Atheism is based on faith

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Counter-Arguments)
Line 1: Line 1:
This argument says that non-belief in a god requires just as much [[faith]] as belief does.
+
[[Apologists]] often claim that not believing in a [[god]] requires just as much [[faith]] as belief does, if not more.  [[Norman Geisler]] expressed this argument in the title of his book, ''[[I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist]]''.
  
This is a mistaken assertion that is based on the [[equivocation]] fallacy.  For more information on the various definitions, see the entry on [[Faith]].
+
==Apologetics==
  
==Counter-Arguments==
+
[[Let Us Reason Ministries]] offers * [http://www.letusreason.org/Apolo7.htm this expression of the argument]:
  
Something to do with [[burden of proof]].
+
"To be an Atheist one would have to be omniscient knowing all things having a perfect knowledge of the universe, to say they absolutely know God does not exist. For one to do this they would have to personally inspected all places in the present known universe and in all time, having explored everywhere seen and unseen."
  
Most people don't believe in leprechauns, but they don't have FAITH that there aren't any leprechauns.
+
Theists treat belief in God as a default belief, and they will often back this up with some variation of the [[argument from design]].
  
See also: [[Atheist vs. agnostic]]
+
==Counter-Apologetics==
 +
 
 +
The use of the word "faith" is an attempt to mislead based on the [[equivocation]] fallacy.  See the entry on [[Faith]] for more information.
 +
 
 +
In addition, asserting that atheists claim to "know" that there is no God is based on a misunderstanding of the word atheist.  See the article on [[atheist vs. agnostic]].
 +
 
 +
Since theists make a positive claim which is extraordinary in nature, the [[burden of proof]] is on the theist to prove that there is a God.  Most theists do not "believe in" [[leprechauns]], yet they would not consider a request to prove the non-existence of leprechauns to be reasonable.  There is no reason why anyone should believe in leprechauns or God without positive [[evidence]].
 +
 
 +
==External Links==
 +
* [http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/a/omniscience.htm Myths About Atheism: Must Real Atheist Know Everything to Deny God?] at [[atheism.about.com]]
  
 
[[Category: Arguments]]
 
[[Category: Arguments]]
 +
[[Category: Arguments for the existence of God]]

Revision as of 13:15, 21 July 2006

Apologists often claim that not believing in a god requires just as much faith as belief does, if not more. Norman Geisler expressed this argument in the title of his book, I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist.

Apologetics

Let Us Reason Ministries offers * this expression of the argument:

"To be an Atheist one would have to be omniscient knowing all things having a perfect knowledge of the universe, to say they absolutely know God does not exist. For one to do this they would have to personally inspected all places in the present known universe and in all time, having explored everywhere seen and unseen."

Theists treat belief in God as a default belief, and they will often back this up with some variation of the argument from design.

Counter-Apologetics

The use of the word "faith" is an attempt to mislead based on the equivocation fallacy. See the entry on Faith for more information.

In addition, asserting that atheists claim to "know" that there is no God is based on a misunderstanding of the word atheist. See the article on atheist vs. agnostic.

Since theists make a positive claim which is extraordinary in nature, the burden of proof is on the theist to prove that there is a God. Most theists do not "believe in" leprechauns, yet they would not consider a request to prove the non-existence of leprechauns to be reasonable. There is no reason why anyone should believe in leprechauns or God without positive evidence.

External Links

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox