[Discussion] Is Atheism Based on Faith?

[Prometheus Beta]

That's all well and good, but you can't prove that a being of higher power didn't create these very patterns in order to govern the universe it created.

I can't prove that a magical and completely empirically undetectable leprechaun isn't sitting right next to me now either.

 

[The Necromancer]

I can't prove that a magical and completely empirically undetectable leprechaun isn't sitting right next to me now either.

Yup. So why even bother debating it?

 

[Transcendence]

Here, look at it like this.

In the court of law, do we indict or clear someone based on believing they are a good person, or do we look at the hard evidence to determine if they're guilty or not?

Atheism is not about faith. It's the lack of the former. Yes you can use the argument that it takes a certain amount of faith to not believe in some deity, but then again, you're not actually believing in anything, which contradicts the concept of faith itself. I'm an agnostic atheist myself, and I prefer to put my beliefs in science; anything tangible, versus the illogical spouting of the bibles words. God didn't create man per say, man created God. And there's actual evidence to prove how tampered with the bible has been over the years. The one you read now is completely different to the original scriptures.

 

[Gerkak]

The difference is that "theories" like evolution (string theory is actually more of a mathematical-philosophical thing than a scientific theory but thats a story for another day) are able to 1) explain the patterns found in the real world that they are formulated for coherently 2) make accurate and testable predictions.

Yes but how can they disprove that these patterns were not created by a divine being? Darwin assumed life could just pop out from inanimate objects however even after combining the necessary molecules to mimic the DNA of living organisms nothing ever just came to life. Science has yet to explain what life is, what gives life and what takes it.

Can you blame people for believing it came from a higher power?

 

[Prometheus Beta]

Yup. So why even bother debating it?

The point is that it is nonsensical to associate a burden of proof with a negative claim and that there is a difference between a scientific theory and non-empirical claims like "God exists". And for the most part I tend not to bother with abstract philosophical debates about God. The problem is that this debate is really a red herring when it comes from religious people, see its all fine and easy to have a philosophical debate about an abstract creator and whatnot but the claims of their religions are a wholly different thing. In reality, they want to convince you of the later but try to equate it with the problem of the former. They are not the same thing.

 

[YellowFang]

It's based on the denial of phenomenons that aren't supported by science but still happen...

 

[Prometheus Beta]

Yes but how can they disprove that these patterns were not created by a divine being? Darwin assumed life could just pop out from inanimate objects however even after combining the necessary molecules to mimic the DNA of living organisms nothing ever just came to life. Science has yet to explain what life is, what gives life and what takes it.

Can you blame people for believing it came from a higher power?

They don't need to disprove it just as I don't need to disprove the existence of the magic leprechaun. Its your responsibility to attempt to convince them that it exists, until then they can choose to abstain from believing in it, and at the same time, refuse to assert that it does not exist. That is if you are talking about agnostic atheists or "soft/weak" atheists. The real problem here is that people, especially religious people, confound the notion of a lack of belief with a belief in the negative of a claim; "atheists", and mostly inadvertently, add fuel to this problem by claiming both and by defining the later as a form of atheism (so called "hard atheism"). Im actually guilty of doing this in this very thread myself earlier.

The OT is actually right that people who make claims like "God (an all encompassing term) does NOT exist" not only have a burden of proof but the claim is indeed faith-like. The issue is that NOT ALL atheists or people who claim to be atheists make those sort of claims.

You must be registered for see links

Your claim about Darwin is also false. The theory of evolution as framed by Darwin himself and even as currently proposed has nothing to do with the origin of life. All it does is explain the origin of biological diversity. What you are alluding to is abiogenesis and you are right, that is more of a hypothesis than a scientific theory. Science can only "explain" things which are falsifiable and testable, it is inherently incapable of answering questions like "what is the meaning of life". More importantly, science does not need to explain anything. Religious people seem to have this idea that science's inability to explain some things implies the existence of God. Evolutionary theory could be falsified tomorrow (even if that has about as much chance of happening as atomic theory being falsified), it would not count as an iota of evidence for the existence of God.

As for "blaming" religious people, I personally don't care what other people believe insofar as it doesn't negatively affect me in some way.

 

[ministerC4]

Simply put, there is no affirmative argument in support of atheism. None.

The reasonable atheist -- and they exist in large numbers in the real world, though they are hunted to near extinction on the internet -- will admit that there is indeed evidence for God, though they conclude that it is not sufficient. The internet atheist, for the most part, simply says that there is NO EVIDENCE for God's existence, and refuses to address any arguments either in favor of God or in favor of atheism.

Atheist philosophers have tried for centuries to formulate such an argument, but none exists. The Problem of Evil argument and the Omnipotence Paradox are as close as they come, and these are both badly flawed arguments that have been around for centuries.


Sadly, as is often the case, Thumbs Down are a substitute for real, rational thought. All anyone needs to do to shut me up and prove me stupid is to simply provide one affirmative argument for God's non-existence

please people don't take this as an attack a just want a normal discussion

Thank you with providing NB with such an entertaining thread, I'll be lurking with my popcorn.

 

[ministerC4]

Yes but how can they disprove that these patterns were not created by a divine being? Darwin assumed life could just pop out from inanimate objects however even after combining the necessary molecules to mimic the DNA of living organisms nothing ever just came to life. Science has yet to explain what life is, what gives life and what takes it.

Can you blame people for believing it came from a higher power?

You have a good point, but then again, I doubt most people even know this.
I wonder why I've never seen anyone write this XD
Edit:
Kewl beans.

They don't need to disprove it just as I don't need to disprove the existence of the magic leprechaun. Its your responsibility to attempt to convince them that it exists, until then they can choose to abstain from believing in it, and at the same time, refuse to assert that it does not exist. That is if you are talking about agnostic atheists or "soft/weak" atheists. The real problem here is that people, especially religious people, confound the notion of a lack of belief with a belief in the negative of a claim; "atheists", and mostly inadvertently, add fuel to this problem by claiming both and by defining the later as a form of atheism (so called "hard atheism"). Im actually guilty of doing this in this very thread myself earlier.

The OT is actually right that people who make claims like "God (an all encompassing term) does NOT exist" not only have a burden of proof but the claim is indeed faith-like. The issue is that NOT ALL atheists or people who claim to be atheists make those sort of claims.

You must be registered for see links

Your claim about Darwin is also false. The theory of evolution as framed by Darwin himself and even as currently proposed has nothing to do with the origin of life. All it does is explain the origin of biological diversity. What you are alluding to is abiogenesis and you are right, that is more of a hypothesis than a scientific theory. Science can only "explain" things which are falsifiable and testable, it is inherently incapable of answering questions like "what is the meaning of life". More importantly, science does not need to explain anything. Religious people seem to have this idea that science's inability to explain some things implies the existence of God. Evolutionary theory could be falsified tomorrow (even if that has about as much chance of happening as atomic theory being falsified), it would not count as an iota of evidence for the existence of God.

As for "blaming" religious people, I personally don't care what other people believe insofar as it doesn't negatively affect me in some way.

 

[Punk Hazard]

Atheism is the belief that there is no divine being. You cannot prove something doesn't exist.

 

[Donald Trump]

Basically, yes. Atheism is based off of a lack of belief in another religion, so an abundance or lack of faith would be the death to either side.

On a side note, I sometimes laugh at how Atheist like to say "God isn't real because _____" when we all know that Christianity is not about what exists but how we perceive and learn from what we believe.

 

[Bronze]

If you believe strongly in something, you have faith. It is almost applicable to everything in the universe. When it comes faith between science and religion, it's an endless battle.

Science is trying to prove God doesn't exist, by hypothesising theories such as the Big Bang theory and life's origin. The former has flaws due to the fact ''nothing can come out of nothing'' and the latter is still being conducted. The flaw about science is, that it has limits to how much it can explain. Can science explain how the density and high temperature popped out of nowhere? Can science explain how our solar system was designed so perfectly? How our planet is the middle point? How the human body is programmed to systems functioning so perfectly? It simply can't. Human brain can only take so much, and it is impossible to understand the complexity behind the universe's creation.

Religion is trying to explain how God and his infinite power is the cause behind the universe's creation, life, etc. It records the dateline of thousands and millions of years, from Adam's & Eve's time to Prophet Muhammed's time. Some of these can be supported by science, such as the splitting of the moon (which is proved in science and Quran), the genetic relations between humans and chimpanzee, and so on.

Science atheists will try to argue against religion, and vice versa. It's best everyone just shuts up and keep their opinions to themselves.

 

[Skylar Knight]

Atheism is not based on faith, but theories.

 

[V h o]

Technically there is not Lol