Irrefutable proof of faith in the said group(s) comes by way of abiogenesis.
In 100% of cases we only ever see life come from life! Note, it's 100%, not 99.9, 99.99. or 99.999...9%. This is irrefutably affirmed by 100% of observation and experimentation.
YET, when it come to the origin of the very first life form, we get it (miraculously) from "goo".
The answer, 100% of the time (in my experience) has been "we don't know how it happened, but we know it happened". Usually with "no God necessary", tagged on the end.
To say, "we don't know how it happened, but it happened" is admitting that they take it by faith. There are NO experiments, nor observable events that can be drawn upon to demonstrate the claim, therefore it's a philosophical claim, and faith based.
So "we don't know how it happened" equates with "an invisible god did it". A statement of ignorance requires the same faith as a statement that an unknown, unseen, undetectable creature from another universe exists and made us.
I don't think so...
I am not one to generally participate in the evolution/faith discussion, but you are mistaken in your conclusion. It happened. Period. That is irrefutable since, well, life is here in all its myriad forms. Saying it happened requires ZERO faith. Saying you don't know how also requires ZERO faith. The only thing that requires any faith is to say that this is HOW it happened, but not to be able to prove that.
That still leaves it open ended, and either group has equal claim to the possibility of the HOW.
"I don't know."
Completely unambiguous statement. An acceptance of the ignorance of HOW.
"I don't know, but..."
Prove your but is the correct HOW or admit that you have an ungrounded faith in something that isn't provable.
There is nothing in saying I don't know that requires a modicum of any kind of faith.
Don't delude yourself. "Goddunnit" isn't even on the table for discussion on the origins of life.
I don't really mind those who tell a Creation story. It is their choice.
When it comes to evolution - I think it's important to keep it in perspective. It's called the Theory of Evolution for a reason. The TOE changes - the story and the science behind it are subject to change when new discoveries give us more information. DNA and genetic aspects have been added in the last 50 years and mutation theories are refined as we learn more from fossil history.
No one has "faith" in the TOE, they just accept it as the "current" scientific thought, which it is.
Can the story of Creation likewise change when society recognizes certain aspects that are pretty unbelievable? That's always been the problem.
Religion is dropping away in the face of education. The Bible and Torah were never meant for a society that has grown beyond their pages in understanding. At least not the historical parts. The spiritual message of the New Testament still holds a special place for many - and I see nothing wrong with that. We are all where we are.
My not believing the Creation story does not affect your belief - does it? It does not threaten you, does it?
Perhaps you can find a way to combine today's science with your faith?
I don't understand why that seems so difficult to understand.
"...either group has equal claim to the possibility of the HOW."
Not so - you made it clear one says "I don't know" while the other says "my godunnit".
I think it's the difference between a mind that inquires through science and one that doesn't. Science provides all kinds of "how" answers for me and a quadrillion others. It doesn't provide any "why" answers. The average person may not care why. They're content with "I don't know." Others are way more concerned with why.
It's why the two poles of science and religion can never truly be reconciled into a single answer for anyone. IMO, anyway, which, because I won't throw down with those who disagree is never really worth much here.
If you want to define beliefs about the past based on evidence as faith, sure. But it means we all have faith when it comes to believing anything we were not alive to see. Some of us based on more reliable evidence than others. Some of us incorrectly.
We know it happened because we are here we even know when it happened, so no faith involved. We may not have the how yet (there have been experiments) but we admit that and look for an answer rather than inventing an answer that makes us feel warm and fuzzy.
Saying that something did indeed happen by no means indicates that one has faith in something. They did not say that it spontaneously grew. They offered no explanation. Saying that it happened was the observation. Saying that they had a theory for how it happened, even though they had no evidence of it, would be faith without evidence. They said "I don't know." That's it. Whereas Christian faith says "I know all." This thing happened because God made it that way. HUGE difference.
by Michael Ward 5 years ago
What Would You Do If You Were Faced With Completely Irrefutable Evidence That There Was No God?And I mean completely. As irrefutable as 1+1=2. I asked my friend about this and he had a mini-breakdown so I thought I'd ask you guys. Still not certain if I'm just unsatisfied with his answer or I'm...
by SpanStar 5 years ago
Isn't it interesting that we don't know all the species on the earth that become extinct certainly by man's encroaching upon their environment but according to some so-called experts they know every single thing that took place during the so-called Big Bang. In the void between planets, star...
by thetruthhurts2009 9 years ago
Rules of this forum, no swearing, no straw men arguments and no FSM nonsense. Most importantly remember, Ridicule is not an argument. Enjoy. If want to continue to believe you come from a rocky soup. You can stop reading and leave now, but if you seek the truth you are most welcome to...
by Claire Evans 6 years ago
It's easy to deconvert to atheism because they are disappointed, hurt or because they have lost their faith due to God making sense. It's harder to suddenly make a rational atheists convert to Christianity, which is faith-based. How does it happen?
by PhoenixV 8 months ago
Why Don't Atheists Believe In God?
by Elizabeth 5 years ago
I wrote a hub on how faith is not required in order to be an atheist. Someone requested that I turn it into a forum thread as well. My position is that atheism, by definition, is the lack of a belief in a god. Therefore, faith is not required. The common dismissive quote is...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|