43 of 73 people found the following review helpful
No winner in these pages,
This review is from: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback)
I am underwhelmed by the author's story. It seems to me, by the anecdotes offered, that the author was looking for someone to tell him what to believe rather than to challenge him to think it out for himself. In the end, the author chose to follow those who absolved him of being responsible for his own opinion.
And the idea that it takes more faith to be atheist than it does to be a believer is about as ignorant as any idea I've ever heard. Someone please give a dictionary to those who buy into that idea so that they can look up the word 'faith'.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 25 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Oct 7, 2007 10:42:04 PM PDT
The point that you may be missing is that everyone has faith in some belief system. But to which system does the preponderance of the evidence point? If you believe in something (atheism, for example) which is built on a paucity of evidence, then it stands to reason that you need MORE faith to convince yourself to believe it than a belief system that can produce a wealth of evidence in its support.
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2007 2:48:00 PM PST
Todd M. Pence says:
Are you seriously trying to suggest that atheism has "a paucity of evidence" when compared with belief in the Christian God? What exactly is this "evidence" for theism you're talking about?
What is it going to take to get it through God-believers head that the burden of proof is incumbent upon them, not the atheist?
Posted on Jan 28, 2008 7:51:56 AM PST
K. Doyle says:
Why do you think they call it "apologetics?" It's certainly true that you can't *prove* that God doesn't exist. But that's essentially the whole problem, isn't it? For not only can *you* not prove that God doesn't exist, by the exact same logic, God can't prove that a Meta-God, greater than him, and just as elusive (to God), doesn't exist. Consequently, the entire concept of "supreme being" is incoherent. How does God really *know* he's God? Maybe he just *thinks* he's God? God too, has to have faith that he is in fact, supreme, unable to confirm that which cannot be proved.
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 7, 2009 5:05:52 PM PDT
Dear K. Doyle,
First of all, if there were some "meta-god" (greater than the God described in the Bible), then that being would be God. You get back to square one. You cannot create some infinite regress of beings. There is a God or there is not. The universe is eternal or it is not. Secondly, by definition God (capital G) is one who is eternal and uncreated; i.e., a supreme being. If he had any gaps in his knowledge, he would not be God. He does not wonder, "Is there some being greater than me?" His knowledge is perfect. Lastly, do you doubt your own existence? No. Then why should God?
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2010 3:19:46 PM PDT
I really wish Christians would pick up a dictionary and look up atheism. Atheism is a LACK OF BELIEF. It is not a denial of god, it is not a belief system, it does not require faith. We are all born atheists; it is the default position. Never heard of god? Congratulations, you are an atheist. Think there may be a god, but you aren't sure? Congratulations, you are still an atheist (NOT an agnostic).
If you have an honest desire to understand the definition and position of atheists, I suggest you read something they actually wrote, as opposed to something written by theists about them.
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2010 3:38:56 AM PDT
Atheists don't believe in God, so what do they DO believe in then? Evolution? Where's the evidence? Where's the transitional HUMAN/APE fossisl? Where's the missing link? Why is evolution still debated among SCIENTISTS?! Where did the first life form come from? RNA slime? That isn't a life form.
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2010 3:41:18 AM PDT
Um...what about a God of the Macroverse creating various Gods of various universes? These Gods would be all powerful over THEIR own universes, and the MacroGod would be ruler of them all!
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2010 3:44:12 AM PDT
Thanks for supplying some links, because I would certianly not taken anything YOU say as to be the absolute truth. Agnostic means you believe God can't be proven or disproven, but you are open to the possiblity. Atheists means you don't believe in a god. Theists means you beleive in a specific god. Deist means you believe in a creator only, and that's it. Seems like YOU need to pick up a dictionary and read something other than what atheists have to write. You need to learn about BOTH sides too, as we all do. And keep it objective and open minded, please. Thank you.
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 3, 2010 3:22:53 PM PDT
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 31, 2012 5:52:20 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jan 25, 2013 2:04:32 AM PST
M. Cat says:
Todd M. Pence says:
"What is it going to take to get it through God-believers head that the burden of proof is incumbent upon them, not the atheist?"
Science falls flat on it's face trying to disprove God. It's not guilty until proven innocent, it's innocent until proven guilty. Therefore the burden of proof MUST lie with the atheist.