English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Faith is hoping (or believing) in something you cannot see (or know).

Atheists (at least ‘strong’ or ‘positive’ atheists continually argue that they do not believe in a deity by reason of absolute knowledge of scientific fact. ‘Weak’ or ‘negative’ atheists (and agnostics) would even argue against this statement because there is no scientifically proven fact that can support their claim with absolute certainty.

Theists (Christians, Muslims, Jews, Etc.) continually argue that their worldview is supported by opposite evidence and a spiritual experience or knowledge (usually identified as emotionalism atheistically). Anyone of logic or rational thought could argue that this cannot be verified as absolute truth either.

Both sides cannot be known as absolute truth without faith in things they cannot KNOW as absolute truth from a scientific perspective. If you had a box that could not be opened you could not know with certainty that there was either something or nothing in inside. You could argue either way based on the size, shape, weight of the box, etc. but it is only an argument based on logic. You could not prove it without seeing it. It seems to me to be based completely on logic, an agnostic point of view is the only real truth. You cannot know for sure. Agnostics don’t need a faith at all.

2006-10-06 07:11:09 · 12 answers · asked by RedE1 3 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

12 answers

Theism.

Not believing in a Supreme Being, or atheism, is a default or neutral position. It requires no proof, no evidence, no faith. Its when you try to posit something (like God) that you need one of the three.

Sorry, Atheism just isn't what you want it to be. You are arguing against a straw man, not the real thing.

Also, your argument is very ethno-centric. Why is it christianity or nothing? I assume you aren't Hindu, right? So in regards to Hinduism, you are an atheist. With regards to every religion but christianity, you are an atheist. However, while I assume that they are all equally likely to be wrong, you assume the one of them is correct and all the rest are wrong. Seems to me you are taking a much bigger leap of faith!

Oh sorry, was I supposed to forget that your name is ALL4HIM and assume you were an agnostic? You really aren't fooling anyone.

2006-10-06 07:14:02 · answer #1 · answered by Skippy 6 · 0 2

it is reasonable to consider weak/negative atheism as a default position.

but its also reasonable to consider non-dogmatic theism as a default as well (that is, "I think theres probably some sort of creator out there, but I don't know beyond that" type theism)

both creation and evolution as origin concepts take major leaps of faith. you didn't observe the origin of things in any form. while microevolution is a proven fact, realistically its a stretch to belive it could *REALLY* be the source of all development without external influence.

it depends on the perceptive scope of the person, that is it varies person to person... some people have a stronger inate sense that theres a spiritual organization, and some have no such sense.

look at the answers. people pick either side, for the *EXACT* same reasoning. the ONLY explanation for this is that there is a fundamental perceptive difference.

myself, atheism would take an infinite amount more faith than belief in the God and spiritual things I believe in. why? because I CAN perceive the existance of these things.

this is said well, but can be improved,
>>"I think theism takes more faith since you can't touch your deity and believe in something you can't see. Atheism seems to pull a lot of evidence from scientific studies and physical evidence. Of course, I'm biased. "<<

more accurate would be this:
>>"For Me, theism takes more faith since I can't touch a deity and I cannot believe in something I can't see. Atheism seems to pull a lot of evidence from scientific studies and physical evidence. Of course, I'm biased. "

very little difference, but vastly more accurate, and I can say almost the same thing, spun around to go the other way:

>>"For Me, atheism takes more faith since I can perceive my deity and I cannot disbelieve in something I can percieve. Theism seems to pull a lot of evidence from my personal experience and observations. Of course, I'm biased. "

I think for the strong atheists, it would take a huge effort of mental view-shifting to consider the possibility that others can percive things that they cannot.

2006-10-06 07:51:28 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Atheism simply means no belief in any religion it in no way implies belief in in science or anything else. You are putting the arguments of some Darwinists, scientists and other generally non religious groups not Atheists per se. Charles Darwin was in fact deeply disturbed that he had undermined his own religion with scientific facts and reasoning, Einstein couldn't bring himself to carry on in quantum mechanics as it tended to disprove any possibility of a God that he actually wanted to believe in.

2006-10-06 07:19:39 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I think theism takes more faith since you can't touch your deity and believe in something you can't see. Atheism seems to pull a lot of evidence from scientific studies and physical evidence. Of course, I'm biased.

2006-10-06 07:21:57 · answer #4 · answered by sister steph 6 · 1 0

Agnostics could be said to have faith that they are intelligent enough to have not missed what is obvious to the other beliefs.

So to be honest, there is some faith being applied all around.

2006-10-06 07:14:19 · answer #5 · answered by Rjmail 5 · 0 1

Interesting definition. But, agnostics are not atheists - weak or otherwise. Agnostics do not know if there is a god.

Both, atheists and theists believe strongly one way or another. Atheists and theists have faith. Agnostics have no faith.

2006-10-06 07:13:48 · answer #6 · answered by Your Best Fiend 6 · 1 2

Atheism. It is illogical to assume that some sort of intelligent force was NOT involved in the creation of intricate order. To believe the beauty of the universe occurred out of pure random happenings is intense devotional faith in improbability.

2006-10-06 07:14:17 · answer #7 · answered by manabovetime 3 · 0 2

Bible says: A fool thinks in his heart there is no God. It takes much more faith in atheism, because it is unreasonable in view of this marvelous world.


In the Beginning God created heavens and earth.
God gives you air to breathe and sunshine to enjoy.
God gives you water to drink and food to eat.
God gives you a wonderful body and sound mind, to live.
God loves you, and you are precious to Him.
Son of God died on the Cross to save us from condemnation.
Jesus’ love is boundless and everlasting.
We have the hope of Heaven through Jesus.
Life therefore has fantastic and glorious future!
(Digestion of above can even prevent depression and suicide attempt.)

2006-10-06 07:17:03 · answer #8 · answered by tmthyh 4 · 0 2

atheism requires the biggest leap of faith. it assumes that everything can just spontaneously blink into existence without a willful action on the part of some sentient being.you cannot get something from nothing and everything had to come from something

2006-10-06 07:14:38 · answer #9 · answered by kapute2 5 · 1 1

I'm an agnostic, so I laugh at both of these

2006-10-06 07:12:40 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers