toldailytopic: Which requires the greater faith, atheism or theism?

[Quincy]

I actully think Sky and Eeset have a point. Some of us just know what we believe. I've never believed in a personal god, I've thought at times there was a creator of some sort, based purely on logic but I never thought that the creator has personal relationships with humans. To me, when people would tell me the creator incarnated himself to a virgin and come to be a savior to all, I chalked that one up to being in the realm of Santa Claus. And I was the cause of many a classmate, as a child, going home to confront their parents about the Santa lie :chuckle: .

 

[Eeset]

About the claim you made of knowing there was a creator since BIRTH?

Fact check. I never used the term creator.

 

[Son of Jack]

I also collect non-sequiturs.

Well, isn't that special??

Perhaps you should take a moment to consider her claim. Isn't it true that there are some things that you don't have to teach children? Things that they just know?

 

[exminister]

There is some evidence for a belief gene. I think this is why Esset and others have always believed while others, perhaps like Rusha have not.

I struggle with belief. I have never found it easy. I can get to places where God gives me comfort. But I need to stay out of the weeds and arguments over finer details. Thus my quote from Proverbs in my signature.

Faith has multiple meanings. In some instances it is straight belief. At this level the effort between atheism and theism are the same.
But the full meaning of faith in religion goes way beyond atheism. It doesn't even make sense in atheism and I think that argument between a theist and atheist is two people talking past each other.
Y ou probably have heard faith is like trusting your car will start in the morning and other comparisons. This is not religious faith. It is simple expectation. Faith however is demonstrated in the bible with Job and also with Jesus at Gethsemane. It is trusting God even when there is no evidence and worse contrary evidence. Trusting God even when every thing is going contrary to what you are saying. Thankfully it is not like this always, but I expect some Christians here have experienced those times.
I don't believe Atheists have any relatable experience of this type of faith.

I wish belief and faith were never used so interchangeably. It would certainly reduce quite a number of arguments.

Faith in theism is far more challenging. Theism requires more of you. If not then imho it is not faith. It is probably just politics.

Theism is a relationship to a personal God. Atheism is not a relationship with anyone. Relationships are not easy.

 

[Dena]

Atheism. Athiesm requires that you believe that the universe exists without a God and that life evolved on its own without an intelligence behind it. It takes a great leap of faith to believe that something like the eye or the brain could evolve on its own.

Not when you study those things.

My answer is theism. It takes a tremendous amount of faith for some and very little for others but on the whole, I think it wins in the "who has more faith" game.

 

[steko]

1) Everything that now exists came out of nothing..... by nothing and no one.

2) Everything that now exists came out of nothing..... by something or someone.


#2 requires less of 'a leap of faith'.


Biblical 'faith' is not 'a leap of faith'.
The scriptures claim that all humanity knows that this is a Theistic universe by evidence and that evidence is so plain that we are all without excuse.
Then, that most of humanity suppresses this truth so as to be unaccountable to the one to whom we owe our existence.

Biblical faith is based on one's bowing in acknowledgement that GOD is there and that this truth is known rationally. After the acknowlegement, then Biblical faith is simply believing what GOD has said and promised through His Prophets and Apostles.

*edit:

The word 'atheism' is used once in the NT and refers to those who are 'without GOD in the world'.

Atheism is more a denial of what is 'as plain as the nose on your face' than 'a faith', in my opinion. I do believe that Atheism is 'a leap of faith', however.

 

[xAvarice]

Atheism is more a denial of what is 'as plain as the nose on your face' than 'a faith', in my opinion. I do believe that Atheism is 'a leap of faith', however.

What would be my motivation for such an action?

 

[xAvarice]

Well, isn't that special??

Perhaps you should take a moment to consider her claim. Isn't it true that there are some things that you don't have to teach children? Things that they just know?

Then we're both against indoctrination and letting your children decide their religion or lack thereof?

Tzz, I wish.

 

[steko]

What would be my motivation for such an action?

Rom 1:21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

Rom 1:28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

 

[Lighthouse]

toldailytopic: Which requires the greater faith, atheism or theism?

I wasn't sure how to answer, then I read the first response and it came to me.

Theism . . . :duh:

Only if you define faith as trust in the known; as in, I have faith my parents love me, because they have shown me they love me.

I have faith in God because He has proven Himself, time and again.

The atheist, on the other hand, has no proof they are correct; so, if you define faith as trust without proof, then atheists have more faith. But that's a false definition of faith, as faith can only exist with proof, as in the illustration above.

Of course, there is the issue of what we mean by "theist." Because theism regarding a false god, or simply believing there is a god, but not knowing anymore, is on equal footing with atheism, because there is no proof that said god exists apart from that which someone else can say is proof of their different god, or of no god at all.

But faith that is evidence of the unseen can only exist for those who know the unseen is real, because they have experienced it.

 

[zoo22]

Which requires the greater faith, atheism or theism?

I don't know that one is necessarily greater than the other. Faith is faith, whatever it might be in. As far as difficulty in finding/accepting faith, I think that's relative to the person, and the depth of the dialogue they have with themselves about what they believe (or want to believe).

But I think that it might be easier in general to have a Theist faith. I think it's easier for us to have an explanation for how and why we're here than to not. We want that. We don't like being confused about things.

 

[zoo22]

I think of religion as a uniform. There are many kinds of uniform out there.
Faith is a core component. It's there and often, I am surprised by it's comfort.

I agree. I think that religion offers comfort. I don't mean that in any sort of condescending way. It does.

For sure, for me, it's been much more difficult considering things as an agnostic than it was as a Christian. Both alone, and also with people that I'll talk about it with, whether they're theist or atheist.

