Most
beliefs stem from faith. Atheism is no different. We all individually put faith in something(s).
I see I struck a nerve with this comment. First, there are beliefs that do not require faith (arguably, at least) such as ?molecules are composed of atoms?. This is readily observable.
There are other beliefs, such as belief in an unseen spirit, which are not readily observable. Further, I believe that I could successfully prove that most beliefs are not readily observable (though they may be based on readily observable facts).
I have known many atheists (I used to date one, and frequently have discussions with others as well, in my travels), and I find there are those who have never believed in God, while others used to believe in God.
Of those that have never believed, and those who used to belive, I have found that they believe in something which they place their faith in. It may be a philosophy, it may be themselves, it may be a book(s) written by a well respected and intelligent writer, it may be (whatever). But they believe, and hence have faith, in something.
Patio
wrote:
Atheism is equivalent to
non-religious
for me. There is
no belief system
. There is an absence of belief or faith.
We can argue about the meaning of ?faith?, then. The American Heritage Dictionary defines it thusly:
faith
n.
- Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing
.
- Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
- Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
- often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
- The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
- A set of principles or beliefs.
Definitions 1 and 6 above settle the matter.
To state that one who is willing to change their views on a conclusion does not have ?faith?, while one who is unwilling to do so has ?faith? is an irrational statement. Instead of ?faith?, substitute the phrases ?open-minded? and ?close-minded? and the statement becomes rational.
Whether we are willing to consider all evidence has no bearing on whether we are talking about ?faith?. Yes, an evolutionist does put faith in what they see as the most likely conclusion, or belief, as to how things came into existence.
Not believing in God means you believe, and put faith in, something(s) else.
LittleToe,
It's just the way that you express it, in such an abrupt and offensive manner, that I take issue with
.
And if I am offended by your PC, feel good, all accepting manner, so be it. I do not quibble over it. Christianity is not supposed to be a popularity contest. It?s about telling it like it is. Jesus was not accepted by many, only the few, and he warned that the way to salvation was narrow and cramped, and not many would gain access.
Folks are already bringing into question whether or not you are a troll, and using the abbreviation LT. Now, I don't believe you are a troll (though you have certainly stirred up the waters, around here), but I do take exception to that kind of mistaken identity.
I am not a troll. What ?folks bring into question? is their inability to listen to a differing viewpoint without being offended by it. Do you think I am not offended by many of the viewpoints I?ve seen on JWD? Who cares? Not me. That?s a mature adult view of the world. As a wise man once said: ? opinions are like a**holes, everbody has one?. I?m Love_Truth (L_T), you?re LittleToe (LT), there?s no need for squabbling over monikers, or imaginary ?mistaken identity? now is there? If I?ve ?stirred up the waters?, that?s a good thing, right? I?ve read very many posts on JWD talking about how boring many felt it had become. Looks like I?m part of the solution, not the problem, then. If you want everyone to agree with you, it?s simple enough- don?t truly believe in anything. No, that won?t work either, because folks like me will disagree with that viewpoint, lol.
Perhaps I should have called myself ?hornets nest? in view of the occasional disagreements with my viewpoint? Nope, I think not- besides, that moniker?s already taken.
I?ve got no problem with you or any other poster here- we?re all here to express our opinions, and endeavor to enlighten others with our own uniquely brilliant insights, eh?
Drwtsn32,
It amuses me when religious people claim science is "faith." Nothing could be further from the truth.
By the above definitions (1 & 6), science requires ?faith?, or belief, in the current conclusion. That the conclusion can change in the face of new evidence is no different than Christian ?faith? (at least this Christian?s faith).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK. Now, back to the statement: ?God does exist?. Yep, He does, absolutely. And if?n yud all checked these here links out, you?d find answers to a lot of the objections non-believers raise regularly, in this thread and elsewhere:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/nogod.html
http://www.doesgodexist.org/#pubs
Now, I never intend to offend anyone. I don?t believe anyone else intends to offend either. I have been offended by what others have written, and others have been offended by what I have written. I don?t think it necessary that we stop stating our opinions, no matter how conservative, liberal, Politically Correct, or non-PC they may be, as long as the writer is doing their best to be tactful (yes, there is a difference between tact and PC).
We?re all human, and we all fall short of the glory of God.
Love_Truth- Carry on, then.
P.S.- Abaddon, I'll get to your post next (after I read it).
