Atheism - Yet another faith ?

coffee_cake

Aporia wrote:

Well I disagree I would consider it to be believing in nothing because belief is based on the unknown.

"I don't believe" isn't a positive statement of belief.

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

Well then do you believe that Vampires exist?

Are there any agnostis who would be prepared to say both:

"I do not believe in vampires"
"I am agnostic because I don't know if a higher power exists or not"

I can see how you can be agnostic as part of an overall philosophy that universal negatives cannot be proven and that nobody can "know", but in that case it just seems bizarre to pick one thing from a list of billions of things you can't know.

Why pick one out of an infinite set and name it, when the set is far more important than one of it's multitude of members.

Hmm. If most of the people in your neighbourhood believed in vampires, claimed that they themselves had personally affected by vampires, and went every Sunday to a large building that had been specifically designed for learning about vampires (and of which there's usually a couple in every village), I think the question would arise as to whether you believed in vampires, no?

I think that under those circumstances "I don't believe" is a rather positive statement.

regards,
Scofflaw

samb

Scofflaw wrote:

Hmm. If most of the people in your neighbourhood believed in vampires, claimed that they themselves had personally affected by vampires, and went every Sunday to a large building that had been specifically designed for learning about vampires (and of which there's usually a couple in every village), I think the question would arise as to whether you believed in vampires, no?

I think that under those circumstances "I don't believe" is a rather positive statement.

regards,
Scofflaw

Yes the question would arise, and I would say no, I don't believe in vampires. Are you saying that; people believing something is evidence in itself. Are you therefore equally agnostic about all Gods. Are you agnostic about ghosts, angels, tarrod cards, horescopes etc simply because a certain number or percentage (what number or percent?) of people believe them.

Scofflaw

samb wrote:

Yes the question would arise, and I would say no, I don't believe in vampires. Are you saying that; people believing something is evidence in itself. Are you therefore equally agnostic about all Gods. Are you agnostic about ghosts, angels, tarrod cards, horescopes etc simply because a certain number or percentage (what number or percent?) of people believe them.

That's pretty much the case, yes. Except newspaper horoscopes, of course. To be honest, it's not a numerical cutoff. If only one person I met sincerely believed in something, and that something were not straightforwardly testable (leprechauns, for example), I would be agnostic about it unless I found some flaw that made it impossible. The improbability of their belief is irrelevant to my position. I am unlikely to need proof or disproof in most cases, so it gets filed under 'suspension of disbelief'.

I am, at the moment, agnostic about a startlingly large range of miscellaneous deities, and every year a few more gods whose existence I am indifferent to get added to the list. I am also agnostic about homeopathy, as a non-religious example.

People believing in something is certainly evidence. It's not evidence that can prove or disprove a case, but it's all that's necessary to open a case. An analogy would be the discovery of a dead body. The dead body is not itself evidence of anything except a dead body, but it is sufficient evidence to open a case (which may be closed by anything from a murder conviction to filing a report under 'death by natural causes').

If science has not answered or even addressed a question (for example the existence of God), it is incorrect to say that science somehow disproves God. The most you can say is that current scientific thought does not require God. Any statement more definite is a belief, or part thereof.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

I'd accept that I don't know if vampires or squirrels that can paint houses exist or not. I'd strongly lean towards "no", but technically I can't be sure.

Actually, I retract some of that. I'd be suprised if someone hadn't trained a squirrel to paint...they're remarkable intelligent creatures.

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

Indeed, and since you've mentioned it, where exactly is atheism falsifiable?

Atheism is not a scientific hypothesis. It's a word to describe a common disposition - not having a belief in the existance of god(s). As bluewolf is trying hard to get across - atheism is not an assertion.

Scofflaw wrote:

To be honest, it's not a numerical cutoff. If only one person I met sincerely believed in something, and that something were not straightforwardly testable (leprechauns, for example), I would be agnostic about it unless I found some flaw that made it impossible. The improbability of their belief is irrelevant to my position. I am unlikely to need proof or disproof in most cases, so it gets filed under 'suspension of disbelief'.

The fact that you are agnostic about leprechauns says a lot. The burden of proof for you lies with disproving something exists, whereas an atheist's lack of belief is based on a complete deficit of evidence for its existance in the first place.

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

Atheism is not a scientific hypothesis. It's a word to describe a common disposition - not having a belief in the existance of god(s). As bluewolf is trying hard to get across - atheism is not an assertion.

As I said, I think that the statement "there is no God" certainly is an assertion, and an atheist who makes such a statement is a believer. I'd accept that an atheist who says "I don't believe in God because I have seen no proof" is not making an assertion of this kind. Both are atheists, I would say - you might not agree, of course.