 

[rexlunae]

Atheism. Athiesm requires that you believe that the universe exists without a God and that life evolved on its own without an intelligence behind it. It takes a great leap of faith to believe that something like the eye or the brain could evolve on its own.

Evolution isn't a part of atheism. You're conflating atheism and trust in scientific explanations. What science tells us is that eyes evolved, like other complex structures, which explains why we see such a range of eyes of different effectiveness in the natural environment. I trust the process of science to converge toward the truth given the right conditions. "Trust" is one definition of faith, but it seems different from religious faith to me.

Worse, you must believe that the explanation for an eye is a designer that must be sophisticated to have designed the eye. It's an argument that creates a bigger problem than the one that it solves.

There is something I don't understand about this whole question though. Christianity considers faith to be an inherent good. Read the 23rd Psalm, Luke 17, The Book of Job...there's just a ton of the Bible that praises faith, a lot more than I care to list. So what interest do Christians have in making it seem that atheists have more faith? It seems that either it's a pure troll, seeking to push buttons rather than provoke honest reflection or engage in genuine evangelism, or it is motivated by an attitude toward atheists so invidious that it is willing betray the ideals that it aims to serve out of spite.

I used to intertain agnosticism during the years I hung with the intellectual crowd--mainly because it was fashionable among the intellectual set. I didn't want to be the oddball among the gifted talented students. It required more faith on my part to hold to the agnostic/atheist world view. I didn't have enough faith, so I abandoned my flirtation with atheisim.

The last thing I would suggest you do is adopt a belief (or the lack thereof) because of peer pressure. That's a terrible reason for anything.

It is much easier to believe the account in the Bible--In the beginning God created.

Suit yourself, but the thinking evident in the above argument from peer-pressure reflects a rather shallow consideration of the question. I certainly found the opposite to be true.

 

[annabenedetti]

There is something I don't understand about this whole question though. Christianity considers faith to be an inherent good. Read the 23rd Psalm, Luke 17, The Book of Job...there's just a ton of the Bible that praises faith, a lot more than I care to list. So what interest do Christians have in making it seem that atheists have more faith? It seems that either it's a pure troll, seeking to push buttons rather than provoke honest reflection or engage in genuine evangelism, or it is motivated by an attitude toward atheists so invidious that it is willing betray the ideals that it aims to serve out of spite.

I think you've nailed it here. Not that there isn't a matching stridency from some atheists as well, so that it all ends up an endless loop with both militant parties using the same methods to generate heat instead of light. The sad part is that those Christians who engage in that kind of destructive witness are betraying more than just an idea or a viewpoint, but the God in whose Name they do these things.

 

[PureX]

I agree. I think that religion offers comfort. I don't mean that in any sort of condescending way. It does.

And it can be a lot more positive for us then just that.

For sure, for me, it's been much more difficult considering things as an agnostic than it was as a Christian. Both alone, and also with people that I'll talk about it with, whether they're theist or atheist.

Yes, but one of the gifts of this god-concept is in it's inexplicable complexity, and mystery. It's though this that "God" can become what we need when we need it, what we can recognize when we can recognize it, and still change with us as we change through time and experience.

 

[Ps82]

The entire creation cries out that there is a creator... but man's "fallen nature" has a propensity to deny / reject God the creator. This requires no FAITH at all. It only requires that a person be led by his weaknesses as a fallen human being.

Now, an atheist's explanations or excuses for why he does not believe in God does not have to be based on any true science and can merely be any concocted form of human rhetoric that man can imagine.

Thinking themselves to be wise ... they were made fools.

 

[gcthomas]

Now, an atheist's explanations or excuses for why he does not believe in God does not have to be based on any true science and can merely be any concocted form of human rhetoric that man can imagine.

Atheism is not based on science directly, science cannot prove there is no god, but the more mysteries I see cleared up by the scientific method the more I am confident that everything is amenable to being unravelled by science.

I have not seen anything that would require a god-hypothesis to explain. Nothing. :nono:

Invoking a god to create the universe just pushes the mystery to what created god. God doesn't solve the creation mystery, it just adds another layer unnecessarily.

 

[PureX]

The entire creation cries out that there is a creator... but man's "fallen nature" has a propensity to deny / reject God the creator. This requires no FAITH at all. It only requires that a person be led by his weaknesses as a fallen human being.

Now, an atheist's explanations or excuses for why he does not believe in God does not have to be based on any true science and can merely be any concocted form of human rhetoric that man can imagine.

Thinking themselves to be wise ... they were made fools.

An atheist does not need an "excuse" not to believe in God, as belief in God is not some natural default condition. The danger in calling other people foolish is that we never know when we might be fooling ourself. And the more sure we are that we are right, the more unable we become of recognizing when we are not.

 

[Ps82]

An atheist does not need an "excuse" not to believe in God, as belief in God is not some natural default condition. The danger in calling other people foolish is that we never know when we might be fooling ourself. And the more sure we are that we are right, the more unable we become of recognizing when we are not.

Oh ... so wavering and being non-commital about the truth is the way to go?

 

[Ps82]

Atheism is not based on science directly, science cannot prove there is no god, but the more mysteries I see cleared up by the scientific method the more I am confident that everything is amenable to being unravelled by science.

I have not seen anything that would require a god-hypothesis to explain. Nothing. :nono:

Invoking a god to create the universe just pushes the mystery to what created god. God doesn't solve the creation mystery, it just adds another layer unnecessarily.

There is more evidence in nature that there is a creator who pre-existed the creation and designed it ... than there is that there supports an evolutionary process where things evolved on their own with nothing initiating it.