Atheism is a leap of faith

[KanzulHuda786]

If I were to say that there was no such thing as gold in China, then to prove my statement, I would have to search every square inch of that country in order to confidently say there was no gold. I would also have to search every person to make sure that there were no gold fillings and search every aeroplane in Chinese airspace. Such a mammoth task would be near impossible but would be necessary in order to prove my statement.
Now lets look at the amount knowledge that a human being can possess. It is obvious that even the smartest person who has ever lived couldn't possess even 1% of all the knowledge in existance. But lets imagine that there existed an Atheist who possessed 1% of all the knowledge in existance. This is of course a huge exaggeration, but for the sake of this argument lets say that someone did possess this amount of knowledge. If this person was honest, they would have to admit that the other 99% of knowledge that they didn't possess could have the evidence that proves God's existance. So as you can see from this very simple example, it is impossible to absolutely state that there is no God. Now back to the example. If I found gold in the tooth of one Chinese citizen, then I could truthfully say that there is gold in China even if that amount of Gold was very small.
To conclude: If you claim to be an Atheist, then with respect I say to you that you are actually and Agnostic in the true sense, although I can respect that you may have chosen not believe in God without proof and in that sense you have chosen to be an Atheist, but your claim to be an atheist is not a scientific one, rather a belief or religion.
To say that there is no God requires absolute knowledge. Knowledge of not only our 4 known and understood dimensions but all the higher dimensions as well and that would be impossible for a 3 dimensional creature such as yourself. However, If you had absolute knowledge then yes God would exist, because you would be God. On the other hand, to say that there is a God only requires personal experience or an understanding that the design in creation warrants a designer. But ultimately there really can only be 2 types of people, believers and agnostics. Those who have seen first hand or can see evidence that gold exists in China and those who believe that gold doesn't exist in China, but can never really be sure that this is so.
Also, Atheists often say they have no faith. This is simply not the case. It has to be said that having faith in nothing is not the same as having no faith. Faith that believes that everything came from nothing is a belief and trust that this is the case even in the absence of proof. No Atheist in the world can claim to have no faith. Rather a person who doesn't know whether God exists or not is the person who has no faith.

Atheism goes against Nature

Throughout the history of the world, the majority of people have believed in God. There seems to be something built in the human mind that makes us want to believe.
Over the last decade some really startling facts have been found that show that children have an innate belief in God. Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford Centre for Anthropology and Mind, states “The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children’s minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose…� He adds that “If we threw a handful [of children] on an island and they raised themselves…they would believe in God�.. To put it simply, his answer as to why anyone would believe in God is that, our minds are designed to do so . Disbelief in God is something which is unnatural to the human being. Oxford University development psychologist Dr Olivera Petrovich, who is an expert in the Psychology of Religion states that, belief in God develops naturally and that ‘‘atheism is definitely an acquired position’’ .
So where did this natural belief in a creator come from? We can’t say it is taught by society as this belief is innate, and studies show that it is independent of societal pressures and is cross-cultural

[AdHoc]

When the average person uses the word "theory" they mean something totally different than when a scientist uses the word "theory". In a similar way I think you are using the word "faith" alot different that Christians do.

I'm sure you're right.

In fact, most Christians probably don't even truly think very deeply about what it even means to have "faith".

But there are clearly two major schools of thought.

One is that "faith" means precisely as I described it. A hope that God exists. (or more truthfully) A pretense that they know God exists.

Often times when people have difficulty "keeping the faith" this is the kind of faith they are speaking of. They are having difficulty in maintaining a believe that God even exists at all.

But for those who have convinced themselves that they "know" God exists, they no longer need to associate "faith" with this, becasue they have already convinced themselves that they know that to be true. So for them Faith takes on a whole new meaning,....

Now Faith = Trust.

When they say they have "Faith" in God, what they mean is that they already know that God exists, but that they also know that they can trust God completely.

So for them, the very idea of "losing faith" or even having "weak faith" is a meaningless concept. After all, if you've already convinced yourself that you know God exists, and "faith" to you means "trust", then it's going to be easy for you to "trust" in a God that you have already convinced yourself that you know exists.

So yes, I'm aware of these two different concepts of "faith".

Surprisingly (even to me) I have far more faith of the latter kind than I do of the former kind.

By this I mean, that I have complete "Trust" in God, even though I intellectually realize that there may not even be a God.

That might be hard for some people to understand. But it's not hard for me to understand because, for me, if a God exists then by definition God must be trustworthy.

An untrustworthy God would be a demon.

So it's a given that if God exists God is trustworthy by our very definition of what we mean by our term "God".

So I have complete faith in God in terms of trust.

