universe works. Not only is there absolutely no evidence at all that this wrathful male-chauvinistic Biblical God exists, but there is no rational reason to even believe that any supposedly all-wise God would behave in such an ignorant and immature manner as the Bible demands.

Now if you want to talk about hypothesizing the existence of some other potential "God", that isn't nailed to the Bible, then I may not be able to dismiss such an abstract notion of a "God" as easily. But the moment you mention the Biblical God all bets are off. There simply is no rational reason to believe that we were created by an immature wrathful male-chauvinistic God named Yahweh, and that is exactly what we are being asked to believe by the Bible.

As a Christian, you might reject this and try pointing to Jesus as "God", but as far as I can see Jesus is simply too little, too late. Jesus can't make up for the ignorance of Yahweh. The only way that Jesus could be held up as a potential God is if he had absolutely nothing at all to do with Yahweh at all. But clearly it's too late for that now. Christianity holds that Jesus is the only begotten demigod Son of Yahweh born of the virgin Mary. It's a bit late to try to change Jesus into something else at this point in time.

So no, hypothesizing that the Bible might be a correct description of God is nowhere near being on the same level as the more well-established hypotheses, theories, and EVIDENCE of modern day science.

It's not even close. To the contrary, the Hebrew Bible truly has no more credibility than ancient Greek mythology. It truly doesn't. It's just as absurd, if not even more so.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 33 by Divine Insight]

I disagree that the account in Genesis 1 is even remotely plausible in the face of what we actually know about the physical universe. Genesis 1 could not possibly have happened as described in the Genesis.

Can you provide evidence to support your claim that the biblical account could not possibly have happened? Is your evidence based on other theories or on substantiated fact. There is a difference.

I disagree. What your are calling the "Nebular Hypothesis" is actually more like confirmed "Nebular Theory". It's an explanation that is in totally supported by all observational evidence of the universe at large. And keep in mind that science isn't limited to only doing experiments in laboratories. When we look out into space we are actually looking back in time as well. So we can see a physical record of how solar systems naturally evolve. We have actual photos of solar systems in various states of development. So this is real date, not just a hypothesis.

This is your claim. Lets take a look at the facts of nebular hypothesis. I did not choose to call it a hypothesis rather than a theory.

The nebular hypothesis is the most widely accepted model in the field of cosmogony to explain the formation and evolution of the Solar System. It suggests that the Solar System formed from nebulous material. The theory was developed by Immanuel Kant and published in his Allgemeine Naturgeschichte und Theorie des Himmels ("Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens"), published in 1755.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis
It has not moved from a hypothesis to accepted scientific theory because of a major problem in the hypothesis.

The formation of planetesimals is the biggest unsolved problem in the nebular disk model. How 1 cm sized particles coalesce into 1 km planetesimals is a mystery. This mechanism appears to be the key to the question as to why some stars have planets, while others have nothing around them, not even dust belts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_h ... ent_issues

The accretion process, by which 1 km planetesimals grow into 1,000 km sized bodies and larger, is well understood now. The problem is the nebular hypothesis offers no explanation for how cosmic dust can grow from 1cm to 1km in size. It is just assumed that they do. NO evidence to support, and no observations in the real world. It is just simulated in a model and claimed to have occurred. If I simulate the events of Genesis in a model and show that it is possible for the events to take place exactly as described, is this sufficient evidence to claim it so? I think you will say NO.

The chronology of our solar system is dependent on the belief that the nebular hypothesis is right.

The formation of the Solar System began 4.6 billion years ago with the gravitational collapse of a small part of a giant molecular cloud.[1] Most of the collapsing mass collected in the center, forming the Sun, while the rest flattened into a protoplanetary disk out of which the planets, moons, asteroids, and other small Solar System bodies formed.
This model, known as the nebular hypothesis, was first developed in the 18th century by Emanuel Swedenborg, Immanuel Kant, and Pierre-Simon Laplace. Its subsequent development has interwoven a variety of scientific disciplines including astronomy, physics, geology, and planetary science. Since the dawn of the space age in the 1950s and the discovery of extrasolar planets in the 1990s, the model has been both challenged and refined to account for new observations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation ... lar_System

Not my words to call it the nebular hypothesis. With new observations, we are realizing that the hypothesis had many things wrong. These guesses as to how things should work in the universe were then refined and corrected to make the nebular hypothesis fit. This is exactly what many accuse creationist of doing when they refine the biblical narrative to account for new observations.

