Semantics - atheism

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, I don't think there is anything about theism that requires faith. Most earthly versions include that caveat, but it is certainly not necessary. This kind of demolishes your argument, though, so feel free to disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you please explain how theism does not require faith? Just wondering.

[/ QUOTE ]


Theism is simply the belief in God. If the evidence pointed to God, you would not need faith to believe in it. 500 years ago, it would have required faith to believe in the theory of evolution. The evidence simply was not there, or not interpreted correctly (possibly a bad example but you know what I mean). However, there is nothing fundamental to the theory of evolution that requires faith. It may currently require faith to be a theist (depending on what you call God) but it isn't necessary forever.

I understand your question, I probably was misleading. Christianity requires faith, and it does so for two reasons. First, there simply is no evidence to support it. Second, it is a core principle of Christianity that you must have faith...proof would be anathema. But not all forms of theism are like this, and there is nothing fundamental to theism that demands this.

[m_the0ry]

"Only the Sith deal in absolutes"

-Yoda.

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]


If science came up with proof that Santa Claus indeed did exist and was living on the North-pole, I would still not believe in Santa Claus.


[/ QUOTE ]

This would be downright irrational, unless you're using the word "proof" in a very idiosyncratic sense.