First, a little background on what inspired this thread. In another thread, Surgenator claimed that atheists do no believe in things which have not been proven to be true. I challenged him on that claiming that atheists believe in abiogenesis(which is an un-falsifiable hypothesis not proven to be true). Others jumped in claiming atheist have no such beliefs...they just don't know. Anyways, that prompted me to make a poll at another atheist forum....too gauge what atheists really believe. You can find that poll here

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...rse?page=1

Currently after 37 votes, more than 50% of atheists believe the unproven and un-falsifiable hypothesis that life in this universe arose via some natural process and not from design.

One poster wanted to vote for 2 options. The "I don't know" and the "Via some natural process". I thought about this position and concluded it wasn't contradictory. He was confused. Was the poll asking belief or knowledge? The poll didn't specify. Although he didn't express it, this poster is savy enough to realize there is a difference between belief and knowledge.

When an atheists(or anyone for that matter) says, "I don't know" he isn't saying anything about his beliefs....he is saying something about his knowledge.

What other processes, besides natural processes, have be proven to be true? Whether or not it's proven that the world came about through natural processes, which I believe it actually has, why should we believe it came about through supernatural processes when no supernatural processes have been observed?

(October 29, 2014 at 8:26 pm)Chad32 Wrote: What other processes, besides natural processes, have we proven to be true? Whether or not it's proven that the world came about through natural processes, which I believe it actually has, why should we believe it came about through supernatural processes when no supernatural processes have been observed?

Can't you say that since we've never observed abiogenesis....it should not be believed?

Belief does not require knowledge.

Nope. We know the universe came to exist. We know that many things once attributed to supernatural forces have been caused by natural forces. So far I believe it can be logically assumed that the world and universe around it came to be by natural forces, until evidence of something else arises. We know how stars and planets form. Given that the laws of our universe that we use to understand it didn't apply before the universe began, it's unlikely that we'll know exactly why there was a ball of compressed particles that expanded into what we see today. Still, I'm not going to say a god might have done it until we know that gods exist and have the capabilities to create things.

Sure. I'll agree belief doesn't require knowledge.
But without knowledge, and I don't mean total knowledge just some knowledge, then the question would be... what is the basis for said belief?

I can choose to believe there's a purple dragon living in my basis. I don't need any knowledge for that. But why do I believe it? What is my belief based on?

(October 29, 2014 at 8:19 pm)Heywood Wrote: Currently after 37 votes, more than 50% of atheists believe the unproven and un-falsifiable hypothesis that life in this universe arose via some natural process and not from design.

You keep trying to treat these two options as peers-- as though they're two sides of the same coin, and the jury's still out. But they are not.

Abiogenesis says "Look, here's the universe. Here's the stuff in it. Here are the basic forces that act on that stuff. Let's assume that these forces have caused THIS stuff to be collected and organized into THAT stuff, and figure out how this happened."

ID says "Look, here's the universe. Here's the stuff in it. Here are the basic forces that act on that stuff. Let's ignore everything we can see or have learned, and assume that THIS stuff could only become organized into THAT stuff by an intelligent being we've never seen nor whose existence we have good (or, really, any) evidence for. Then let's use that organization as the evidence we need to demonstrate that being exists."

I do not agree if Surgenator said atheists only believe what is known to be true. That's clearly a false statement. But that you are grasping so strongly onto what was probably an offhand response to an unsupported assertion of God's existence shows real desperation.

(October 29, 2014 at 8:58 pm)LostLocke Wrote: Sure. I'll agree belief doesn't require knowledge.
But without knowledge, and I don't mean total knowledge just some knowledge, then the question would be... what is the basis for said belief?

I can choose to believe there's a purple dragon living in my basis. I don't need any knowledge for that. But why do I believe it? What is my belief based on?

Lots of reasons to believe stuff without actual knowledge. Perhaps you are told something by someone you trust who has or should have actual knowledge. Perhaps you believe something because it conforms with your world view. Abiogenesis conforms to an atheistic world veiw which is why they believe it.

(October 29, 2014 at 8:19 pm)Heywood Wrote: First, a little background on what inspired this thread. In another thread, Surgenator claimed that atheists do no believe in things which have not been proven to be true.

Correction, by definition atheists share only one thing in common, a lack of belief in god. Atheists may believe in a number of things which are not true before breakfast: their spouse is/isn't faithful; they will have a job by nightfall; blank candidate is the best choice; UFO's have landed; and who knows what else. Atheism isn't skepticism though most skeptics are atheists and many atheists are skeptics. Nor do all skeptics manage to apply skepticism at all times.

Quote: I challenged him on that claiming that atheists believe in abiogenesis(which is an un-falsifiable hypothesis not proven to be true). Others jumped in claiming atheist have no such beliefs...they just don't know. Anyways, that prompted me to make a poll at another atheist forum....too gauge what atheists really believe. You can find that poll here

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...rse?page=1

Currently after 37 votes, more than 50% of atheists believe the unproven and un-falsifiable hypothesis that life in this universe arose via some natural process and not from design.

You see, we don't necessarily share beliefs about anything but god.

Quote:One poster wanted to vote for 2 options. The "I don't know" and the "Via some natural process". I thought about this position and concluded it wasn't contradictory. He was confused. Was the poll asking belief or knowledge? The poll didn't specify. Although he didn't express it, this poster is savy enough to realize there is a difference between belief and knowledge.

When an atheists(or anyone for that matter) says, "I don't know" he isn't saying anything about his beliefs....he is saying something about his knowledge.

The crux of it is that knowledge requires rational proof. Belief can be just an opinion held with or without, or even in the face of the evidence. Belief can also be an opinion rationally based on what is most likely. It is possible to hold a belief while knowing that it is only the most likely outcome, not the only possibility, and therefore subject to change should new evidence present itself. That would be a rationally held belief.

I personally believe that there is no god who has any personal interest in the doings of humans. That is a rationally held belief subject to change in the unlikely event any evidence the contrary turns up. I lack a belief one way or the other about most other gods described. But I maintain that any claim of knowledge of god is really merely a belief held with insufficient evidence.

If you want to talk about whether life arose from some natural process, I'm happy to do so. I think it did. That is a rationally held belief. All things appear to have a natural cause. Therefore, it is most likely that life has a natural cause.

I use logic. Which seems more logical, a natural process, or a magical being? Hmmmmm.

How the hell did I get into this thread?

For the record, I strive to believe in claims that have good supporting evidence. If I have stated otherwise, I was mistaken.