Now, I have been reading on this forum that an atheist "believes" or thinks there is no such things as God (or gods)(or nothing else supernatural, for that matter), and that 'proof' has nothing to do with thier beliefs/thinking. But, for many questions I see posted, there are those atheists who say they do not belive because there is no proof. Now, what is it? Do you just not believe (lack of faith or none at all)? Or do you need "proof"?
On the other hand, if you need proof, you say it cannot be proven (I, for one, believe God is everywhere and can His presence can be felt, if you just take the time to stop, listen, and believe)...we can also say, then, that since you feel His existence cannot be proven, His existence cannot be dis-proven either.
Is the difference then between an atheist and a person who belives (no matter what religion) the person's level of fath, or lack therof?
2007-04-07 16:24:49 · 14 answers · asked by marvin_reesman 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
ZC...No, I am not thinking it has to be one or the other. My question was posed do to that, upon reading these boards, some atheists say they do not belive at all. It has nothing to do with proof, or lack therof. But, then other atheists go on to say they do not believe because they need proof. Not trying to argue or start anything...just want to get clarification is all.
2007-04-07 16:43:49 · update #1
You ask why I would not believe in the Muslim god, or this or that. I do not believe the Koran, for example, as nothing in it has yet been "proven". My faith in Jesus and the Christian/Jewish Bible(Torah) came first, sure. But, evidence of many accounts and many cultures from the Bible that many people thought were made up have actually been dug up and found in years past.
2007-04-07 21:43:58 · update #2
The difference is that there is a difference between having proof and having faith. Some people do not believe "just because."
2007-04-07 16:29:02 · answer #1 · answered by Justsyd 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The first fault of your argument is that you're mixing different arguments used by different people and classifying them as both "athiests" and therefore concluding that all atheists have paradoxical beliefs. So sir, I'd like to point out this first little bit of logical gerrymandering is obvious and I'm calling you on it.
An athiest such as myself will say they do not believe in god due to a lack of evidence. An atheist such as myself will not believe in something on the basis of faith alone. They want evidence and proof that can be replicated and confirmed repeatedly. If jesus really wanted to prove he could rise from the dead, he would have cut off his head, and a few minutes later jump up and show he's alive again. And then do this over and over in front of many many people. The fact that his freaking body was missing 3 days later doesn't prove anything other than his body was missing 3 days later. Jimmy Hoffa's body is also missing, is he also the son of God?
Other atheists may have their own reasons, and may even be in sync or contradiction to mine , but that is their arguments and not mine. So please do not mix and match arguments as you see fit in to try to manipulate people into your bullshit dogma.
2007-04-07 23:39:57 · answer #2 · answered by the_contrarian 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I actively disbelieve the Hebrew Bible account of "God". I think the Hebrew Bible is myth, and there is no more reason to believe in Jehovah the God of Abraham than there is to believe in Zeus or Odin or Ra or any of hundreds of other gods that various cultures have believed in that you dismiss as myths.
When someone like you challenges an atheist like me that your god is the "real" god, we answer "show me proof", or even "just show me some evidence". What we are saying is that it is entirely reasonable that the burden of proof is on YOU, not us. We're saying that we don't need to pay attention to your plea until you can provide some objective reason to think you plea has any merit. Note that you would do the exact same thing to someone who insisted that Zeus was real.
2007-04-08 00:09:05 · answer #3 · answered by Jim L 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
without proof, all signs point to no god, our rational and best guess would be no god. you confuse faith and belief, i can have faith in my car to get to the top of the hill, i base this faith on the actual condition of the car, not just blindly hoping, if it was blind hope i would have no faith in the cars ability.
or when passing the ball, i have faith he'll make a shot, if not i wouldn't throw it unless i had no choice, faith is not blind, neither should be belief.
--------a person who does not believe and is waiting for proof is termed an agnostic not an athiest, they are waiting to be convinced with more knowledge and have not made a decision.
2007-04-07 23:36:20 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do not believe in any god or other supernatural or occult endity. I also know there is no proof of the above. It is not a question of level of faith at all.
The fact that one cannot disprove existence holds very little validity because there are all sorts of things one cannot disprove. IE green hamsters, Diskworld, Harry Potter etc.
2007-04-07 23:33:39 · answer #5 · answered by Freethinking Liberal 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The difference is that an atheist has no belief in gods. Ours is not a faith system. It's a lack thereof. So yes, if you want us to believe, you're going to have to bring some evidence first.
2007-04-07 23:29:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
God's extistence can not be proven be our finite logic. Only by faith can one recieve revelation of His existence.
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
2007-04-07 23:37:42 · answer #7 · answered by Minister Paul 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Speaking for myself, I don't believe in any God or gods for a variety of reasons. Some of them have to do with evidence that disproves the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent god (the existence of unnecessary evil, for example). Some of them have to do with the LACK of evidence for the existence of this god (there's no direct evidence, for example, only "feelings" people have; prayer has been shown not to work, etc)
Do you believe in the Muslim god? What are your reasons for rejecting that version of god? It is probably because (aside from your cultural brainwashing) you see no evidence to support that god, and because you believe people wrote the Koran and that it was not divinely inspired.
Do you believe in Zeus? What are your reasons for rejecting that version of god?
Etc. Everyone is an atheist in respect to 99.99% of all possible gods. Atheists just reject one more god than you do.
2007-04-07 23:37:06 · answer #8 · answered by Mom 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am an Atheist .I don`t need any" proof" except God actually revealing himself to the world .
Let all humanity see him not just multi-millionaire Pastors and brain washed Priests .
If I can see God, I just might believe .
World peace and the eradication of disease would be a good miracle to show me also ..
2007-04-07 23:42:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The lack of proof for the existence of God is obvious. It was studying the religions of believers and the nature of "faith" itself that made me an atheist.
2007-04-07 23:29:05 · answer #10 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