Atheism is a faith.

[Huntster]

Belief based on evidence is not faith, by your own admission upthread.

The degree of evidence dictates the level of knowledge in hand, or dictates the level of faith needed to accept the premise.

If the evidence is overwhelming, little faith is required. You "know" with a high level of certainty.

If the evidence is weak, than great faith is required to accept the premise.

It's really that simple.

Since we do not "know" if God exists or not, and there is very little or very weak evidence to establish it either way, greater faith is required to accept God, and some faith is required to state that God doesn't exist.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
I provided all the definitions of "faith" provided as a noun, and highlighted three of them that fit.

I'm not changing squat. Again, I provided all of them, three fit, that is not intellectually dishonest, and you clearly don't like it a bit.

Okay, which one of those three are you going to use consistantly?

All three fit quite well, and I will use all three consistently.

And if you are not going to use one consistantly, the why should anyone be limited to the three you chose?

All that fit are applicable.

How about I choose definition 8, Faith = Christian theology. Atheism is definitely not Christian theology. So there, I've used your dictionary to show you that Atheism is not faith.

No, you have not. What you have done is establish that Christian theology is also a faith, we already knew that, nobody is arguing that, and all is well in the world.

Do you see the problem with shifting definitions in the middle of a discussion like this?

Nope. What I see is you squirming and writhing in great discomfort with the literary fact that atheism is a faith.

 

[Roboramma]

All three fit quite well, and I will use all three consistently.



All that fit are applicable.

I have a bucket. Can you tell me what I mean when I say this?
I might mean any of the following:

bucket:
–noun 1. a deep, cylindrical vessel, usually of metal, plastic, or wood, with a flat bottom and a semicircular bail, for collecting, carrying, or holding water, sand, fruit, etc.; pail.
2. anything resembling or suggesting this.
3. Machinery. a. any of the scoops attached to or forming the endless chain in certain types of conveyors or elevators.
b. the scoop or clamshell of a steam shovel, power shovel, or dredge.
c. a vane or blade of a waterwheel, paddle wheel, water turbine, or the like.

4. (in a dam) a concave surface at the foot of a spillway for deflecting the downward flow of water.
5. a bucketful: a bucket of sand.
6. Basketball. a. Informal. field goal.
b. the part of the keyhole extending from the foul line to the end line.

7. bucket seat.
8. Bowling. a leave of the two, four, five, and eight pins, or the three, five, six, and nine pins.

Now, let's say we start trying to discuss my bucket. If I change definitions mid-conversation, we're not going to get anywhere.
Two (or three) definitions can be for the same word without being for the same concept. So, if you plan on discussing a concept (like faith) stick to one definition.

 

[Dogdoctor]

Atheism is not the opposite of organized religion. Many people believe in god but not organized religion. Absence of organized religion does not equate to atheism. While there may be evidence that some of the things which organized religion says are not true, there could be some kind of power that exists that affects the world that we can't measure. To have strong feelings about the truth of the statement "there is no god(s)" requires faith. Those with the strongest most vehement anti-religious beliefs have faith in their own beliefs. Atheists are not special since they don't believe in god. They can believe in things and have faith in things. The human mind is not entirely logical. However atheism does not require faith for belief.

 

[Sushi]

The degree of evidence dictates the level of knowledge in hand, or dictates the level of faith needed to accept the premise.

If the evidence is overwhelming, little faith is required. You "know" with a high level of certainty.

If the evidence is weak, than great faith is required to accept the premise.

It's really that simple.

Since we do not "know" if God exists or not, and there is very little or very weak evidence to establish it either way, greater faith is required to accept God, and some faith is required to state that God doesn't exist.

One can easily say God doesn't seem to exist (technically, the atheist viewpoint rephrased) in the same sense that the Easter Bunny doesn't seem to exist and one can say so without this "faith".

 

[joobz]

Erm, no. Because you have to show that that was his intent. When we debate, we generally use the 'principle of charity'.

