2007-10-13 05:21:06 · 28 answers · asked by colin 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
i gave u all thumbs up coz you have explained your point, intelligently.
2007-10-13 05:41:31 · update #1
Not necessarly visual....but evidence is a good start. Something that really makes sense...something that I can say "wow....this is proof...."
Tangible is good...but not necessary.
2007-10-13 05:26:17 · answer #1 · answered by Adam G 6 · 7⤊ 0⤋
It's not "seeing", it's evidence or indications that something might exist. Without facts or evidence, it is rather unreasonable to believe in any of the 100's of gods or godesses that humans have made up over the years.
For example, we can not see Quarks or other subatomic particles, but we can observe their effects, acurately predict how they will behave, and have a consistent mathematical model for their existence and behavior. Contrast this with the Bible where none of the events that it records have any supporting evidence. We could take god on faith, but if he performed an action in this world like a flood, exodus, stopping the sun, etc.., those actions should have left a trace. In the case of a flood, we should find a global layer of sediment from the same time and there should be some indication of it in the polar ice caps i.e. both of them would date to the same age or some other indication. For the times that the sun stopped or moved, every culture on the earth should have recorded it.
2007-10-13 12:38:48 · answer #2 · answered by Pirate AM™ 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No but superstitious beliefs have no merit on it's face. Go to the mythology section. You will see thousands of formally worshiped all power beings that loved and taunted human, they were all man made.
What is the crime in believing only in verifiable events. entities or phenomena?
I don't see gravity, but I get how it is a physical force at work in the universe. I cant believe anything that is unverifiable.
Pantheist
2007-10-13 12:37:41 · answer #3 · answered by Equinoxical ™ 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
A little evidence would be nice.
Unlike most believers, we're not simply willing to take some person's word for it. You wouldn't expect us to just accept someone's claim to be able to fly by flapping his wings, but believers do expect us to accept all of the far less likely "God" stuff on the same utter lack of evidence.
2007-10-13 12:28:12 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No I don't necessarily have to see to believe. I do, however, want some proof...or at the very least an explanation that doesn't collapse in upon itself due to logical deficiencies. I've never seen an atom (only drawings in textbooks) but since explanation of how matter is composed makes sense, I trust that they are there.
2007-10-13 12:27:28 · answer #5 · answered by Inigo 3 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Believing in the supernatural and Imaginary stuff went out with early childhood. To accept that sort of thing as an adult is delusional to say the least.
2007-10-13 12:31:19 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
For most atheists, they would not understand or accept any evidence given to them. Not due to stupidity, simply because it is easier to assign believe in the tangible than the intangible. Even the believer must feel that they have been been given evidence in order to be considered a believer, otherwise they would simply be called a sheep. Everyone has different criteria for acceptible proof and usually no two people have the same views on what evidence would prove or disprove the evidence of their own belief system.
2007-10-13 12:28:04 · answer #7 · answered by mortgagegirl101 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
It really depends on what I'm being asked to believe. I wouldn't say I had to see it personally
However extraordinary things require extraordinary evidence. When the extraordinary thing in question doesn't even have ordinary evidence I don't think it's unreasonable to be sceptical about it
2007-10-13 13:02:34 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
There does seem to be a correlation between intelligence and questioning the world.
Just as there's a correlation between ignorance and acceptance of that which you're told.
2007-10-13 12:28:16 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Asking for evidence really isn't much to ask, I don't think. Evidence is the basis for EVERYTHING humans know.
Science may not have all the answers, but realize that every answer we have, we have because of science, and science is based on evidence. Stuff just doesn't become a fact spontaneously, you know.
2007-10-13 12:25:02 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 1⤋
I think they just want some real evidence.
It is also possible that many of them associate God with that fictional biblical monster and the ignorance surrounding religion.
2007-10-13 12:32:02 · answer #11 · answered by Gorgeoustxwoman2013 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