Do atheists need some faith?

[Selliedjoup]

Of course, atheists need faith that materialsim is an appropriate way to assess the existence or non-existence of a god.

What other method would we be able to assess whether a god exists or not, if not demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument and valid logic?

Let me know what method you think works best and I will sincerely (if I haven't already) attempt to utilize it to assess the existence of a god.

Until then, the fact is, I have never been given a valid reason to justify belief that a god exists, so I continue to not have any beliefs that one does. As an atheist, I am not claiming that a god does not exist, only that I am not justified in believing one does exist.

I'm not proposing a method. To depend on evidence as a means to identify a cause for existence is in direct opposition to the unknown and the possiblity of the unknowable. Yet we don't have eivdence for existence.

I'm assuming we agree that existence requires some form of explanation and we have no verified proof for an explanation? Although there are plenty of theories (not in the scientific sense) all of which are conjecture. Under the same rationale you have applied to assert your lack belief in a god, you should also lack belief in a natural solution to account for existence, as there's no evidence for this either.

I agree that we make sense of the world by using science as this is the best method to do at present. However I see no reason to make a leap to consider that all required evidence can be obtained to answer the question of existence. Science provides us with observations which we can verify and lead to a better understanding, but there's no reason to assume more than which it's proven.

Sure the 'explaining of existence' goalposts have shifted throughout human history and I think they will continue to shift, but they're still there, and I believe they always will be.

I'm not proposing that it's justified to believe a god exists, I'm proposing that it's not justified to believe one doesn't exist. People can choose to believe what they like, I just don't see why atheists claim their position is logical, as their dependence on evidence defines and limits the position. It seems as that it's the best option we have to determine existence, it must answer the question? Why assume this to be the case?

---

Whether another method is available doesn't speak to whether evidence, argument and logic are qualified to determine whether a god exists.

I completely understand. But what else do I have to go on?

I am not claiming to know that I have all the tools needed to determine whether a god exists of not. My position is, that given what is currently available, I am unable to justify the belief that a god exists.

"Given what is currently available" is a key point to your position. If you agree a creator may exist (however unlikely you consider it to be) but it is unknowable you have rendered it impossible to believe in, as it will never be "currently available" . I think we will be in no better position to assess the situation in 100/1000 years time. This is my faith. I'm assuming you think man will obtain evidence to disprove a god one day or at least show why it's surplus to requirements? If not, your position makes no sense.

But I can't base my beliefs on something that we might or might not be intelligent enough to determine. I am a human, I only have the mental tools available to me as a human.

Why not? Until we have proven that we are capable, it's only our ego which allocates the capacity for us to determine it, despite the lack of proof to the contrary.