There is no small or large or medium sized "leap of faith" in atheism. Faith is about believing things without proof, usually what the believer wants to believe and that has nothing whatsoever with Atheism
But we don't know for sure that there isn't a creator of some description. So to call yourself an atheist and declare that no Gods exist, even though you cannot explain how existence came into being, seems to me to require a leap of faith. No one has the answer to how the universe came into being, what's beyond it, what came before it etc. so how can you be so sure it didn't involve some kind of creator? That's where atheists take a leap of faith, coz they are saying 'whatever caused the universe to come into being it definitely didn't involve a creator." I don't see how an atheist can be so sure, and I do regard myself as an atheist, but I wobble a bit at that point.
"But we don't know for sure that there isn't a creator of some description. So to call yourself an atheist and declare that no Gods exist, even though you cannot explain how existence came into being, seems to me to require a leap of faith."
It requires a leap of faith in the same way that believing there is no tooth fairy requires a leap of faith. I can not prove there is no tooth fairy, but I have no doubt the tooth fairy does not exist. There is no way that you can prove definitively that there is no tooth fairy, Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, or God.
I can say that there are invisible, undetectable aliens in your living room right now. There is no way that you could prove it is not true. If you want to call that faith, go ahead. I wouldn't use that word.
Really Miss Ellenna? Maybe you're a scientist who has been keeping her work all to herself, and have infallible proof, filling in all the gaps our scientist friends would love to know?
Please share it with us.
I'm not a scientist and don't pretend to be: I don't need to be one to know the difference between faith and proof. A scientific approach keeps the brain open and questioning and willing to change if new evidence for any proposition is found: faith results in a closed mind unwilling to change or learn.
So, I challenge you to disprove the existence of God. If you cannot do it, you are agnostic. If you still BELIEVE God does not exist, you are atheist. Notice that Aetheism is about what you believe, and agnosticism is about what cant be proven.
It's impossible to prove a negative, if you're into proving things rather than faith, you prove s/he DOES exist. You're having a bet each way, aren't you: you ask me to prove the non-existence of god, while accepting god's existence on faith, not proof. Funny how that sort of woolly thinking abounds in certain religious circles.
Atheism is NOT about what I believe, but what I DON'T believe - ie, the existence of imaginary friends in the sky, or heaven, or hell, or eternal damnation, or the virgin birth, or the shroud of turin, or the tooth fairy or santa.
Agnosticism, which used to be my view, believes it's unlikely there are gods or other immaterial beings.
Maybe you should buy yourself a dictionary instead of trying to impose your personal definitions on other people - talk about arrogance, I define myself, as does any other rational person.
Impossible to prove a negative? I'm afraid you are sadly mistaken. I am not going to belabor my comment with a lesson in logic. But, I do suggest you read more about Agnosticism before you use ignorant supposition as a replacement for valid argumentation. Here's a link. And by the way, I am agnostic.
The standard of debate on this topic has moved so far beyond my rudimentary formal education AND my lifelong self-education that I don't feel I have anything much more to contribute without being patronised yet again.
However, just because I can't explain to an academic standard why it's impossible to prove a negative doesn't mean I'm necessarily wrong. It's always seemed self-evident to me that this isn't possible and my university educated friends agree: for example, how could anyone prove a particular thing does not exist anywhere in creation without producing concrete proof it didn't exist in every single part of the known world? Seems impossible to me ........
Come and let us discuss atheism.
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
It would seem that Agnosticism is not a religion. I think Atheism requires a (small) leap of faith.
--
Ellenna
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
There is no small or large or medium sized "leap of faith" in atheism. Faith is about believing things without proof, usually what the believer wants to believe and that has nothing whatsoever with Atheism
--
slings_and_arrows
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
Anonymous Post Author
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
But we don't know for sure that there isn't a creator of some description. So to call yourself an atheist and declare that no Gods exist, even though you cannot explain how existence came into being, seems to me to require a leap of faith. No one has the answer to how the universe came into being, what's beyond it, what came before it etc. so how can you be so sure it didn't involve some kind of creator? That's where atheists take a leap of faith, coz they are saying 'whatever caused the universe to come into being it definitely didn't involve a creator." I don't see how an atheist can be so sure, and I do regard myself as an atheist, but I wobble a bit at that point.
--
VinnyB
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"But we don't know for sure that there isn't a creator of some description. So to call yourself an atheist and declare that no Gods exist, even though you cannot explain how existence came into being, seems to me to require a leap of faith."
It requires a leap of faith in the same way that believing there is no tooth fairy requires a leap of faith. I can not prove there is no tooth fairy, but I have no doubt the tooth fairy does not exist. There is no way that you can prove definitively that there is no tooth fairy, Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, or God.
I can say that there are invisible, undetectable aliens in your living room right now. There is no way that you could prove it is not true. If you want to call that faith, go ahead. I wouldn't use that word.
Really Miss Ellenna? Maybe you're a scientist who has been keeping her work all to herself, and have infallible proof, filling in all the gaps our scientist friends would love to know?
Please share it with us.
--
Ellenna
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I'm not a scientist and don't pretend to be: I don't need to be one to know the difference between faith and proof. A scientific approach keeps the brain open and questioning and willing to change if new evidence for any proposition is found: faith results in a closed mind unwilling to change or learn.
And that's MS by the way, not miss
--
green_boogers
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
GigglesGirl
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
So, I challenge you to disprove the existence of God. If you cannot do it, you are agnostic. If you still BELIEVE God does not exist, you are atheist. Notice that Aetheism is about what you believe, and agnosticism is about what cant be proven.
--
slings_and_arrows
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Ellenna
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Interesting...
It's impossible to prove a negative, if you're into proving things rather than faith, you prove s/he DOES exist. You're having a bet each way, aren't you: you ask me to prove the non-existence of god, while accepting god's existence on faith, not proof. Funny how that sort of woolly thinking abounds in certain religious circles.
Atheism is NOT about what I believe, but what I DON'T believe - ie, the existence of imaginary friends in the sky, or heaven, or hell, or eternal damnation, or the virgin birth, or the shroud of turin, or the tooth fairy or santa.
Agnosticism, which used to be my view, believes it's unlikely there are gods or other immaterial beings.
Maybe you should buy yourself a dictionary instead of trying to impose your personal definitions on other people - talk about arrogance, I define myself, as does any other rational person.
--
dude_Jones
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
green_boogers
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
See More Comments =>
You claim it is impossible to prove a negative. Can you back up your claim? The burden of proof is on you. Show us this is true.
Impossible to prove a negative? I'm afraid you are sadly mistaken. I am not going to belabor my comment with a lesson in logic. But, I do suggest you read more about Agnosticism before you use ignorant supposition as a replacement for valid argumentation. Here's a link. And by the way, I am agnostic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
*Giggles* open mind *Giggles*
--
Ellenna
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
The standard of debate on this topic has moved so far beyond my rudimentary formal education AND my lifelong self-education that I don't feel I have anything much more to contribute without being patronised yet again.
However, just because I can't explain to an academic standard why it's impossible to prove a negative doesn't mean I'm necessarily wrong. It's always seemed self-evident to me that this isn't possible and my university educated friends agree: for example, how could anyone prove a particular thing does not exist anywhere in creation without producing concrete proof it didn't exist in every single part of the known world? Seems impossible to me ........
--
GigglesGirl
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
*Giggles* Perpetual motion *Giggles* decreasing entropy. *Giggles*