1. Atheists Refuse To Admit Atheism Is A Faith Based Belief

Who is actually being intellectually honest, the person of religious faith who freely admits to a firm belief in something for which there is no proof or at least no proof or evidence which an atheist would accept. Or the person who refuses to admit their belief in something for which no proof is even logically possible.


Not all people with religious faith will admit that their belief in a higher power is not backed up by scientific proof (tangible evidence an atheist would accept). The Intelligent Design Movement comes to mind.

In fact, most religious people I have met or talked to, think that their belief in a higher power is very logical, and perhaps even "intellectually superior" because they feel that 'life coming from nothing does not make sense'...forgetting that a higher power (who is alive) coming from nothing equally makes no sense.

In contrast, most atheists will freely admit that they cannot prove that no higher power exists. They freely state that such proof would not logically be possible. It is the lack of proof that causes the dis-belief in the claims of higher powers (not 'proof that there is no higher power' which as I have already stated is not logically possible).

Your definition of faith is surely found in the dictionary, however, the application is not correct. A "firm belief" implies a belief which is fixed and definite. Resistant to externally applied pressure. Unfluctuating; steady. (all definitions for the word "firm"). In the context of religious belief and faith, these are the definitions that I think apply.

The biggest difference between atheists and theists, as I believe Jody mentioned, is that most atheists would believe in a higher power if ever there was sound proof. In contrast, a theist would most likely never abandon their 'faith'. In the face of evidence contrary to their beliefs (the account of Genesis being literal for example) most theists will not concede that perhaps portions of their belief system might be wrong or even just "off".

Also, when we are talking about faith as it applies to religious belief systems, it involves loyalty to a degree. Devotion if you will. Most atheists are not loyal or devoted to their dis-belief. They simply do not believe in something for which there is no proof.

Not believing is not a belief system. If you are trying to associate the term 'belief system' with holding an 'opinion' or an 'idea' (which are both definitions for the word "belief") you are grasping at straws. Does it take faith to not believe in fairies or Santa Claus? If you do not believe in these things, is that a belief system? If someone says they do not believe in fairies, are they obligated to prove that fairies do not exist?

For someone who has stated that they do not like to "play word games", I beg to differ.

2. Atheists Refuse To Grant the Same Courtesies They Demand Of Others in Debate

It is my personal opinion all this is done to hide the fact atheists are unable to provide empirical evidence a Supreme Being doesn’t exist.


Here's the thing: Most atheists are not out to prove that a higher power doesn't exist.

They can logically support why they do not believe...there is no proof. Pretty simple.

Sure there are arrogant atheists. There are also arrogant theists.

You mention that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". An atheist is not really making any claims ("A statement of something as a fact; an assertion of truth"). They simply do not believe the claims others make of the existence of a higher power or higher powers. Saying "I do not believe there are gods" is not the same as saying "I claim gods do not exist". The only possible claim an atheist makes is that there is no proof of a higher power(s).

I think it comes down to how these views are expressed. A theist holds that god is real. An atheist holds that god has not been proven.

In a debate, the theist will try to prove that god exists. An atheist will simply show how there is no proof that god exists. If you watch a few episodes of "Atheist Experience" you will notice this. They do not claim to have proof that god does not exist. They feel that the evidence we have so far does not point to a creator. That is very different than claiming that no gods exist.

It's not a matter of granting the same courtesies to both sides of the debate, it's a matter of what position each side is defending. A theist is defending their position that god is real (there is proof god exists). An atheist is defending their position that god has not been proven.

There is no "extraordinary proof" that god is real. There is "extraordinary proof" that god has not been proven (not that god does not exist). The two are very different.

Also this stood out to me:

Yet, when asked to do the same, atheists and secularists seem mostly preoccupied with venting their anger or indignant self-righteousness, arrogantly stereotyping religion as mindless superstition, and all religious people as drooling fundamentalists. This is wonderful for encouraging feelings of imaginary intellectual superiority and moral indignation, but it badly misrepresents religion as a whole, and does little to further their case.


(emphasis mine).

How about I re-word this...

"arrogantly stereotyping atheism as nonsense, and all atheists as morally bankrupt people with no purpose in life"..."but it badly misrepresents atheism as a whole, and does little to further their case".


3. Atheism Takes Automatic Assumption of Intellectual Superiority by Portraying Those That Believe In a Higher Power As Mentally Damaged

Just because a few books written by atheists sound demeaning to believers, that does not mean that ALL atheists feel that believers are mentally damaged.

I may not personally feel that belief in a higher power is logical, but that does not mean that I feel people who do believe are stupid or mentally damaged.

a people are not sure why they exist at all, a people who cannot explain why they are able to think at all, a people with no purpose.


Just because someone does not believe in a creator, this does not mean they have no purpose or no idea why they exist. Scientists are trying to explain why we exist. But guess what...in the grand scheme of things, does it really matter WHY we exist? Or does it matter more HOW we exist...as in, how we use our lives?

To me personally, the later is far more important. Whether or not a creator made me or I just came to be doesn't really do me any good. And I can never know, without a doubt, the answer to that question. Maybe one day there will be absolute proof, but I don't think it will happen in my lifetime. So...I can use my time and energy trying to figure out WHY I am here. Or I can use my time and energy to decide HOW I will exist here (what I will do with my life).

"You are the special creation of a good and all-powerful God. You are the climax of His creation. Not only is your kind unique, but you are unique among your kind. Your Creator loves you so much and so intensely desires your companionship and affection that He gave the life of His only son that you might spend eternity with him.", This is an affirmation, the act of asserting faith positively though works the existence of God, the act of asserting positively an animating sense of purpose, the act of asserting positively your every thought and action as consequential.


Ok... So, I'm curious, what then is your purpose Jav? How does having this "knowledge" give you purpose?

And if your purpose is to get into heaven or anything like it, why is that any better than what someone else views as their purpose (enjoying life, being a good friend, mother, wife, father, husband, daughter, son, helping others, trying to make a difference in any way you can.....)?

The secret of happiness is freedom. The secret of freedom is courage.

-Thucydides

Last Edited By: lovebeachgirl Mar 12 10 12:12 PM. Edited 2 times.