Atheism: a "faith", a "leap of faith", or neither?

JimiTime

Dades wrote: »

I can't believe the "not believing something = faith" has come up again...

Sorry dades, just to clear this up (or move to new thread if you want?). Atheists don't believe there is no god? You are saying they believe there may be one, its just they need more evidence? That seems agnostic no? Below is the dictionary definition:

Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings

That seems like a definitive stand to me.

aidan24326 wrote:

No atheist that I know of has ever said 'there is no god' and you are being deliberatelty disingenuous in suggesting that.

I certainly am not. I've heard many atheists declare such a thing. In fact I've heard some who've said they believe science will answer the questions in time. In fact it sparked a debate on them having 'faith' in science.

But no more responses to this here, please.

The OP has an interesting topic going on so lets stick to it.

Maybe you could shift these ramblings to a new thread? I'd do it myself, but ur the god of these parts:)

Dades

-- Above post moved from other thread --

Let's hammer this one out!

Zombrex

-- COPIED FROM OTHER THREAD ---

JimiTime wrote:

'Don't know' is not atheist. 'Atheist' says that you do know that there is defo no higher power.

No, that isn't what an atheist says.

An atheist says that the human invented concepts of a "higher power" (ie gods) are just that, human inventions, with no grounding in reality. If there is a higher power you guys don't know what it is. You made yours up. Your "higher power" is invented, by humans, modeled on humans, for very human purposes and needs. If there is an actual higher power or intelligence this is purely coincidental.

Am a die hard atheist and I have absolutely no trouble with the possibility that some intelligent entity created or caused the creation of the universe, or created or caused the formation of life throughout the universe. I see absolutely no evidence or this at all, so at the moment I do not consider it a likely explanation, but it is certainly possible and I would be fascinated by any evidence that did point to that. I find the idea of life creating other kinds life fascinating, particularly as humans are getting close to that point ourselves.

Atheism is not the rejection of limitless realm of what we do not know with regard to these higher powers, it is the reject of what you guys claim to already know about it

marco_polo

You could define theism as the lack of faith in there not being a God?

Framing it that way one could argue that theism the result of a a lack of faith.

Dades

Not sure how this sits, but I would see over 120,000 men, women, and children dead in 10 days from freak natural disasters as evidence a benevolent god does not exist.

Doesn't that mean that my disbelief is not just faith?

Doctor DooM

Dades wrote: »

Not sure how this sits, but I would see over 120,000 men, women, and children dead in 10 days from freak natural disasters as evidence a benevolent god does not exist.

Doesn't that mean that my disbelief is not just faith?

Thats evidence of god existing because the end times are coming... See how these things can be flipped.

Could Atheism be defined as the rejection of things which cannot be proven, then? In a very simple way?

PDN

I think there is a basic reason why atheists get offended when others refer to atheism as a 'faith'.

'Faith', as it used by myself and many other believers, means to accept a proposition on the basis of some evidence, but without conclusive proof. However, many atheists use the word 'faith' to mean accepting a proposition with no evidence. This second definition enables them to (falsely) deride believers as irrational. It also means that they reject the notion of faith as applying to themselves.

So, according to my definition of faith, atheists believe that there is no God. They reach this belief on the basis of some evidence, but lack conclusive proof. Therefore atheism is a faith position just as is my Christianity.

If, however, you define 'faith' as being a belief based on no evidence whatsoever, then atheism is not a faith, but neither is my Christianity.

PDN

SDooM wrote: »

Could Atheism be defined as the rejection of things which cannot be proven, then? In a very simple way?

The non-existence of God cannot be proven. So would that mean atheism can be defined as a rejection of the idea of God's non-existence.

daveharnett

Dades wrote: »

Not sure how this sits, but I would see over 120,000 men, women, and children dead in 10 days from freak natural disasters as evidence a benevolent god does not exist.

Doesn't that mean that my disbelief is not just faith?

Describing that as evidence is a little tenuous i'd say dades. It's shouldn't be necessary anyway: the person with the extrordinary claim should have the extrordinary evidence. It's not up to the rest of us to disprove the teapot.