Let's say we are debating in person in a public forum.
Let's say I didn't shower and I'm obese.

If you were to say in one of your comments,
"You are fat and smelly. Your point that A is B is not true because of C."

How does the principle of apply to that? It seems that the first claim (while true) doesn't change the proper arguement. So are we to assume that you are concerned about my health and hygeine? It had nothing to do with the debate. To point out unrelated flaws in the person you are debating but not precisely state that those flaws are related to why the person is wrong reeks of an ethical escape hatch. It doesn't change that the other participants in the open forum may make that connection themselves and therefore be poisoning the well.

 

[Sushi]

Now that seems to be a semantic issue. The well is poisoned through the inferrence. I do not doubt that the OP has been well debated. But to bring in you have bad grammar, you can't spell, oh "these people", while veiled, there is most definitely an attempt to further invalidate my views through those not related negative accusations.

regardless if they are true or not.

Absolute, complete nonsense, and it has nothing to do with "semantics". Using your logic, saying "you're wrong!" would be poisoning the well.

I'm bringing up your grammar because reading your posts (grammar and "reasoning") are like shoving bamboo up my fingernails; you are now starting to read like a teenager that just took a critical reasoning course and is trying to apply the lessons in informal fallacies to everyday life, albiet incorrectly.

This issue has been beaten to death, and the usual outcome of such discussions where people shift words around and claim fallacies with a poor understanding of fallacies or what even makes a fallacy in the first place goes nowhere.

To basically summarize, all workings seem to be "business as it appears" until something else is shown in the works. To compare this to the universe, all workings and phenomenon are how the evidence shows them until we have evidence of something else at play. That doesn't mean we do not think they may exist, but we will basically ignore such descriptions until something shows a necessity to postulate it.

Let me compare this to the workings of a very elaborate ancient machine. You don't know how it works; but when you turn the crank, dials on it move. Now obviously you can assume some things of on the machine based on past experiences with how such things work, as obviously the gears and machinery are inside the machine and not somewhere in Texas or Mars--we don't know such things are possible, and so we limit what we do know is possible at this current time.

Poking and prodding and testing the machine after awhile gives you idea of how it works. We don't think the hand of God is at play, and we don't assume microchips are inside it since they were not invented back then and they are not needed to explain the operation of the machinery.

Is that "faith"? Perhaps we could look inside and maybe we would find microchips and batteries, but at the time we only see gears and a handcrank.

As we can see here, Huntster, whom I assume is unrelated to Joobz, is engaging in word-play as well. Until you can adopt our meanings, this discussion is nothing more than people trying to find ways to use language that seems to invalid our claims even though we are not really discussing the same thing.

 

[drkitten]

As we can see here, Huntster, whom I assume is unrelated to Joobz, is engaging in word-play as well. Until you can adopt our meanings, this discussion is nothing more than people trying to find ways to use language that seems to invalid our claims even though we are not really discussing the same thing.

Well, that sort of follows from the fact that they're both trying to argue in favor of a proposition that is patently false. They have no actual logic or evidence in favor of their position, so the best they can hope for is smoke, mirrors, and sophistry.

And they both know that they're engaging in smoke and mirrors as well. But hypocrisy has always been one of the defining characteristics of theism, so there's nothing new to report there, either.

Basically -- nothing to see, move along.

 

[Sushi]

Let's say we are debating in person in a public forum.
Let's say I didn't shower and I'm obese.

If you were to say in one of your comments,
"You are fat and smelly. Your point that A is B is not true because of C."

How does the principle of apply to that? It seems that the first claim (while true) doesn't change the proper arguement. So are we to assume that you are concerned about my health and hygeine? It had nothing to do with the debate. To point out unrelated flaws in the person you are debating but not precisely state that those flaws are related to why the person is wrong reeks of an ethical escape hatch. It doesn't change that the other participants in the open forum may make that connection themselves and therefore be poisoning the well.