Are you saying it is acceptable for one group of researchers to refine the nebular hypothesis based on new data, but it is not ok for another group of researchers to do the same thing for a competing theory?

I this a result of bias?

This would be like saying those who support the theory of a multiverse can refine their theory, bu those who support string theory cannot. This is irrational and biased.

The current standard theory for Solar System formation, the nebular hypothesis, has fallen into and out of favour since its formulation by Emanuel Swedenborg, Immanuel Kant, and Pierre-Simon Laplace in the 18th century. The most significant criticism of the hypothesis was its apparent inability to explain the Sun's relative lack of angular momentum when compared to the planets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation ... lar_System

It has been re-accepted today because it got the prediction right about young stars being surrounded by cool discs of dust and gas. Because it has a few predictions right, all of it must be accepted? What about the predictions in the bible? The bible got more than a few predictions right. Shouldn't this be accepted on the same basis. If all you need as a hypothesis is to get a few predictions right, then the bible is the best predictor of God because it has the most correct predictions/prophecy.

Your arguments appear to be based on an extremely naive and uninformed view of how scientists actually know what they know.

Actually I am a careful reader. When a set of research includes the words "scientist think" or "scientist believe" I pay attention to the words that follow and treat these words as a guess. So when I read

The various planets are thought to have formed from the solar nebula, the disc-shaped cloud of gas and dust left over from the Sun's formation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation ... lar_System

I see this as a best guess based on available evidence. This is not known to have actually taken place, but is our best guess. If I write, the planets are thought to have formed at the hands of God from a molecular cloud of dust about 20 parsecs wide and 1 parsec across. This thought is a best guess or an approximation of what took place. The process some scientist call accretion, I call Gods hands.

As I have just stated above the "nebular hypothesis" has since been observed to be supported by vast amounts of observed data. To deny it at this stage would actually be irrational. There is no need to have mere "faith" in this idea. The evidence for it is overwhelming. Even computer simulations work very well to verify that this is what naturally happens to dust clouds under the influence of gravity. So "nebular hypothesis" is actually now a very well established "theory" (i.e. explanation) of how this process naturally occurs. And the observable evidence to support this is profound.

Computer simulations show that the suggested input is possible. There are many other inputs which can be entered to achieve the same result. The hypothesis has actually been accepted and then rejected in the past. It has been re-accepted because one of its major predictions have been correct. Other predictions have not been correct and have actually been revised to make them correct. Revisionist history. Lets change the hypothesis to make it correct. Is this not an act of confirmation bias.

To deny the best guesswork of the nebular hypothesis is what some would call being a good scientist. There are still many problems with the hypothesis. Good scientists are actually trying to resolve and come up with alternative theories to account for the problems with the current theory. It is possible that a future discovery will result in the rejection of the nebular hypothesis. If this were to occur, our chronological record of the solar system would need to be revisited because the chronology is dependent on nebular hypothesis.

We have already learned that planetary migration is possible and most likely occured in our solar system. The predictions made by the nebular hypothesis about how the gas giants planets formed a core and subsequent growth do not match the observations made by recent astronomical studies. To form in the approximate size we see today, our models suggest a different chronology and assert that Jupiter would have to have formed much earlier and have an orbital migration to cause the asteroid belt we see today between Mars and Jupiter.

How can Mars and Jupiter be about the same age, yet Jupiter had to accumulate far more mass and would have absorbed the matter Mars needed? These question still remain up for debate, yet we accept the nebular hypothesis as correct with respect to chronology.

On the other hand the "Hypothesis" the ancient Hebrew religious folklore correctly describes a creator of our world, not only doesn't have any evidence to back it up, but it also makes outrageous and utterly absurd claims.