Anyway, I whink you'll find that any religion worth it's salt has a way of explaining such events (he works in mysterious ways/he hates queers/the rapture is coming etc).

Doctor DooM

PDN wrote: »

I think there is a basic reason why atheists get offended when others refer to atheism as a 'faith'.

'Faith', as it used by myself and many other believers, means to accept a proposition on the basis of some evidence, but without conclusive proof. However, many atheists use the word 'faith' to mean accepting a proposition with no evidence. This second definition enables them to (falsely) deride believers as irrational. It also means that they reject the notion of faith as applying to themselves.

So, according to my definition of faith, atheists believe that there is no God. They reach this belief on the basis of some evidence, but lack conclusive proof. Therefore atheism is a faith position just as is my Christianity.

If, however, you define 'faith' as being a belief based on no evidence whatsoever, then atheism is not a faith, but neither is my Christianity.

It was pointed out on the thread this sprang from that most Atheists are happy to accept there may be a god- just that evidence for them suggests against one which seems to be constucted to exactly suits a society at a given times purpose. Most atheists do not reject the idea of "God" in general per se.

Doctor DooM

PDN wrote: »

The non-existence of God cannot be proven. So would that mean atheism can be defined as a rejection of the idea of God's non-existence.

Yes but we're getting into orbiting teapot territory here. (I am so glad I lurked for ages in here and Christianity before I started posting, proving the non existence of an extra dimensional deity, this place could melt your brain if not careful )

marco_polo

PDN wrote: »

I think there is a basic reason why atheists get offended when others refer to atheism as a 'faith'.

'Faith', as it used by myself and many other believers, means to accept a proposition on the basis of some evidence, but without conclusive proof. However, many atheists use the word 'faith' to mean accepting a proposition with no evidence. This second definition enables them to (falsely) deride believers as irrational. It also means that they reject the notion of faith as applying to themselves.

So, according to my definition of faith, atheists believe that there is no God. They reach this belief on the basis of some evidence, but lack conclusive proof. Therefore atheism is a faith position just as is my Christianity.

If, however, you define 'faith' as being a belief based on no evidence whatsoever, then atheism is not a faith, but neither is my Christianity.

An atheist would base their stance more commonly on a lack of evidence for Gods existance, not on looking for evidence of his non existance.

SDooM wrote: »

Yes but we're getting into orbiting teapot territory here. (I am so glad I lurked for ages in here and Christianity before I started posting, proving the non existence of an extra dimensional deity, this place could melt your brain if not careful )

This is hard. I might go back to lurking myself.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

So, according to my definition of faith, atheists believe that there is no God. They reach this belief on the basis of some evidence, but lack conclusive proof.

PDN wrote: »

The non-existence of God cannot be proven.

Can you see what the problem is here?

PDN

SDooM wrote: »

It was pointed out on the thread this sprang from that most Atheists are happy to accept there may be a god- just that evidence for them suggests against one which seems to be constucted to exactly suits a society at a given times purpose. Most atheists do not reject the idea of "God" in general per se.

If someone is an evangelical Christian in Saudi Arabia, or indeed a Scientologist in Ireland, then it would seem that they meet your definition of an atheist. Any countercultural expression of religion rejects a concept of God that appears constructed to suit a society at a given time's purpose.

In the old days an atheist was someone who didn't believe in the existence of God. Life is much more complicated nowadays.

iUseVi

Sure atheism cannot be proved logically with material evidence. So you could (weakly) argue that is it a faith position.

However, as SDooM mentioned, we are perilously close to talking about teapots again....
The fact is that atheism doesn't require the belief in specific dogmas. This is where it differs from religions. In Christianity you have to believe a whole rake of things, none of which have any evidence. (unless of course you count holy texts.)

So perhaps the amount of faith required is proportional to both the absurdity and amount of things that you are required to believe in.

faith = absurdity multiplied by number of dogmas.

Since atheism has no dogmas, none of which are absurd, little or no faith is required.

daveharnett

SDooM wrote: »

Could Atheism be defined as the rejection of things which cannot be proven, then? In a very simple way?

