Is Atheism faith based?

[TheTurkey]

Not sure where to put this so I'm taking a blind stab. Alright now onto the question.

To accept the existence of god, one must say "I see no evidence disproving him and I feel he exists." However it has been seen there is no evidence to disprove the existence of a god (well.. not that I've seen you can put the proof here if it exists I don't wanna overstep anything)

So is stating "I don't believe that a god exists in any form" a faith based statement seeing as there is no definite proof one way or the other?

[GentleDove]

A person would have to examine every known point in the universe simultaneously, in all possible visible and invisible realms, in all of history and all future times, assuming he can perceive all forms of a metaphysically possible god or gods, assuming he has defined "god" correctly, and find no god, before he could logically make a factual statement, "No god exists in any form."

This is somewhat fallacious.

I do not have to have examined every point in the universe to know that a logically incoherent entity cannot exist - eg. a married bachelor or a squared circle. Similarly, if a particular god concept can be shown to be logically incoherent it can be stated that this god cannot exist. An unchanging, perfect creator deity, for example, can be seen as logically inconsistent.

Yes, I suppose if you decide to "define" a god as "logically incoherent" then it would be logical to not believe in one.

However, since no human being is omniscient, omnipresent, and eternal, and is not born knowing what a god is, no human being can logically state as a fact that "no god exists in any form."

Which is why the burden is with theists to define their god concept and any related characteristics. Only then can the 'form' be examined.

To date I have seen no need or reason for, nor evidence, of ANY god.

The true God has revealed Himself in physical creation and in enscripturated form for your examination, apart from any theist's "god concept." This is all the evidence necessary for anyone to believe in Him. You simply choose to attribute the evidence to something else.

Fortunately for those of us who do believe in Him, His existence or non-existence is not dependent upon your (or anyone's) definition or evaluation of Him.

[GentleDove]

A person would have to examine every known point in the universe simultaneously, in all possible visible and invisible realms, in all of history and all future times, assuming he can perceive all forms of a metaphysically possible god or gods, assuming he has defined "god" correctly, and find no god, before he could logically make a factual statement, "No god exists in any form."

Sometimes atheists make arguments in an attempt to prove the Christian God does not exist (arguments about the problem of evil, etc.), but I think the most anyone can say (logically) is that he doesn't believe a god exists.

To me is is a matter of definitions. If you ask me whether or not I believe that reatloid thrists exist, I will naturally delay answering your question until you tell me what you mean by reatloid thrists. Similarly, we cannot meaningfully address the question of whether god or gods exist until we both know what it is we are talking about. I have found that theists are reluctant to define god and when they do, they don't agree or their definition is vague, meaningless or otherwise self-contradicting. Therefore I count myself with the group of Ignostics.

An atheist would say, "I don't believe God exists"; an agnostic would say, "I don't know whether or not God exists"; and an ignostic would say, "I don't know what you mean when you say, 'God exists' ".

God has revealed Himself, or, if you like, "defined" Himself and communicated that definition to us, in physical creation, human history, and enscripturated form. That is all someone needs to accept or reject him.

Regardless of one's intellectal abilities or how refined their definition of God is, it is impossible for anyone to "choose to believe" in God, unless God gives them that faith. "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Rom. 10:17)

[GentleDove]

A person would have to examine every known point in the universe simultaneously, in all possible visible and invisible realms, in all of history and all future times, assuming he can perceive all forms of a metaphysically possible god or gods, assuming he has defined "god" correctly, and find no god, before he could logically make a factual statement, "No god exists in any form."

However, extremely few people who self identify as atheists seem to do that. Most I have seen say 'based on the lack of evidence, I do not believe in God. "

I would restate that to include the unspoken assumptions:
"based on the lack of evidence of God that I would decide in my autonomous reason to accept as evidence of God, I am willing to profess that, subjectively not objectively speaking, I do not believe in God."

However, since no human being is omniscient, omnipresent, and eternal, and is not born knowing what a god is, no human being can logically state as a fact that "no god exists in any form."

