The faith of atheism

[Guest]

I keep hearing quite often people say "It takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a Christian.

If You are an atheist, is that true, and why or why not??

If you are a theist, is that true, and why or why not?

[Treefur]

Well that depends on how you define faith I suppose.
To me, faith is a belief not based on proof. So maybe technically it is just as much faith, not more, to be an atheist because there is no conclusive proof that there is no god.

But whenever I hear a theist make that statement, it's not about definition or technicality it's about them trying to state that we have absolutely no bases for our beliefs. Which isn't true.

[Celestial Dragon]

I follow the current evidence. Since it takes less faith to base your beliefs on real, provable data, I think atheism takes less faith to follow as a worldview.

I think this whole "atheism takes more faith" argument is derived from many theists' incredulousness that the world around them was formed by natural forces. Divine interpretation does sound like a more simple explanation ("God did it"), but that leaves us the problem of from where God came.

And the argument that "God has always been" in invalid since we could apply that affirmation to anything at all, thus rendering God's creation of the universe unnecessary in the first place.

[Jester]

I follow the current evidence. Since it takes less faith to base your beliefs on real, provable data, I think atheism takes less faith to follow as a worldview.

I'd love to jump in and echo trefur's argument. It seems to me to be the same amount of faith, neither side is proved, though arguments have been made for both (including real, provable data).

I think this whole "atheism takes more faith" argument is derived from many theists' incredulousness that the world around them was formed by natural forces. Divine interpretation does sound like a more simple explanation ("God did it"), but that leaves us the problem of from where God came.

That's possible, but I doubt it. Rather, I think that people have specific world views, by which they understand all things. A major shift in that world view would mean that many things would suddenly not make sense, and much of everyday life would need to be completely reevaluated. Due to this, both theists and non-theists are often found wondering how the other group can hold views that seem to them to make so little sense.

And the argument that "God has always been" in invalid since we could apply that affirmation to anything at all, thus rendering God's creation of the universe unnecessary in the first place.

Event from this perspective, it is only unnecessary if one is discussing science. Personally, I do not find that it is a reaction to science which causes people to believe in God.

[JoeyKnothead]

In a word: Projection

I contend the "atheism takes faith" angle is nothing more than an attempt to paint atheists with the same brush as those whose beliefs lack any evidence whatsoever.

[Jester]

In a word: Projection

I contend the "atheism takes faith" angle is nothing more than an attempt to paint atheists with the same brush as those whose beliefs lack any evidence whatsoever.

I don't doubt that some do this, but to present this as a universal answer strikes me as presumptive. The fact is that all conclusions are based on premises. In that sense, then all beliefs require a certain amount of faith. So, the statement that atheism takes faith is true. It is rather the claim that it requires more faith than theism which hasn't been established.

[JoeyKnothead]

In a word: Projection

I contend the "atheism takes faith" angle is nothing more than an attempt to paint atheists with the same brush as those whose beliefs lack any evidence whatsoever.

I don't doubt that some do this, but to present this as a universal answer strikes me as presumptive. The fact is that all conclusions are based on premises. In that sense, then all beliefs require a certain amount of faith. So, the statement that atheism takes faith is true. It is rather the claim that it requires more faith than theism which hasn't been established.

Fair 'nuff. I order the observer to disregard those parts of my claim that do not reflect on the "more faith" angle. If this is unacceptable, then my entire claim should be dismissed.

Ya know Jester, ya could PM me when you catch be being wrong

[Goat]

I keep hearing quite often people say "It takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a Christian.

If You are an atheist, is that true, and why or why not??

If you are a theist, is that true, and why or why not?

It is not true. It take no faith what so ever to reject something that there is no evidence for.

[Jester]

It is not true. It take no faith what so ever to reject something that there is no evidence for.

While I am adamant that there is no reason to believe atheism requires more faith than Christianity, I see three problems here.
First is the claim that there is no evidence for God. You may personally consider the evidence to be very weak, but the fact remains that there is evidence. Overstating the case to claim that such evidence is not only not compelling, but nonexistent, does not lend credulity to this position.
Second is the fact that the rational response to a lack of evidence in either direction is uncertainty. Claims that string theory can be rejected without any presumptiveness on the grounds that it can't provide solid evidence are not rational.
Third is the fact that all claims require faith due to the fact that all conclusions are based on premises. To say that one can logically establish anything, including atheism, without beginning with assumptions (premises) is not correct.

[kayky]

And the argument that "God has always been" in invalid since we could apply that affirmation to anything at all, thus rendering God's creation of the universe unnecessary in the first place.

Why would this be so?