Do Atheists Have Faith?

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Atheists by default don't think for themselves. They are required to believe NOGOD created everything. FAITH in fossils unseen is their "source"
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
It depends on what you mean by "faith". If by "faith" you mean "confidence and trust" in something, obviously they do. However, if by "faith" you mean some kind of religious adherence or the theological virtue, then I'd say "no".
 

treeplanter

Active member
I believe in many things
I trust in many things

I do not, though, have faith

Faith is the act of accepting as truth that for which there is no sufficient evidence
Faith is the act of accepting as fact that for which there is no proof

Faith is believing without seeing
Faith is believing without justification

Faith is not a virtue
To the contrary, faith is mental lapse - it's a character defect

No one on their right minds ever goes about teaching their children to embrace faith except when it involves God

Here, again, we find otherwise sane and rational and intelligent human beings all too willing to toss logic and reason out the window while bending over backwards to accommodate the concept of God

It's a pervasive form of cognitive dissonance, this compulsion to special plead on behalf of God - i.e. "while I agree that faith, in and of itself, doesn't make any sense and is always dangerous and quite often harmful, faith where a belief in God is concerned is good and virtuous"

Why make excuses for Him?
Why worship and glorify a god who needs the excuses of supposedly lowly creatures like us?

If you're not going to teach your child to disregard investigation and verification in favor of faith where any other facet of life is concerned, why do so where God is concerned?

If faith is a dead end in every other respect - why not acknowledge it as a dead end in this respect, too?
 
Atheists do not believe in gods due to a lack of evidence. I have no idea why Christians try so hard to make it more complex than that.

I personally do not believe anything to be real without empirical evidence. I cannot think of anything that I think is real based on faith.

And, of course, none of this does anything to prove that Christianity is real. Attacking atheists just demonstrates that there really are no compelling facts or evidence that support Christian claims - so they bang the table :)

"If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell”
-- Carl Sandburg
 

Temujin

Active member
It depends on what you mean by "faith". If by "faith" you mean "confidence and trust" in something, obviously they do. However, if by "faith" you mean some kind of religious adherence or the theological virtue, then I'd say "no".
I agree that it is a matter of definition. If you consider that faith is belief in something despite a lack of convincing evidence, then you have a tolerably useful definition that sorts theists from non-theists, flat-earthers from non-flat-earthers and those who believe in life on other worlds from those who don't. This begs the question of what constitutes convincing evidence, but to my mind, if the evidence was convincing, then most people would believe it.

If on the other hand you hold that it is faith to not believe in something despite there being no convincing evidence against its existence, then you have a completely useless definition. I don't believe in the tooth fairy, the Loch Ness monster, God or Russell's space teapot. I have no evidence for the non-existence of these things, or for the millions of other things I don't believe in from goblins to Ganesh. I suspect that virtually everything I don't believe in, without evidence, is similar to what every other person on the planet does not believe in without evidence; with a bit of shuffling around the margins. If this lack of belief constitutes "faith", then that devalues what we currently think of as faith to something like having bowel movements, something that we all have but don't need to talk about unless they become unhealthy.
 
Present evidence god does not exist.
edit per mod

My complete question and statement was:

What sort of evidence would you expect something that doesn't exist to leave behind?

I think you're obviously still confused by the nature of evidence, and the burden of proof.


ferengi decided to ignore the bulk of my post and just quote "something that doesn't exist". edit
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top