Considering how vague 'god' is often defined, and how many definitions, it is possible to say even if there is a god, the lack of objective evidence for interaction with life makes his/her/its' existence not relevant to living'

God is not "vague" in His defining of Himself in the Bible. Why go to second sources (theists) to define God? There is objective evidence for God in the physical creation, history and the Bible, but you choose, subjectively, to not believe that those things are evidence of God. That's your right to do.

Therefore, someone who states "I don't believe that a god exists in any form," is saying, I can't know for sure because of the limitations of my humanity (not being omniscient, omnipresent, and eternal), but I have found any and all evidence for a god that I have observed or heard so far lacking to persuade me there is a god, and therefore, I have no belief in a god.

As is someone who is saying 'I believe there is a God' is saying 'I can't know for sure, but I sure hope there is'.

I have evidence for God, as does everyone, and He has given me a "certain faith. (Hebrews 11:1)" (To clarify: This "certain faith" is subjective, and I don't expect you to take it as a "proof" of God.)

[bernee51]

A person would have to examine every known point in the universe simultaneously, in all possible visible and invisible realms, in all of history and all future times, assuming he can perceive all forms of a metaphysically possible god or gods, assuming he has defined "god" correctly, and find no god, before he could logically make a factual statement, "No god exists in any form."

This is somewhat fallacious.

I do not have to have examined every point in the universe to know that a logically incoherent entity cannot exist - eg. a married bachelor or a squared circle. Similarly, if a particular god concept can be shown to be logically incoherent it can be stated that this god cannot exist. An unchanging, perfect creator deity, for example, can be seen as logically inconsistent.

Yes, I suppose if you decide to "define" a god as "logically incoherent" then it would be logical to not believe in one.

Which is why I do not define god...I leave it up to believers to do that.

Is the god you believe a creator deity who is perfect and unchanging?

Is the god you believe in a creator deity who is all powerful and all knowing?

If so, it is logically incoherent.

However, since no human being is omniscient, omnipresent, and eternal, and is not born knowing what a god is, no human being can logically state as a fact that "no god exists in any form."

Which is why the burden is with theists to define their god concept and any related characteristics. Only then can the 'form' be examined.

To date I have seen no need or reason for, nor evidence, of ANY god.

The true God has revealed Himself in physical creation...

The physical 'creation' is evidence of the existence of the physical universe. Why is a god necessary for this?

...and in enscripturated form for your examination,...

by 'enscriturated form' do you mean the Koran, the Vedas or the Adi Granth?

...This is all the evidence necessary for anyone to believe in Him. You simply choose to attribute the evidence to something else.

Yep that is why Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs may believe.

[GentleDove]

I do not have to have examined every point in the universe to know that a logically incoherent entity cannot exist - eg. a married bachelor or a squared circle. Similarly, if a particular god concept can be shown to be logically incoherent it can be stated that this god cannot exist. An unchanging, perfect creator deity, for example, can be seen as logically inconsistent.

Yes, I suppose if you decide to "define" a god as "logically incoherent" then it would be logical to not believe in one.

Which is why I do not define god...I leave it up to believers to do that.
Is the god you believe a creator deity who is perfect and unchanging?
Is the god you believe in a creator deity who is all powerful and all knowing?
If so, it is logically incoherent.

I believe in the God of the Bible, and He is the Creator, as well as perfect, unchanging, all-powerful, all-knowing, and logically coherent. The God of the Bible is also not subject to the finite and fallen reason or logic of His creatures. We are subject and accountable to Him. Fallen mankind hates this subjection and accountability to God.

The true God has revealed Himself in physical creation...

The physical 'creation' is evidence of the existence of the physical universe. Why is a god necessary for this?

The invisible qualities of God—his power and divine nature—are seen in the vastness of space and galaxies, lifeless, except for earth. God has revealed His own character in the design of creatures, that is, creatures filling a purpose, that cannot be their own purpose only, because they didn’t design themselves. That everything from weather to microbes to the distance of the earth from the sun works together to sustain life is evidence of God. The existence of life itself, and even the facts of death, decay, and the “running down� of the universe, is physical evidence of our dependency on our Creator for life and all things.