I'm attacking your presentation, points, and reasoning.

Using your "reasoning", you are poisoning the well right now because you are debating my attacks on you and thus trying to insinuate I am wrong because I'm a jerk or because I'm making irrelevent "attacks" on you.

This is silly. If a skinhead came in here and looked like his face was smashed-in with a brick his entire life, and then yelled "THE HOLOCAUST IS A LIE!" I'd say "Wow, not only are you incredibly ugly you are stupid as well", and if I'd bother to debate his nonsense my points would stand alone, although I did make a personal attack on him I was not attacking his arguments through him.

Fallacies are fallacies not necessarily because the person it starts from is using illogical reasoning, but also because other people can be swayed by them for incorrect reasons.

Poisoning the well actually refers to the language one uses about the person's position, which is sort-of a fallacy but its usage doesn't make someone really "wrong" unless one is swayed by the prejudicial language.

Poisoning the well sounds something like, "your position is so naive and foolish! Only a small child in a special education class would come out with an idea like that!" The person may be presumptuous and it may be their position (as hyperbole) that the idea is that ridiculous, which they are free to express, but the fallacy usually is such if someone is swayed into rejecting that position due to the prejudicial language.

Sometimes people are just bitter and insult other people because, well, they're people. The fallacy on their end is when it is intentionally used to sway people, which is not what I've been doing.

Fallacies can be intentional, or they can be on the fault of the listener alone.

 

[I less than three logic]

Anyone who would name themselves after some dish made of raw fish is obviously an idiot. So you can pretty much bet anything they have to say is going to be wrong.

(This was only this for the purpose of illustrating a “poisoning the well” type fallacy. Just thought I’d help. )

 

[joobz]

I'm attacking your presentation, points, and reasoning.

Using your "reasoning", you are poisoning the well right now because you are debating my attacks on you and thus trying to insinuate I am wrong because I'm a jerk or because I'm making irrelevent "attacks" on you.

This is silly. If a skinhead came in here and looked like his face was smashed-in with a brick his entire life, and then yelled "THE HOLOCAUST IS A LIE!" I'd say "Wow, not only are you incredibly ugly you are stupid as well", and if I'd bother to debate his nonsense my points would stand alone, although I did make a personal attack on him I was not attacking his arguments through him. (which would be ad hominem, not poisoning the well--which is what you've actually been meaning)

Fallacies are fallacies not necessarily because the person it starts from is using illogical reasoning, but also because other people can be swayed by them for incorrect reasons.

Poisoning the well actually refers to the language one uses about the person's position, which is sort-of a fallacy but its usage doesn't make someone really "wrong" unless one is swayed by the prejudicial language.

Poisoning the well sounds something like, "your position is so naive and foolish! Only a small child in a special education class would come out with an idea like that!" The person may be presumptuous and it may be their position (as hyperbole) that the idea is that ridiculous, which they are free to express, but the fallacy usually is such if someone is swayed into rejecting that position due to the prejudicial language.

alright ad hom is maybe more accurate than poisoning the well. But when you made the comment of

These people" was just a reference to the kind of riff-raff with your thinking abilities,

How is that not like poisoning the well?

 

[Glen.Nogami]

The degree of evidence dictates the level of knowledge in hand, or dictates the level of faith needed to accept the premise.

If the evidence is overwhelming, little faith is required. You "know" with a high level of certainty.

If the evidence is weak, than great faith is required to accept the premise.

It's really that simple.

Since we do not "know" if God exists or not, and there is very little or very weak evidence to establish it either way, greater faith is required to accept God, and some faith is required to state that God doesn't exist.

Twofold problems with definitions. Your argument is based on a definition of faith that is not religious at all, and your argument is based on a faulty definition of atheism. Correct me if I'm wrong here,folks, but I don't believe that we're saying that god simply, without a doubt, does not exist. We are, instead, saying that there is no evidence for god, and the burden of proof is upon god, and that we will not believe in something without evidence.