The Atheist wrote:

The fact that you are agnostic about leprechauns says a lot. The burden of proof for you lies with disproving something exists, whereas an atheist's lack of belief is based on a complete deficit of evidence for its existance in the first place.

For some atheists, and not for others.


cordially,
Scofflaw

pH

So are you saying there is a difference between the following statements?

"I believe there is no God"

"I do not believe there is a God"

Yossie

Scofflaw wrote:

I am, at the moment, agnostic about a startlingly large range of miscellaneous deities, and every year a few more gods whose existence I am indifferent to get added to the list. I am also agnostic about homeopathy, as a non-religious example.

People believing in something is certainly evidence. It's not evidence that can prove or disprove a case, but it's all that's necessary to open a case. An analogy would be the discovery of a dead body. The dead body is not itself evidence of anything except a dead body, but it is sufficient evidence to open a case (which may be closed by anything from a murder conviction to filing a report under 'death by natural causes').

If science has not answered or even addressed a question (for example the existence of God), it is incorrect to say that science somehow disproves God. The most you can say is that current scientific thought does not require God. Any statement more definite is a belief, or part thereof.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'm one of those atheists for whom "Atheism" is synonymous with naturalism and universalism. So when I state my lack of belief in god, I also mean that I don't belief in ANY supernatural agents or events. The evidence for the naturalism and universalism of the world is strong and endlessly plentiful and is usually given the shorthand name science. The assumptions of naturalism and universalism are not unjustified, and in fact are how we actually live day-to-day.

Am I 100% sure that naturalism and universalism do always apply to the world? Well, no. I'm not.
Is there any strong evidence to counter the evidence of naturalism and universalism? No.

Hence, I'm atheism 'til there is strong evidence to the contrary. This belief is based on, imho, evidence. The ultra-agnostic denies this evidence and claims we must not pick between to equally possible beliefs.

The ultra-agnostic position, as the previous examples by others suggest, is silly when taken literally. How should an ultra-agnostic greet their mother - "Hello woman I assume to have given birth to me, until the DNA test results arrive"? And this is a case that can be proved with science! Nobody actually lives as ultra-agnostic; living assumes naturalism and universalism.

Aporia

bluewolf wrote:

"I don't believe" isn't a positive statement of belief.

Well to believe in something is - the mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.

By being an Atheist you don't believe in God.

BUT, you believe that there is nothing out there.


If the term ''to believe'' is the mental acceptance of something then it's correct to say, as an Atheist, you believe that there is nothing after you die.


That's why Atheism is a faith.

John Doe

Aporia wrote:

Well to believe in something is - the mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.

By being an Atheist you don't believe in God.

BUT, you believe that there is nothing out there.


If the term ''to believe'' is the mental acceptance of something then it's correct to say, as an Atheist, you believe that there is nothing after you die.


That's why Atheism is a faith.

Going on this, there are only two possible states: having faith in something or not thinking about the issue. It renders the concept of 'a faith' meaningless.

Aporia

I believe there is a God - Faith in God



I don't believe there is a God - No faith in God


BUT,
no matter what you think will happen to you after you die it's called belief.
I'm not taliking about God when I say that I'm talking about the circumstances after you die. We all as humans have different beliefs as to what will happen to us.

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

So are you saying there is a difference between the following statements?

"I believe there is no God"

"I do not believe there is a God"

Yes, I would say so. The latter I would take to mean "never having had any such belief, and never having been presented with any reason to make a decision on the matter, I simply lack belief in a God", or possibly "I have not a belief in God, much the same as I have no third eye". The former I take to be a positive statement of faith. I would add that you can also say "I believe the evidence shows that there is no God", which indicates your faith in the evidence and its interpretation.

By the way, I don't think any of these statements is necessarily more logically defensible than the others.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Yossie wrote:

Hence, I'm atheism 'til there is strong evidence to the contrary. This belief is based on, imho, evidence. The ultra-agnostic denies this evidence and claims we must not pick between to equally possible beliefs.

What is the evidence in question?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

As I said, I think that the statement "there is no God" certainly is an assertion, and an atheist who makes such a statement is a believer.

A person who makes such a statement is overstepping the "truth" mark, unless they add IMO, or such like. We're agreed that nobody can "know" anything for definite, it's just a question of whether that in itself is enough to push a belief.

Aporia wrote:

Well to believe in something is - the mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.

By being an Atheist you don't believe in God.

BUT, you believe that there is nothing out there.

If the term ''to believe'' is the mental acceptance of something then it's correct to say, as an Atheist, you believe that there is nothing after you die.

