How can athiests have so much faith part 3 (last one was repeated, sorry)?

Question

Hows this, you say that you need proof to believe something, thats totally cool. I will not bad mouth your "faith," that's right "faith," in there being no God. I say faith because that's really what it takes to believe that there is no God without actually having proof to back it up.

For those of you who responded to my earlier questions and were wondering how I could ever be so stupid, I will add one more thing (FYI).

I have read Elegant Universe, I actually like the idea of string theory or m-theory to some of you. Please don't assume that because I am saying that the universe was created by God. I am a student at CSULB going in for environmental science and policy and believe in evolution although I belive also that God played the largest part in it.

Please, if you really dont think of it as faith then what is it? How can you believe something without actually having evidence to prove there is no God.

Answer 1

"I say faith because that's really what it takes to believe that there is no God without actually having proof to back it up"

That's where you're wrong. Google "burden of proof", and read it carefully, and you'll see why your "question" makes no sense at all. You shouldn't be reading "m-theory" while you don't understand the basics: you're trying to run before you can walk.

Answer 2

Your definition of faith is completely useless. By your reasoning, everything anyone believes is based on faith. It's only by faith that I believe I'm writing this answer, for all I know it could be a hallucination or a dream.
Practically, faith means believing something without evidence. Belief in god is based on faith because there is no evidence that a god exists. Belief in any scientific theory is based on evidence.

Answer 3

Where there is no evidence that a conclusion is true, it is reasonable to assume that the conclusion is false until sufficient evidence is found.

There is no sufficient evidence for the existence of a god, so it is reasonable to assume that there is not a god.

If evidence became available, reasonable atheists would change their position.

The problem with god is that it is not a disprovable idea. A universal negative can't be proven. Because no parameters can be set, because the universe is, for practical purposes infinite, the idea can't even be debated logcially.

If you want to believe in god, or gods, or spirits or fairies or ghosts, I don't care. Believe whatever you want. But realize that you're believing it because you want to, not because there is a sound reason to do so.

Answer 4

Have you still not gotten that there is a difference between belief and faith?

BTW: YOU are the one claiming the positive: That there is a God out there somewhere. The onus is on you to support it. Arguments from incredulity are not evidence, not are Biblical scriptures. Until evidence appears that supports the existence of a God, I have no reason to believe in the existence of one. It's that simple.

Answer 5

what number cases does this question must be replied? as far as remember, it could spontaneously seem as a particle and an anti-particle. there is no internet benefit in potential or mass in the universe, so there are no regulations of technology violated. there is no God mandatory using fact finally, the sum complete of no longer something exists. there is no writer mandatory, and in the top, Christians are confronted with the difficulty. If God existed for an eternity in the past he have been given around to making us ... what did he do ... become bored after eternity, and say "enable's play"? each little thing can come from no longer something. this is been proved in the laboratory. the reality that we've not got all the solutions would not inevitably advise that there must be a God who has them. possibly it makes you experience extra useful to think of that somebody has all the solutions, yet you have not got any evidence. technology asks questions, and all the solutions are finally fothcoming. real, there are some that we've not got yet; possibly maximum of them. the element is that in case you do no longer ask the questions for the reason which you have confidence you be attentive to that the respond is God, you stagnate. We understand the perspective of evolution, however we've not got all the products. we are getting to grasp further and extra with reference to the genesis of the universe, able to look returned extra and extra in time. we are delving deeper and deeper into the easy debris of nature. As yet, we've seen no longer something that demands a god to make it happen. once you come across the only element that can not happen without God, that certainly does happen using fact of him, please enable your nearest college professor, or us on solutions, be attentive to approximately it.

Answer 6

Glad to hear you know about m-theory.

I don't need to prove there isn't a god, no more than you need to prove that there aren't magical wish-granting fairies living in my bathroom. You make a claim, YOU prove it.

You don't need faith if you have evidence. So science requires no faith, because it presents the evidence.

Answer 7

I don't need evidence to prove that there is no God.
Why would I assume that Gold exist without evidence that he does? I need evidence to prove that there is one.
Lack of evidence means lack of belief.

Answer 8

NO IT doesn't !

How much faith do you need, not to believe in Zeus, Thor or Athena ?
"I say faith because that's really what it takes to believe that there is no" THOR "without actually having proof to back it up."

You only believe in your god, because you were indocrinated (and probably as a small child).

Answer 9

Whooo hooo LB in the NCAA.

I got my 2nd and 3rd degree over there five years ago.

Even used evolution as topic for my business communication class.

Evolution Teaching Standards
In the State of California



Introduction

Problem and Purpose of the Report

Many students today learn biology through an evolutionary lens controlled by partial biology departments. In our state, standards have been erected to promote evolution as a fact and not as a theory. Evidence contradicting it are quickly omitted or dismissed as something that can be explained in the future. No accountability is taken to include science disproving it. This report will study the current school standards and the basic presentation of evolution. The board can use the analysis to make a fair judgement on how evolution should be treated in our public schools.


Background

According to a research headed by Dr. Lawrence S. Lerner, a Professor Emeritus of Long Beach State, California Public Schools deserve an A in the treatment of evolution and an A in its overall science standards. The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, an organization devoted to reforming elementary and secondary education, issued Lerner’s report at the national headquarters of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

In addition, the report fails nineteen states for not being up to par with respect to the study’s evolutionary standards. Several elements are considered in this criterion, including what textbooks are used, teacher’s education, practice of testing, and the general school atmosphere of evolutionary acceptance.

The paper mentions pressures against biological evolution only from non-academic and non-science based philosophies. It claims political and religious groups are alone without the backing of science, against evolution.



Definition of Key Terms

The word evolution denotes and connotes many meanings when used in every day language. For this analytical report the scientific meaning will be used. The generally accepted theory of evolution states, that all species of man and animals developed from earlier forms by hereditary transmission of slight variations in successive generations. Organic evolution is the theory that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter.


Report Preview

This paper starts by showing the conflicts among evolutionists about the origin and actual process of evolution. The report shows the basic theories and the scientific arguments against it. It further explains why so many have accepted this ideology without little opposition from society. Finally the report concludes why a major change in evolutionary teaching policy is in order.



The Origin of Life

Perhaps the most distinguished person who popularized the notion of evolution by natural selection is Charles Darwin. Half a century ago, Darwin dropped out from medical school and enrolled in the University of Cambridge to become a clergyman for the Church of England. In school he was influenced by two geologists who assisted him in becoming a naturalist. Upon graduation he joined a scientific expedition around the world as an unpaid naturalist.

Geologists at that time believed that plants and animals were successively created and these creations were destroyed by a global catastrophe. Darwin on the other hand started noticing the effect of natural forces on molding our natural environment. The geological variation and changes he observed in his trip can be noticed on native fossils and animals. Certain environments supported certain animal life that is well suited for that particular environment.

Darwin started theorizing about species changeability and adaptability. The theory of evolution by natural selection is essentially a continuous gradual process where successive generations improve adaptability as only the genes and traits of the stronger variations survive and are able to produce. In 1859, Darwin published his study in his book, The Origin of Species.

Today, the theory of evolution is supported by many additional theories to show the formation of primitive life from non-organic matter, the development from one species to another, and other supporting views

Answer 10

As I told you on your first question...evidence needs no faith.

Why are you so hell bent on atheists having faith? Maybe you need to concentrate on your faith and leave us to our lack of faith. k?

And I don't need evidence to prove god doesn't exist...I have my rational thinking. What do you have? Oh yeah...the bible......