- Joined
- Jan 1, 2011
- Sythe Gold
- 900
- Messages
- 5,679
I think that depends on the epistemological method you employ (slight tautology).I've been studying philosophy pretty hard here recently and I have come to the conclusion that some times there doesn't need to be direct empirical evidence for things. Religious people have faith, and that helps them. Non-theists have reason, and that helps them. There shouldn't be a distinction made between the two, because in the end we are all people.
It is kind of like political distinction. People think of politics as a line and you land left or right of moderate, but it is a circle. At some point you become so far left you share a lot of politics with extreme right and vice versa. Some people hate theism so much that they become just as pig headed as theists. Theists hate 'Godless Heathens' so much that they become just as ignorant as those who hate religion. Either way you're exuding ignorance because you are too stubborn to connect with someone on a human level.
tl;dr: Live and let live.
There's a simple question to be asked: How do you gain knowledge?
To generalize, atheists gain knowledge by reason and evidence.
Theists gain knowledge by reason, evidence and faith.
However, the problem is that theists prioritize faith over both evidence and reason. It's true, you don't need empirical evidence or reason to believe in something, but I daresay, you need them both to gain knowledge. Whether God exists is knowledge to be obtained, and employing faith as ones epistemology is where most people have problems. If people simply said 'I don't know, it makes me happy', then I don't think there would be much problem at all.












