• To believe in a theory takes a risk. To believe in God is a risk. To believe in no God is also a risk.

    It takes faith to believe in the scientific method. It takes faith to test scientific theories. In essence, God is an unproven theory. Einstein's theory is believed in by faith. It's easier to believe in something when there is repeatable evidence. Cigarette companies, for example. Scientists have put forth theories to prove that cigarettes were harmless to health. People who believe these scientists had faith. Those who believed that cigarettes were harmless had faith.

    Having said this, I have faith in the scientific method and in many scientific theories. For example , I have faith that the polar caps are melting. I would rather risk and believe in the existence of God. I think that scientists are risk takers and have faith. But, I could be wrong.

  • You always believe in something.

    Even if you do not believe in any religion, you still have faith in any of the reasons why you don't believe in that religion. If an atheist doesn't believe in creation by any supernatural being, then he/she will believe in other theory. It takes faith to believe in your religion, however it also requires faith to choose to believe in something else. Just because you don't have a religion it doesn't mean that you don't have to be moral or follow society rules.

  • Faith is believing without proof, which is what atheism requires.

    How many of these events have been observed to have occurred randomly?

    Big Bang - uh, guess not, we weren't there.
    New species mutated - never observed, random or forced in a lab.
    New compatible sexual partners to build a new species population - never observed or forced in a lab.
    New complementary organs simultaneously developing to maintain life - never observed.

    So, since none of these have been observed, or even been forced to happen in a lab, you gotta have faith that they did in fact happen randomly. That's the definition of faith - believing in something that you cannot see or prove.

    Check this blog out: http://sliverofgod.Blogspot.Com/2013/11/i-dont-have-faith-needed-to-be-atheist_5.Html

  • Yes, faith is not just synonymous with religion.

    When the word faith is mentioned, it doesn’t always have to be defined as religious faith. People can have faith in many other ideas besides faith in God such as faith in your country, faith in your political party, faith in your community and faith in yourself. None of these examples have anything to do with religion. An atheist does not believe in religion, so wouldn’t he or she have faith that there is no God?

  • It takes conviction

    At one point in your life i don't dobubt someone will question your belief- to stand up and argue for wht you believe in takes faith and a belief in what you think is right.
    To be an athieist, i would like to think ou have questioned everyother stance and come to the conlucsion that none is the right one for you, and not hat it is something you have chosen beacuse you cannot be arsed to think

  • It definitely takes more faith.

    Without faith, all you have is emptiness. We just cease to exist. It takes more faith to KNOW our souls just die. You're saying we are nothing more than a chair, that we have no meaning. It takes more faith to say that we are hear by accident when there is more proof to intelligent design.

  • If "faith" is belief without evidence, Atheism requires faith.

    Atheism requires faith, if by "faith" you mean belief without evidence.

    If you are atheist, you obviously believe that there is no god or higher power or whatever you want to call it. If you believe that there is some higher intelligence than our own that guided human life into existence, then you believe in some sort of god, so you are not an atheist.

    If you are atheist, but claim your belief (or unbelief) is the product of reason rather than blind faith, then you must believe that your reason is capable of accurately gathering, synthesizing, and analyzing data in light of abstract metaphysical concepts such as "God," "Truth," "Meaning," and so forth.

    But then you are believing that an unintelligent hodgepodge of physical matter and energy created intelligent brains that can be trusted to accurately understand the universe and its origins. Given the nature of this hypothesis, it cannot be verified empirically. So I wonder what evidence you can have that this actually did happen, and what kind of evidence can you have that there was no involvement by an intelligent higher power.

    And as for the objection that this just pushes the problem further back, it doesn't. The best evidence suggests that humans have not always existed, but there's no reason to say the same of a higher power. See also:

  • You MUST have faith, no matter who you are

    In a world that overwhelmingly accepts that there is some sort of God, it takes faith to step away from that due to hard-wiring, cultural conditioning and the blind-spots of science. You can only assume there isn't a God, and if there is a God that could be catastrophic for the non-believer, so to discount him/her/it entirely is actually a leap of faith, one the atheist may be entirely comfortable with. But on the off-chance there may be a god, gods or God...

