Both religion and atheism require a leap of faith because there is no damning evidence of a God or higher power, and there is no damning evidence of a lack of God. Isn't this ironic because most atheists base their beliefs on science and evidence and frown on leaps of faith?
2007-08-15 09:40:34 · 32 answers · asked by damilitia 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
It is ironic to some degree. In truth all atheists should be agnostic. Every time I read "There is no god" I cringe. There is just no proof to back that up. Religions and the gods they create can be disproved. But the idea of a general god is impossible to disprove. As a matter of fact I am going try and change the minds of all the atheists on here.
2007-08-15 09:46:43 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Pardon me, but you're using the word "faith" in a way that most atheists wouldn't use it.
There's "a belief without evidence, or despite evidence to the contrary." That's typical religious faith.
Then there's "a reasonable expectation that what has previously occurred or been demonstrated will continue to be true unless proven otherwise." That's the only kind of faith that most atheists would profess, and it's quite different from religious faith.
Think of it this way:
There's a small chance that some god or gods may exist, and of course it's impossible to be 100% certain that they don't exist. However, since there's no evidence for their existence, I'm 99% confident to begin with -- so for me, crossing that final 1% to where I'm comfortable asserting "there's almost certainly no such thing as a god" is not really a big leap at all.
2007-08-15 09:51:30 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I completely understand what you're saying, but do you think all atheists are like that? Isn't it possible that somewhere out there there's an atheist that's never heard a lick of religion, or at least hasn't considered it? Just because someone's an atheist doesn't mean they know anything about religion, and at the same time doesn't mean they base this lack of faith on science or proof. It is quite possible that someone doesn't believe in god because they've never considered god.
But again, I do acknowledge that I have "faith" in evolution, only because I can admit there's an infinitesimal possibility that it isn't reality, but I can assure you it isn't taking that much effort or mental strain to accept.
2007-08-15 10:02:23 · answer #3 · answered by Alex S 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Wow, looking for something that isn't there. Atheism doesn't require a leap of faith, by definition it is a lack of faith. If you're an atheist you could compare it to the Purple People Eater. Is it a leap of faith for you to not believe in the Purple People Eater? Why not, there are books as evidence that he did in fact exist? You see?
2007-08-15 09:48:49 · answer #4 · answered by jdecorse25 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
i could argue that the guidelines of physics did no longer ensue they have only consistently been. IE common truths with the aim to communicate. we are extraordinarily confident all of us be attentive to how the international began and how it formed we've a solid variety for it. As for the universe we've some hypothesis on it. Atheism regardless of if does not require a leap of religion by way of fact its a loss of perception by utilising definition. to assert it does may be the equivalent of exclaiming it takes a lead of religion to no longer have confidence in leprechauns or unicorns.
2016-11-12 10:25:17 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sorry, it doesn't take anything close to a "leap of faith" to not believe in something of which there is absolutely no evidence of existing.
2007-08-15 10:09:20 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No it isn't ironic because of two reasons:
a) You've misunderstood the concept of irony.
and
b) Being an atheist does not require a leap of faith but rather reason and evidence.
2007-08-15 09:46:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
Does it take a leap of faith to not believe in the Boogie man? Or in invisible aliens with nothing better to do than spy on you? To me there is no faith involved in not basing my life around far out claims with no reasonable evidence.
2007-08-15 09:45:53 · answer #8 · answered by Zen Pirate 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
It would require a very small small leap of faith were it not for the logical proof that the biblical god doesn't exist. Since he can be proven not to, I don't need to make a leap of faith. See my other posts for the proof.
2007-08-15 09:45:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Leap of faith that there isn't some fantasy creature able to "design" something from his thoughts?
I think it's safe to say we stand behind evidence and just because there is no way to prove that god doesn't exist doesn't make it any less preposterous.
2007-08-15 09:46:36 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