The incredible faith of an Atheist

Have you ever considered how much faith it takes to be an atheist?

 

I was just thinking that you'd have to "believe" that the universe was infinite . . .even though it can't be proven?

 

You'd have to believe that at some point an inanimate mass just spontaneously "jumped" into organic living breathing material and then somewhere along the line  "jumped" again into a life form with a soul, and then with a spirit . . . .even though it can't be proven? (note:  the chances of all the proteins and amino acids matching together at one time at one point in space to create life is 1:10with 125 more zeros after it.

 

And then at the beginning . . .you have just take a leap of faith and believe that the first piece of matter that started the whole process . . . just "was".     And believe that something just existed and had a big bang one day and started the whole process. . . .even though it can't be proven.

 

You'd have to believe there was no heaven or afterlife,  . .  .even though it can't be proven.

 

All in all, even an atheist has a set of beliefs.   and beliefs require faith (except for scientifically held beliefs from observable experimentation)

 

It takes a lot of faith to be an atheist, more than I have to have to be a creationist, since I can at least have a written record to believe had a history of what happened (not withstanding also a supernatural inward conviction of God's Love for me that can only be equated to a person "knowing" their parent loves them, even though it's not provable).

creating one after another after another infallible churches?

While spending some time alone recently, I had the great enrichment of watching the movie Luther.  I have a greater respect and admiration for the man who stood up against all that was holy at the time and said "no".  You (the Roman Catholic church) are Wrong.   He went against many issues but the root of them all was the infallibility of the Pope.

After watching it and considering it, and then considering the history of the Church since the reformation, it seemed to me that the Church has been through a series of continuing new efforts of men (leaders) trying to convince the members (followers) that "herein lies the truth.  Seek in Here  (substitute for Here name of any particular faith or assembly).

I wrote this letter to me friend, who is, himself, a pillar of responsibility and character in his own non-denominational church:

Do you go to the church you go to because you believe it correct and pure in it's teachings?  I'd assume so.  I can't imagine that anyone would choose to go to a church where they suspected the teachings were in error? Has your pastor ever stood up and said "we missed it a few months ago" on a matter of doctrine.  I'm sorry"?   I doubt it.   And yet . . .I'm almost certain if I'd ask him if he believed he was infallible, he'd certainly say no.   But then if i said "well, give me a few of the times you've been in error"?   I don't think he'd be able to tell me any.   If he did manage to tell me of a time or two he'd been wrong, I would imagine he had not stood up in the pulpit and said he was wrong or misdirected?  If he/she did so, how on earth could he/she expect the followers to go on following in the future if they were always having to wonder if this point was a right one or not.

I believe that it's the followers fault as much as the leaders, because as followers, we become lazy and want someone else to hear God for us.    Then we can hold them responsible instead of being responsible ourselves.

If you do go where you go, then it probably makes sense that people who go to . . . say . .  a southern baptist, churched feel its the "truest"?   And Methodists feel the same. And others.    If Methodists 'thought" their church was in error . . ..as Luther did the Catholic Church. . .they'd obviously either vigorously try to change it or leave and seek out "truth" wherever they finally found it.

Which leads to the next point . . .if everyone thinks that their own particular religious persuasion is correct . . .then apparently many of them must think (perhaps without saying it) that they "others" are wrong.   And if everyone is sitting in their own particular persuasion, aren't they in effect . . perhaps quietly or subconsciously saying "the truth is here" and the others are just "slightly off".

Do you go to Antioch Baptist . . .and still believe the members at First Assembly are just as much in "correct doctrine" as you . . . .and both places have the "truth"?   Or do you go to Antioch Baptist and say "well probably a lot of what I'm hearing is not true, but I'm going to listen and decide what is and isn't for me?"   What do you do, or what is your moral obligation to do, if you hear something that you decide it not truth or correct?

Or . . if we go to fellowships that we believe are a little bit wrong and a whole lot right, why don't we tell new believers that from the start . . .'come to our church.  it's right a lot of the time".  

Did Luther trade in one infallible figurehead for a system that has given us 50,000 more?