Obviously my screen name says what I believe but I encourage all ( Buddhist, Atheist, Christians, Taoist, Muslims, etc) to give me a good clear cut answer on if god really does exist. I would sincerely love to know what all of you think. That does not mean I won't argue with your idea or belief.
Atheist is a loose term, there are religious atheists, like buddhists, or people who don't have any religion at all. So it really depends on the person.
What is their faith?
Faith = Belief in something without any evidence.
So, unless you're a religious atheist, no faith.
OK, I guess I've made the mistake of grouping all athiests into one group, when athiests are really "None of the Above" type of people. Right?
Basically, if you don't believe in a god/gods, you're an Atheist.
If you believe in a god/gods, you're a theist.
If you are on the fence, you're an agnostic.
There's further distinctions, but I think you get the point...
My question: What do athiests believe created the world? What is their faith?
Of course I don't speak for all atheists.
While I can hold the trust type of faith based on previous experience (prefer just calling it trust instead of faith to avoid confusion) I try to avoid the belief without proof type of faith required to believe in a deity and many religious doctrines.
I think the world formed as a result of gravitational forces allowing for remnants that didn't make it to form the sun to clump together. Eventually over time it became rounded by it's own gravity, accumulated enough mass to create a stable orbit around the sun and clear it's orbital path. So I guess you could say I believe gravity created the world.
If you are on the fence, you're an agnostic.
Which doesn't say on what you believe, it just indicates lack of knowledge. One can be agnostic and still be theist or atheist. If your not claiming a belief your atheist, regardless of the reason. This includes not claiming a positive belief because your not sure if there is or not.
My question: What do athiests believe created the world? What is their faith?
There are varying forms of atheism. However, in a broad sense, it relates to their belief that there are no deities...which is quite the opposite of theism.
Atheists don't have a faith (again, there are varying forms of atheism) but they rely on concrete factual evidence and logic to support their claims. So, where am I getting on this? I'll make this quick and simple.
They don't believe a deity created the world and universe. They believe that the universal forces were the cause of all this (by universal forces, I mean things such as gravity, etc. Please don't interpret this the wrong way).
There are varying forms of atheism. However, in a broad sense, it relates to their belief that there are no deities...which is quite the opposite of theism.
It doesn't even have to be that, just a lack of belief.
They don't believe a deity created the world and universe. They believe that the universal forces were the cause of all this (by universal forces, I mean things such as gravity, etc. Please don't interpret this the wrong way).
Electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces and gravity. These forces are simply the way elementary particles interact. (in case someone asks where these forces come from)
I, like you am also an atheist and **** I still can't believe that 95% of the earth's population believes in dieties. After a few moments of thinking, I would say god is just another example of the placebo effect, meaning it psychologically helps if you believe it does, just as some doctors give you sugar pills, yet they help you get healthty because you believed it does. Hope it helps
I would say god is just another example of the placebo effect, meaning it psychologically helps if you believe it does, just as some doctors give you sugar pills, yet they help you get healthty because you believed it does.
There are many cases where it's not even that. It can even have adverse effects. Particularly with concepts like hell being added in.
I'm a christian, and I have been all my life. I do like to take a look at the scientific side of Christianity. (there is science in Christianity, no matter what you say.) I've found that if you look at all of the evidence with an open mind it really stacks up. To name one, Jesus fulfilled every single one of over four hundred prophesies written about the life of the Jewish messiah, all of which were written in incredible detail and quite some time before his birth as a man. Some of these things he would have no control over if he was not the true son of God. There would be his birth (Isaiah 7:14- The messiah would be born of a virgin & Micah 5:2- The messiah would be born in bethlehem). The bible even predicts Judas' betrayal (Psalm 41:9) and even Judas' payment for deceiving Jesus (Zechariah 11:12- 30 silver pieces). I don't really want to start rambling or anything like that, so I won't go into depth right now. If you want some facts, just ask me and I'll give you some.
As it is, I could show you all the evidence in the world, but you still would have to step out in faith to believe it. It's the same with anything else. Suppose I told you Cocleanths were still around. You'd still need faith to believe me, even if I went as far as to go get one from the ocean floor and bring it back to you. It would take faith to believe it was real, and it would take faith to believe it was a fake and I dressed up some random fish or something. Likewise it takes just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to believe there is a God.
Some of these things he would have no control over if he was not the true son of God.
the guy who wrote the book had full power over jesus just like he was god. the writer could simply take those messages as a guide for his character so it's easyer for people to believe this/his new religion.
it takes just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to believe there is a God.
if the atheist knows how science works then no, being atheist does not require any faith.
To name one, Jesus fulfilled every single one of over four hundred prophesies written about the life of the Jewish messiah, all of which were written in incredible detail and quite some time before his birth as a man.
Many of them were fudged to make them fit. If there was an actual Jesus there is also the possibility of self fulfilling prophecies as well. Many supposed prophecies attributed are also not actually ones about Jesus and get fulfilled in the next chapters of the story. Overall we are just comparing stories not facts here, you are trying to use the Bible to prove the Bible.
