I've heard that a few times, but I've never really understood the basis for that statement. Maybe it's a creative use of the definition of the word, "atheism", that allows people to make the statement that atheism requires more faith than theism. Anyone out there care to explain this one?
It is usually referencing claims to the irrefutablility of the teleological argument from supposed design.
The chances of a being existing that fits Humanly conceived superstitions makes a statement like that seem foolish.
Only if an atheist claims there is no intelligent creator/sentient being behind the creation of this universe. Although I personally would find their claim more believable than the alternative. To be an atheist because you simply don't believe or because you find far-fetched claims (not supported with evidence) unlikely, requires no faith.
That's how I see it. How can an absence of faith in the existence of deities somehow require more faith than one who does believe that a god exists?
being without belief/faith is the natural position we were all born that way, we need no faith, to be human. but this continued enforced religion, indoctrination, child abuse, on our children, from the the religious, is criminal, as it is only based in faith, it has no natural basis. it cause's the person go from a thinker to a follower, and shepherd to a sheep. faith((click)blind faith) can only be a religious thing.
Like Dennett said in an interview in this same section: There are tousands of religions. A theist claims that all of them are untrue except for one. An atheist is just willing to go that last, extra step and declare them all wrong. It doesn't require faith to NOT believe in something. Or even to "feel" that you are correct to do so. It doesn't require faith to accept scientific findings. The process of scientific discovery is designed to combat the need for faith. Its claims are falsifiable, and it makes no pretentions that any findings are final. All theory is subject to betterment. And this is the facet of science that distinguishes it from religion. With religion, all knowledge is handed down from a divine source and is final. When evidence contradicts those unmovable truths, you have to employ faith to combat the natural urge to accept observation. Science gladly changes over time, always attempting to get closer to an objective truth, even if such a goal is impossible. It doesn't even require any faith to accept this system as superior, just an understanding. Science only seems to require faith when you are on the outside, with no understanding of the process, and no comprehension of the results. It is like technology that appears to be magical when you don't understand the underlying mechanisms.
************* M*W: The need for "faith" is present in the atheist, but it is directed toward oneself instead of imaginary gods.
I think it's because it means we are alone, and we rest on faith in humanity and unfolding natural processes, undependable at best.
Yeah, I've heard that one too enough times to derive what the assertion means... which is roughly: ::It takes more more effort to place unconditional trust in reality than place unconditional trust in a psychologically natural authority figure::