  • Atheism takes more faith than Christianity

    Faith doesn't have to be in a religion. Faith is complete trust or confidence in something or someone. (Real dictionary definition.) Atheists believe there is no god or higher being. That takes faith. There isn't any solid proof for any religion or belief out there. There is no absolute proof there is a god, nor is there proof that there isn't a god. It takes faith to believe in ANYTHING.
    In fact, it takes more faith to believe in atheism rather than Christianity. There are always reasons why you should believe in a certain religion, some religions have more than others. Christianity has the most - more than atheism. To believe that everyone on this earth happened by accident, that we have no real purpose to life, that we are all just chemical reactions, and that there is no creator or supreme being in charge, that we have an incredibly organised society and balanced planet by coincidence... Requires a hell a lot of faith.
    True, there are points that scientist make that seem to go against Christianity, but you know what? Most of those scientific arguments aren't proof, they're theories. (Seriously, check again.) And if you actually bothered to listen, lots of Christians have found a way how the Bible still speaks true and the scientific point is real at the same time.
    And anyways, faith is basically trust. We all have faith in people, things, etc. It's just part of life. Believing that there is no god, takes faith, and a lot of it.

  • Atheism is not a natural conclusion

    It takes much more faith to believe that something could happen without cause than it does to believe anything else. And something from nothing is an implication of atheism, so atheism does indeed make claims.
    Something can't come from nothing because nothing is required for there to be nothing. Something existing would then be a change from there being nothing to there being something, but if there is nothing, there is nothing that can change. And if something from nothing were possible then so many different types of things would have always been spontaneously existing, some of them doing or causing the same things possibly. Likewise with things that are the same and any amount of them potentially doing and causing different things, since if a cause is unnecessary, there is nothing to prevent this being possible. The requirements for science, then, would not exist, since nothing would have to be a certain way to cause a specific result from it.
    Particles coming in and out of empty space can't be evidence for something from nothing, because empty space is still space which is still something, or else there would be nothing for those particles to exist in. Empty space and vacuums have a minimal amount of energy in them to produce these particles, have dimensions that can bend and be measured, and the amount of energy, that obviously can also be measured, can change. This is all only possible because of how already existing physics make it so, so not only can nothing not be seen or tested to verify the possibility of it, but nothing is by definition what does not exist, so there being nothing is as self contradictory as there being no such thing as truth.
    Nothing can have a beginningless infinite past because it would take an infinite amount of time for anything to happen then, so nothing ever would because there never would be that much time. So for anything to exist there has to be something or someone to cause them. The only type of entity that could cause the first beginning would have to be independent of time and space.

  • Atheism: the null hypothesis

    The rational default position (Null hypothesis) with regards to a unproven and undisproved claim is disbelief until such a time as the claim can be verified. Atheism is the default response to the claim "A god exists." when there is no evidence one way or the other.

    If you think this precept is unjustified feel free to go the other way, that is, the rational default position with regards to an unproven claim is to believe in it until such a time as it can be discredited. This will lead you down a dangerous path philosophically if you are consistent with it. Mainly, under this option you will be believing contradictory claims that cannot both be true.

    Example: Mohammed was the final prophet of god and Joseph Smith, who lived long after Mohammed, was also a prophet of god.

    So until we have sufficient evidence to demonstrate any gods to exists believing in them is without justification and disbelieving is the rationally justified default position.

  • No faith required

    I'd be just as willing to completely alter my worldview if new evidence came to light that completely disproved the way I understand my world now. Faith is the conviction of knowing that something is true without having the evidence to back up that claim. I hold no convictions or ultimate truths.

    Atheism is faith like "off" is a TV channel
    Atheism is faith like not collecting stamps is a hobby
    Atheism is faith like bald is a hair color
    Atheism is faith like not kicking kittens is animal abuse

    Atheism is not a religion. It is not a belief. It's simply an absence of belief in ridiculous claims that are absent of evidence and logic. We don't have a word for people who don't believe in astrology. We wouldn't call them "non-astrologers". Simply because religion consumes a majority of the population, people are eager to label and categorize, as is our nature.