The God of the Bible is a self-confessed jealous God who becomes wrathful over apparently trivial things (like someone collecting wood on a day he calls the Sabbath). This God is necessarily male-chauvinistic and highly patriarchal. He command people, "Thou shalt not kill", and then goes no to command them to stone each other to death for all manner of sins, including demanding that a young woman should be stoned to death on her wedding night should it be discovered that she isn't a virgin. Rolling Eyes

I mean seriously, KingandPriest, there is no comparison here at all with scientific theories and evidence for how the universe works. Not only is there absolutely no evidence at all that this wrathful male-chauvinistic Biblical God exists, but there is no rational reason to even believe that any supposedly all-wise God would behave in such an ignorant and immature manner as the Bible demands.

You have intertwined your opinion and fact as though they are one. Yes God tells them not to kill (which we would call murder) and then creates punishment for committing certain offenses. Even the most secular legal system today has the exact same setup. Laws against murder, and then capital punishment against those who violate certain offenses. Your opinion or hatred of God shows quite easily when you write about God.

There is obvious comparison when we compare how we arrive at the conclusion that a claim is true. In science some claims (hypothesis or theories) rely on an underlying assumption that the claim is true. NO evidence, just assume it is correct. This is why experimental scientist test the veracity of a scientific theory. When Einstein theorized relativity, another scientist had to "think it was true" to then go out and mount an expedition to study an eclipse and verify the claim. This act was an act of faith. What else can you call it?

So when I say some scientific theories are predicated upon faith or require faith, this is validated by the history of modern science.

So no, hypothesizing that the Bible might be a correct description of God is nowhere near being on the same level as the more well-established hypotheses, theories, and EVIDENCE of modern day science.

What I am suggesting is that the same EVIDENCE of modern day science which supports the chronological record proposed by nebular hypothesis also supports the chronological record found in the biblical account of creation. Same evidence supports multiple hypothesis.

I also suggest that since the nebular hypothesis has many unsolved issues, one must "believe it is true" in order to depend on it to accurately date the age of objects in our solar system. If you do not accept the nebular hypothesis is correct because of the many issues, there is no way to accept a specific date for the age of objects in our solar system. The best you can do is accept a date range.

The nebular hypothesis is a best guess based on available observation. So any dates that rely on the nebular hypothesis are also best guesses. This is what happens when you make a date dependent upon a theory. There are many orphans who have no record of their exact date of birth. Based on their biology it is possible to guess their age to a range of years. Predicting their date of birth is a best guess, and is dependent on the assumptions made by the person making the guess. The guesswork may be based on sound science like the bone structure of the individual, but this is still dependent on the interpretation of the data being correct. As we know, interpretation of the same set of data will not lead to the same conclusion.

Interpretation of the date ranges of the age of the sun and the age of the earth does not lead to the same conclusion of the sun being exactly 4.6 billion years old.
This date falls within the range of possibilities of the age of the sun, but other dates are just as likely unless you assume nebular hypothesis is correct. Even today, there are issues with accepting nebular hypothesis due to orbital migration, accretion of 1cm objects to 1km and other issues. If we cannot accept nebular hypothesis to explain events of chronology in our solar system, why can we accept it for the purposes of dating the age of the sun. I argue the distinction is on the basis of faith. We trust nebular hypothesis as correct by faith, and then use that to make decisions on dating objects in our solar system.

It's not even close. To the contrary, the Hebrew Bible truly has no more credibility than ancient Greek mythology. It truly doesn't. It's just as absurd, if not even more so.

I have a different opinion. We shouldn't spend too much time debating opinions because we wont get anywhere.

We have different opinions. This is established.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 1 by KingandPriest]

In a separate thread, I suggested the following:

This is why most apologist say you need more faith to be an atheist than to believe in God
To this, an agnostic replied:

Yeah, I heard that silly slander before.. I read a book with a title like that, too.
That book was a HUGE disappointment, by the way.

Frank isn't very respected by outsiders to the faith.
Even the title of the book is messed up.

