Think about it. The Atheist has no evidence that God exists, so they reject such a notion. However, do they have evidence that God does not exist? The answer of course is "no". Therefore, aren't they really jumping to a conclusion?
2007-03-05 14:46:25 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
People, are you telling me that you cannot prove that Superman does not exist? Same kind of deal here!
2007-03-05 14:55:43 · update #1
I guess in the way you put it, they are kind of contridicting themselves.
SOME of them criticize us for having faith in God; but they have faith in a lack thereof.
However, their beliefs do make more logical sense than ours, so I don't want to criticize.
♥ Clare.
2007-03-05 14:51:17 · answer #1 · answered by Couture Clare 2 · 0⤊ 4⤋
We have strong suspicion that our past, present, future is explained from things that are not considered the supernatural but yet the natural. We've seen plenty of evidence favoring science, yet zero evidence proving the existence of the supernatural. I would love for "God" to save me, please, if you know him, introduce the two of us. Faith and Hope is not a means to living life.
As a former Catholic i can honestly say years were wasted in Religion class. It took less than 1 semester of Geology for me to debunk the creation-theory, then the bible followed. No wonder why the dark ages was all about trying to burn/rid of EVERY science book that existed.
Ghosts or Evidence.... i'll take Evidence 365 any year.
(By the way the Bible was written by the hand of man{not valid evidence}, contains counless fallacious material, therefore science has to throw its theory of creationism out, as it can't be trusted)
2007-03-05 22:56:24 · answer #2 · answered by Jimmy 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
So if you have no proof/evidence that the tooth fairy does not exist, should you believe in the tooth fairy?
So if you have no proof/evidence that Zeus does not exist, should you believe in Zeus?
The claim that a deity exists is an incredible claim. Those that make the incredible claim should provide the evidence to support that claim. If there is no evidence to support nor refute that existence, the default and reasonable position is one of no belief.
A reasonable person should not have to disprove something that hasn't been proven in the first place.
2007-03-05 23:02:09 · answer #3 · answered by CC 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no weakness in the atheist position. None. Everyone is born an atheist. You need to be TAUGHT to believe in a God. There are literally thousands of Gods to choose from, and which one you wind up believing in depends on who you are born to, and therefore who the one is who is teaching you.
Stephen F. Roberts said:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that your God is real. I have no reason to believe that any God is real.
2007-03-05 23:13:13 · answer #4 · answered by Jess H 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is no evidence that God does not exist. Fine. Even if there were, i guess plenty of you wouldnt either (a) try and see it, (b) want to see it.
In the absence of evidence, you can either remain open to suggestion (agnostic - various levels) or favor the position that there is unlikely/never going to be evidence (athiest). No conclusions, no jumping, just a prefered opinion.
The main weakness of an athiest position ?
The fact it upsets monothiests who otherwise preach the tenents of love thy neighbor and tolerance. Yuh...huh.
2007-03-05 23:01:06 · answer #5 · answered by nnjamerson 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That's why I'm now an agnostic, I've expored several religions. The eastern ones made the most sense. I was raised a Christian....."lost" my religion about 11 yrs ago. I can't prove it either way. I guess I'll have to wait & see. I'm not afraid of dying. I've been a good person almost my entire life. I've never intentionally hurt anyone.
2007-03-05 22:54:32 · answer #6 · answered by shermynewstart 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the book is meant to be the proof of god it's just not convincing enough for a person with an inquiring mind. In fact for Atheists it's had the opposite effect, it's convinced them of the reverse
2007-03-05 23:02:41 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sure, just like the other side is jumping into a conclusion. The point is that Christians push their beliefs on everyone else. Christians create atheists in my opinion. They are always judging and believing and pushing without a shadow of a doubt they maybe they are wrong.
2007-03-05 22:51:43 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
From an objective viewpoint of these two positions, I would say it is the Theist who jumps to a heck of a lot more conclusions that an ordinary person who simply doesn't believe in sky fairies.
2007-03-05 22:57:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you have no evidence for a certain claim, believing in it and not believing in it are not the same thing.
For example, I don't have any evidence that there isn't a serial killer with an ax waiting for me outside my door. But I choose to believe that there isn't one as opposed to believing that there is one.
See what I'm saying?
2007-03-05 22:50:55 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Occam's Razor: "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities"
God is a BIG assumption and most definitely a "hypothetical entity."
2007-03-05 22:50:26 · answer #11 · answered by ivorytowerboy 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