    In summary, there's a difference between having faith in something, and having knowledge that something will work. Debating with believers I often find myself defending against arguments from semantics. The colloquial understanding of faith isn't the accurate description, and no matter how the words get twisted and frayed, ultimately it doesn't change the core concept that not believing in something that you believe in must take an awful lot of faith because you can't conceive it.

  • Atheism is the absence of faith.

    Faith is believing in something without proof of its existence. Atheists have no belief in God because His existence has never been proven. Atheism is, therefore, the absence of faith. It would be virtually impossible for anyone who has faith to ever really be an atheist because the concept is an oxymoron.

  • No Faith Required

    Of course it does not take faith to be an atheist. Atheism is the rejection of a specific claim. The claim is: A God exists. Theists say, "Yes, I believe that." Atheists say, "No, I see no reason to accept that." It takes no leap of faith to not believe something.

  • No, in the case of weak atheism

    If someone believes weak atheism, they do not believe in a God. In this case, the theists have the BOP as weak atheists are merely skeptics of theism, and thus this requires no faith as it is a LACK of faith. However, in the case of strong atheism, the person believes there is no God (instead of not believing in God) and thus has the BOP and therefore has to use faith unless they can prove it.

  • No. It's ridiculous to think that it takes faith to be an atheist.

    Faith is a firm belief in something for which there is no proof. To believe in unicorns requires faith, but I'm willing to wager that most religious individuals will not say that a disbelief in unicorns also requires faith. Generally when posed with the question of "How did everything come into existence?" an atheist will respond with something like, "We do not know for sure yet, but this is our best guess based on collected evidence." Atheists generally do not say, "We are 100% ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that we are right about this!" To bring a Bible verse into the equation, look at Hebrews 11:1-3, " is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see..." Most atheists don't believe to be true anything that we, as humans, are not able to "see" with evidence. If Christians want to contradict what their Bible defines as faith, be my guest.

  • "Atheism is a faith in the same way that abstinence is a sex position." - Bill Maher

    I fail to understand how anyone with a rational mind can possibly think that Atheism has a hint of faith involved in it.

    The only possible conclusion I can guess as to the cause is that you all have absolutely no knowledge of the empirical method, and are also unaware of just what Atheism is.

    I can't remember the name of the man who said this, but perhaps this will summaries why Atheism is not a religion and needs no faith: "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby."

    You see, you, the faithful, present us with a claim. We are not aware of this claim, and so our default position is "here is a claim to consider". Well, since you have no evidence (and because your arguments are illogical at best and laughable at all other times), we simply don't agree with your claim.

    By your logic, you must also believe in unicorns and the Santa Claus. Nobody has ever disproven unicorns and Santa Claus, so why don't you believe in them? Doesn't it takes faith to not believe in unicorns? NO, OF COURSE NOT, IT'S NOT A MATTER OF FAITH - IT IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF FAITH.

  • no

    Atheism is the scientific approach to the supernatural phenomenon of theistic belief systems. Strictly speaking, atheism describes a lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods. It is not a theory, requires no faith and has no hidden agenda. It does not seek to contradict theism, but awaits the evidence that confirms it. Atheism, however, does use rational thinking and scientific theory to debunk the dubious and occasionally irrational assertions of theism

  • Atheism- The lack of belief in a higher power(s)

    Being an atheist is simply stating the lack of a belief in a higher power or powers. Atheism is NOT a life stance. However, personally I am an atheist but I identify with the life-stance of Humanism. And for that some amount of faith is, in fact necessary. It's so annoying that people fundamentally misunderstand what Atheism actually is.

  • Yes

    Atheists dont have faith in any reason why or how we are here. We only know what happened after life began. We are not young enough to know everything like religious people.

    They know everything.

    Atheists having faith or being called a religion, is like calling NOT collecting baseball cards a hobby.

    I dont need to know everything to know the reason for gravity is not the smurfs.

    I dont need to know everything to know there are no leprechauns at the end of rainbows.

    Asking a non thinking person a question and respecting their answer is ridiculous. They are non thinkers and thinking is whats needed to answer questions.

    Its all in true scripture.

    BigKids 4:19--Science uses a process of thinking called the scientific method, religion uses a process on NON thinking called faith.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.