Nice try, but, no. The "there is no physical proof" argument is shorthand. Atheists really look to all the descriptiosn of "God," an dhis powers, and observe them to be internally inconsistant, that the abilities and characteristics of God as defined by major religionsare not logically consistant. Most atheists agree that there are likely to be all sorts of "powers" and being "greater" than oursleves, but they just can't fit any description of God.
2007-04-10 06:31:16
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Geoff,
I'm afraid I completely agree with you. If it wasn't the otherwise unexplanable experience that led me from atheism, it would've been this exact point.
Since the time I left atheism, I've always felt that agnosticism was the more logically sound argument simply because in a nearly infinite universe, nearly anything is possible, and almost everything is likely.
That's not to say that I think the Christian god exists somewhere, however, as that particular entity is too much of a contradiction to stand on its own merits.
Being against the concept of all all-powerful god that is weak, an omnipresent god that is not in hell, an omniscient god who needs prayer and a good god with the whole salvation thing is not necessarily atheism.
2007-04-10 06:31:45
·
answer #2
·
answered by LabGrrl 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Not really.
Atheism is lack of belief in any gods. Faith is belief in something in the absence of evidence. There's no belief necessary to have a lack of belief.
That said, everybody has faith in something, even atheists. The difference, though, is that atheists don't push faith as being something good. It should be minimized. Really, the only thing we should take on faith is that our senses give us approximately accurate information about the world around us. Even that is more of an assumption than an article of faith. Beyond, that we should try to use observation and reason to figure everything else out.
When you say something is an "act of faith", you're really saying the person is acting without having all information about something, i.e. taking a risk. Taking a risk isn't really faith. You can know that you don't have 100% certainty and still act on the premise that it is true. That, again, is more akind to a working assumption than an article of faith. You can assume something to be true and act on it as if it is true without actually having a firm belief that it is true.
2007-04-10 06:27:27
·
answer #3
·
answered by nondescript 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
C. S. Lewis wrote something about how atheism and religion were two sides of the same coin-- neither position is empirically provable, and neither position can be completely embraced without some type of faith or inner conviction that it is correct. For this reason, Lewis argued that atheism was actually faith masquerading as science, and that agnosticism was the only intellectually-honest position that could be taken in regard to deity.
2007-04-10 06:39:03
·
answer #4
·
answered by LVX 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
The entire basis of atheism is proof and questioning, which precludes faith. There is no proof of god, the concept of god cannot stand up to questioning, therefore there is no god.
This does not limit philosophical thoughts however, as they are based on questions. Because there is no proof does not mean we can't question or theorize, but we cannot accept it as true. It is possible there are other worlds, other galaxies, other universes... It does not equal and act of faith, it is merely a question without enough proof to formulate an answer.
Since faith does not accept questions, either way atheims precludes faith.
2007-04-10 06:37:42
·
answer #5
·
answered by S1LK 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I can't and won't speak for all atheists - I only speak for myself.
I'm not an atheist because I have faith that this is the only universe. It's because it's the only universe for which I see evidence that proves its existence. If I see credible evidence of another world, I'll change my point of view. But in my view, the evidence offered so far by the religious folk isn't logical or credible.
2007-04-10 06:33:43
·
answer #6
·
answered by Ralfcoder 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Atheism is not a lack of faith, but a lack of belief in a higher power (a "god"). Saying there is no god takes just as much faith as there is a god. You can't prove the existence of any god, but neither can you disprove the existence of god. A higher power would be above logic in our human, mortal minds, so we couldn't comprehend it, let alone dis/prove it. Faith is belief in something improvable, so in a way everyone has faith. Believing there is a god takes faith and trust in that god, but belief in no god takes belief and trust there is nothing above us. Since I'm Catholic, I might have a strange view to atheists, but I hope I made some point.
2007-04-10 06:36:25
·
answer #7
·
answered by Kyris 1
·
0⤊
1⤋
You're going to enter universal skepticism. By denying reality, or allowing the possibility that reality isn't reality, you take out the foundation for even discussing this rationally. Don't think so? Then you must agree with me.
(That last sentence shows that I can ignore reality and believe whatever I want to believe. Or maybe my reality--the one in which you automatically agree with what I said--just can't be understood by you.)
2007-04-10 06:28:58
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I tend to agree with that, but most Atheists don't.
They also acknowledge and respect a Superior Being, such as a Policeman or Judge. They are, quite often, penetant.
But they don't like to admit to this fact of life, either.
The question is, what does it truly matter what you pray to. Prayer is prayer, be it God or the Judge not to throw you in jail for doing 75 in a 55 zone.
See, they also beleive in a Hell and it scares some of them to death!
The thing they'll tell you is they are REALITY BASED.
Blue pill or red pill. You're choice, Alice.
One pill makes you larger, one pill makes you small and the one's that mother gives you don't do anything at all.
2007-04-10 06:33:17
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
There's an element of faith in everything. How can you trust your senses. Once you get past that trivial philosophical hurdle, there's no real faith required. Absence of evidence for something that should be an elephant in the living room on the universal scale speak volumes.
2007-04-10 06:31:17
·
answer #10
·
answered by novangelis 7
·
0⤊
0⤋