Atheist's Blind Fatih Revealed.
Here is a little video and it shows a street apologetic and he agrues with an atheist. It shows that the atheist does have blind faith.
Your opinions on the video?
That's blind faith
Side Score: 16
|
 |
I disagree
Side Score: 51
|
|
|
|
|
Shameless plug: I'd like to take this opportunity to invite anybody interested in this debate to a some specific linguistic debate I created on the subject a little while ago. The "agnostic/gnostic/atheist/theist" plane most New Atheists define themselves within is largely dependent on a naive etymological argument without much basis in reality. The same argument can be made to the opposite effect by anyone with any background in classics: ist is the suffix for "that who believes" theos (deus) is the radical for "god" a is the prefix for without, no Meaning "non-god believer" and not "non god-believer." But, as I insist in the thread, language is primarily hermeneutic rather than etymological, so any attempt to reach conclusions that way is simply intellectual masturbation. Side: That's blind faith
I agree that atheism is a faith in of itself because it is a belief that God does not exist. Atheists put trust in what they believe in because if they did not trust in what they believed in then they would be scared of the possibility of God punishing them; this then transitions to Pascal's Wager. Because most atheists care nothing for this wager, this then shows that they have a faith that God does not exist. Now that we have clarified that it is a faith, I would like to show that it is a blind faith. No person can prove God or disprove God and no one can prove or disprove the big bang theory and evolution. We simply have to have faith in one or the other. Christians have a lot of evidence that supports their beliefs while atheists have a lot of evidence to support their beliefs (as I'm told). Christians are constantly scrutinized that their faith is "blind." However, we do not have blind faith, we have child like faith. We follow direction like a child. We trust in God like a child. We trust in the Bible like a child. Blind faith is a faith that is based off of nothing. Child like faith is a faith based off of trusting another.
68% of people aged 18-25 consider themselves atheists. This means that atheism can no longer be considered "free thinking." Continued, the majority of scientists are atheists and believe in evolution along with the big bang theory. The university has become a bourgeois and atheism as a whole is now hegemonic, or in other words "common sense." People, of all intellectual levels, join the bandwagon. They follow scientists like a child. They believe in evolution like a child because you are not considered "smart" unless you believe in it. Atheists have a child like faith just like Christians do. However, if they consider us to have blind faith, then they too have blind faith. P.S. This guy is kind of rude.... He cuts people off, is very dogmatic, etc. He needs to be kinder and gentler. Side: That's blind faith
Faith is defined as belief that is not based on proof or evidence. Atheists have evidence to support what they believe, thus atheists do not have faith. Side: I disagree
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Don't you watch the Boondocks? Side: That's blind faith
|
Atheism means nothing more than a lack of belief in God. As in, you say "God exists" and then I ask for evidence and you provide none, then I say "well, I won't believe in that until you provide some evidence," and then boom, Atheism exists. To believe in the Big Bang is merely a matter of how much you trust Physics. Some theists actually believe in evolution AND the big bang. Some don't. Same with Atheists. On the issue of Atheism alone, an Atheist doesn't have to be a scientist. They merely have to be skeptics whenever the issue of God is brought forward. As a little disclaimer, if Time began with the Big Bang, this means that causality didn't exist before the Big Bang since cause and effect are with time. Before time there is no causality. So really... nothing had to cause the Big Bang. and even better, the Big Bang isn't a complete theory. Physics isn't saying that it has all the answers right now, Physics is looking for answers and piling up the evidence to try and figure out where all of this is. Religious people are the ones who believe that they have the answer already, and that's why they don't need evidence. Skeptics, atheists, and scientists are not going to accept your answer so easily. Side: I disagree
Nothing had to cause the big bang? Way to go against all the scientific laws we know. The big bang had all the matter in the universe. We also know that matter has to have a cause. It is called the laws of thermodynamics. Nice try at trying to distort the truth. Side: That's blind faith
Oh, you know a lot about the laws of thermodynamics? Please, explain to me how I'm wrong using the laws of thermodynamics. And my statement wasn't of absolute, it was negating the notion that causality HAD to exist before the big bang if time did not even exist before the big bang. Do you know the big bang theory? Do you know anything about time? Side: I disagree
0
points
Saying that atheism is a lack of belief in god until given evidence already passes the border into agnosticism. This is a technicality that Atheists use to try to put the burden on the other side. They claim that since “A-theism” means “without a belief in God”, they are not claiming anything and therefore do not have to prove anything. Thus, they claim, the burden of proof is on the Theist, who claims that God exists.
However, this makes little difference either way because their core philosophy toward God is still the same. Deep down, they believe that there is no God, and they know it. The reason why they emphasize this is to try to put themselves in an unattackable position. It’s a semantic ploy. To try to be consistent with it, they will say “There is no evidence for God” rather than “God doesn't exist”.