I wouldn't put it that way. Many scientific theories cannot be proven *yet*. We accept them on the basis that they offer the most probable available explaination of observable phenomena. The key is that theories are revised or thrown away entirely if the evidence points to a more probable model.

My athiesm would reject the usefulness of a model (eg religion) which is circular in nature and as such can never be disproved by observable evidence.

Doctor DooM

PDN wrote: »

If someone is an evangelical Christian in Saudi Arabia, or indeed a Scientologist in Ireland, then it would seem that they meet your definition of an atheist. Any countercultural expression of religion rejects a concept of God that appears constructed to suit a society at a given time's purpose.

In the old days an atheist was someone who didn't believe in the existence of God. Life is much more complicated nowadays.

Still picking me up a little wrong I think...

I am saying, if asked if a god exists, I say "suppose so".

However, if asked if the Christian God or Xenu exists, (which I regard as human constructs from the available evidence) I would reply "all evidence indicates computer says no."

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

'Faith', as it used by myself and many other believers, means to accept a proposition on the basis of some evidence, but without conclusive proof. However, many atheists use the word 'faith' to mean accepting a proposition with no evidence.

Not exactly.

Wikipedia defines "faith" as a belief unsupported or contradicted by evidence. I would see it more as a trust that something or someone will make things better for the person or people in general, despite evidence to the contrary.

"Faith" is nearly always used in this context, particularly in religious circles, for example "having faith that God knows what he is doing" or "have faith that God has a plan for everyone". These phrases are used when it looks like the outcome will not actually be good.

It is basically saying "I know things look bad, but trust that it will work out in the end"

If things looked like they would work out well in the end this trust wouldn't be necessary, and as such "faith" wouldn't be necessary.

In the context of religion and faith that God exists in the first place, it is basically saying "I know it may sometimes look like God doesn't exist, I know you may have doubts or question, but trust that he does. Have faith"

PDN

Dades wrote: »

Can you see what the problem is here?

The problem is that the existence or non-existence of God cannot be proven. There is evidence both for God's existence and against God's existence. You and I assess that evidence differently and reach differing conclusions. Each of those conclusions requires faith - faith that is based on evidence.

Doctor DooM

iUseVi wrote: »

faith = absurdity multiplied by number of dogmas.

Going in my sig.

EDIT: but not if it means I wouldn't be allowed to post in Christianity... a ruling PDN?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Not exactly.

Wikipedia defines "faith" as a belief unsupported or contradicted by evidence. I would see it more as a trust that something or someone will make things better for the person or people in general, despite evidence to the contrary.

"Faith" is nearly always used in this context, particularly in religious circles, for example "having faith that God knows what he is doing" or "have faith that God has a plan for everyone". These phrases are used when it looks like the outcome will not actually be good.

It is basically saying "I know things look bad, but trust that it will work out in the end"

If things looked like they would work out well in the end this trust wouldn't be necessary, and as such "faith" wouldn't be necessary.

In the context of religion and faith that God exists in the first place, it is basically saying "I know it may sometimes look like God doesn't exist, I know you may have doubts or question, but trust that he does. Have faith"

I know it looks as if the sun is revolving around the earth, but I have faith that, contrary to appearances, the earth actually revolves around the sun.

My reason for such faith is that I have weighed the evidence presented to me, and I trust the authorities (my Dad, teachers at school, books etc) that tell me that the earth revolves around the sun.

seamus

The key I think is that atheism doesn't offer any absolutes. It basically states that on the balance of probabilities based on our current model of the universe, God does not exist.

Atheism doesn't say that this is an absolute - in fact it challenges itself to continually test the "correctness"* of the statement.

All other faith-based system require a static belief based on a fixed body of "evidence", which is not challenged or questioned.

To have faith, you have to have 100% assuredness and certainty that something is correct, ignoring all evidence presented. Having faith means not questioning your assertion - after all, if you're going to question it, then clearly you're not sure. Since atheism by its nature continually questions itself and looks for more answers, it can't be considered "faith" IMO.