Whether or not God exists is an entirely different kind of faith. I have faith that God does exist. It may not sound like it to people who worship dogma. But to me God isn't dogma. I have absolutely no faith or trust in any dogma. Nor would I like to place my faith in any dogma.

I have yet to see dogma worthy of my faith or my trust.

I take it back, you do understand faith. When I use the words hope and faith in relation to God, hope means a confident trust and faith means an expression of action in response to that hope.

[Dantalion]

@OP

Your analogy fails in that gold is actually proven to exist.
Yes, if you claim there is no gold in China (not the default position, we have no reason whatsoever to assume there wouldn't be any gold in a random country) you would need to provide proof by showing that no square inch of that country contains gold.

Its not the same if I claim that there is no flying spaghetti monster (default position).

you think it requires faith to state there is no rainbow colored Medusa underneath my bed.

[AdHoc]

@OP

Your analogy fails in that gold is actually proven to exist.
Yes, if you claim there is no gold in China (not the default position, we have no reason whatsoever to assume there wouldn't be any gold in a random country) you would need to provide proof by showing that no square inch of that country contains gold.

Its not the same if I claim that there is no flying spaghetti monster (default position).

you think it requires faith to state there is no rainbow colored Medusa underneath my bed.

Just going purely on "gut feel" it seems silly to believe in a rainbow coloured Medusa but I guess I would have to go out on a limb and say I don't think there's one under your bed.

But I think it would be more strange to imagine a universe where God doesn't exist, where everything that is came into being did so as a result of an uncaused discrete explosion at a random point in time. That belief seems silly to me on the order of rainbow coloured medusa silly...
just sayin'

[Richard81]

Just going purely on "gut feel" it seems silly to believe in a rainbow coloured Medusa but I guess I would have to go out on a limb and say I don't think there's one under your bed.

But I think it would be more strange to imagine a universe where God doesn't exist, where everything that is came into being did so as a result of an uncaused discrete explosion at a random point in time. That belief seems silly to me on the order of rainbow coloured medusa silly...
just sayin'

To me, the belief in a god is silly. An invisible wizard in the sky is exactly the sort of thing a human would make up, especially ancient humans from the bronze age, when we didn't have science to explain things. Magic was the best answer then, but it is not now.

[Goat]

@OP

Your analogy fails in that gold is actually proven to exist.
Yes, if you claim there is no gold in China (not the default position, we have no reason whatsoever to assume there wouldn't be any gold in a random country) you would need to provide proof by showing that no square inch of that country contains gold.

Its not the same if I claim that there is no flying spaghetti monster (default position).

you think it requires faith to state there is no rainbow colored Medusa underneath my bed.

Just going purely on "gut feel" it seems silly to believe in a rainbow coloured Medusa but I guess I would have to go out on a limb and say I don't think there's one under your bed.

But I think it would be more strange to imagine a universe where God doesn't exist, where everything that is came into being did so as a result of an uncaused discrete explosion at a random point in time. That belief seems silly to me on the order of rainbow coloured medusa silly...
just sayin'

And, here we have the logical fallacy as known as 'The argument from personal belief', as well as a misreprentation of the inflationary theory of the universe, and a whole bunch of logical fallacies .. such as using such terms as 'random point in time', and 'discrete explosion' ... as well as special pleading for God. So many logical fallacies, in so few words.

[AdHoc]

@OP

Your analogy fails in that gold is actually proven to exist.
Yes, if you claim there is no gold in China (not the default position, we have no reason whatsoever to assume there wouldn't be any gold in a random country) you would need to provide proof by showing that no square inch of that country contains gold.

Its not the same if I claim that there is no flying spaghetti monster (default position).

you think it requires faith to state there is no rainbow colored Medusa underneath my bed.

Just going purely on "gut feel" it seems silly to believe in a rainbow coloured Medusa but I guess I would have to go out on a limb and say I don't think there's one under your bed.

But I think it would be more strange to imagine a universe where God doesn't exist, where everything that is came into being did so as a result of an uncaused discrete explosion at a random point in time. That belief seems silly to me on the order of rainbow coloured medusa silly...
just sayin'

And, here we have the logical fallacy as known as 'The argument from personal belief', as well as a misreprentation of the inflationary theory of the universe, and a whole bunch of logical fallacies .. such as using such terms as 'random point in time', and 'discrete explosion' ... as well as special pleading for God. So many logical fallacies, in so few words.

Oh wow. Its a logical fallacy to express an honest personal opinion? I'm not saying anyone has to take it as fact. And please tell me what logical fallacies the terms I used fall into? Or did you just mean that I am incorrect? 'cause that is something completely different.

[Dantalion]

@OP

Your analogy fails in that gold is actually proven to exist.
Yes, if you claim there is no gold in China (not the default position, we have no reason whatsoever to assume there wouldn't be any gold in a random country) you would need to provide proof by showing that no square inch of that country contains gold.