 

[drkitten]

How is that not like poisoning the well?

Let's look at the relevant posting (annotated) in full:

Joobz seems to enjoy playing with definitions and terms, despite his poor grammar.

That's not well-poisoning or even ad hominem, but merely an observation that your grammar is (in the writer's opinion) poor.

For example, he's talked about "faith" in a person or thing and "faith" in the religious sense.

This is again an observation.

They're different things; trusting in someone's abilities is far different than belief in certain metaphysical claims.

This is an analysis, leading to the conclusion of a defect in your argument.

He also seems to enjoy redefining "religion" and "atheism" and "belief" to support his opposition to atheism

Again, an observation.

and to desperately try to attach the word "faith" to atheism in order to discredit it.

And again, an observation.

I find these people hard to reason with because not only are they dishonest to others

This is a high order generalization; people who share certain characteristics are likely to share other related ones. Formally fallacious, but inductively legitimate.

but they seem to enjoy misleading themselves because they so desperately want to be right.

More high order generalizations.

Nope. No ad hominem arguments or well-poisoning here. At no point did he suggest that you were incorrect because of your membership in a group; he instead inferred your group membership from your incorrectness

 

[Tricky]

All three fit quite well, and I will use all three consistently.

LOL. Changing definitions in mid-paragraph is what you call "consistant"? My, you have an odd way of using words, Huntster.

All that fit are applicable.

Who decides if they "fit". You?

No, you have not. What you have done is establish that Christian theology is also a faith, we already knew that, nobody is arguing that, and all is well in the world.

No, I have shown that atheism is not faith, because it does not satisfy the defintion of faith, which is "Christian theology". I'm playing by your rules, Huntster. You allow changing definitions if by doing so they support your point.

Nope. What I see is you squirming and writhing in great discomfort with the literary fact that atheism is a faith.

Just hold that picture in your mind, Huntster. I'm sure your daydreams help you get through times when reality won't be what you want it to be.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I'm attacking your presentation, points, and reasoning.

And beyond.

Using your "reasoning", you are poisoning the well right now because you are debating my attacks on you and thus trying to insinuate I am wrong because I'm a jerk or because I'm making irrelevent "attacks" on you.

No he's simply pointing out your immaturity, which is ably demonstrated by your willingness to resort to ad hominem attack when none has been directed at you. He's not claiming that your insults have any bearing on your argument, only that they are unwarranted, irrelevant to the debate and are considered bad form.

This is silly. If a skinhead came in here and looked like his face was smashed-in with a brick his entire life, and then yelled "THE HOLOCAUST IS A LIE!" I'd say "Wow, not only are you incredibly ugly you are stupid as well", and if I'd bother to debate his nonsense my points would stand alone, although I did make a personal attack on him I was not attacking his arguments through him.

Then the statement "Wow, not only are you incredibly ugly, you are stupid as well" would also be a poor tactic. For an example of how a mature, rational person might respond to holocaust denial see chapter 14: How We Know The Holocaust Happened in Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things. And honestly, don't you think that the comparison between Joobz's ideas (which he admits are open to debate and new evidence) and holocaust denial is just a tad bit melodramatic.

Poisoning the well actually refers to the language one uses about the person's position, which is sort-of a fallacy but its usage doesn't make someone really "wrong" unless one is swayed by the prejudicial language.

So, are you admitting that your insults were not meant to prejudice your readers but simply to offend Joobz?

Poisoning the well sounds something like, "your position is so naive and foolish! Only a small child in a special education class would come out with an idea like that!" The person may be presumptuous and it may be their position (as hyperbole) that the idea is that ridiculous, which they are free to express, but the fallacy usually is such if someone is swayed into rejecting that position due to the prejudicial language.

Your quoted example goes beyond a reasonable attack on the opponents position alone. Try it this way: "Only a moron would come out with a position like that." It's still an ad hominem attack even if the speaker really is of the opinion that his opponent is a moron. In a moderated debate you would be penalized for such a statement.