...and in enscripturated form for your examination,...

by 'enscriturated form' do you mean the Koran, the Vedas or the Adi Granth?

No, I mean the Holy Bible, OT and NT. Those other “scriptures� do not internally claim to be the inspired word and revelation of God Himself (Who is not human) to man (who is not divine), and/or they do not contain the Gospel (man’s problem and God’s solution for it). None of the texts mentioned—Koran, the Vedas, or the Adi Granth--read at all as the Bible does. They are collections of chants and “works-righteousness� sayings, but they are not revelatory of God.

Most Muslims claim that the Koran is a revelation from God, so I will treat it specially here. Islam is a unitarian perversion of Christianity. Mohammed’s followers claim that they wrote down (years after Mohammed’s death) guidance revelations uttered by Mohammed who had claimed to hear them from an angel, who claimed to be speaking on behalf of the God of the Bible. Muslims also claim the Koran is a “revealed� extension of the Holy Bible, yet the Koran makes embarrassing mistakes (such as confusing various Biblical names and describing history inaccurately) and has poor manuscript and other documentary evidence, as opposed to the Bible. Muslims have a different god from Christians; that is why the Koran and the Bible contradict each other.

I do not follow human “gurus� or “prophets� but the Lord God of the universe and His self-attesting Word.

...This is all the evidence necessary for anyone to believe in Him. You simply choose to attribute the evidence to something else.

Yep that is why Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs may believe.

Yes, Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs attribute the revelation of God to something else, not God.

[bernee51]

I believe in the God of the Bible, and He is the Creator, as well as perfect, unchanging, all-powerful, all-knowing, and logically coherent.

I have no doubt you ‘believe’. However you have listed a number of characteristics you wish to apply to your god. An entity, such as your ‘god concept’, is a sum of their characteristics. Prior to creation a characteristic of this god must have been ‘he who had not created’. After creation he became ‘he who had created’. In other words he changed…he is not, as you claim, unchanging and therefore not perfect. Also – all-knowing and all-powerful are mutually exclusive.

Clearly your concept of god is logically incoherent.

The God of the Bible is also not subject to the finite and fallen reason or logic of His creatures.

Is logic defined by god or god by logic?

We are subject and accountable to Him. Fallen mankind hates this subjection and accountability to God.

I do not hate your god concept so I must not be fallen.

The invisible qualities of God—his power and divine nature—are seen in the vastness of space and galaxies, lifeless, except for earth.

You have evidence that the universe, with the exception of ‘earth’ is lifeless?

God has revealed His own character in the design of creatures, that is, creatures filling a purpose, that cannot be their own purpose only, because they didn’t design themselves.

You claim design but cannot prove it. It is a ‘belief’ you hold.

...and in enscripturated form for your examination,...

by 'enscripturated form' do you mean the Koran, the Vedas or the Adi Granth?

No, I mean the Holy Bible, OT and NT. Those other “scriptures� do not internally claim to be the inspired word and revelation of God Himself (Who is not human) to man (who is not divine), …

Do you seriously claim that because the bible claims to be the inspired word of god it must be?

…and/or they do not contain the Gospel (man’s problem and God’s solution for it). None of the texts mentioned—Koran, the Vedas, or the Adi Granth--read at all as the Bible does. They are collections of chants and “works-righteousness� sayings, but they are not revelatory of God.

And the bible is a collection of bronze age myths, songs and poetry….so what?

What evidence is there that they are the revelation of a non-existent god?

Most Muslims claim that the Koran is a revelation from God, so I will treat it specially here. Islam is a unitarian perversion of Christianity.

Muslims claim it is the last revelation from the one true god. You disagree…so what?

