Christian: "being an atheist requires to much faith"

"I don't have enough faith to be an atheist"

"being an atheist requires to much faith"

Maybe it is just me but it seems like I have been getting these responses a ton lately, I am curious what it is from and if this has been happening to any one else? I heard someone say it was from a book but I am not sure, could someone do you a solid and fill me in. Also what would be a good way of countering in it with a sort pithy answer?

Joe H.

Views: 98

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

That's very true. Almost every debate I engage in with Christians ends up being about the cosmological or teleological argument (or both). They'll usually throw Pascal's Wager in there somewhere for good measure. Eventually, after pointing out the flaws in their argument, they usually revert back to "You just have to have faith", at which point the conversation is pretty much over.
Could also point out, Atheism is an acknowledgement of an absence of faith not a faith in itself though it is often confused as such by people who don't know what they are talking about.

Believers on the other hand of all stripes positively affirm belief in their God - how do they know they are right?

Get them to talk about how they justify their local brand of nonsense, to then bring it back to "Yeah I don't believe in that." I don't have a positive belief in not beliving (which is weird when you put it like that.) I just do not / am incapable of believing that without further evidence.

For the coup de grace point out they are atheists too about every other god in existence, celebrate this unexpected moment of unity.

Laugh as they look confused and back away slowly.
It is a bizarre approach on their part - to belittle our nonbelief by suggesting it requires too much faith. WTF?

I would simply respond - "Faith - nah? Just a lack of cowardice."
I've stopped trying to make sense of built-in christian responses some time ago. I can usually tell right off the bat if said person is going to actually process any thoughts I throw their way and comments like that are usually a red flag.

As for the comment itself, it is in fact a book and I believe O'Reilly made a similar comment to Dawkins on his show during what can only be loosely defined as an interview. We can tell these chodes the definition of atheism until we're blue in the face but it's not going to make a damn bit of difference.
I think that in my case I first realised that: "God" makes no sense. Then I had to ask: so what does? Answer: science and rationalism.

You don't necessarily need to seek what does make sense, until after you accept that "God" does not.

Science as an explanation does not rely on faith. It relies on evidence, reason, and the acceptance that we don't know everything, (though we know more and more as time goes by).
Turek has a debate on youtube with Hitchens where Turek essentially runs through his points from his book(and yes, it is the same old tired stuff). I thought Hitchens handled it pretty well and really pissed Turek off. You could see how frusterated he was. It's like he is used to talking his appologetic nonsense to other appologists or weak minded christians who question nothing. The first time someone calls him out on the nonsense and his face gets red. Pretty entertaining.
wtf!? faigh hugh!?

"I have faith that..."
"I know that..."
are not the same.

one actually treads on society waaaay more than the other




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service