*It is impossible to say that a theory is 100% correct. All you can do is test your theory against the current scientific model. As more knowledge is gained and the theory continues to hold up or be supported by new evidence, the "correctness" of the theory tends towards 100%

RealEstateKing

is, neccessarily, what you might call "Practical Agnosticism"

As with any other thing, a scientist will always say, "Well according to the evidence we have now and the hundreds of experiments we've done up to now, x appears to be true". Its is of course possible that a further discovery will overturn this completely, but we only go on the evidence we now have."

This doesnt take faith. It is actually a certain stubborn unwillingness to take anything on faith. If you dont take things on faith, you're left with things for which there is evidence. God is not one of those things.

Furthermore it is not simply a question of saying "Well there's no evidence, so I dont beleive it." It is also to do with the fact that the God of the Abrahamic religions is logically incompatible with himself, even if we disregard the evidence - You cant have an infinitely powerful all loving God , that casts people into eternal suffering for having a ****, to put it crudely.

PDN

SDooM wrote: »

Going in my sig.

EDIT: but not if it means I wouldn't be allowed to post in Christianity... a ruling PDN?

Hey, we allow Wicknight's bull**** about his posts improving mankind - so any old tosh is obviously allowed in sigs.

iUseVi

SDooM wrote: »

Going in my sig.

EDIT: but not if it means I wouldn't be allowed to post in Christianity... a ruling PDN?

<blush>

Dades

PDN wrote: »

The problem is that the existence or non-existence of God cannot be proven. There is evidence both for God's existence and against God's existence. You and I assess that evidence differently and reach differing conclusions. Each of those conclusions requires faith - faith that is based on evidence.

But I don't require anything - it's just what I believe. I can sit here now and say I just don't (can't) believe in human gods. It's not a faith thing at all. It doesn't affect my life, there are no direct outcomes of my belief - nothing that hinges on the question.

You require faith to believe in your God, as Christianity is so much more than does something exist or not - it's a whole way of life - it's the word of God - and so much of what is claimed cannot be evidenced.

Associating atheism with you word "faith" is just a ploy to somehow put non-belief on a par with actual "Faiths".

stereoroid

PDN wrote: »

So, according to my definition of faith, atheists believe that there is no God. They reach this belief on the basis of some evidence, but lack conclusive proof. Therefore atheism is a faith position just as is my Christianity.

Can you spot the difference between the following two statements?
i) I believe there are no gods
ii) I do not believe there are gods.

If you're going to insist on telling atheists (or anybody) what they believe, or not, in contradiction to what the atheists themselves have said (myself included), then this is not a discussion.

JimiTime

Here is the definition I find in most dictionaries I've looked at.

An ATHEIST is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings

Now we've had a few ellaborations on that below:

Seamus wrote:

The key I think is that atheism doesn't offer any absolutes. It basically states that on the balance of probabilities based on our current model of the universe, God does not exist.

Atheism doesn't say that this is an absolute - in fact it challenges itself to continually test the "correctness"* of the statement.

So there is an atheistic system? Which challenges itself to test its correctness? Care to elaborate?

Real estate king wrote:

is, neccessarily, what you might call "Practical Agnosticism"

As with any other thing, a scientist will always say, "Well according to the evidence we have now and the hundreds of experiments we've done up to now, x appears to be true". Its is of course possible that a further discovery will overturn this completely, but we only go on the evidence we now have."

This doesnt take faith. It is actually a certain stubborn unwillingness to take anything on faith. If you dont take things on faith, you're left with things for which there is evidence. God is not one of those things.

Furthermore it is not simply a question of saying "Well there's no evidence, so I dont beleive it." It is also to do with the fact that the God of the Abrahamic religions is logically incompatible with himself, even if we disregard the evidence - You cant have an infinitely powerful all loving God , that casts people into eternal suffering for having a ****, to put it crudely.

Atheism is not about specific religions though is it? The fact that rather than saying you don't know, you make the stand and say 'I don't believe in a higher power'. Thats a leap of faith in itself. the fact is, you don't 'know', but you 'believe'. You may have reasons for this belief, but its certainly not based on anything scientific. Science has nothing to do with this discussion really.

