Why would you expect anyone to believe you if all you have to offer is your "faith"? Faith = opinion

Question

There is serious disagreement amongst real scholars as to the accuracy of the bible:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history

So, on what factual or logical basis does anyone propose to argue that their "faith" is evidence of anything other than their faith?

From my viewpoint, atheism is the only logical choice.

What do you think?

The point is why would you expect others to accept your faith as evidence?

If faith is credible evidence then all faith based beliefs should be accepted as factually accurate (as to the object of the belief).

Yes/no?

To Mrday76, atheists can be spiritual.

Atheists do not believe a Supreme Being exists, that does not prevent atheists from believing in witches, ghosts, spirits, reincarnation or whatever.

You either misunderstand or misrepresent atheism.

Ichi, scientific theories do not rely on "faith" as the word is commonly used (a belief that does not rely on logical proof or physical evidence).

Answer 1

Faith is something personal. I can't ask someone to believe in God because of MY faith. They have to have their own faith to believe.

Answer 2

For many, the need to believe in a higher being who is in control of things is greater than any need to rationalise the basis for that faith.
And essentially faith entails accepting something you may not see, or touch (real proof) and taking a way of worship with its faults and believing that even if some details may be off, generally the intentions are right, and it makes your life happier.
This is by no means a standard by which all must choose to live, but for many it fulfills the basic human need. A lot of the basis for religions- the holy books, doctrine and dogma are really man-made and as far as that is the case, there will always be errors, discrepancies and at the end of it, real hard evidence may not be available. And while that's the case, a person of faith cannot convince one without faith. We just have to accept we cannot get everyone to think the way we may want.
Indeed if religion did not exist it would certainly be created to fulfill a basic human need for validation in existence.
If one feels they can do without that and still have a fulfilled life, then some may say you are freer than most.

Answer 3

You are totally true. I am an Athiest and I don't believe in supreme beings. I also do not believe in spiritual stuff. But, nevertheless, you've got a point. All, believers have is faith, not evidence and Atheism is the only logical answer.

Answer 4

I would say that it's not about whether we believe someone as that we should respect one another in their faith (or opinion). I too have many issues with the accuracy of the bible. Logically I suppose atheism makes sense. I however believe in a creator. I questioned it but after having a stay in the mountains and thinking it over, I believe in a creator.

Answer 5

I dont think faith can ever be accepted as evidence for anything. It may encourge trust.
Proof must be clear evidence in direct relation to the subject being proven. faith is just an indication that something is believed to be true or false without evidence. Faith <> Proof

Answer 6

I agree, but I would caveat this by saying that too much is put upon the term 'faith' by atheists and believers alike

I do not believe in God, but there are plenty of ethereal unprovable things that I have faith in.

One example, Science is based on faith to a large extent, the principles of physics are based on a closed system, this has not yet been proven to be true...yet the entire history of modern science is based on such principles...

Answer 7

I think that it's perfectly reasonable for people to believe on the basis of faith. However, you've hit the nail squarely on the head when you point out that one person's faith is not evidence of anything other than that faith.

Faith can convince the person who has the faith, but it is absolutely meaningless as evidence to convince anyone else. For the truly faithful, that shouldn't be disturbing - but it's clear that many believers who claim to have faith really desperately want to have evidence instead.

Answer 8

Ok first of all, your source is not a valid one. Wikipedia is a accumulation of numerous people's knowledge and opinions. A lot of the information on Wikipedia can and most are fictional based upon non-reliable sources. Faith is not evidence in any way. However, the only way to the Father is through faith alone. But in reality, everything is based upon faith. For religious people, they need faith in their God(s) and beliefs as much as for Atheists to have faith that there is no God. God has never been proven to exist. We only know from what we have been taught. However it has never been proven that he doesn't exist as well. Atheism is based upon as much faith as any other religion is. And faith is not opinion. You need a more solid foundation in your personal education, use correct and reliable sources, and discontinue your biased opinions.

Answer 9

heres what i wrote to sum1 else, hope u like it!
Faith is an important component of belief but I also believe that through logical explanation and science more eveidence indicates the existance of a higher, more intelligent being (God). Beyond obvious natural miracles such as; bees and ants building complex societies, the perfect position of the sun in distance to the Earth etc. There are some more unexplained phenomenas that are so unlikely to have spontaneously ocurred, that the most logical explanation is God. Let's look at the creation of the universe (big bang)...scientists can date the universe back all the way until10^-43rd power of a second, in which time the universe is unaccounted for. Something MUST have triggered the bee bee sized compact galaxies to expand. Another miracle is that of protein strands consisting of polypeptide chains. These chains harbor 500 amino acids in an EXACT correct sequence. The chances of this ocurring naturally in nature is 10^950! Science claim 10^50 nearly impossible. These facts helped me in determining my own principles; it takes alot more "blind faith" to believe we somehow spontaneously "happened" (10^950 chance) than believing in a supernatural power (God). Thanks for reading. Plz stay open-monded! :-D

Answer 10

I don't expect anyone to believe me based on faith. Faith is a personal thing.
I think in a very logical way and need proof to believe something. Atheism is not logical at all. Not at all. You need a lot more faith to believe everything just "happened". There is so much order from the minute cell to the vast universe. That's why they call it "intelligent design". There are scientists that don't believe in God, but say that it's logical the universe had an intelligent designer.

Answer 11

If you've had no spiritual experiences, atheism would be a reasonable choice for you. You can, after all, testify that to the full extent of your knowledge, there is no evidence of the existence of God.

But that's all you can testify to. And you are not the be all and end all of human experience. Sorry.

I have had spiritual experiences and have been touched by God. Therefore, it would be illogical and irrational for me to disregard those because you have not had those experiences.

Have your viewpoint, by all means. But I know and have experienced too much to share it.

To JT, in reply:

Most of what I know of Atheism I've learned here, written by atheists. And I'm quite sure that some of them are as embarrassing to you as some Christians are to me.

Your point is well taken.