As it is, I could show you all the evidence in the world, but you still would have to step out in faith to believe it.
The requirement of faith is what makes it not scientific. Though it does give good reason to doubt.
It's the same with anything else.
No it's not the same as anything else, We can go on objective evidence.
Suppose I told you Cocleanths were still around. You'd still need faith to believe me, even if I went as far as to go get one from the ocean floor and bring it back to you.
No it wouldn't, we could examine your evidence independently of your claim and come to the same conclusion and come.
Likewise it takes just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to believe there is a God.
No it doesn't, it just takes not accepting a baseless unproven claim.
the guy who wrote the book had full power over Jesus just like he was god. the writer could simply take those messages as a guide for his character so it's easier for people to believe this/his new religion.
Several people (40 to be exact) wrote the bible over thousands of years. The Bible passes the bibliographic test better than any other ancient document, so unless all the various monks copying the Bible in various places across Europe somehow all got the same idea at the same time to mold all 400+ prophesies to fit Jesus and Jesus alone then changing the prophesies would never have worked out.
No it doesn't, it just takes not accepting a baseless unproven claim.
Overall we are just comparing stories not facts here, you are trying to use the Bible to prove the Bible.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the way I understand this you're speaking as though there is no evidence whatsoever to for God that is outside of the Bible. If you look at the external text for determining the validity of a historical document, which the bible also passes better than any other, you'll find that multiple non-Christians have mentioned Jesus. What is probably the most well-known of these that I know of is Flavius Josephus, who mentioned Jesus' miracles, death at the hands of Pontius Pilate, and his resurrection in the 18th chapter of his Antiquities (3:63-65).
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works- a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of the Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
Antiquities wasn't even meant to support the Christians or their God; it was meant to make Rome more sympathetic towards Jews. Thallus and Phlegon are two others, claiming it was a dark day when Jesus died, going hand in hand with Matthew 27:45.
What is probably the most well-known of these that I know of is Flavius Josephus, who mentioned Jesus' miracles, death at the hands of Pontius Pilate, and his resurrection in the 18th chapter of his Antiquities (3:63-65).
From Wiki:
Although there is consensus that most of the writings of Josephus are authentic, the following passage which appears in the Greek version of Antiquities of the Jews 18.63-64 is the notable exception: (...) The scholarly debate can be broken down into three main groups: those who believe it is authentic, those who do not and those who believe it is partially authentic.
I'm too tired to go into further details. I'll try to answer the rest tomorrow.
I am a Reform-Humanist Jew. This means that while I believe in some higher power, I don't really see how it helped me walk down the street or other day to day things. I take it upon myself to fix my problems, but also, the reason that I have to believe in God, is because you just need that feeling that if you have a huge problem, that someone is listening to you. I realize that proving God is impossible, but that is also part of the concept of God. Belief. "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing." Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy by Douglas Adams
To name one, Jesus fulfilled every single one of over four hundred prophesies written about the life of the Jewish messiah, all of which were written in incredible detail and quite some time before his birth as a man.
This isn't evidence. This is part of the claim that is being made: This is the God of this religion and here are the things he did. The fact that the Bible says that this happened, and that the prophecies were fulfilled, that's only if the Bible is true.
As it is, I could show you all the evidence in the world, but you still would have to step out in faith to believe it.
How good is that evidence if it requires faith to believe it?
It would take faith to believe it was real, and it would take faith to believe it was a fake and I dressed up some random fish or something.
If you could demonstrate that it was not a fake it wouldn't be faith-based, and if you could not, then we would be justified in saying that it's not entirely proven.
Likewise it takes just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to believe there is a God.
I think the mistake you're making here is that you're thinking that atheists are asserting, "There is no god". Atheism is the lack of belief in a god, the rejection of claims that haven't met a burden of exceptional proof; it's not the assertion that there can't be a god. And even when atheists assert that there is no god, it's not faith-based because it's based on the evidence. Faith, in its simplest terms, is basically turning away from the evidence. If it were based on credible and verifiable evidence, we wouldn't need faith to believe it because it would be proven. So the only reason we could need faith is if God is admitting that there isn't a better reason to believe in him. The evidence outside of the Bible that you present is not verifiable as true. It doesn't matter if the people writing it said that it was true. If we had hundreds of accounts of unicorns from two thousand years ago, that doesn't prove that there were unicorns, and it doesn't provide a reason to believe that they might exist. It only proves that people believed that they existed.
I have a question: If it takes faith to believe a claim and it takes faith not to believe a claim, what position doesn't require faith?
I think the mistake you're making here is that you're thinking that atheists are asserting, "There is no god". Atheism is the lack of belief in a god, the rejection of claims that haven't met a burden of exceptional proof; it's not the assertion that there can't be a god.
Gnostic atheism IS asserting that there can't be/isn't a god, but there aren't a lot of those guys.
Right, I know, but he seemed to be generalizing that faith is required in atheism and theism, when it's really gnosticism that he's saying requires faith.
