Isn't that kind of hypocritical?
2007-01-04 06:18:03 · 32 answers · asked by Christine5 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I take nothing on faith. I accept only three axioms, and I don't hold them as true, just 'accept' them.
1. math & logic are valid -- truth is inherantly a logical concern, if logic is not valid, truth cannot be known, and thus nothing is knowable.
2. Observations unaided and aided are valid, though aided observations must be supported by unaided observations and math -- ie: a microscope is valid because it can be shown to work via unaided observations that derive the mathematical principles of optics, but a crystal ball is invalid because there's no math supporting it. If we could not trust our observations, we could obtain no data on which to operate, and we could know nothing.
3. IF a supernatural realm exists, it does not in any way affect the physical universe. If this were not the case, we could hold no permanence to anything as a spirit might decide to change things while we're sleeping, "Oops, gravity is too strong, let's turn it down..." Without this permanence, we could know nothing.
SOO.... if I wish to have any knowledge at all, I must accept these things as true, even though i acknowledge I hold them as axioms and not facts.
2007-01-04 06:23:46 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Your right it does take "faith" to be an atheist. However the difference is this, your faith is based on a book that was written by men as "God's" word and so you follow it in to eternity.
Our faith is more consideration of facts and evidence.
Consideration: Fact - The Roman Empire Existed. Evidence - Rome.
Faith: Fact - The Roman Empire Existed. Why - The Bible tells me so.
Faith: King Solomon existed. Why - The Bible Tells me so
Consideration: Fiction: King Solomon existed. Evidence: if the legend was true then Solomon would have been mentioned in Mesopotamian cuniform and Egyptian heiroglyphs.
2007-01-04 06:26:57 · answer #2 · answered by gatewlkr 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
If I told you there is an invisible unicorn following you around all the time and that it would kick you to death if you didn't follow certain rules it wants you to obey, would you believe me? Would you require me to prove it to you or provide some evidence that could point to the unicorn's existence and intentions before you would believe it or would you just believe it because I told you it's the truth?
I don't believe in any god. Nobody has even come close to proving the existence of a god to me and they certainly haven't proven any religion to be true. I choose not to have blind faith in something that makes no sense to me and cannot be proven. I want evidence. Until the existence of something is proven to me I assume it doesn't exist.
I don't think of it as me having faith that there is no god, but more like me lacking faith in god until his existence and intentions are proven to me.
2007-01-04 06:31:43 · answer #3 · answered by undir 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, if you're going tell someone they should give up their beliefs in favor of yours, don't you think you should offer a more convincing argument than that you think you're right?
If you insist that what you believe is true and what another believes is false, you might be asked for some kind of evidence - and the Bible isn't evidence, it's just a book to someone who doesn't believe it's divinely inspired.
2007-01-04 06:24:51 · answer #4 · answered by KC 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I don't see my beliefs as absolute Truth. When somebody claims to have the 'absolute truth', it should be easy to prove that, right?
Our body holds millions of bacterias. If I were to claim that humans are actually nothing more than the space ships built by bacterias, and that bacterias are actually the highest form of intelligence in this universe, that would be considered silly.
If I would claim that silliness to be the 'absolute truth', I'd better offer some proof or agree with it being silly.
It's really that simple.
2007-01-04 06:20:38 · answer #5 · answered by ? 6 · 6⤊ 1⤋
That doesn't make any sense. Being an Atheist means that you do not believe in a higher power. There is no faith in that.
2007-01-04 09:05:09 · answer #6 · answered by Gen 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We don't rely on "faith" we rely on evidence that can be tested, replicated, and verified in repeated experiments. I am a skeptic because there is no evidence, none whatsoever, that can be tested, replicated, or verified by repeated experiments that some invisable big guy in the sky runs the show.
2007-01-04 06:24:45 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
why do christians desperatly try to PROVE the bible to be fact, when their religion relies solely on faith? even Jesus talked about faith.
if it was a fact wouldnt that take away the need for faith and give more need for education?
do you have faith that 2+2 is 4 or is it a known fact and requires no faith.
*shrug* so who then is hypocritical?
2007-01-04 06:21:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
We rely on proof from multiple sources. Each one of us has seen the evidence with our own eyes and tested it..... and if we are found to be wrong we accept the new facts as potential truth.
2007-01-04 06:24:40 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Isn't this kind of a strawman?
Faith for which beliefs? Atheists have beliefs, but I'm more than willing to bet that most of them are taken on good authority/experience/evidence.
Are you perpetuating that you can't prove anything in the Bible? We already know this.
2007-01-04 06:21:01 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 3⤋