Wicknight wrote:

An atheist says that the human invented concepts of a "higher power" (ie gods) are just that, human inventions, with no grounding in reality. If there is a higher power you guys don't know what it is. You made yours up. Your "higher power" is invented, by humans, modeled on humans, for very human purposes and needs. If there is an actual higher power or intelligence this is purely coincidental.

Am a die hard atheist and I have absolutely no trouble with the possibility that some intelligent entity created or caused the creation of the universe, or created or caused the formation of life throughout the universe. I see absolutely no evidence or this at all, so at the moment I do not consider it a likely explanation, but it is certainly possible and I would be fascinated by any evidence that did point to that. I find the idea of life creating other kinds life fascinating, particularly as humans are getting close to that point ourselves.

Atheism is not the rejection of limitless realm of what we do not know with regard to these higher powers, it is the reject of what you guys claim to already know about it

Ok so an atheist is is not someone who 'denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings'. They are people who deny the religious models they are aware of? This seems to go against the dictionary definition.

Is there a precise definition? or is it generally different strokes for different folks?

It seems that most are saying they are open to the concept of a divine being, which i never thought could be an atheist position

Doctor DooM

JimiTime wrote: »

Here is the definition I find in most dictionaries I've looked at.

An ATHEIST is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings

Now we've had a few ellaborations on that below:




So there is an atheistic system? Which challenges itself to test its correctness? Care to elaborate?



Atheism is not about specific religions though is it? The fact that rather than saying you don't know, you make the stand and say 'I don't believe in a higher power'. Thats a leap of faith in itself. the fact is, you don't 'know', but you 'believe'. You may have reasons for this belief, but its certainly not based on anything scientific. Science has nothing to do with this discussion really.




Ok so an atheist is is not someone who 'denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings'. They are people who deny the religious models they are aware of? This seems to go against the dictionary definition.

Is there a precise definition? or is it generally different strokes for different folks?

It seems that most are saying they are open to the concept of a divine being, which i never thought could be an atheist position

Here's the issue I think you are having... there is no atheist organisation which guides or commands or orders the atheist movement. There is no standard issue atheist with textbook beliefs or a textbook itself. Atheism is not analagous of religion, it's the lack of it.

For me, denying the possiblilty of a god would make me as "bad" as any religious type who assumes their god is the one true correct god and all other gods are faked.

JimiTime

stereoroid wrote: »

Can you spot the difference between the following two statements?
i) I believe there are no gods
ii) I do not believe there are gods.

If you're going to insist on telling atheists (or anybody) what they believe, or not, in contradiction to what the atheists themselves have said (myself included), then this is not a discussion.

I took this from the link you provided.

stereoroid wrote:

Well, I think it's because the dictionary definition of "atheist" is old, and too coarse. The OED definition assumes active denial of the existence of God, which is only one viewpoint. Let me illustrate by drawing up a table of who believes what, in my understanding that is:

Propositions:
1. I believe in a higher power, somewhere.
2. I believe in a personal God who watches over me.
3. I do not see any valid evidence for the existence of a god or gods.
4. I firmly believe that there are no gods here or anywhere else.
5. I believe that the question, of the existence of a god or gods, can never be answered either way.

Code:
Prop.: 1 2 3 4 5
Theist Y Y N N N
Pantheist Y N ? N ?
Agnostic ? ? Y N Y
Hard Atheist N N Y Y N
Weak Atheist* N N Y N N

So if you are saying, that this is definitive, then a hard atheist believes: 4. I firmly believe that there are no gods here or anywhere else.

So those that are saying that this is not the case are 'weak atheists' or 'agnostic atheists'.

As I said, point 4 is a leap of faith.

JimiTime

SDooM wrote: »

Here's the issue I think you are having... there is no atheist organisation which guides or commands or orders the atheist movement. There is no standard issue atheist with textbook beliefs or a textbook itself. Atheism is not analagous of religion, it's the lack of it.

For me, denying the possiblilty of a god would make me as "bad" as any religious type who assumes their god is the one true correct god and all other gods are faked.

Then maybe 'atheist' is the wrong description for you. Maybe just saying, 'i don't really know, but i don't believe any religious explainations I've heard'. Why do you feel the need to define yourself as 'atheist'?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I know it looks as if the sun is revolving around the earth, but I have faith that, contrary to appearances, the earth actually revolves around the sun.

