Doesn't it take a little bit of faith to be a true Atheist?

[James_Tyler]

To be truly scientific about something that is unprovable wouldn’t a scientist have to admit that it is only unprovable? One can develop strong leanings toward the probability of God’s existence based on observation and experience but to draw a conclusion either way takes a leap of faith since there is no evidence. Am i right? The scientific position is always agnostic when lacking evidence. True?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

There is plenty of evidence of God. An understanding of God is part of human evolution; a deepening of our relationship with God as the millenia go by. Atheism is a lack of faith not a leap of faith, so to speak.

 

[James_Tyler]

There is plenty of evidence of God. An understanding of God is part of human evolution; a deepening of our relationship with God as the millenia go by. Atheism is a lack of faith not a leap of faith, so to speak.

I can see it as a “lack of faith” too. As in a lack of faith in the existence of a God. But is it valid to look at “faith” as just going somewhere beyond what you have conclusive evidence for? There is no conclusive evidence that there is not a God or anything supernatural. If i push beyond the evidence to a hard conclusion that there is nothing supernatural doesn’t that also take something that amounts to “faith”? Isn’t “faith” an ability to draw conclusions without knowing everything?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I think it takes a bit of faith to be a true anything. My view is essentially that nothing can beat a purely skeptical line of reasoning in an a-priori sense, not even skepticism. Therefore, taking any position (even the one I am putting forward here) takes some degree of faith.

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

To be truly scientific about something that is unprovable wouldn’t a scientist have to admit that it is only unprovable? One can develop strong leanings toward the probability of God’s existence based on observation and experience but to draw a conclusion either way takes a leap of faith since there is no evidence. Am i right? The scientific position is always agnostic when lacking evidence. True?

**A miracle that is witnessed is a “sign,” and it constitutes evidence. For instance, the disciple Thomas refused to believe until he met our Lord alive and in the flesh after His brutal death.
That event was a sign for Thomas (but not for us since we did not witness it.)

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if, in our present times, we had a “sign” or miracle to look too? Our Teacher spoke of a mysterious “Sign of Jonah” and associated this wonder with an entire generation of people.
That Sign would, by definition, have to be associated with our Lord’s death, burial, and resurrection and also have to available to the whole world.

Such a Sign does exist. It’s right here on this page.**

 

[ClearWater]

Yes, it takes faith to be an atheist.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I can see it as a “lack of faith” too. As in a lack of faith in the existence of a God. But is it valid to look at “faith” as just going somewhere beyond what you have conclusive evidence for? There is no conclusive evidence that there is not a God or anything supernatural. If i push beyond the evidence to a hard conclusion that there is nothing supernatural doesn’t that also take something that amounts to “faith”? Isn’t “faith” an ability to draw conclusions without knowing everything?

To us it appears to be faith. But an atheist only believes in what there is hard evidence for. No faith is required.

 

[smichhertz]

I would say yes. Believing anything to be true that doesn’t have an absolute guarantee of truth requires some degree of faith. So believing 1+1=2 or that all bachelors are unmarried does not require faith as these are deductively true.

However all of science is based on observation and assumes the principle of the uniformity of nature. Thus, believing science requires some degree of faith, albeit very little.

 

[Kaninchen]

Are most atheists bothered?

In societies where religion is an important aspect of daily life, I suppose an atheist might have to think about it often but in societies where religion isn’t taken seriously would that be the case?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Does it take faith not to believe in Atlantis?

I think this is how an atheist would see the question.

Faith requires a destination of belief, not the lack of one.

 

[Kaninchen]

Does it take faith not to believe in Atlantis?

I think this is how an atheist would see the question.

Faith requires a destination of belief, not the lack of one.

Indeed, there would have to be some kind of need to focus on the existence of a deity - the presumption that just because, as a believer, one has such a focus is not reason in itself to assume that others do.

 

[dshix]

Atheism which relies on natural science does, indeed, have faith, because natural science itself cannot prove that it is the only valid source of provable knowledge. Therefore, the atheist has faith in natural science, in the validity of physical observation.

 

[Kaninchen]

Atheism which relies on natural science does, indeed, have faith, because natural science itself cannot prove that it is the only valid source of provable knowledge. Therefore, the atheist has faith in natural science, in the validity of physical observation.

Doesn’t that rather suggest that there’s a problem that needs to be resolved? Why does the atheist need to resolve such a problem?

 

[dshix]

Doesn’t that rather suggest that there’s a problem that needs to be resolved? Why does the atheist need to resolve such a problem?

I don’t understand your question. I can give it a shot, though: Yes, it is a problem when a person gives complete trust in a thing which is not proven to have earned that trust. Only through the tool of philosophy can we prove that the various sciences are valid, and in what capacity they are valid.

 

[Kaninchen]

I don’t understand your question. I can give it a shot, though: Yes, it is a problem when a person gives complete trust in a thing which is not proven to have earned that trust. Only through the tool of philosophy can we prove that the various sciences are valid, and in what capacity they are valid.

Sorry, my comment was about the context itself - the presumption that the problem of the existence of God is taken to be a ‘problem’ by the atheist. It may only be a ‘problem’ with those atheists who see it as a problem or who enjoy engaging with believers. Atheists for whom both are irrelevant, however . . .

 

[dshix]

Sorry, my comment was about the context itself - the presumption that the problem of the existence of God is taken to be a ‘problem’ by the atheist. It may only be a ‘problem’ with those atheists who see it as a problem or who enjoy engaging with believers. Atheists for whom both are irrelevant, however . . .

Ah.

 

[Memaw]

Yes, it takes faith to be an atheist.

Certainly not the kind of Faith God is asking for, and without HIM, we have NOTHING. God Bless, Memaw