They can’t really prove that God doesn’t exist because you can’t prove a negative. Regardless, the Atheist obviously believes deep down that there isn't a God or deity anyway, which is prevalent in their attempts to debunk and refute every single argument for the existence of God. Therefore this trivial debate about the implications of the word “Atheism” seems pointless in substance. Side: That's blind faith
1
point
the Atheist obviously believes deep down that there isn't a God or deity anyway Irrelevant. They aren't arguing that there isn't one; they're arguing that there's no evidence for one. What are you now, a scrutinizing psychic who seems to miss the point of debate? Side: I disagree
6
points
It is a rare atheist who claims to have conclusive proof and comprehensive evidence of an atheistic life. Atheists tend not to be gnostic, they tend to be agnostic (unlike theists). It is just a rare theist who fully understands arguments against their positions, or scientific explanations for things. Or so it would appear from the theists who try and convert atheists. That guy is also a bit of a dick, with little understanding of logic. He jumps from stuff -> creator, from God -> Christianity, and makes the God of the Gaps fallacy. I would not listen to someone like him, Side: I disagree
That's because theism and atheism are states of belief. Atheists need not be able to disprove the existence of gods to be consistent just as believers do not need to be able to prove that gods do exist in order to be regarded as religious. Both attitudes have to do with beliefs, not knowledge; as such, they are both forms of faith. Side: That's blind faith
That's because theism and theism are states of belief. You mean atheism and theism, right? Atheism is rather a state of disbelief. The definitions of "belief" and "believe" that apply to atheists are limited. Atheists need not be able to disprove the existence of gods to be consistent just as believers do not need to be able to prove that gods do exist in order to be regarded as religious. Wrong. Do you know the definition of "God"? The definition contradicts itself, thus disproving itself. If you believe something and constantly talk about it and ask why atheists don't believe and want them to believe then they do have to prove it. And this is the problem, it is impossible to prove it. Atheists have proof to why they have the opinions they do. All of it comes from the existing, observable, measurable, and from simple logic and reason. Only a limited number of definitions of "religion" could apply to atheists. Which ones are you referring to? Both attitudes have to do with beliefs, not knowledge; as such, they are both forms of faith. That which exists, which can be observed, has been tested successfully, logic itself - the data gathered from all that is knowledge. Atheists' opinions are mostly based on actual knowledge, and that itself is based on what I just described. Faith means having belief in something that has no evidence. Faith is not the right word to use when referring to atheists. Considering the word's definition and how strongly connected it is with religion, it is rather insulting to say an atheist has faith, as far as I'm concerned. If you do use it then specify which definitions you are referring to, as "faith's" use, when regarding atheists, is also limited. Side: I disagree
2
points
This is a common tactic known as projecting. The fact is, the existence of God is both unverifiable and unfalsifiable. Believing in god anyway is, therefore, a delusion; One that requires blind-faith nonetheless. To this, many Christians will argue that God is the default assumption by saying that since the universe had a beginning, there must have been a timeless "being" pre-dating it, less you incite an infinite regression of 'first-causes'. The problem with this is, for something (like a higher dimension a la string-theory) to contain both an infinite amount of energy and infinite time is already enough. That is, an infinite amount of energy thrown over an infinite amount of time is already enough to guarantee the spontaneous creation of our universe. This is tautologically the case. Given this, there is no need to assume the universe was created consciously nor that there is a concious 'God' outside our universe. To Believe this is the case anyway is, therefore, a delusion. Side: I disagree
1
point
This guy is HILARIOUS, yelling from a street corner! Faith in god is a blind faith until proven wrong. Suddenly this guy now agrees with some parts of science after the creation story has been proven wrong. Or rather the big bang proven right. NOW suddenly the big bang is apart of his religion like it was written in the bible. Blind until proven wrong. Side: I disagree
Something to preface this: While an example undermines a wholistic view contrary to your point (for example, if I were to say that atheists as an entirety are without faith, then your counterexample would invalidate that point) it does not prove a wholistic view to the contrary (i.e. it does not prove that all atheists have faith). That said, I would like to dispel the misunderstandings about atheism. People say that anyone that does not believe in the existence of a god is an atheist. This is not correct. Atheists believe the contrary: That god does not exist. Now this, is also a point of confusion. There are different types of atheists. For example, atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. An agnostic believes that there can neither be proof for nor against the existence of a god. It says nothing of the individual's stance. For this reason, someone can be an agnostic-atheist meaning that while the person does not think the condition of a god can be validated, they are of the opinion that he does not exist due to evidence. Evidence and proof are different as well, but I have enough faith in you readers to know the difference there (don't disappoint me). Obviously, I am an agnostic-atheist because I would not have otherwise had the motivation to delineate. Speaking from experience (though I cannot say that it is free from bias) it is possible to be objective as an atheist just as it is possible to be objective as a deist. A person, I suppose, could accumulate enough evidence throughout a lifetime to entertain the idea of a god and be a deist. I say "entertain," because to say with certainty that a god exists, or on the contrary, to say that he does not exist with evidence in lieu of proof is the mark of foolishness (and yes, people are foolish). It is my hope that one day everyone will either be an agnostic deist or an agnostic atheist. To quote my favorite movie. "The search for god is absurd?" "It is is everyone dies alone." Side: I disagree
1
point
That said, I would like to dispel the misunderstandings about atheism. People say that anyone that does not believe in the existence of a god is an atheist. This is not correct. Atheists believe the contrary: That god does not exist. False. Atheism is the absence of belief in a god. Atheism is not the assertion that god does not exist. Side: That's blind faith
My phone finally let be watch the video and I couldn't stand to listen to it for more than 3 minutes, maybe less than what, it didn't show me where I stopped. Both guys are idiots. Both are arguing with egos the size of Africa and both favor fallacious arguments. It's sickening. :/ Side: I disagree
|
