I don't know whether it necessarily takes more faith; I wouldn't even know how to quantify faith to make that kind of comparison.
But it certainly does take faith to be an atheist.
For example, it takes faith in the assertion that there is no God anywhere at all. The agnostic says that it's doubtful that there's a God, but we still haven't looked everywhere in the vast univserse. Because it's impossible to prove a negative, when the atheist says categoricially that there is no God, it requires the willful suspension of the rules of classical logic.
"My wife kept buggin' me about gettin' her a color TV, so I finally gave in. I don't know what the big deal is; I can't hear the difference!"
To update and analogize this a little, atheists remind me of a group of blind people who set out to prove that high definition television is a hoax, because after careful comparison to analog TV, they hear absolutely no improvement over the earlier technology. Their conclusion is undeterred by the testimony of millions of satisfied customers who swear by their new HDTVs.
Atheists likewise totally discount the indirect evidence of changed lives, restored relationships and healed minds and bodies that believers attribute to a Being who, because of his spiritual nature, cannot be measured in the same way that beings in the physical realm are.
Your argument is ludicrous. It basically boils down to - it takes a great deal of faith to not have any faith. It doesn't take any faith to be an atheist. All it takes is to accept the world as it is, without creating gods to blame that world on. It may be hard for a faith-believer to accept, but millions of Americans (and millions more in other countries) do just fine without the crutch of religious faith.
Ted beat me to it and is correct. In debating class we talk about is color real since a blind man cant see it. And the answer is yes because using science and accurate description of its parameters the blind can know color, just as I cannot 'see' gamma rays but I can 'sense' them using science. And I can show a blind man that HiDef is real. In religion no matter what is said you can not prove anything and it comes back to 'I believe'.
You're equating faith with faith in a supreme being. There are plenty of other kinds of faith.
Remember what I wrote about the faith I had that you actually were who you claimed to be, and not merely a sock puppet for someone else? You acted in faith too, when you asked me to email you. I could have been a 14-year-old girl or a middle-aged axe murderer.
What about the student who burns the midnight oil so he can earn his degree? He has faith that there will be a job waiting for him when he graduates. His job (or possibly even his career field) might not even exist at the time he's working so hard to get good grades. That student can be an atheist yet still have faith in the value of education.
You cannot possibly prove that there is no God - because it's impossible to prove a negative.
Somewhere along the line, you took a leap of faith - c'mon Ted, fess up! - a leap of (gasp!) faith - when you decided you were an atheist and not some squishy agnostic.
As for you CT, that's a bad analogy, since you're confusing faith with knowledge and hope. The student knows that education has value because it has been shown to have value, and he hopes to have a job when he graduates (although the Republicans may screw him on that). As for me, I didn't take any kind of leap. I simply decided there's no proof of a god and the religions that exist don't make any sense. It didn't require any faith in anything (and I don't have to prove atheism is true, since the facts showing it not to be true don't exist). You are the one taking a leap of faith - not me.
According to yourdictionary.com, one definition of faith is "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing."
Whether you like it or not, I still assert that you have "confident belief" in the "idea" of atheism. Why else would you publish so many posts about it? (Unless, of course, you're trying desparately to convince yourself.)
As far as taking a "leap of faith," I make no apologies for having done so. As I mentioned in an earlier thread (though perhaps not in so many words), faith is belief put into action.
One of my favorite examples of this is the high wire artist who pushes a wheelbarrow across a high wire strung over Niagara Falls. When he reaches the other side, he asks the crowd, "Who believes I can do it again?" Nearly every hand is raised.
"Then who's willing to get into the wheelbarrow?" he asks.
The person who raises his hand this time doesn't just have belief, knowledge or hope - that person has faith.
Right on Tex the person who gets into the wheel barrel has a leap of faith because there is NO proof that he 'can do it again' because he never did it the 1st time. Yes I think he can cross the wire again with the EMPTY wheelbarrow but that does mean he can do it even once with someone in it! The example is a valid example of faith because there is no evidence of ability.
You're correct in pointing out the flaws in the analogy. Not only is there a world of difference between pushing an empty wheelbarrow across the high wire as opposed to one with a person in it, but a single one-way trip doesn't amount to sufficient evidence the high wire artist can do it again (full or empty).
That being said, the point I was trying to make is that lip service (i.e. professing ones belief) is cheap; acting on that belief (i.e. faith) takes a much greater commitment.
Without going into a great deal of detail (I doubt you'd be interested anyway), suffice it to say that when I finally decided to put my faith in Jesus Christ, it wasn't something I entered into lightly. Having been raised in the church, I was already 22 years old before I even began to understand that I might need a savior. It took another four years of soul searching after that before I finally took that leap of faith.
That was almost 35 years ago, and I've never regretted the decision.
Yes I can see the point you were trying to make & I agree. But putting your faith on a myth and not expecting anything from it will allow you to not be disappointed. But your example also points out the danger of putting 'FAITH' into anything real (ie people) because you will be disappointed. I prefer evidence that they are at least minimally capable before trusting them to do anything. And I expect the reverse as well.
ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED. And neither will racist,homophobic, or misogynistic comments. I do not mind if you disagree, but make your case in a decent manner.
Actually the top line is wrong it should be....
ReplyDelete'I know within the parameters of the known facts that....'
Believe or belief does not require evidence, if there is sufficient evidence then belief is not required.
"It does not take more faith to be an atheist."
