2006-09-08 06:54:11 · 36 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
No, but it would be enough to make me choose agnosticism.
2006-09-08 06:57:10 · answer #1 · answered by Cosmic I 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Not at all.
True belief in God does not require physical or provable evidence.
It requires faith and reason, but neither based on physical evidence.
It seems to me that for atheists, the need for credible evidence when there is none is the main reason people choose atheism.
Only they do not realize that religion and faith don't need science to be maintained, because religion is by nature a spiritual belief system.
2006-09-08 12:37:39 · answer #2 · answered by STILL standing 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, Atheism is not a choice, it's a description. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in god[s]. Absence of any and all evidence ( anecdotes are not evidence) Is a good reason to remain atheist.
2006-09-08 07:17:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The absence of credible evidence is a great reason to become an Atheist or agnostic.
2006-09-08 06:59:16 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Of course, what other reason could one have. Atheism is lack of god belief. To have a belief an intellectually honest person requires credible evidence to support it. If one has no credible evidence an honest rational person has no other choice but to be an atheist.
2006-09-08 06:58:20 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No: it is a reason to choose AGNOSTICISM - or to be an agnostic.
Atheists don't even care about credible evidences in religions. Agnostics do.
And nothing proves that "atheism" really exists. Maybe this concept only exists in believers' mind.
.
2006-09-08 07:34:51 · answer #6 · answered by Axel ∇ 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That is a difficult question because we, as human beings, are limited by having only five senses. How we've been socialized also influences our overall sensory perception. In short, the evidence one seeks might not be something that we, as humans, are capable of perceiving. Example?
The CBC took a film crew to the north to shoot Inuit building igloos. Once finished, the crew decided they would try their hand at it. When they were finished, the Inu looked at their work and laughed heartily. The crew wondered why they were laughing. The igloo they built looked exactly the same as the Inu igloo.
One of the Inu said, "Jump on top of your igloo." They did, and the whole thing collapsed. Point?
What we think we see, what we think we perceive as truth might not be the case. It's all a matter of perception and how our senses were socialized.
2006-09-08 07:02:17 · answer #7 · answered by gjstoryteller 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Think of all the things there is not credible evidence for...it's infinite. The question you are asking is really "Should one choose a belief system?" When someone chooses not to include God or the marshmellow man in their cosmology, they are just making their best guess at what is really going on. And yes, we should do that.
2006-09-08 07:02:15 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think that your question contains a false premise... that being that believing or not believing requires choice. That implies a conscious decision to believe or not to believe. I sincerely doubt that such a conscious decision making process takes place in very many cases.
Faith-based religious belief is something that is very profound... an internalized conviction that one knows the 'truth' pertaining to certain fundamental aspects pertaining to existence and reality... a primary interpretive filter which, along with misconceptions, prejudices, knowledge base and experiential reference, shapes one's self-description, and world view.
No... 'atheist' is not something that you DECIDE to be... it is something that you REALIZE you ARE.
Also, I think that you tend to want to draw a distinct line between 'atheist' and 'agnostic'... but there IS NOT a distinct line between the two. The 'weak atheist' ("I DO NOT believe that god exists") IS an 'agnostic'. An agnostic (or 'weak atheist') is simply not convinced by the so-called 'evidence'. The 'strong atheist' ("I BELIEVE that god DOES NOT exist") possess an internalized certainty of the non-existence of such dieties, implying that there is some sort of 'proof' (philosophical, or logical... NOT scientific) that dieties do not or can not exist.
Jim... there ain't no fish in that pond where you're fishin'.
2006-09-08 07:31:22 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. Absence of credible evidence (for the existence) of God merely indicates that you cannot prove that God exists. However, lack of proof for one case is not proof of its antithesis. For example, if I cannot "prove" that the Big Bang is how the universe came into being does this mean that because I can't prove it that the creationist theory must be the case? No.
2006-09-08 07:12:54 · answer #10 · answered by Rance D 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That is merely one of many reasons a person chooses atheism.
2006-09-08 08:27:32 · answer #11 · answered by genaddt 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