Does it take ‘faith’ to ‘believe’ in atheism?


Does it take ‘faith’ to ‘believe’ in atheism? Apparently quite a few Christians think so!

My guess is that because atheists point out that it takes faith to believe in God, and seeing as faith is not science, or facts, faith is not a good basis for belief, we have lots of people thinking that being an atheist requires ‘faith’. Even when I point out that faith goes by two definitions, belief without evidence and trust, (faith in atheism or science being the latter) generally whoever I am talking to still insists that it takes just as much faith to believe in atheism as it does to believe in God.

Okay then, it takes faith to believe in atheism/science. Therefor it takes faith to believe in anything! We have faith in the fact that rain falls down, we have faith in the fact that humans need water to survive. I believe that I had breakfast earlier, and we are all one big cult that believes that we can use the internet!

Depending on your definition, faith and belief can really be for anything, but just because for some reason you hold the position that it takes faith to believe in science does NOT mean that said faith is the same faith that you would have in God. Believing in the scientific method and observable evidence is in no way the same as believing in a deity because an ancient book told you to.

So we have established that religious faith is not the same as faith in the scientific method, therefor saying that it takes religious faith to believe in something like the big bang is ridiculous. Just because we weren’t there doesn’t mean that it is automatically the same as God. We have no proper evidence for God, but we do have proper evidence for the big bang. Just because you refuse to accept said evidence does not mean that we have religious faith.

Image Courtesy of Salvatore Vuono at

On an unrelated topic, this is the 150th blog post!


18 thoughts on “Does it take ‘faith’ to ‘believe’ in atheism?

  1. I have extremely few people of faith who are able to distinguish faith without evidence versus trust in the scientific method. Yes, it makes sense. Yes, it should be easy to understand. Of course the indoctrination of parents, church and society makes it hard for them to break free. Good you are trying. Thank you.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I think as a Christian it took more faith to doubt than to believe, and maybe that is where they are coming from. If you believe in god it is a pretty difficult leap to question his existence let alone deny it. From their point of view, you had better be pretty sure to take such a risk with your soul. Once you step away from religion it takes no faith at all. Of course, how could they know that?


    • The Christian faith is truly a world away from atheism. To Christians, things are very different, which explains the fact that something as simple as ‘not believing’ is almost incomprehensible to them.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. It is very simple to logically prove that atheism is the result of faith.
    1. Atheists say that there is no need to prove atheism.
    2. Faith is the belief in that which cannot be proven.
    3. Therefore, atheism is a faith-based belief.
    That proof is so trivial, so obvious.
    And yet it is totally incomprehensible to the atheist who hallucinates quite fervently that his faith is based on the scientific method.
    Furthermore, in view of the discoveries of modern science, it is reasonable to believe that everything had a Creator and totally absurd to believe that everything just happened all by itself.


    • There is no need to prove atheism simply because, in this context, it is the rejection of the theist’s claim. If atheism was being used as the statement ‘there is no god’ then yes, it would require faith. For the most part, you can’t really prove that god doesn’t exist. But don’t forget that it is possible to prove the traits and characteristics of said god to be false.
      Science and atheism are also two very different things, and let’s not forget that. Having trust in the scientific method that scientific theories are correct has absolutely nothing to do with whether a god exists or not.


      • Mclasper,
        Everyone must be able to defend and prove the truth of there ideas.
        Why is it that I can defend and prove my ideas through simple reasoning and modern science and you, the atheist must relieve yourself of the burden of proof in order to make atheism work out for you?
        Consequently, you have only proven my point that atheism is completely irrational and 100% faith-based.


        • Do I say that God doesn’t exist? No, I say that I do not believe you when you say he does. What do I have to prove there? Do I have to prove that I don’t believe you!?
          You claim that it is irrational and faith based to say that you don’t believe the claims of a theist. PERHAPS it is irrational and faith based to say that there is definitely no God or gods, but I do not support this claim.


          • This person (silenceofmind) has been repeating the same argument in copy paste fashion everywhere for years. Quite disheartening considering s/he doesn’t even bother to correct the logical formation of the argument.

            I suspect our religious defender here really likes to equate “faith” with any kind of belief in general. There are many things that cannot be proven or disproven, and yet we do not use the word “faith” to describe them.
            “Faith is the belief in that which cannot be proven” is truly not very accurate. Say, “We live in the Matrix” cannot be proven, nor can “We do NOT live in the Matrix”. Yet, if someone suggests the first is true, most of us ask for evidence, and when told bad arguments, we simply stay in the position of nonacceptance. As if such a claim has never been made. If we are told that we need to change our lives based on that notion, we most likely will put the person making that claim in a mental institute.

            In case of some god(s), there is good evidence to suggest they do not exist. God of Abraham (Islam, Christianity, Judaism) is in fact one of them (one reason is self contradictory nature of this God). A deistic God however is not a God which one can easily claim “does not exist”. And that’s why we just simply shrug it off. No reason to think about it. So an Atheist can make claims like “There is enough evidence to support the truth of the notion of “Islamic God does not exist”” quite comfortably. The answer to claim “There is a deistic God” is just a shrug.

            Liked by 1 person

  4. The term “proper evidence” is indeed, dependent on which “belief” one would want to prove. Love for another requires evidence beyond just scientific evidences (per today’s popular definition). So is belief in God which is religion.
    Scientific beliefs require measurable observations as “evidences” proper to the science. However, existence of God can be arrived at rationally from generalized observations about humanity and even science itself (cause-effect relationship, motion, etc). But the nature (essence) of God cannot be derived from our knowledge simply *by definition* that God’s nature is beyond our natural intellectual capacity.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. “My guess is that because atheists point out that it takes faith to believe in God, and seeing as faith is not science, or facts, faith is not a good basis for belief…”
    It is not true that all ‘faith’ is without ‘fact’.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s