posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 06:54 PM
Originally posted by Angus123
So why is it that the superstitious always claim that being an atheist takes more faith than believing in their sky daddy?
On the contrary... it takes zero faith. Faith is believing in something for which there is no evidence. Atheists accept what their senses and
intellect tells them. That there is no evidence of any kind of god. Not believing in something you've never seen takes no faith at all.
Actually let me amend that... faith is telling yourself and others that you believe in something that underneath it all you know isn't true.
Alright, Angus ?
I don't think that many religious people claim that it requires ''more'' faith to be an atheist, but I contend that you still require faith.
I'm assuming you don't believe in a God, yet there is no evidence that everything in existence isn't the result of a God or God like force (
depending on definitions ).
You have to have faith to believe that we've evolved to a state that you can ascertain with any accuracy whether a God does or doesn't exist - this
is far from self-evident, and in my personal opinion quite contradictory to atheism that is based on science in general.
You say atheists believe what their senses and intellect tell them, but how do you know that the conclusions that you draw from your senses and
intellect correlates with the actuality of the universe ? Again this requires faith.
Here's another example: Person ''A'' thinks that Person ''B'' is out to get him. Person ''B'' thinks that Person ''A'' is suffering
from classic paranoia.
''A's'' reality is that ''B'' is out to get him - ''A's'' reality is based on his intellect and senses.
''B's'' reality is that he is not out to get him, and he thinks that ''A'' is suffering from paranoia - ''B'' infers this from his
reality that is based on his intellect and senses.
So, who's reality is the correct one ? ''A'' or ''B'' ?
[edit on 20-12-2009 by Benji1999]