You don't have faith that the sun isn't revolving around the Earth, you have further evidence that it isn't. If you didn't have further evidence and you believed it wasn't then you would have faith.

Faith is trusting in the correctness of a position despite the evidence pointing to the contrary position, or trusting in the beneficial actions of another despite the evidence suggesting that this will not come.

That is what faith is. If that doesn't describe your attitudes towards God then fair enough, faith is the wrong word for your state of belief, but there is little point changing the meaning of the word to fit your state of belief.

PDN wrote: »

My reason for such faith is that I have weighed the evidence presented to me, and I trust the authorities (my Dad, teachers at school, books etc) that tell me that the earth revolves around the sun.

If you trust the "authorities" as you call them, without understanding their evidence or reasoning (which I imagine you do understand), then you have faith in them to be correct, despite all the evidence you perceive supporting a contradictory position.

But as you say that isn't what you did. The evidence for the revolution of the Earth around the sun over rides the evidence that the sun moves around the Earth, so accepting that position is not a matter of faith in the authorities.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Then maybe 'atheist' is the wrong description for you. Maybe just saying, 'i don't really know, but i don't believe any religious explainations I've heard'. Why do you feel the need to define yourself as 'atheist'?

Probably because that is exactly what atheist means

atheism comes from the French athéisme which means one who denies the existence of god which itself probably came from the Greek atheos, a-theos meaning god-less.

Atheists do not deny the existence of any unknown or undefined alien intelligence that may or may not exist some where else in or outside the universe.

They deny the existence of your gods and goddesses.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Probably because that is exactly what atheist means

atheism comes from the French athéisme which means one who denies the existence of god which itself probably came from the Greek atheos, a-theos meaning god-less.

Atheists do not deny the existence of any unknown or undefined alien intelligence that may or may not exist some where else in or outside the universe.

They deny the existence of your gods and goddesses.

Thing is, you are the only one I've ever heard give that definition wicknight. According to steroroid you'd be a 'weak atheist' or an 'agnostic atheist'.

Doctor DooM

JimiTime wrote: »

Then maybe 'atheist' is the wrong description for you. Maybe just saying, 'i don't really know, but i don't believe any religious explainations I've heard'. Why do you feel the need to define yourself as 'atheist'?

Who said I do? I don't really care much for labels tbh.

pH

faith
n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

faith
Noun

1. strong belief in something, esp. without proof
2. a specific system of religious beliefs
3. complete confidence or trust, such as in a person or remedy
4. allegiance to a person or cause
5. bad faith dishonesty
6. good faith honesty [Latin fides trust, confidence]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith

Words just mean what we've all agreed they mean, they are tokens representing concepts. We all agree that Christianity, Islam and Judaism are faiths, I cannot see how atheism is a faith in the same sense of the word, it isn't a system of religious beliefs. Any definition of the word faith that included atheism would include everything.

An atheist is someone who answers the question "Do you believe in a personal God(s)?" with an answer other than "yes".

Technically atheists are "non-theists", theists being those who believe in a personal intervening rule-giving sin-forgiving kind of God. This means that all agnostics are atheists, as are all deists (those who believe in a woolly philosophical kind of prime move God).

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Thing is, you are the only one I've ever heard give that definition wicknight. According to steroroid you'd be a 'weak atheist' or an 'agnostic atheist'.

As opposed to what?

JimiTime

pH wrote: »

faith
faith
Noun
[*]strong belief in something, esp. without proof

thats what we're talking about in this context. Its usually the meaning that I as a christian am derided for.

JimiTime

SDooM wrote: »

Who said I do? I don't really care much for labels tbh.

Apologies, I assumed you were. I agree with you on the labels also. Obviously some feel strong enough to define themselves with such labels though.

pH

JimiTime wrote: »

thats what we're talking about in this context. Its usually the meaning that I as a christian am derided for.

Then the thread title is phrased in a confusing way, in this context the question is better phrased as "is atheism a faith based position" or "does it require faith" to be an atheist.

