Atheists: Why do you have a blind faith in observable reality and empirical evidence?
- Anonymous1 decade agoBest Answer
I love the irony. observable reality obviously doesn't require blind faith.
- David GLv 41 decade ago
The Bible is quite clear that Gods existence is self evident in logic and nature.
When I look at the universe and say "God did it" I am merely pointing out what is self evident. If I observe a coin from a country I've never heard, I instantly say "its man made." Why? Because its self evident. Not because I'm too lazy to use critical thinking - but because some things are "no-brainers."
The Atheist on the other hand looks at the coin and gives himself a mental hernia trying to figure out how the coin formed from natural processes. Not because he is studious - but because he is willfully blind. Because he doesn't like anything implying that he himself is not god.
Besides, to apply empirical evidence one must first assume that the universe is a rational place and that human being are capable of rational thought. But if there is no God, then there is no reason for either., If there is no God then all our thoughts are merely random chemical and electrical reactions in the brain and there is no reason to assume that we exercise any control over them or that we can possibly know that they are logical. What we call logic would just be the delusion created by the chemical soup in our heads.
So to believe in logic and reason you must either have faith in God or the alternative - BLIND faith!
- tokomakjoeLv 41 decade ago
This misses the point entirely.
The whole point about atheists is that they do not profess to hold any "faith". Their world is based upon observable reality and testable theories.
Religious fools believe in a book. Unchanging, unchallengable and not open to criticism or denial of any kind. You must have "faith" even though it flies in the face of the common sense held by a child.
Atheists will always change their views if they can be PROVED to be wrong.
Prove your particular god exists (as opposed to the thousands of gods that were adored in previous millennia).
The burden of proof is on the religious nutters not on sane free thinking atheists.
- Andrew HLv 71 decade ago
That's a valid philosophical question. It's certainly true that for all I know we're living inside a simulation or being fed fake sensory inputs.
However, it's all we have to go on. We have to make the best of what we have.
Simply saying "god exists" or "god did it" resolves nothing. They're just words. I could equally say an infinite host of purple teapots created reality and it would be just as valid a statement.
There are some questions we likely won't ever be able to answer but if we try to answer them it should be based on some sort of valid reason, not empty assertions that some people find comforting.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- peanutLv 41 decade ago
observable reality is not blind faith. Its reality thats observable, backed up by empirical evidence.
This is another example of why people are throwing their bibles in the bin.
Many of these believers dont seem to have much of a clue about much at all, these days.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I think you just answered your question. Like you said, we have empirical evidence, so how is that "blind" faith. Believing in a god who's existence has no evidence, now that is blind faith.Source(s): :D
- Marci BokuLv 61 decade ago
Because it's observable and empirical evidence is proveable, and not blind since new evidence teaches new lessons. Is your question for real?
How can theists believe what can't be proved, but claim truth is written by pagans of thousands of years ago who were ignorant and paranoid?Source(s): ex-xtian
- Nikon f5Lv 61 decade ago
Tim Cooley you have a wonderful, extraordinary young brain and one day you may be a successor to Dawkins if you choose not to focus on music. Just wanted to say that because some people who have answered obviously have the wrong idea about you.
I have only met one other prodigy.
I think the film you made is beautiful.
- kdanleyLv 71 decade ago
Observable reality point to a Creator.
What empirical evidence is there for the belief that there is no God?
So right off the bat your question is invalid.
- 1 decade ago
yeah... we're all about SCIENCE until I post something like this....
then, all of a sudden SCIENCE sucks... LMAO!
Dr. David Berlinski (AGNOSTIC) received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He has taught philosophy, mathematics, and English at Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York, the University of Washington, the University of Puget Sound, San Jose State University, the University of Santa Clara, the University of San Francisco, and San Francisco State University.
He has taught mathematics at the Université de Paris. He has been a research fellow at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques (IHES) in France.
He has written works on systems analysis, the history of differential topology, theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics. Berlinski is best known for his books on mathematics and the history of mathematics written for the general public. These include A Tour of the Calculus (1997) on calculus, The Advent of the Algorithm (2000) on algorithms, Newton's Gift (2000) on Isaac Newton, and Infinite Ascent: A Short History of Mathematics (2005). Another book, The Secrets of the Vaulted Sky (2003), compares astrological and evolutionary accounts of human behavior.
The good doctor says it best… “It’s remarkably easy if you’re trying to understand how many changes a land-based mammal required to become an ocean-going mammal, and restricting yourself just to morphological changes—skin, teeth, dentition, lactation, every system, digestion, feeding mechanism, behavior—I sat down, and I said I can come up with fifty thousand required changes. I don’t know. Maybe that’s off by an order of magnitude, maybe it’s five hundred thousand changes, or maybe it’s fifty thousand changes or maybe it’s five changes. I don’t know. The point is, no one else knows either, and the question is not being raised in literature because once it were raised in literature… then somebody could ask: Let’s compare the number of required changes with the number of intermediate organisms actually found in the fossil record. And that could be a very disconcerting discovery, if you say fifty thousand changes. If you say of those fifty thousand changes, there should be fifty thousand intermediates—because, after all, changes occur in very small steps—and we only have five, or we have six, what conclusions might be drawn?... If we’ve only got five, some people—not a Darwinian biologist—but some people might scratch their head and say: Well, that sounds like the theory is false. I mean, I’m not saying that, of course—God forbid! [LOL!]—but some skeptics perversely might conclude from that that the theory is false. The point is, it’s NEVER put to that kind of test.”