Hello everyone. I have a question that I've been very curious about for awhile, and I'm opened minded to being persuaded one way or the other.

I'm sure you've all heard that it takes more faith to be an atheist than a theist, well I'm unsure if that is actually true.

So here is my question, well, there is actually two questions:

It seems that many atheists are atheists not because of evidence against theism but because of a lack of evidence for theism. Is this true?

If so, isn't there a little faith involved that there really isn't any evidence for theism that may have been overlooked or yet to be discovered?

Thanks in advance.

Moshi moshi.

I'm an atheist because I like the taste of barbecued baby ribs.

(July 18, 2012 at 5:26 pm)nazra7 Wrote: I'm sure you've all heard that it takes more faith to be an atheist than a theist, well I'm unsure if that is actually true.

It most certainly is not true.

Quote:So here is my question, well, there is actually two questions:

It seems that many atheists are atheists not because of evidence against theism but because of a lack of evidence for theism. Is this true?

If so, isn't there a little faith involved that there really isn't any evidence for theism that may have been overlooked or yet to be discovered?

Thanks in advance.

There may be evidence uncovered for a tea pot orbiting jupiter, but until we find it do you believe it?

I'm guessing no.

Now apply that same logic to your god.

Wow, mind blowing.

When it comes to an unspecified god, yes, many atheists site a lack of evidence as the reason for not believing. The theist gods, however, are rejected for many reasons, i.e. lack of verification for holy texts, the condradictory nature of their deities, etc.

If by faith in the idea that there really isn't evidence to be discovered you mean that it is a belief, I would say yes, but some might disagree with me. It is a belief based on such things as the aspects of life attributed to god in the past are either found to have natural explanations or are unanswered. Faith, as defined in the religious context which is belief despite any evidence but a personal conviction, however, is not needed.

Quote:There may be evidence uncovered for a tea pot orbiting jupiter, but until we find it do you believe it?

Thank you for the reply. I am very familiar with this concept and it is understandable that one would be reluctant to believe due to a lack of evidence.

But what confuses me is that, while I choose not to believe in this teapot, I also have some faith that there is probably no evidence ever to be discovered for it.

Do atheists also have faith that there is probably no evidence awaiting discovery for theism?

(July 18, 2012 at 5:34 pm)nazra7 Wrote: Do atheists also have faith that there is probably no evidence awaiting discovery for theism?

How would one gather evidence of a being that is apparently outside of space and time?

I'm an atheist, because I do not beleive the claim that a god exists. I do not believe that claim, because there is no reason, that I am aware of, to believe it. It's really that simple.

I have faith in things that have repeatedly been shown to be true... like... that the sun will set this evening, etc. I do not have faith that something is true without that sort of supporting reason.

If you, unlike those that have come before you, can provide a convincing reason to believe your god is real, it's possible that I may be swayed... but it will have to be pretty damned convincing.

(July 18, 2012 at 5:34 pm)nazra7 Wrote: But what confuses me is that, while I choose not to believe in this teapot, I also have some faith that there is probably no evidence ever to be discovered for it.

Do atheists also have faith that there is probably no evidence awaiting discovery for theism?

That's not what faith is.

You can be open to the possibility of that which is unproven without actually believing it.

(July 18, 2012 at 5:26 pm)nazra7 Wrote: Hello everyone. I have a question that I've been very curious about for awhile, and I'm opened minded to being persuaded one way or the other.

If that's true, then you're on the right track.

Quote:I'm sure you've all heard that it takes more faith to be an atheist than a theist, well I'm unsure if that is actually true.

Sounds like a great sales pitch... if what you're peddling is unfounded nonsense.

Quote:So here is my question, well, there is actually two questions:

It seems that many atheists are atheists not because of evidence against theism but because of a lack of evidence for theism. Is this true?

I am an atheist because of the evidence against theism, as well as the lack of evidence for it. Why are you not a Hindu? Because of evidence against it, or lack of evidence for it?

Quote:If so, isn't there a little faith involved that there really isn't any evidence for theism that may have been overlooked or yet to be discovered?

No. I don't have faith that evidence for theism might've been overlooked. That's insanity. With all of the desperate religious nuts out there, if there was evidence, I assure you it wouldn't be overlooked. If there were evidence, there would be no need for faith.

If evidence is discovered, it will probably be another hoax, so forgive me for having no faith whatsoever in anything having to do with theism.

(July 18, 2012 at 5:26 pm)nazra7 Wrote: If so, isn't there a little faith involved that there really isn't any evidence for theism that may have been overlooked or yet to be discovered?

If Theism rests on an argument that is yet to be discovered, then I would say, God doesn't really care to be known by humans if he exists.

Theists insist God wants to be known, so it's problematic. Also, if Theism rests on a proof to be discovered, then belief in it will be cold type reliance like belief in a mathematical proof after seeing the proof.

Also, science maybe able to prove a Designer, rationally it's possible that it does, but it will never be able to prove that Designer is good, unique, great, loving, etc...