English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

One of the chief complaints from atheists about "religion" (usually meaning christianity) is that it is illogical. This of course means that it is a system of faith rather than proof. The argument runs something like, "God cannot be proven, therefore it is foolish to believe in something you cannot prove". However, religions in general and christianity in particular are belief systems of faith, not proof. Within the christian belief system, faith is sufficient without proof. Atheism demands scientific proof. And yet the atheistic assertion that there is no God is just as unproovable as the belief that there is one. In this atheists violate the standards of their own belief system. Atheism is every bit as much a faith, no more based on logic and reason than is christianity or budism or anything else. In the abscence of proof that there is no God the only way that they can hold the belief that they do is through faith. So is it not atheism, by their own standards, that is illogical?

2007-06-04 15:07:24 · 18 answers · asked by David M 6 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

18 answers

Nice try, but no. Atheists do not say "There is no god", but rather "I have no belief in a god". This is known by direct experience, therefore requires no faith.
Upon reflection, I am willing to concede that there may be some atheists who make the claim that no god exists. I do not. I am an agnostic atheist, and always open to new evidence.

2007-06-04 18:02:46 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Why did you use the word 'faith' to classify atheist? Secondly, the non-existence of God can be proven because God has characteristics that defy the laws of logic. So, God is an illogical concept. However, if logic is disregarded and evidence and proof has no meaning then yes, God could exist. But the theistic Gods are defined with contradictiing qualities and personality traits so it proves to be a logical impossibility.

2007-06-04 15:13:05 · answer #2 · answered by trinitybombshella 2 · 2 0

It is the responsibility of those that make a positive claim (e.g. there is a god) to provide the evidence to support that claim.

Nobody (including you) can disprove something that hasn't been proven in the first place. Try disproving the existence of the invisible pink unicorn that lives in my garage. If one cannot disprove it, should one believe in it? That would be illogical.

Granted, that christian beliefs are based on faith (the will to believe without evidence). I, as an atheist, have no issue with christian beliefs as long as they keep it to themselves. However, if certain christians insist that I believe as they do, they will have to present some evidence to support their beliefs.

BTW, there is no such thing as an atheist faith....what spiritual beliefs do atheists believe in without evidence? Thinking that not believing in god/s being a belief is committing intellectual suicide.

Cheers.

2007-06-04 16:08:58 · answer #3 · answered by CC 7 · 0 0

The lack of belief in a god is sufficient to be an atheist. You don't have to believe that no God exists. However, you can believe easily that no God ever described exists, based on logic.

First, you have to define the term "God." The problem with most theists is that this term is a moving target.

In addition, because there is no evidence either for or against 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).

So to begin with, I will assert (and others may shoot this down) that the only RELEVANT definition of God states that GOD INTERVENES TO CIRCUMVENT NATURAL LAWS.

If God circumvents natural laws, then it becomes 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, we have been able to expand our knowledge of natural laws (evidenced by every appliance in your kitchen). Therefore, because the scientific method leads to applicable discoveries, 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). A God who is not all-loving, all-powerful or all-knowing is also not sufficient for the definition of God, because any God that fails to meet these criteria becomes bound by rules that are greater than God.

If God is bound by external rules and/or does not intervene in our existence, then God 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. Humans are always searching for explanations. When none were found, it was the natural inclination to declare that the cause of the unexplained was "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.

That's why I doubt God exists. Not based on faith, but based on logic.

2007-06-04 15:15:15 · answer #4 · answered by NHBaritone 7 · 5 1

First off Atheism is not a faith. Faith is a trust, belief and loyalty to a deity or god when you use the word faith for religious purposes. So, hello you can not call atheism a faith. So, your question is totally illogical because you called atheism a faith and used it as term to mean religious faith.

2007-06-04 15:18:13 · answer #5 · answered by calmlikeatimebomb 6 · 0 0

I would say that we have "faith", but not the same sort of "faith" that theists have. Atheists generally do not believe in things that they have NO reason whatsoever to believe in...things that have no facts or evidence to back them up...things that are not what could be described as "reasonable". For example, I have "faith" that if I went right now and got in my car and turned the key, my car will start. I don't KNOW that my car will start, but I can have a reasonable amount of "faith" that it will, because it is in good condition, and has started every other time I've turned the key. I have "faith" in my husband's love and fidelity, because in the twelve years I have been with him, he has never given me a reason to doubt him He has displayed his love and fidelity to me over and over and over through the years. What I can not have "faith" in, are things that I have no reason to have "faith" in. I can not just have "faith" that there is a God anymore than any other person could listen to me tell them that there are magical invisible dancing turtles in their backyard, and then have "faith" that it's true. There is such a thing as "reasonable" faith, and that's the type of "faith" that most atheists have.

2016-05-17 03:51:42 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

Atheists believe that, since there is no evidence for a god, the best we can do is act as if there is no god. There is no evidence pointing to anything other than the natural world, so we should count only on ourselves to make the world a better place. We should NOT count on God or the Rapture to save the day.

2007-06-04 15:16:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

NO EVIDENCE + SAYING I DON'T CARE I BELIEVE ANYWAY (FAITH) = IRRATIONAL

And for the four BILLIONTH time, the burden of Proof is on you. We don't need to disprove your deity anymore than we need to disprove the Loch Ness Monster.
Not believing in your deity is based on making an educated guess. That is not the same as believing something despite all evidence to the contrary. THAT is the definition of faith. People like you should really look up the meanings of words once in awhile. This argument gets really old.

2007-06-04 15:15:02 · answer #8 · answered by Biggest Douche in the Universe 3 · 1 1

Do you have faith in the wiki-wiki man? ...... No? Then you are having faith in there is no wiki-wiki man ..... meaning you have one more faith other then your god ...... which makes you liable for hell .... since you have faith in the "no wiki wiki man" and not only your holy trinity only.

Then Do you believe in that Ra is on a flying horse embedded with golden Ice cooling teaport orbiting the sun? No? Then you are having faith in there are no RA ..... which makes you have TWO more faiths ......

Then do you believe ...... xxxx .... etc etc etc .... that makes you have 61 millions 1 thousand and 1 more faiths ......

What are you talking about? Disbelieve does not mean having faith. You do not need faith the disbelieve something. You need faith to BELIEVE something.....

2007-06-04 15:15:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

There is also no evidence of little green men in space....but I bet some atheists are willing to admit the possibility is there. Why else would so much money be spent on finding something that has no evidence of being in existence?

2007-06-04 15:32:02 · answer #10 · answered by sympleesymple 5 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers