The existence of God can't be proven either way. So doesn't it take faith to be an Atheist. Faith there is no God. Seems the only logical position is agnostic.
2007-02-26 05:33:34 · 28 answers · asked by Lekatt 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
A formal knowledge of philosophy of religion is required to completely answer this question.
The short answer is, yes, atheism can be considered a religion. Therein lies the atheist paradox. A religion looks to a higher moral authority for its beliefs and the origin of the moral code within us all. No one has to tell us murder is wrong, poking a babies eyes out is bad, etc. Yet, atheists, who claim to believe in nothing, possess a moral code. For the intellectual atheist, this moral code is a by-product of the survival of the fittest mechanisms, yet their intellectualization of this rebuttal to the paradox falls short of the philosophical mark. Philosphically, believing in a moral authority, even if it is the laws of nature, places atheists strictly within the religion camp, albeit on very shaky philosophical and theological grounds.
If you want to start a discussion at an advanced level, a starting question must define the underlying assumptions both parties are bringing to the table. Only then will the two parties be able to work through their differences. Formally, the starting point would be the following question:
What is the justification for the presuppositions informing your epistemology and ethical system?
2007-02-26 06:00:22 · answer #1 · answered by Ask Mr. Religion 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The burden of proof falls on the theists, not the atheists. Anyone who's passed philosophy 101 or has good reasoning skills knows that you can't prove a negative. If I have to disprove the existence of God, then I'd have to disprove unicorns, leprechauns, dragons, the monsters that my niece thinks are in her closet and whatever else I could conceive in my imagination. I don't think atheism is a faith, it is a lack of faith.
2007-02-26 05:41:49 · answer #2 · answered by Subconsciousless 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
God is unnecessary. The mere existence of a creator would prove that a creator is not necessary for even very complex things to exist, so why would anything else need a creator?
God would have to break the basic rules of nature to be some kind of supreme being. This is both unlikely and probably would be devastating to the balance of the universe.
These two simple issues tell me that it is beyond likely that there is no God. Thus, I think it's safe to call it a fact.
2007-02-26 05:54:03 · answer #3 · answered by Phoenix, Wise Guru 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am only 16, so I know little or nothing about this subject, but i can at least try.
I think the problem with any belief or religion, is that one party is going to try and disprove the other. if you are saying the only logical explanation is agnostic, it may pose a problem.
the reason for this is that, everything will have to be thought over again.
Some things are facts because we need to identify and label them to understand the structure of its being. But then again a lot of things started out as theories, and from the imagination of human beings, so in that case should we say that religion in general - which is fabricated from the imagination of a group of people, is absolute nonsense? Isn't most things a subjective point of view? we can only base things on what we have been told, and then make up our own mind.
I could say; if I'm clever, that in fact we are our own gods. because WE have created our world. Physically yes, we have been created by something else - evolution, god whatever- but going back to labeling things, if we didn't have the skills of communication and imagination, then we wouldn't of come up with the idea of god, scientific concepts, and trying to find out the meaning of life.
So therefore in creating the idea of god, it becomes paradoxical because a minority believe HE created us.
The wheel can keep going on forever and ever, and you can either be indifferent or not.
but if you think about it, to disgard the idea of god, again, would mean exluding other ideas... I am not saying I 'believe' in god, but if you look back at some science, and what we have known to be facts as such, those very facts have evolved, and had to be reasessed. Like string theory for one instance.
The only way to truly find out anything, is to take ourselves out of our own body, and restrictions, and to anylise things outside of our personal points of view.
Living is more simple then trying to find out the meaning to things.
ps, the idea of god isnt impossible, just improbable.
2007-02-26 07:25:43 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It doesn't require faith to know that a creator god is a logical impossibility. Intelligence can only come from one of two origins: Either a natural unthinking process (evolution) or creation by an antecedent intelligence (e.g. humans making intelligent robots). Since a creator god can have neither of these origins, such a thing cannot possibly exist.
2007-02-26 05:44:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
An agnostic is a subclass of atheist. An agnostic just has not realized it yet. Ignosticism is another classification.
When you can tell me just what you mean by "God" then there might be something to discuss. Until then there is no point. You can not prove something if you don't know what it is you are trying to prove.
God is an Invisible Pink Unicorn!
2007-02-26 05:40:12 · answer #6 · answered by U-98 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only position that can be proven is agnosticism because there is no proof either way. It is a rational belief to be atheist, but not a faith.
2007-02-26 05:38:09 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
In my opinion, all faiths are the same for the fact, there is no supporting evidence to back up their claims. Here is the one scripture that constitutes the entire Christian faith.
(Hebrews 11:1) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
2007-02-26 05:41:19 · answer #8 · answered by MoPleasure4U 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both have varying levels of belief, and both have fundamentalists. The first time I debated Atheists, I was surprised at how dogmatic they were. They are very similar to dogmatic Christians and also have doctrines of infallibility. This leads me to believe that fundamentalism is not a way of believing, it is a personality trait.
2007-02-26 05:40:59 · answer #9 · answered by Wisdom in Faith 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good try, but no cigar.
Imagine going around reserving judgment of everything whose non-existence we "can't prove." Starting with the Tooth-Fairy, the list would keep you busy for the rest of your life. And no, the fact that your particular "belief" is very important to you doesn't exempt it from this logic.
2007-02-26 05:55:56 · answer #10 · answered by JAT 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