Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Question About An Argument I Keep Hearing


hoosier

Recommended Posts

Is anyone here familiar with the oft repeated argument from apologists that it takes more faith to be an atheist than a theist? I've heard this many times but I've never heard what facts they use to back up this claim. Personally, I dont see how it could take more faith but I'm guessing they would probably use some argument from design BS that they say makes god look obvious.But does anyone here know? They never seem to back up this claim.(at least not that I've seen)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like most evangelical sayings, this is more patting oneself on the back rather than any observation of truth. There is indeed nothing to back up this claim. Then again, that's never stopped fundiegelicals from screaming something as 'truth'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being one who recently held this exact view, maybe I can shed some light on it.

 

Christians have the bible and other 'scientific' claims (I was never a creationist, so don't hurt me! :grin: )to back up their belief in God. They have emotional experience that makes them "feel" the Almighty, and little coincidences that back up what emotionally they need/want to believe.

 

Then imagine someone who rejects all that 'proof', and because it IS proof to Christians, it only makes sense that atheists actively disbelieve God on faith. Atheists are taking a leap of belief in opposition to the truth.

 

I don't think it's necessarily the design argument for all christians, but you're right about the proof. Christians see more proof backing up their claims, so they 'know' what they know, as compared to the atheists who they see as fighting against belief in god. Because the natural order is to believe in god, so they say, it's work to be an atheist.

 

I don't know if that tells you anything you didn't already know, but that was at least my reasoning when I was a Christian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being one who recently held this exact view, maybe I can shed some light on it.

 

Christians have the bible and other 'scientific' claims (I was never a creationist, so don't hurt me! :grin: )to back up their belief in God. They have emotional experience that makes them "feel" the Almighty, and little coincidences that back up what emotionally they need/want to believe.

 

Then imagine someone who rejects all that 'proof', and because it IS proof to Christians, it only makes sense that atheists actively disbelieve God on faith. Atheists are taking a leap of belief in opposition to the truth.

 

I don't think it's necessarily the design argument for all christians, but you're right about the proof. Christians see more proof backing up their claims, so they 'know' what they know, as compared to the atheists who they see as fighting against belief in god. Because the natural order is to believe in god, so they say, it's work to be an atheist.

 

I don't know if that tells you anything you didn't already know, but that was at least my reasoning when I was a Christian.

 

Yeah..sounds about right I would have said the same once, I had almost forgotten :grin:

 

Good thing there are new deconverts that remember what its like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

A believer KNOWS you were created by God, along with everything else. He KNOWS everything was designed by the great designer for his purpose. He KNOWS that the complexities found in life simply could not be the result of random processes because he was told only his god could do such a thing. Therefore it would take quite a leap of faith for HIM to go against this teaching, and he assumes YOU are as gullible as he is but are just fighting the truth for your own selfish reasons.

 

- Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess is that this stems from the belief that all of "creation" attests to a creator. Personally I have expunged the words "creation" and "creature" from my vocabulary. I say nature and organism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
My guess is that this stems from the belief that all of "creation" attests to a creator. Personally I have expunged the words "creation" and "creature" from my vocabulary. I say nature and organism.

 

With you on that, but I didn't like giving up the word "critter."

 

- Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess is that this stems from the belief that all of "creation" attests to a creator. Personally I have expunged the words "creation" and "creature" from my vocabulary. I say nature and organism.

 

With you on that, but I didn't like giving up the word "critter."

 

- Chris

Or, as Ernest T. Bass put it, creechtur. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being one who recently held this exact view, maybe I can shed some light on it.

 

Christians have the bible and other 'scientific' claims (I was never a creationist, so don't hurt me! :grin: )to back up their belief in God. They have emotional experience that makes them "feel" the Almighty, and little coincidences that back up what emotionally they need/want to believe.

 

Then imagine someone who rejects all that 'proof', and because it IS proof to Christians, it only makes sense that atheists actively disbelieve God on faith. Atheists are taking a leap of belief in opposition to the truth.

 

I don't think it's necessarily the design argument for all christians, but you're right about the proof. Christians see more proof backing up their claims, so they 'know' what they know, as compared to the atheists who they see as fighting against belief in god. Because the natural order is to believe in god, so they say, it's work to be an atheist.

 

I don't know if that tells you anything you didn't already know, but that was at least my reasoning when I was a Christian.