How many atheists have you EVER heard saying that they have "faith in their atheism"?

Would that be many or few?

That were me.
All this attention.. Blush.

To this I now ask:

1. Does a atheist have to proclaim faith in atheism to have faith?

Faith in what?
Faith in atheism?

2. Can a nonbeliever or non-theist have faith in anything at all?

I have faith in my ability to use the word faith. And..... that's about it.

3. When a person places money into a bank account, and then goes to a store to spend some of this money, is the action of using a debit card, check card or check book an act of faith?

Nope, it's an act of what I call "economic transfer".
But there MIGHT be a church of Visa.

4. Are generally accepted scientific theories statements of faith?

Maybe at a the church of science.
There MUST be a church of science...

With 8 billion people on the planet, there SHOULD be a church of science, don't you think?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 29 by ttruscott]

I think you missed the intent of the question. Question 3 is a general question, not specific to atheism. Is the act of purchasing with a bank card or check an act of faith?

Money itself and its use is all faith based....

Thank you for that.
I really do prefer my sermons to be short and sweet.
No need to go prove anything.

Preach and run, that's the way to do it !!
It's like a drive-by sermon.

McSermon
I-sermon

An app for that sermon.
Click and were dun.


Thanks for that

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 33 by Divine Insight]

I disagree that the account in Genesis 1 is even remotely plausible in the face of what we actually know about the physical universe. Genesis 1 could not possibly have happened as described in the Genesis.

Can you provide evidence to support your claim that the biblical account could not possibly have happened? Is your evidence based on other theories or on substantiated fact. There is a difference.

I'll take a stab at it. All quotes from www.biblegateway.com NIV

On the second day:

And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.� 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.�

Water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen only. Yet somehow from this we get 'sky' and presumably 'space' since later the sun, moon, and other stars are placed in this 'sky'. Separating water only produces hydrogen and oxygen. How do you get an atmosphere and the vastness of deep space from a mass of water?

I think it's busted right there.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 37 by benchwarmer]

Try also the fact that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed from one form to another. Genesis 1 states 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth'...well, the law of conservation would have something to say about that.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 33 by Divine Insight]

I disagree that the account in Genesis 1 is even remotely plausible in the face of what we actually know about the physical universe. Genesis 1 could not possibly have happened as described in the Genesis.

Can you provide evidence to support your claim that the biblical account could not possibly have happened? Is your evidence based on other theories or on substantiated fact. There is a difference.

I'll take a stab at it. All quotes from www.biblegateway.com NIV

On the second day:

And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.� 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.�

Water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen only. Yet somehow from this we get 'sky' and presumably 'space' since later the sun, moon, and other stars are placed in this 'sky'. Separating water only produces hydrogen and oxygen. How do you get an atmosphere and the vastness of deep space from a mass of water?

I think it's busted right there.

I guess you dont understand the difference between the water in the sea and the water vapor in the atmosphere. Water being separated from water. Two types of water existing vast distances away from each other. Water molecules collect in the sky vast distances away from the water molecules in the ocean. This is further indication of water being separated from water.

You assume that to separate water from water, this requires a change in the chemical composition of water. When you boil a pot of water, you are separating water from water by the process we call evaporation. Also, at this point in the biblical account, the heavens are already created. This text is specifically describing features in the planet Earth.

No where in the text does it describe a process that would require a change in the chemical composition of water. At best it describes a phase change from liquid to gas. Boiling water does not change a water molecule to hydrogen and oxygen. The molecules just change how close they are vibrating next to one another until they are far enough apart to change into water vapor.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 37 by benchwarmer]

Try also the fact that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed from one form to another. Genesis 1 states 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth'...well, the law of conservation would have something to say about that.

You are mistating the law of conservation of energy. It does not state matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. It actually states

The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law ... modynamics

The law points out that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. It does not say matter cannot be created. Where did the initial energy of the universe come from?

The bible says the energy came from God. Science says it has always been there even before our universe formed. This is just like what is said about God. God is eternal.

Do you think the law of conservation of energy supports the existence of God?