This had been hashed out lots of times before, and you get one of these 2 answers.

"No"

or

"Yes" for those you can argue that absolutely every possible thought or belief that a human has is "faith based". There is no truth, nothing is provable or knowable for certain, and in this paradigm then atheism is a faith position, but only in the same way as "Dogs exist" is a faith position.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

As opposed to what?

Read the post on the last page. Its got it all mapped out. I think its as opposed to a hard atheist. Of course, if we get into degree's of atheism, it really means that no-one can actually define 'atheist'. Thats kind of what my point was on the thread about 'belief system' though. Some folk take the basic tenet 'I don't believe in any gods or divine beings', and set up a system of belief from it. This can include either watering it down, like saying you only reject what religion says; or standing right by it and saying 'I firmly believe that there are no gods here or anywhere else'.

JimiTime

pH wrote: »

Then the thread title is phrased in a confusing way, in this context the question is better phrased as "is atheism a faith based position" or "does it require faith" to be an atheist.

This had been hashed out lots of times before, and you get one of these 2 answers.

"No"

or

"Yes" for those you can argue that absolutely every possible thought or belief that a human has is "faith based". There is no truth, nothing is provable or knowable for certain, and in this paradigm then atheism is a faith position, but only in the same way as "Dogs exist" is a faith position.

I didn't set up the thread, it was moved from another one. My point is that atheism requires a leap of faith, not that it 'is' a faith. Maybe Ddes can work his magic on it so that its clearer?

iUseVi

JimiTime wrote: »

Thing is, you are the only one I've ever heard give that definition wicknight. According to steroroid you'd be a 'weak atheist' or an 'agnostic atheist'.

I think probably 99% of atheists would say this. It's not really black and white between agnostic and atheist. Invariably the words get used interchangeably, which doesn't help matters when it comes down to definitions.

Anyone who declares "there is no God" is either stupid, lying, or has information we are not privy to. As it has been said numerous times before, nothing is 100% certain. The very "strong" atheists tend to wheel out their philosophical arguments of there being no God, but IMO people are never going to be able to use words to prove OR disprove the existence of God.

I view the strong atheists in much the same way as I view religious people. The stance is arrogant because it's just not provable.

As an aside, arguments from personal experience such as talking voices in someone's head, only mean something to that person, and can't be expected to be taken seriously by anyone else.

Now where does the faith come in?!

pH

JimiTime wrote: »

I didn't set up the thread, it was moved from another one. My point is that atheism requires a leap of faith, not that it 'is' a faith. Maybe Ddes can work his magic on it so that its clearer?

What leap of faith does atheism require? As I said in the previous post atheism requires faith only when dealing the the philosophical view that everything unprovable and nothing is true.

In that world-view there are an infinite number of faith based positions.

Let's say I claim that "Hitler is alive and well and living on Mars". Now I presume that you disagree with my claim. However if you agree that your disbelief in that statement requires "a leap of faith", ie the proposition "that Hitler is not alive and well and living on Mars" is a faith based position then I agree with you, but I think the discussion is pointless. This is what iUseVi is saying in the post above. Personally I find it banal and tedious, but if it floats your boat in that mindset atheism requires faith, but then so does the statement "Dogs exist".

If however you think that atheism requires a leap of faith but disagree that rejecting the notion that Hitler is living on Mars also requires a leap of faith, then I'd be interested in understanding why you think one requires faith and the other doesn't.

Dades

JimiTime wrote: »

Thing is, you are the only one I've ever heard give that definition wicknight. According to steroroid you'd be a 'weak atheist' or an 'agnostic atheist'.

I have heard, and given, that type of definition many times here. The notion of what is an atheist becomes unusable when the definition of God is stretched to be anything from Thor, to a super-intelligent shade of the colour blue. I'm agnostic about something completely unknown to us, but the minute someone attempts to make a claim regarding a single trait of a deity I am 'atheist' to it - unless of course a shred of evidence is offered.

JimiTime wrote: »

strong belief in something, esp. without proof

thats what we're talking about in this context. Its usually the meaning that I as a christian am derided for.

