Christians, do you think atheism is rational?

Question

Whether or not it's true, do you think it's reasonable to require physical or demonstrable evidence of God? And rational to think such evidence has not been found?

Answer 1

Yes. Of course. If a person hasn't ever experienced God, then he has no premise to come to the conclusion of the reality of God.

Answer 2

Atheism is OVER-rationalism. Rationalizing even reality out of existence. Hence the term "Doubting Thomas." It is rational to accept as true what science has shown, but one must also consider the possibility of something that exists that one cannot see. I believe in air even though I can't see it simply because science has made a valid argument. However science before the time of Gallileo said that the world was flat. The Earth was the center of the universe. A mole on the skin was where evil spirits entered and exited the human body. Bloodletting was the only cure for certain diseases. Therefore science is always right until science proves science wrong. There have been many proven miracles. A person connot become a Saint unless three miracles have been accredited to them. Miracles can only come about through God. Just because people refuse to believe in miracles because they weren't there to see them doesn't mean they didn't occur. Should people with this view be punished eternally? According to God, only the people who flatly refuse to believe in Him and give Him thanks and glory are the ones who shall be eternally punished.

Answer 3

Honestly, I think, that NOT everything needs proof, althought much does.

Eg. Martin Luther King had a dream, of EQUALITY,
proof,
we should be equal,
fact we are NOT equal, and even tho laws exist as evidence of this, Men, women, children are NOT treated equally .


REQUIRE PROOF of LOVE?
How can you proove this, and is Love temporary?

You can argue,that affection, and fidelity are proofs of love, but what about infidelity, and divorce.

Read Abdul-Baha 's Secrets of the Divine philosophy

It gives a very good read if nothing else.

As far as the evolution theory, WHERE DID that one little atom come from?

We believers believe it was GOD, who ever and whatever that is.

We don't know YET but we believe that with time, we will KNOW,

Scientists are men, and men make mistakes,
just like with abortion, I mean NO ONE can argue that they were wrong about this right? That we were mislead,

I know this is a fact, because of 2 reasons, I have had a miscarriage and delivered my little baby, and I can assure you that this was NO EMBRYO, NO FETUS,
but a tiny tiny mini baby the size of my thumb, eyes ears and everything, tiny veins the whole deal,
My miscarriage happened at 9 weeks,
which based on the information,
2 weeks before pregnancy
( they always include this i don't know why?)
and then 7 weeks of pregnancy,
my baby should have been without a heartbeat right?
and heart beat means life?

BUT in reality my baby had a little body with all its little organs, and hands arms and legs,and even tho it wasn't alive, you could see that given the chance it could.

Is it because a baby is so small that we rationalize abortion and then throwing the baby into the garbage afterwards,
YES, because if it was a 5ft 4in body we would have burried it. and put the person in jail for murder, right.

but because its a tiny tiny baby we throw it out in the trash.

So science WAS WRONG,

That doesn't mean that they should stop trying, and searching for proofs, and evidences, ect.. it just means that they are man and fallible,

we believe GOD is perfect,

Atheism is IN MY OPINION a lack of belief based on a Lack of spiritual knowledge, and desire to know and love God,
it happens when Man believes that they have learned all that they think they need to know, or give up trying .

The beautiful thing about science is that they are constantly trying to find another, better way, new ieas and new research,

Scientists NEVER need evidence, it all starts with theories and Ideas.then they try to proove that idea

if we based our decision to believe, with a mixture of science and Spiritualism, perhaps we could find the proof we have been looking for,

It doesn't have to be either OR

Meg

Answer 4

I think that some atheists are rational. I find some are quick to believe what they have been told is true. I find that atheism seems to cover such a wide variety of beliefs that I can't make a blanket statement. I find people that are Atheists but also practise magic etc...are irrational..You either believe in the supernatural and are pagan or an atheist an do not believe in the supernatural. Certainly there is nothing wrong in requiring physical evidence or in you belief . I can respect your beliefs. All I ask is for you to respect mine.

Answer 5

Now, obviously we can’t “prove” that God exists or doesn’t exist, since He is outside of the physical realm. What we can do is look at the physical realm and see what the evidence points toward. It is more like proving a case in the courtroom by presenting and examining the evidence and then coming to a conclusion.

It certainly is reasonable to suggest that if there is a God, He would have made adequate evidence available for us to believe that He exists. And that’s what Romans 1:20 says: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”

As Dr. Werner Von Braun said, “One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all.”

Lord Kelvin (the Father of Thermodynamics) said, “Do not be afraid of being free thinkers! If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is the foundation of all religion. You will find science not antagonistic but helpful to religion.”

The universe is here, intelligent design is here, beauty is here, morality is here, the desire for God is here—what is their adequate preceding cause?

I have to agree with Psalm 14:1, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’”

Answer 6

I think agnosticism is rational because it says that since I don't see sufficient proof for the existence of God but I do see some evidence for why others believe in Him I'm going to keep an open mind on the subject.

Atheism on the other hand is a positive declaration that the person believes that there is no God. Such a declaration requires "faith" since there is no way to prove that something "does not" exist unless it can be proved that it is impossible for it to exist.

Answer 7

On its surface, yes. Atheists generally say that if God were to reveal Himself, then they would belief, all they want is proof that He exists. Seems rational enough. But then, rather than truly seeking to prove that God DOES exist, they set out to find evidences and proof that He DOESN'T exist. This is NOT rational. I will never prove that something is real if I am actively trying to prove that it is NOT real. Going into the search with that type of attitude will only prejudice my thoughts about the information that I receive from my research. There are many evidences as to the existence of God...miracles, life changes, prophecies that have come true, our very existence! But because they do not believe they explain the miracles away, say that life changes were only a change in the mind of the individual, accuse prophecies of being written after the fact, and actively seek out evidences that God did not create us through conjecture and guessing,bending their findings to fit their idea of truth.

Answer 8

Yes, I think it's rational.

I am a christian and believe that God is seperate to the created universe. Hence it is completely rational to assume the non-existence of God, when you demand imperical evidence from within the universe, since God is not part of the universe you will not find him in the Universe in an imperical sense.

However, just because it is rational, does not mean it is true, or should be accepted.

Answer 9

I consider myself an Atheist, and I don't even think the position is rational. While a lesser definition of Atheism is Atheist-leaning-agnostic, I don't buy that. The evidence doesn't point in any direction, because there is no evidence. The rational position is agnosticism. To deny God's existence fervently as a first cause without evidence to back up your case (yes, without disproving, or at least severely discrediting a negative) then the default position is agnosticism. You just don't know.
Note, I am not arguing by design, because there are very rational rebuttals against that argument. But a God can be the first cause of an imperfect, un-designed, chaotic universe, there's nothing to prevent that from happening.
So, no, Atheism is not rational, it just makes better sense to have a stance than to not have one.

Answer 10

Atheism, being that it is lack of belief in gods is rational when one takes in consideration the lack of evidence. It is a neutral position. When someone takes atheism to the next level and becomes a believer that there are no gods, then I find that to be irrational as there is lack of evidence for that either.

Agnosticism, being that it relates to knowledge of gods existing rather than not believing or believing (atheism, or theism) in them is also rational..

Atheism has received a rather bad name in the past. People believe that atheism means to believe that there are absolutely no gods, which is not entirely correct. Strong atheists believe there are no gods, but the rest of us so called weak atheists are non believers, accepting the possibility that there might be gods but not believing in them.

Answer 11

Yes, there is nothing irrational about atheism--it is the default position. If you are going to switch the settings of belief to something else you require some reason (epiphany of some sort). The evidence for switching though will be largely subjective, and maybe not compelling to a broader audience.