Sometimes people are just bitter and insult other people because, well, they're people. The fallacy on their end is when it is intentionally used to sway people, which is not what I've been doing.

So you are, in fact, just being a jerk? Joobz opened this debate with the intent of discussing matters of interest to him. He's made it clear that he welcomes honest criticism of his position and that said position is not inflexible. You could have taken this as an opportunity to advocate your own position to someone who is willing to listen. You'll note that other members of this forum have politely done just that. But instead you seem intent on merely venturing insult upon someone who does not immediately agree with you in what I can only assume is an immature attempt to declare yourself superior. Ironically, it doesn't make you clever.

 

[H'ethetheth]

No belief that there is a God is the default position. Belief that there is no God is not.

Deep. Care to have a crack at "How can atheism be a belief when it can exist in a Universe without the concept of belief?". Fitted to my previously supplied template.

I'm totally late, but I agree with Rufo here.
Everyone in that universe would constantly be 'not believing in God', or anything else for that matter. But if you would ask them: Do you believe in God, they will not say no. They will say: "Do I what in what now?"
The belief that there is no God cannot exist in a universe without belief.

ETA: Oh! Thus the default position cannot be the belief that there is no God"

 

[Foster Zygote]

Let's look at the relevant posting:

"These people" was just a reference to the kind of riff-raff with your thinking abilities.

This is not what I would call a mature statement. I'm curious to know why you seem determined to defend Sushi's remarks when there are so many other mature responses that make a much better case.

 

[drkitten]

This is not what I would call a mature statement.

There's nothing fallacious about immature postings; joobz is trying to distract the issue from the fact that the Emperor has no clothes.

 

[Jimbo07]

How can you address the TRUTH of something that isn't even well-defined enough for you to understand?

Damn this thread moved fast!

Okay... that's part of my point. I am unable to address the TRUTH of the existence of God, or not. In this case I believe Truth to be irrelevant.

It's fundamentally different from the lack-of-hobby analogy. I have just invented the word groxaploxzy. I assert that a Groxaploxzy exists. You can say that because I told you about my invention a Groxaploxzy did not exist before that. However, that doesn't make you an a-Groxaploxzyist. It's a different debate and the variables are constrained to the universe as we know it. Some definitions of God are not...

An atheist can no more assert the non-existence of God, than a faithful person can assert God's existence, in the same way that neither can satisfactorially answer the whole 'why something rather...' question.

My feeling is that it's an irrelevant question. The same way that seriously debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin is. We don't know, so don't waste time. Where time is better spent is in asking questions like:

- What more can we find out about origins?
- How can we design a new test with greater resolution?
- Is there a way to test theories about the origins of the universe, with the tools we have?

 

[LaPalida]

It doesn't quite work out that way since all the fruit are organized religions. Lack of organized religion does not equate to atheism.

I guess I shoulda thrown in some non-organized religions. I think what I meant by my analogy is that atheism is the lack of belief in a god (not lack of organized religion)... any belief in any god, a god of organized or non-organized religion, monotheistic or pantheistic or polytheistic etc. If fruit = belief in a god (whatever it is that you imagine him to be) then lack of fruit = lack of belief in a god. An empty table is not a fruit, an empty table is not a belief but lack of one. I think that's pretty clear.

Edit: I find that alot of people I talk to on this subject confuse 2 different questions.

1). Do you believe in a god?

2). Do you believe there is/there is not a god?

#1. Is asking you whether or not you hold a belief in a certain deity. Honestly an atheist would answer NO. Because to hold a belief in a deity is already theism.

#2. Is asking you whether or not you think a god exists. An atheist cannot honestly say NO, GOD DOES NOT EXIST because he cannot know for sure and he cannot say YES GOD EXISTS because that would make him a theist. If an atheist answers that question with a certainty then they are holding a belief, if they say that they DON'T KNOW then they are an agnostic atheist.