Mohammed’s followers claim that they wrote down (years after Mohammed’s death) guidance revelations uttered by Mohammed who had claimed to hear them from an angel, who claimed to be speaking on behalf of the God of the Bible. Muslims also claim the Koran is a “revealed� extension of the Holy Bible,…

And the ‘gospels’ are claimed to be the ‘words of Christ – yet they are not referred to or quoted in christian literature until over 100 years after the alleged death of ‘the Christ’

…the Koran makes embarrassing mistakes (such as confusing various Biblical names and describing history inaccurately) and has poor manuscript and other documentary evidence, as opposed to the Bible.

Are you seriously claiming that the bible is ‘inerrant’? That there are no contradictions or mistakes?

Muslims have a different god from Christians; that is why the Koran and the Bible contradict each other.

That is not what the muslims I have spoken to claim. Have you ever spoken to a muslim?

I do not follow human “gurus� or “prophets� but the Lord God of the universe and His self-attesting Word.

‘Guru’ means simply ‘leader from the darkness’ – I bet you claim Jesus has done that for you.

[GentleDove]

I believe in the God of the Bible, and He is the Creator, as well as perfect, unchanging, all-powerful, all-knowing, and logically coherent.

I have no doubt you ‘believe’. However you have listed a number of characteristics you wish to apply to your god. An entity, such as your ‘god concept’, is a sum of their characteristics. Prior to creation a characteristic of this god must have been ‘he who had not created’. After creation he became ‘he who had created’. In other words he changed…he is not, as you claim, unchanging and therefore not perfect. Also – all-knowing and all-powerful are mutually exclusive.

Clearly your concept of god is logically incoherent.

Actions aren’t characteristics. In addition, the God of the Bible is more than a set of characteristics; He is a personal being with Whom people can have a relationship (because of His works).

The God of the Bible is also not subject to the finite and fallen reason or logic of His creatures.

Is logic defined by god or god by logic?

God is logical and sets the standard of logic for His creatures.

We are subject and accountable to Him. Fallen mankind hates this subjection and accountability to God.

I do not hate your god concept so I must not be fallen.

I was referring to the God of the Bible, Who exists outside of my conception of Him (and yours).

The invisible qualities of God—his power and divine nature—are seen in the vastness of space and galaxies, lifeless, except for earth.

You have evidence that the universe, with the exception of ‘earth’ is lifeless?

There is certainly no evidence that there is life anywhere else in the universe (despite many decades of desperate, fruitless, and expensive searching for life elsewhere—the SETI program, etc.). Yet many “scientific� people simply believe that there is “life out there somewhere� anyway.

God has revealed His own character in the design of creatures, that is, creatures filling a purpose, that cannot be their own purpose only, because they didn’t design themselves.

You claim design but cannot prove it. It is a ‘belief’ you hold.

Design in living things is so obvious, that even evolutionists and atheists in their books and television programs mention design and refer to the information “written� or “encoded� in our genes constantly. Scientists can’t even discuss the natural world without using the language of design, even as they deny that design exists in the natural world.

...and in enscripturated form for your examination,...

by 'enscripturated form' do you mean the Koran, the Vedas or the Adi Granth?

No, I mean the Holy Bible, OT and NT. Those other “scriptures� do not internally claim to be the inspired word and revelation of God Himself (Who is not human) to man (who is not divine), …

Do you seriously claim that because the bible claims to be the inspired word of god it must be?

I am saying that the other texts you mentioned do not even claim what the Bible claims, and therefore, aren’t really even in the “same league� to be able compared to or “compete with� the Bible.

…and/or they do not contain the Gospel (man’s problem and God’s solution for it). None of the texts mentioned—Koran, the Vedas, or the Adi Granth--read at all as the Bible does. They are collections of chants and “works-righteousness� sayings, but they are not revelatory of God.

And the bible is a collection of bronze age myths, songs and poetry….so what?

What evidence is there that they are the revelation of a non-existent god?

The Bible is God-to-man communication and a recording of the history of God’s dealings with His people, and men’s responses to Him. The other books you mentioned are bits of communications from man-to-his-god(s), unconnected to outside reality and events and evidence. The god(s) in those scriptures you mentioned are dead, not living, and so they come across that way in the writings. They are collections of bits of men’s “wise sayings� and exclamations.

