Why do religious people make claims and then refuse to back them up?

by Viviane 114 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Hold Me-Thrill Me

  Still no answer as to why scientists make the claim that life originated from non-living matter without backing it up. Using redirection, which serves to answer without answering, is the method that must be employed when proof for a belief cannot be provided. So too with believers.
  

  If a Christian comes and says, "I believe in God," he might be asked to prove that God exists, how does he know that God exists? If he says "I can't prove it but I do believe it, it makes sense to me", he might then be told "How can you believe in something you can't prove or see?"

  To believe that life originated from non-living matter is just as unprovable but it is a "fact' that science believes it and teaches it. Is NASA searching for evidence of life in the solar system that was born from life? No, NASA is searching for rudimentary life that originated on its own from lifeless matter. Billions of dollars on a myth? or is it truly a firm belief that life from lifeless matter can occur, has occurred. Yes, it is.
  

  Everyone has a belief he or she cannot prove. Religious people believe God created life, life from life. Scientists who believe in evolution/abiogenesis as the origin of all living things believe life came from non-living matter.

  I'm okay with scientists who believe life came from non-living matter without proof of such. They are entitled to their views and I respect that. The thing is why can't they do the same with people who believe life came from life? Why can't respecting an individual's sincere belief be across the board? It should go both ways...Christian to Evolutionist...Evolutionist to Christian. We are all adults living on the same planet.

  I am well aware there are people who though not believing in creation still respect a believers right to his own conscience. I'm addressing those believers and non-believers who cannot resist the temptation to build themselves up by putting down the other. Believer or Non-believer.
  
• 

  EdenOne

  The reason why most creationists conflate evolution with abiogenesis is understandable - albeit inaccurate - because the latter is conceptually the logical corolary of the first, even if there's no proof of that hypothesis. Most non-believers rely on that assumption, anyway.

  Eden
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  Why do religious people make claims and then refuse to back them up? - because they're not able to back up their claims. They're "walking by faith, not by sight"
• 

  cappytan

  Still no answer as to why scientists make the claim that life originated from non-living matter without backing it up.

  I did answer your question. Your premise is incorrect. You are implying that Scientists claim that it is a settled fact that life originated from non-living. Science doesn't claim that. It is a hypothesis. And Science admits that it is hypothesis and admits that it could be incorrect.

  There has been research and evidence that indicates that the hypothesis is plausible, however there is not enough available evidence as of yet to call it a proven theory or fact.

  That's where Science and Religion are different. If Science can't prove a claim, the claim is not considered factual.

  Religion claims that a God exists, yet, instead of acknowledging that there is no evidence to support the claim, religion holds that God is an undeniable fact without presenting any verifiable evidence.

  Don't you see the difference here?

  How do you prove something that you have no evidence for? You go and try to find if the evidence is out there.

  That's what Scientists do. They make claims, then instead of just accepting the claim as true, they go and find evidence to support the claim. Once they find the evidence, the claim becomes Theory.

  What Theists do is as follows: They make claims, then tell everyone else that their claim is fact without any supporting evidence and say that if you do not believe their claim without evidence, something bad will happen to you.
• 

  Viviane

  Still no answer as to why scientists make the claim that life originated from non-living matter without backing it up.

  Not sure why you would say there is "still" no answer since this is the first time on this thread you've asked that.

  Anyway, please provide an example of this being generally accepted by and claimed as fact by the community of scientists who study such things and it can be addressed. What can't be done is to accept your say-so that scientists (unnamed and no reference or citation their their words and published claims) they they are doing it.

  So, when you provide this, we can deal with it.

  Why can't respecting an individual's sincere belief be across the board? It should go both ways...Christian to Evolutionist...Evolutionist to Christian.

  Why do you think it's admirable to respect a belief simply because it's "sincere"?
• 

  Viviane

  The reason why most creationists conflate evolution with abiogenesis is understandable - albeit inaccurate - because the latter is conceptually the logical corolary of the first, even if there's no proof of that hypothesis. Most non-believers rely on that assumption, anyway.

  Since you've not talked to most creationists, you certainly can speak for them and claim why they confuse things or what they assume.
• 

  cofty

  Why can't respecting an individual's sincere belief be across the board? It should go both ways...Christian to Evolutionist...Evolutionist to Christian - HMTM

  It would be disrespectful of me to respect your superstitions. I am sure you and other believers are capable of being more rational.

  Evolution is a fact. It is beyond all sensible debate. If you want to question that please first list all the books you have read that present the evidence for evolution.

  The origins of life are a different topic - although it is not entirely unrelated.

  There are two facts we can agree on.

  1. Once there was no life on earth
  2. Now there is life

  How we got from 1 to 2 is an area of research that has been very exciting in recent years.

  The difference between a creationist and a scientist is that the creationist pretends, without any evidence at all, to know the answer already. The scientist admits to not having a definitive answer yet, but he/she is working hard on finding it.

  One thing we can say for a start is that life isn't a "thing". It's a process. There is no magic. No ghost in the machine. This is something that most believers don't get.
• 

  Finkelstein

  Religionists weigh the answer to why life exists on the basis on the expressed ignorance and imagination of ancient living humans and their acquired knowledge of the world they lived from their historical era in human history.

  The greatest and most powerful gods were mostly male with a sexual identity attached, for a god to be that almighty and powerful certainly had to be a male or in some incidences part animal to signify their capable power.

  These very old rudimentary beliefs are still established in a good part of the mind set of many people living today, ancient mythology has sustained itself into modern mythology, with some obliviously detrimental sociological effects. ie. ( Judo-Christian , Muslim)

  Humanity has struggled for many thousands of years to understand how and why life evolved as it did on earth and just in the last couple of centuries we have discovered an enormous amount of information to understand and get closer to those very engaging questions.

  I would guess in the next couple of hundred years those unclear questions will be finally answered as well those very old held to mythological beliefs will eventually disappear, as they are already notably in most advanced educated civilizations.
  

  .
• 

  EdenOne

  A common reason why many creationists conflate evolution with abiogenesis is actually understandable - albeit inaccurate - because the latter is conceptually the logical corolary of the first, even if there's no proof of that hypothesis. Many non-believers rely on that assumption, anyway.

  better now?

  Eden
• 

  cofty

  I would guess in the next couple of hundred years those unclear questions will be finally answered

  I would guess in the next 20