That's why Atheism is a faith.

Did you hear that whoooshing sound? That was the same point going over your head.

One more time. Atheism is not the mental acceptance of anything. It is non-acceptance of theist ideas. They don't have faith in atheism - it's just a word - they just have no faith in the validity of any religion.

Aporia

The Atheist wrote:

One more time. Atheism is not the mental acceptance of anything. It is non-acceptance of theist ideas. They don't have faith in atheism - it's just a word to - they just have no faith in the validity of any religion.

I don't agree.

By being an Atheist you mentally accept that there is nothing
after you die.
Ie. you mind rots away.... the concept of a soul was invented by humans ect.


This mental acceptance is a belief.

Dades

Okay - look at it a different way.

Atheism is just the default position before somebody suggests that there is a higher power/afterlife.

It's also different things to different people. But what it is not - is a faith.

coffee_cake

Atheism is a lack of faith. You can't say because someone is an atheist they believe in this, that or the other. You can only say what they don't believe, and that's only regarding one thing - any god.
To say "I do not believe" is NOT a positive statement of belief, no matter how you look at it. You cannot make any inference of what they do believe based on this. You can only say they lack belief in something.

UU

bluewolf wrote:

Atheism is a lack of faith. You can't say because someone is an atheist they believe in this, that or the other. You can only say what they don't believe, and that's only regarding one thing - any god.
To say "I do not believe" is NOT a positive statement of belief, no matter how you look at it. You cannot make any inference of what they do believe based on this. You can only say they lack belief in something.

......Or you could say atheism is a belief that there is no God to make the statement of believe positive. Hence, "I believe there is no god" or "I don't believe there is a god"......Which ever way one looks upon atheism it is still atheism regardless if it is viewed as a belief or lack of belief. After all, 2x2=4 and -2x-2=4. Both the same answer using two different alternative ways of getting it.

coffee_cake

UU wrote:

......Or you could say atheism is a belief that there is no God to make the statement of believe positive.

Yeah I already did at least twice.

hence, "I believe there is no god" or "I don't believe there is a god"......Which ever way one looks upon atheism it is still atheism regardless if it is viewed as a belief or lack of belief. After all, 2x2=4 and -2x-2=4. Both the same answer using two different alternative ways of getting it.

Some regard "I do believe there is not" as strong atheism and "I don't believe there is" as weak atheism.
The former is more of a claim, however.

Scofflaw

...and possibly we're getting ourselves in a knot because there are several different types of atheist - some for whom atheism is a faith (such as me), and others for whom it is not.

The question, then, "is atheism a faith?", is incorrect, and cannot be answered as it stands, because it supposes a monolithic atheism which does not exist.

Then we can get down to deciding whether those who have faith are true unbelievers...


cordially,
Scofflaw

coffee_cake

Yeah I'm happy to leave it at that >.<

Dades

bluewolf wrote:

Yeah I'm happy to leave it at that >.<

I'm not. But I will*.

*maybe

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

I'm not. But I will*.

*maybe

But why not?

cordially,
Scofflaw

lostexpectation

atheism is not a faith OK

coffee_cake

lostexpectation wrote:

atheism is not a faith OK

Such a compelling argument. I think we're all convinced by your very large font. :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

bluewolf wrote:

Such a compelling argument. I think we're all convinced by your very large font. :rolleyes:

Oh, I don't know. Size isn't everything.

Certainly lets me know where he stands on the "atheist believers - are they unbelievers?" question.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Yossie

Like in everyday life, lack of absolute proof is no reason for the suspension of belief. This is particularly the case when there is overwhelming evidence in support of one explanation over any alternative. If this is faith position then you'll have to conceed that every act of living is based on faith, no matter what the "proof"; a position that is only tenable in imagined isolation.

coffee_cake

Scofflaw wrote:

Oh, I don't know. Size isn't everything.

Reminds me of that joke - if someone who doesn't speak your language doesn't understand what you're saying, it'll work if you say it very loudly

Certainly lets me know where he stands on the "atheist believers - are they unbelievers?" question.

I think he's let know the people a mile away as well

Morbert

Aporia wrote:

Well to believe in something is - the mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.

By being an Atheist you don't believe in God.

BUT, you believe that there is nothing out there.


If the term ''to believe'' is the mental acceptance of something then it's correct to say, as an Atheist, you believe that there is nothing after you die.


That's why Atheism is a faith.

Aporia... The word "faith" has a very subtle definition. And while there is nothing wrong with phrasing atheism as a belief in a universe without God, that does not mean atheism is a faith.

I, for example, am an Atheist, yet I have no faith in my atheism.