Whose Faith is Blind - Theists or Atheists?

[Tristesse]

If faith in your opinion is useless then how can you be an atheist because atheism is an opinion.

Atheism is an opinion, but it doesn't require faith. It's a position that says, I don't believe you" and that requires no faith at all.

 

[crocusj]

And I hold the position that theism is the default position because of the general revelation of the physical universe, and because humans value logic, science, ethics, personhood, purpose and meaning which apart from God have no real basis in relationship with objective reality.

So you say...Is this not just another leap of faith, finding a god because you require one to explain your intelligence and your existence in the cosmos. I am no different from a kangaroo or a dafodil, they need no god and neither do I. Human values are exactly that, traits. To see more than that requires faith.

 

[Magic Man]

Faith isn't the belief in things with no evidence, it is the belief in things that you cannot see. Such as driving over a bridge, we have evidence that it will hold us up because we have done it before and others do it, but we can't see whether it is going to fall or not. Same with God, the OP shows the evidences that point to God but we can't see him.

No. Faith is believing in things without evidence. Seeing something is not the deciding factor in whether or not it takes faith to believe it. I can hear, smell and feel things, too. No, driving over a bridge does not take faith. We know that the bridge could collapse at any time. We also know that it was made by engineers specifically not to collapse, and that it has stood the test of many other cars, and so there is very little chance it will collapse on us.

We don't have such evidence for god.

It takes faith to say that God doesn't exist because we have the world to look at and we have our own consiousness and spirit to deal with. We have things such as love, beauty and art that science can't explain via natural mechanisms. so it takes faith to believe that we came about without a God.

Sorry, but no. The world, art, etc. are only evidence of the existence of the world, art, humans, etc. There is no evidence that there is a god, and it is a fact that everything in the universe is possible without a god. So, no, I don't need faith to realize there's no god.

 

[Magic Man]

In effect what you are saying is that if I don't like Manchester United I must therefore support another team

Wait...why would you not like Man U?

 

[crocusj]

Wait...why would you not like Man U?

Because Saint Johnstone are the best football team in the entire world, obviously! Oh no...I do have faith after all.....

 

[Autodidact]

And I hold the position that theism is the default position because of the general revelation of the physical universe, and because humans value logic, science, ethics, personhood, purpose and meaning which apart from God have no real basis in relationship with objective reality.

And here we encounter religionist fallacy #1, circular reasoning. Does anyone but me remember "presuppositionalism?" *shudder* Again, MoF, if you can't defend your position without resorting to logical fallacies, it pretty much confirms my hunch. Thanks again.

 

[Kerr]

Well you have to have faith in something, the OP shows why the theists faith isn't blind. Atheists have to have faith that their belief is true also.

Theist, atheist, of course both can have "faith". Faith itself can be many things, it doesn´t have to be religious or have anything to do with God. Like having faith in your own ability. If you are theist or atheist doesn´t really say anything about how blind or reasonable that faith is, especially considering how many forms they can take.

The OP really simplifies just about everything and doesn´t take the diversety of mankind into account.

 

[Meow Mix]

Faith isn't the belief in things with no evidence, it is the belief in things that you cannot see. Such as driving over a bridge, we have evidence that it will hold us up because we have done it before and others do it, but we can't see whether it is going to fall or not. Same with God, the OP shows the evidences that point to God but we can't see him.

It takes faith to say that God doesn't exist because we have the world to look at and we have our own consiousness and spirit to deal with. We have things such as love, beauty and art that science can't explain via natural mechanisms. so it takes faith to believe that we came about without a God.

But you didn't provide any evidence that makes theism rationally justifiable, so it seems to me as though you're believing in something with no evidence.

I pointed out all the fallacies with the "evidences" you gave. NONE of them are valid, not a single one.

 

[Quiddity]

Evidence? I have none.
Proof? I think so.

 

[Meow Mix]

Evidence? I have none.
Proof? I think so.

You have a proof for the existence of god(s)?