Its not the same if I claim that there is no flying spaghetti monster (default position).

you think it requires faith to state there is no rainbow colored Medusa underneath my bed.

Just going purely on "gut feel" it seems silly to believe in a rainbow coloured Medusa but I guess I would have to go out on a limb and say I don't think there's one under your bed.

But I think it would be more strange to imagine a universe where God doesn't exist, where everything that is came into being did so as a result of an uncaused discrete explosion at a random point in time. That belief seems silly to me on the order of rainbow coloured medusa silly...
just sayin'

And, here we have the logical fallacy as known as 'The argument from personal belief', as well as a misreprentation of the inflationary theory of the universe, and a whole bunch of logical fallacies .. such as using such terms as 'random point in time', and 'discrete explosion' ... as well as special pleading for God. So many logical fallacies, in so few words.

Oh wow. Its a logical fallacy to express an honest personal opinion? I'm not saying anyone has to take it as fact. And please tell me what logical fallacies the terms I used fall into? Or did you just mean that I am incorrect? 'cause that is something completely different.

I think that what makes it a fallacy is that you seem to go from
-it can't be a discrete explosion at a random point in time (which is misrepresenting big bang theory), that's just silly!
to
-therefore, GODDIDIT!

do you see the leap you have taken ?

[Goat]

@OP

Your analogy fails in that gold is actually proven to exist.
Yes, if you claim there is no gold in China (not the default position, we have no reason whatsoever to assume there wouldn't be any gold in a random country) you would need to provide proof by showing that no square inch of that country contains gold.

Its not the same if I claim that there is no flying spaghetti monster (default position).

you think it requires faith to state there is no rainbow colored Medusa underneath my bed.

Just going purely on "gut feel" it seems silly to believe in a rainbow coloured Medusa but I guess I would have to go out on a limb and say I don't think there's one under your bed.

But I think it would be more strange to imagine a universe where God doesn't exist, where everything that is came into being did so as a result of an uncaused discrete explosion at a random point in time. That belief seems silly to me on the order of rainbow coloured medusa silly...
just sayin'

And, here we have the logical fallacy as known as 'The argument from personal belief', as well as a misreprentation of the inflationary theory of the universe, and a whole bunch of logical fallacies .. such as using such terms as 'random point in time', and 'discrete explosion' ... as well as special pleading for God. So many logical fallacies, in so few words.

Oh wow. Its a logical fallacy to express an honest personal opinion? I'm not saying anyone has to take it as fact. And please tell me what logical fallacies the terms I used fall into? Or did you just mean that I am incorrect? 'cause that is something completely different.

Why, when you are presenting a logical argument, why, yes, yes it is a logical fallacy. It is also known as "argument from incredulity". I would suggest that you read up on logical fallacies. It might be educational.

[AdHoc]

@OP

Your analogy fails in that gold is actually proven to exist.
Yes, if you claim there is no gold in China (not the default position, we have no reason whatsoever to assume there wouldn't be any gold in a random country) you would need to provide proof by showing that no square inch of that country contains gold.

Its not the same if I claim that there is no flying spaghetti monster (default position).

you think it requires faith to state there is no rainbow colored Medusa underneath my bed.

Just going purely on "gut feel" it seems silly to believe in a rainbow coloured Medusa but I guess I would have to go out on a limb and say I don't think there's one under your bed.

But I think it would be more strange to imagine a universe where God doesn't exist, where everything that is came into being did so as a result of an uncaused discrete explosion at a random point in time. That belief seems silly to me on the order of rainbow coloured medusa silly...
just sayin'

And, here we have the logical fallacy as known as 'The argument from personal belief', as well as a misreprentation of the inflationary theory of the universe, and a whole bunch of logical fallacies .. such as using such terms as 'random point in time', and 'discrete explosion' ... as well as special pleading for God. So many logical fallacies, in so few words.

Oh wow. Its a logical fallacy to express an honest personal opinion? I'm not saying anyone has to take it as fact. And please tell me what logical fallacies the terms I used fall into? Or did you just mean that I am incorrect? 'cause that is something completely different.

I think that what makes it a fallacy is that you seem to go from
-it can't be a discrete explosion at a random point in time (which is misrepresenting big bang theory), that's just silly!
to
-therefore, GODDIDIT!

do you see the leap you have taken ?

Ahhh I see. I agree that this would be logically flawed, likely best described as denying the antecedent.

[Mr.Badham]

If I said "There is no Gold in China", and then you showed me that there was gold in China, I would believe that there is gold in China.

I am saying that there is no God, in the same way that I say there is no gold in China. Now show me that there is a god, in the same way you would show me there is gold in China.