 

Your explanation has a certain sensibility about it that one could easily find satisfying...

 

In a similar sense, the idea that the athiest has more "faith" has a certain sensibility about it too and is satisfying to the apologist...

 

The problem I have with your explanation is the supposition that xtians view "creation", conincidences and other forms of (quasi) evidence as being more convincing or obvious.

 

I find myself unconvinced that christians really find these things more convincing or obvious.

 

That said... the argument that the xtians propose suggests that the evidence is convincing or obvious but I don't think they themselves actually experience a mental sensation of "convincing or obvious" or have a "well duh, of course there is a god" moment.

 

Maybe I'm projecting my "internal skeptic" onto others.

 

At this point in my thinking, I'm inclined to view the xtian who espouses such tripe as having found an argument that is satisfying because it cannot be refuted with evidence and is dismissive of its own absence of same.

 

It is a self-serving argument like the one that says you can dig into Sue's lunch bag in the frige at work because "she is a nasty person". It doesn't have to make much sense but merely enough sence to satisfy the internal conflict.

 

Mongo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it makes a lot of sense that you think that, and I really like your idea of the self-serving argument, I think that is true. However, at least in my little microcosm on this planet that IS how people think, as far as what constitutes truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is anyone here familiar with the oft repeated argument from apologists that it takes more faith to be an atheist than a theist? I've heard this many times but I've never heard what facts they use to back up this claim. Personally, I dont see how it could take more faith but I'm guessing they would probably use some argument from design BS that they say makes god look obvious.But does anyone here know? They never seem to back up this claim.(at least not that I've seen)

 

This claim is usually loosely based upon the argument from origin. In other words the universe must have had an origin, the universe is too complicated to have arose from chance, therefore it must have been created by god. They then claim that logic and observable evidence is on their side and thus it takes faith to believe in the lack of a god in the face of such "overwhelming" evidence there is one.

 

The argument is flawed in many ways, but the largest is that it is the assumption that a very complex thing (the universe) cannot be self existent, and yet somehow, and infinitely complex thing (god) CAN be self existent.

To be logically consistent if the universe needs a creator then so does god, and then one has infinite regress. We may not know the exact origins of the universe, but it is just as likely to be something else as it is god, at most this argument can only suggests a 50/50 chance of god's existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TBH it's less an argument and more a bumper sticker bit of theology.

 

A slogan, with no more meaning than 'Drinkapintamilkaday!' or "lipsmackingthirstquenchingacetastingmotivatinggoodbuzzingcooltalkinghighwal

kingfastlivingevergivingcoolfizzing ... "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard this many times but I've never heard what facts they use to back up this claim.

The reason you've never heard what facts they use to back up their claim is because there are none.

 

The claim is absurd..... it doesn't take faith to disbelieve in what there's no evidence for. Using their line of reasoning, it would take greater faith to disbelieve in bigfoot, the loch ness monster and the fire breathing dragon that lives at the bottom of the sea, than in actually believing they are real :crazy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess is that this stems from the belief that all of "creation" attests to a creator. Personally I have expunged the words "creation" and "creature" from my vocabulary. I say nature and organism.

But not croûtons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing I've heard too is that mankind has some kind of "inner knowledge" that god exists. That one starts out beleiveng in god, but can then make themselves atheist. However I find this too to be BS as I remember being a little kid not knowing anything about god until I was taught it. I beleived more that cartoons were real than god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is another perspective.

 

The atheist is not as allergic to the words, I Don't Know. They know the sun will still rise tomorrow, and they can search for the answers to what they don't know.

 

A christian cannot do this. The answer to anything they don't know is "god". It must be "god". If they ever admit to not knowing...or "doubting"....then the whole world blows up, or the rapture happens that second leaving them behind. So doubt therefore, leads to utter DISASTER.

 

Yet they see atheists doubting and even absolutely denying the religion and it's god that are so obviously true without any concern of the divine retribution that must be headed their way.

So from a christian perspective, that's a LOT of "faith"!

 

Actually, what they percieve as "faith" (something they really only feel temporarily after induced religious reinforcement), is really the absence of fear. The very fear they feel when they have not had their religion reinforced. The withdrawl symptom of coming down from the endorphin high of religious reinforcement is FEAR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.