 

[tomato1236]

Theists have:
The testimony of others – Whether it be growing up in a believing home or seeing others in church and worshiping, theists have the testimony of others of what God has done or doing in their lives.
Written history – Whether or not you accept the Bible or other religious texts as truth, theists have them and they point to God.
General revelation – When you see a painting you know there is a painter, just like when you see the earth, sky, and humans you know there has to be a creator.
Jesus or other religious leader – Theists have Jesus and other religious leaders that have supposedly performed miracles or have been ordained by and point to God.
Our own spirits – People have a spiritual craving to discover God and to worship something beyond self.

Atheists see all of the same things yet they choose not to believe which leads me to consider that it is the atheists that blind themselves to reality and have blind faith.

Athiests don't have faith. Isn't that the point? How can someone who has no faith have blind faith? Also, do you think it's bad to have blind faith?

 

[McBell]

This is a theist vs atheist post, not a theist vs theist one.

Yes, however as soon as you can understand why it is that you reject all religions other than your own, you will have a much better understanding why atheists do not make the same exception you do for your chosen religion.

So your above quoted post is nothing more than you trying to protect your own ignoring of the evidence.

 

[McBell]

Ah, the sweet smell of jealousy.

Jealously?
I thought it was merely an ad hominem.

 

[tumbleweed41]

This is a theist vs atheist post, not a theist vs theist one.

Cop out

 

[xkatz]

Athiests don't have faith. Isn't that the point? How can someone who has no faith have blind faith? Also, do you think it's bad to have blind faith?

Atheists don't have religious faith. But that doesn't mean they cannot have faith in something.

 

[Amill]

Theists have:
The testimony of others – Whether it be growing up in a believing home or seeing others in church and worshiping, theists have the testimony of others of what God has done or doing in their lives.
Written history – Whether or not you accept the Bible or other religious texts as truth, theists have them and they point to God.
General revelation – When you see a painting you know there is a painter, just like when you see the earth, sky, and humans you know there has to be a creator.
Jesus or other religious leader – Theists have Jesus and other religious leaders that have supposedly performed miracles or have been ordained by and point to God.
Our own spirits – People have a spiritual craving to discover God and to worship something beyond self.

Atheists see all of the same things yet they choose not to believe which leads me to consider that it is the atheists that blind themselves to reality and have blind faith.

I have my experiences on my side. My experiences support my beliefs.

I don't really believe there is such a thing as blind faith, and I'm not really even sure what faith is. I think people simply think(or believe) some things are true, others false, and some that we're not sure enough to come to any conclusion. How much stock we put into those beliefs depends on the evidence that we feel supports those beliefs as well as how each individual values evidence and the different forms it can come in. It doesn't matter if there is no physical evidence to support a belief, there is still some reason why someone believes something is true. It could be a "feeling" they have, the fact that their trusted friends and relatives believe these things, or the things they see around them. I don't think there is such a thing as blind faith, but I don't really have a good definition for it either.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The way I see it, since it can't be proven either way, both have nothing more than faith.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The way I see it, since it can't be proven either way, both have nothing more than faith.

There are many things asserted in this world that lack evidence. And many who lack belief in those things.
Many say extraterrestrial UFO's visit the Earth frequently and put probes in places probes should not go.
Others say with only unreliable hearsay and no evidence, why should they believe such things happen.
Can it be proven either way? Not with the evidence, or lack of it, we have now.
So do those who reject the belief in these alien abductions have equal faith as those who accept those stories without evidence?
It takes faith to believe in something without evidence, it takes no faith to reject something that has no evidence.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It takes faith to believe in something without evidence, it takes no faith to reject something that has no evidence.

The aliens are a good example. Those too, as of now, we don't know. I believe they exist, you may not. Either way, neither one of us can possible know if they do exist or not. It takes a degree of faith to claim either because neither stance has any proof.

 

[Autodidact]

The aliens are a good example. Those too, as of now, we don't know. I believe they exist, you may not. Either way, neither one of us can possible know if they do exist or not. It takes a degree of faith to claim either because neither stance has any proof.

I think until we have some good strong evidence, it's more prudent to conduct your life on the provisional assumption that they do not. You?