ReplyDeleteI don't know whether it necessarily takes more faith; I wouldn't even know how to quantify faith to make that kind of comparison.
But it certainly does take faith to be an atheist.
For example, it takes faith in the assertion that there is no God anywhere at all. The agnostic says that it's doubtful that there's a God, but we still haven't looked everywhere in the vast univserse. Because it's impossible to prove a negative, when the atheist says categoricially that there is no God, it requires the willful suspension of the rules of classical logic.
Atheism also requires faith that our senses are able to perceive everything that is. This reminds me of an old joke I once heard José Feliciano tell:
"My wife kept buggin' me about gettin' her a color TV, so I finally gave in. I don't know what the big deal is; I can't hear the difference!"
To update and analogize this a little, atheists remind me of a group of blind people who set out to prove that high definition television is a hoax, because after careful comparison to analog TV, they hear absolutely no improvement over the earlier technology. Their conclusion is undeterred by the testimony of millions of satisfied customers who swear by their new HDTVs.
Atheists likewise totally discount the indirect evidence of changed lives, restored relationships and healed minds and bodies that believers attribute to a Being who, because of his spiritual nature, cannot be measured in the same way that beings in the physical realm are.
Your argument is ludicrous. It basically boils down to - it takes a great deal of faith to not have any faith. It doesn't take any faith to be an atheist. All it takes is to accept the world as it is, without creating gods to blame that world on. It may be hard for a faith-believer to accept, but millions of Americans (and millions more in other countries) do just fine without the crutch of religious faith.
ReplyDeleteTed beat me to it and is correct.
ReplyDeleteIn debating class we talk about is color real since a blind man cant see it. And the answer is yes because using science and accurate description of its parameters the blind can know color, just as I cannot 'see' gamma rays but I can 'sense' them using science. And I can show a blind man that HiDef is real.
In religion no matter what is said you can not prove anything and it comes back to 'I believe'.
Ted,
ReplyDeleteYou're equating faith with faith in a supreme being. There are plenty of other kinds of faith.
Remember what I wrote about the faith I had that you actually were who you claimed to be, and not merely a sock puppet for someone else? You acted in faith too, when you asked me to email you. I could have been a 14-year-old girl or a middle-aged axe murderer.
What about the student who burns the midnight oil so he can earn his degree? He has faith that there will be a job waiting for him when he graduates. His job (or possibly even his career field) might not even exist at the time he's working so hard to get good grades. That student can be an atheist yet still have faith in the value of education.
You cannot possibly prove that there is no God - because it's impossible to prove a negative.
Somewhere along the line, you took a leap of faith - c'mon Ted, fess up! - a leap of (gasp!) faith - when you decided you were an atheist and not some squishy agnostic.
Thanks LL.
ReplyDeleteAs for you CT, that's a bad analogy, since you're confusing faith with knowledge and hope. The student knows that education has value because it has been shown to have value, and he hopes to have a job when he graduates (although the Republicans may screw him on that). As for me, I didn't take any kind of leap. I simply decided there's no proof of a god and the religions that exist don't make any sense. It didn't require any faith in anything (and I don't have to prove atheism is true, since the facts showing it not to be true don't exist). You are the one taking a leap of faith - not me.
According to yourdictionary.com, one definition of faith is "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing."
ReplyDeleteWhether you like it or not, I still assert that you have "confident belief" in the "idea" of atheism. Why else would you publish so many posts about it? (Unless, of course, you're trying desparately to convince yourself.)
As far as taking a "leap of faith," I make no apologies for having done so. As I mentioned in an earlier thread (though perhaps not in so many words), faith is belief put into action.
One of my favorite examples of this is the high wire artist who pushes a wheelbarrow across a high wire strung over Niagara Falls. When he reaches the other side, he asks the crowd, "Who believes I can do it again?" Nearly every hand is raised.
"Then who's willing to get into the wheelbarrow?" he asks.
The person who raises his hand this time doesn't just have belief, knowledge or hope - that person has faith.
Right on Tex the person who gets into the wheel barrel has a leap of faith because there is NO proof that he 'can do it again' because he never did it the 1st time.
ReplyDeleteYes I think he can cross the wire again with the EMPTY wheelbarrow but that does mean he can do it even once with someone in it!
The example is a valid example of faith because there is no evidence of ability.
You're correct in pointing out the flaws in the analogy. Not only is there a world of difference between pushing an empty wheelbarrow across the high wire as opposed to one with a person in it, but a single one-way trip doesn't amount to sufficient evidence the high wire artist can do it again (full or empty).
ReplyDeleteThat being said, the point I was trying to make is that lip service (i.e. professing ones belief) is cheap; acting on that belief (i.e. faith) takes a much greater commitment.
Without going into a great deal of detail (I doubt you'd be interested anyway), suffice it to say that when I finally decided to put my faith in Jesus Christ, it wasn't something I entered into lightly. Having been raised in the church, I was already 22 years old before I even began to understand that I might need a savior. It took another four years of soul searching after that before I finally took that leap of faith.
That was almost 35 years ago, and I've never regretted the decision.
Yes I can see the point you were trying to make & I agree.
ReplyDeleteBut putting your faith on a myth and not expecting anything from it will allow you to not be disappointed.
But your example also points out the danger of putting 'FAITH' into anything real (ie people) because you will be disappointed.
I prefer evidence that they are at least minimally capable before trusting them to do anything. And I expect the reverse as well.