We're back with the onus of proof. I just don't get why should anyone have to have 'faith' that something doesn't exist given a complete lack of evidence.

iUseVi

pH wrote: »

What leap of faith does atheism require? As I said in the previous post atheism requires faith only when dealing the the philosophical view that everything unprovable and nothing is true.

In that world-view there are an infinite number of faith based positions.

Let's say I claim that "Hitler is alive and well and living on Mars". Now I presume that you disagree with my claim. However if you agree that your disbelief in that statement requires "a leap of faith", ie the proposition "that Hitler is not alive and well and living on Mars" is a faith based position then I agree with you, but I think the discussion is pointless.

If however you think that atheism requires a leap of faith but disagree that rejecting the notion that Hitler is living on Mars also requires on then I'd be interested in understanding why you think one requires faith and the other doesn't.

excellently put.

Dades

JimiTime wrote: »

I didn't set up the thread, it was moved from another one. My point is that atheism requires a leap of faith, not that it 'is' a faith. Maybe Ddes can work his magic on it so that its clearer?

Done. All possibilities catered for now!

JimiTime

iUseVi wrote: »

I think probably 99% of atheists would say this. It's not really black and white between agnostic and atheist. Invariably the words get used interchangeably, which doesn't help matters when it comes down to definitions.



Anyone who declares "there is no God" is either stupid, lying, or has information we are not privy to. As it has been said numerous times before, nothing is 100% certain. The very "strong" atheists tend to wheel out their philosophical arguments of there being no God, but IMO people are never going to be able to use words to prove OR disprove the existence of God

So atheists do not believe 'there is no God'.

I view the strong atheists in much the same way as I view religious people. The stance is arrogant because it's just not provable.

As an aside, arguments from personal experience such as talking voices in someone's head, only mean something to that person, and can't be expected to be taken seriously by anyone else.

Now where does the faith come in?!

Well, if an atheist in fact believes that there 'may' be a divine being, intelligent designer etc, then the leap of faith is out the window. However, the dictionary definition is at odds with this, so maybe what you're describing is not actually atheism, but your view on things? Maybe you are mis-describing yourself if you call yourself atheist.

iUseVi

JimiTime wrote: »

Well, if an atheist in fact believes that there 'may' be a divine being, intelligent designer etc, then the leap of faith is out the window. However, the dictionary definition is at odds with this, so maybe what you're describing is not actually atheism, but your view on things? Maybe you are mis-describing yourself if you call yourself atheist.

Probably so, but in that case so are most of the atheists out there. I don't know any that would entirely exclude the possibility and deserves the title of "strong atheism", although it takes all sorts...so I'm sure there is some. And those people probably deserve the word more than I do.

The word "atheist" is just so much more convenient than anything else. When someone asks me about my religious beliefs and I simply reply "atheist", they know exactly what I'm talking about; there's never really any confusion. (although sometimes it makes them angry and they shout and swear at me, but that's an entirely separate subject..:))

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Well, if an atheist in fact believes that there 'may' be a divine being, intelligent designer etc, then the leap of faith is out the window. However, the dictionary definition is at odds with this

You are using the term "god" and any form of intelligent alien agent interchangeable, which is getting quite annoying.

"gods" is a human concept, invented by humans. I can with quite a high degree of confidence, say that gods do not exist.

On the other hand I have no idea if alien intelligence exists, in this universe or outside of it, intelligence that may or may not have created things such as the universe or life on Earth.

What ever may or may not be out there it certainly isn't what we think it is. The concept of a god is a throw back to a time when we believed human like agents controlled things like the weather and the sun.

As someone else said, I don't know what is out there but I know it isn't that.

JimiTime

pH wrote: »

What leap of faith does atheism require? As I said in the previous post atheism requires faith only when dealing the the philosophical view that everything unprovable and nothing is true.

If a definitive view is taken, such as 'I don't believe any gods or divine beings exist' while not knowing the origins of life or the universe, then that is a leap of faith.

In that world-view there are an infinite number of faith based positions.

Let's say I claim that "Hitler is alive and well and living on Mars".

Before we move any further. Give me the evidence of this claim.