A few weeks ago someone asked a question on disbelieving in god and yet having faith that god exists. At first I thought this was a contradiction, but now I am not sure. Can you disbelieve based on lack of evidence for god and yet have faith that god exists. I just realized after typing that that it seems disbelieving based on lack of evidence is faith. Isn't it? This confuses me. Can you be an atheist and yet believe that Jesus is your Lord and savior based on the fact that-- I guess-- he believed he was? I hope I am making sense to someone out there. I guess what I am asking is if these are not in conflict with each other. To me it is like being an agnostic atheist-- a term I do not think makes sense-- but like nonetheless. For example, I do not know if there is a god but I do not believe there is. Well, I hope that clarified things and that someone has a good response. TY.
I'd say that faith has nothing to do with evidence. Its just a belief based on feelings. So if you say that you don't believe in a God based on lack of evidence but say that you have faith that he does...that doesn't contradict imo. Just sounds weird thats all. I don't do the faith thing. The world is complicated enough without me believing in things just because of the way I feel that day. I much rather have evidence
I found this interesting, but think there is a problem. People believe that faith has nothing to do with evidence assuming that belief, that with which we accept as true is always based on evidence. My question is to the empiricists out there is where is the evidence to support their claims about people and their beliefs? What does a belief look like? I am not trying to be cute. Atheists look down at faith as not being virtuous even though to a christian and their god it is a virtue and it is very important in order to be saved. So, how can an atheist look down on them for doing what they are supposed to do to find god? I think there has to be some sort of belief there in order to take the leap, if you will. So, there is not nothing, because if there was then you would not jump. Does that make sense? And why are feelings so looked down upon anyways? We are not the ancient greeks trying to rid ourselves of those pesky passions. Reason does not make you empathetic for a diseased ridden village in Africa or the poor in Bangladesh. Reason and logic are good but humans are made up more than that. I will be the first to admit religion and its adherents are strange to me, but so is everyone and everything else. We say that the trinity of god is bull but why don't we say the same for an atom? Multidimensions are feasible but a a heaven or hell is bull. Hell is bull but maximum security prisons for psychopathic killers and rapists are not. I agree with Carl Sagan that you do not want to have a mind so open that it will fall out, but come on but naturalists believe or accept things that are just as difficult to comprehend than the so-called supernatural" stuff. These are just words. The difference is we can observe most natural things. We cannot observe other dimensions or universes, but we still believe they are possible based on the math. There is a video on Youtube about Tolkien and C.S. Lewis. Basically, the take away for me was that the atheists/ naturalist wants us to be confined to a 3d prison and be in awe of this world, even though there is a reality beyond it. My mind is not made up, so I find this interesting.
Hi Brian, I think that may have been my confusing topic back then.
I note this topic has already received a reply but I cannot see it yet, but I'd still like to comment anyway.
I am not agnostic. There is no doubt in my mind that the insufficient evidence of any god leads me to fully accept that there is none.
In saying that, atheists are NOT biased. In contrast to believers.
IF, overwhelming evidence was provided that a god exists, then guess what, atheists would agree.
But seriously don't get me wrong. I'd like to 'believe' that the chances of an almighty existing is next to none, and therefore I am NOT patiently waiting for someone to come up with a valid argument for god and one of the billion religions out there. Its just ludicrous and foolish to believe in a god in my opinion. (oh and because of known facts and science too !!)
My real point was that I wondered if there was some almighty energy binding all matter together, and that this 'energy' has not been scientifically discovered as yet. You could call it a god Lol
The ANSWER was, that we should not go to the ending result and THEN prove how it may exist. But what we should do, is base our knowledge on already known facts and build from there.
I fully accept that.
But I'm still allowed to dream :)
Follow us on:
From the officers:
The ACA Lecture Series continues Sunday, March 8th at 12:15pm at the Austin History Center, 9th and Guadalupe. The building opens at noon. Ryan Bell will talk on "My Year Without God: Now a Permanent Condition."