Doesn't it take just as much faith to NOT be a Christian?

Question

Someone made a fantastic argument yesterday that pointed out that since you can't prove a negative like "God doesn't exist", atheism is really based on faith just as much as theism is. Well in the exact same way, it's impossible for non-Christians to prove a negative like "Christianity isn't true". So doesn't that mean that not being a Christian takes just as much faith as being a Christian?

Answer 1

It takes no faith at all to reject an absurd claim. If I tell you that I have a purple hedgehog tree, are you justified in saying, "No, you do not" or do you have to say "I don't believe that?" Some claims can be rejected out of hand because there is no evidence to support them. The claim that God exists is one of them. The burden of evidence in an argument is on the person making the claim. In this case, the claim that any god exists is not, and never has been, supported; therefore, to state that god does not exist is not a faith-based assertion, it is a statement of fact.

Answer 2

Because there is insufficient evidence to absolutely disprove the existence of God, you cannot use deductive logic (a+b=c; therefore c-b=a). You can only reach a conclusion by inductive reasoning using the balance of evidence (90% of A is also B; C is B, so the chances are 90% that C is also A).

The evidence against God is compelling. To begin with, I will assert (and others may shoot this down) that the only RELEVANT definition of God states that he intervenes to circumvent natural laws.

If God circumvents natural laws, then it is impossible to understand natural laws. All scientific findings would have to include the stipulation, "it is also possible that these results are an act of God, a miracle, thereby making our research meaningless."

However, since we have been able to expand our knowledge of natural laws (evidenced by every appliance in your kitchen), the scientific method works in this discovery. And the likely conclusion is that God, at least the intervening kind, does not exist.

Additionally, if God is defined as all loving, all powerful, and all knowing, then it is impossible to explain suffering. Either God is not all loving (he acts sadistically), not all powerful (he cannot prevent suffering), or not all knowing (he created suffering by mistake because he didn't know the consequences of his actions).

If God is less than these and/or does not intervene in our existence, then he is either non-existent or irrelevant. The classic Bertrand Russell argument is that I cannot prove that a china teapot is orbiting the sun between the earth's orbit and Mars. But while I cannot prove this is not true, the evidence against it is compelling.

The evidence against God is equally compelling, and while it is not possible to prove beyond any doubt, it makes enormously more sense to live your life as if there were no God.

It is more compelling to me that humans have invented God (a) to help people deal with the pain and fear associated with death and loss, and (b) to reflect the thoughts of the ruling powers in a particular time. Because humans are always looking for reasons, when none were found, it was the natural inclination to declare the cause to be "God" (or gods). As the faith grew, miracles (coincidences) and laws were ascribed to this Divinity, and an orthodoxy grew up around it.

Now it seems unhelpful to believe in such superstition. The only matters that aid in our ongoing well-being are work, location, health, sustenance, and pure, blind luck.

So there's an inductive argument against God's existence. Let me know what you think.

Answer 3

If I am thinking of the same question you are talking about, here is my answer to that one:

<<
I don't have faith that there is no god. I have no evidence there is a god, therefore, there isn't one. For me, that is fact. Until there reliable evidence to the contrary, I will consider that a fact.

For most of history, the world was flat. That was fact. Reliable evidence came along that proved otherwise. Now, the world is round, and that is fact.

Let's put it this way, maybe you will understand. Right now, I hold the fact that there are no other intelligent lifeforms on other planets, as I have no evidence of them. Let's say tomorrow, the "mother-ship lands", and out walk some lifeforms from another planet. I would then have new evidence to support the new fact that there is intelligent life on other planets.

So, it isn't a matter of faith. It is a matter of their being no legitimate evidence to conclude there is a god(universally speaking).

"To see by faith, one must close the eye of reason."
-Benjamin Franklin >>

So, there is my take on all this.

Answer 4

Pascal's wager takes another form *drink*
Why does it have to be true or not true?
What if we don't worship that god on moral grounds? What if just because you believe, you've actually created that god?
The argument doesn't hold weight for that very reason.
It doesn't take much faith to not believe in someone that quite possibly didn't exist, as there is no historical or physical evidence to that effect. It takes much more faith to believe in someone that you can't prove ever lived, much less died and resurrected. But, even if that could be proven, the god you worship is a bully at best and a tyrant at worst. I won't worship on moral grounds. God isn't in your box. She's much bigger and better than what your bible describes.

Answer 5

Faith is defined as a belief in something not seen, which is true. There is so much evidence that God is real - the testimony of billions. The only evidence that a non-believer has is their word only. ("I've never seen God, so He doesn't exist.") This follows the same logic that was used to prove that the world was flat. It is impossible to have faith in something untrue.

I know that He lives and will help any person who sincerely seeks to know him through real prayer.

Answer 6

what?! go to a local science centre or museum and look at the pictures/graphs/videos/carbon dating samples etc on how the earth really was made. It doesnt take anything to be an athiest. Just facts! Religion has been proven wrong a LONG time ago, its just hard to change a billion brainwashed peoples minds when they chose to ignore facts. Plus, its really easy for weakminded people to use books as scapegoats so they can't think for themselves. I am a proud happy athiest and this is about as much thought I have for religion.

Answer 7

If you consider that a fantastic argument, then nothing I say will change your opinion.

It requires no faith to be a non-Christian. It requires no faith to be an atheist. It is impossible for you to prove the existence of pink unicorns - but do you need faith to beleive that pink unicorns dont exist??

I dont make extraordinary claims - thus, I have nothing that I must have faith in.

Answer 8

Sounds like a very poor argument. You could apply it to every other god, demigod and wood sprite man ever invented, and it puts your god in the same league as the easter bunny and the tooth fairy.
Atheism is based on scepticism.

(And, by the way, of course you can prove a negative, if you can prove the definition absurd. Define your god - if you dare!)

Answer 9

Faith means believing IN something.

We don't believe IN a God or a higher power.....so where you have faith we have a big fat nothing...a zero

A can image it's hard to understand if so much of you're life is based on believing in God.

If I were a Christian I don't think I would try to understand.

Answer 10

Depends on how you define faith. But yes I see the point you're trying to make. If you're talking about desire to believe or to not believe. It's called believing Satans lies.

But really it's ten times as hard to believe in something when everyone attacks you for your belief especially the MEDIA does. Which seems to be controlling every ones minds as of late.
Being atheist has become very popular because people are lazy and don't want to soul search. They want everything handed to them by elitist professors and intellectuals who pass on their fear and self worship to the MEDIA who feed to us.

It's sad that so many people can't soul search. It just must be too hard. It's much more self gratifying to worship your own intellect.