Most Muslims claim that the Koran is a revelation from God, so I will treat it specially here. Islam is a unitarian perversion of Christianity.

Muslims claim it is the last revelation from the one true god. You disagree…so what?

The Koran tries to “piggy-back� on the power of the Bible and gain respectability for itself that way, but can’t even get basic facts straight about what the Bible says. The Koran is contradictory to the Bible, so the Koran cannot be what it claims (a last revelation from the true God of the Bible). It is not a matter of “my word against theirs.� The Koran refutes itself.

Mohammed’s followers claim that they wrote down (years after Mohammed’s death) guidance revelations uttered by Mohammed who had claimed to hear them from an angel, who claimed to be speaking on behalf of the God of the Bible. Muslims also claim the Koran is a “revealed� extension of the Holy Bible,…

And the ‘gospels’ are claimed to be the ‘words of Christ – yet they are not referred to or quoted in christian literature until over 100 years after the alleged death of ‘the Christ’

The gospels (and the rest of the NT) were written between 50-80A.D. by Jesus’ contemporaries, who not only wrote down His words but were eye witnesses to the events of (and surrounding) His life, death, and resurrection from the dead. Christ claimed to be the Son of God, the second Person of the triune God, from Genesis to Revelation. And that the words of the OT, Gospels, and the rest of the NT are the inspired words of God Himself. In other words, Jesus claimed to BE the God of the Bible. Again, Mohammed and Jesus are not even in the same league, by their own testimonies.

…the Koran makes embarrassing mistakes (such as confusing various Biblical names and describing history inaccurately) and has poor manuscript and other documentary evidence, as opposed to the Bible.

Are you seriously claiming that the bible is ‘inerrant’? That there are no contradictions or mistakes?

Yes.

Muslims have a different god from Christians; that is why the Koran and the Bible contradict each other.

That is not what the muslims I have spoken to claim. Have you ever spoken to a muslim?

I wasn’t saying what Muslims claimed; I was contrasting the god of the Koran with the God of the Bible.

I do not follow human “gurus� or “prophets� but the Lord God of the universe and His self-attesting Word.

‘Guru’ means simply ‘leader from the darkness’ – I bet you claim Jesus has done that for you.

No, I do not claim that He is a mere “leader from the darkness,� rather I claim that He is the Light of the world.

In any case, I don’t think I’ll pursue this debate further. (Although it’s been very interesting, and I hope I will get to debate more with you on other topics.) The question up for debate was, “Is atheism faith-based?� I believe we actually agree that the answer to that question is “no.�

[mich]

Not sure where to put this so I'm taking a blind stab. Alright now onto the question.

To accept the existence of god, one must say "I see no evidence disproving him and I feel he exists." However it has been seen there is no evidence to disprove the existence of a god (well.. not that I've seen you can put the proof here if it exists I don't wanna overstep anything)

So is stating "I don't believe that a god exists in any form" a faith based statement seeing as there is no definite proof one way or the other?

In my opinion,TheTurkey, most of what he cling to what we identify as truth comes from faith. While I may directly observe an object of somekind, every characteristic that pertains to my knowledge of such an object has been mostly given me through a process of teaching. Since I don't have 100% proof that the characteristic of such an object which I have been taught is true, then my perception of such an object must therefore be based on faith more than anything else.

Andre

[McCulloch]

I believe in the God of the Bible, and He is the Creator, as well as perfect, unchanging, all-powerful, all-knowing, and logically coherent.

[...][God has] changed…he is not, as you claim, unchanging and therefore not perfect. Also – all-knowing and all-powerful are mutually exclusive.

Clearly your concept of god is logically incoherent.

Actions aren’t characteristics.

Please address the issue being raised. What you think of as God is not logically consistent as pointed out by Bernee in two ways. Firstly, a God that changes, that makes decisions, that acts is not unchanging and is not perfect. Secondly, it is impossible, Bernee claims, to be all-knowing and all-powerful at the same time.

[kayky]

If it requires faith to believe in God, isn't it illogical to say that atheism is based on faith?