Atheism is a faith.

[Foster Zygote]

As others have pointed out, atheists are not an homogeneous group. Just as there are a wide variety of Christians ranging from people like Jimmy Carter, whom I would love to meet, to Fred Phelps who nauseates me. It pains me to see atheists being a**holes because I know a lot of people will often come away from that with a bad impression of atheism as a whole. I wonder to myself "what would have happened if I'd met someone like that when I was first questioning the basis of my faith?". Happily, I've encountered many very likable and reasonable atheists here at the JREF as well. These are the people who remind me why I've adopted atheism. So I would only ask that Joobz consider that those rude individuals who espouse atheism do not represent atheism so much as their own "jerkieness".

As to atheism itself: My own position is that there is no way to prove or disprove an immeasurable, purely conceptual being. I'm open to the possibility that there might be something we could call God (or gods) in this universe but there is no evidence of its existence. I also feel that the likelihood of said being's existence is extremely unlikely so I will live my life as though God does not exist. To say that God does not exist with absolute certainty is an irrational statement for the same reason as saying with absolute certainty that God does exist is irrational. But, I do not see the two as equally irrational. If I go to a popular "haunted" house and a bunch of Ghost Hunters fans show me a room that is "particularly haunted" and I look in to see an empty room where they insist there are ghosts we are not making equally faith based assertions of our positions even though I can't prove there are no ghosts any more than they can prove that there are ghosts.

 

[Jimbo07]

As to atheism itself: My own position is that there is no way to prove or disprove an immeasurable, purely conceptual being. I'm open to the possibility that there might be something we could call God (or gods) in this universe but there is no evidence of its existence. I also feel that the likelihood of said being's existence is extremely unlikely so I will live my life as though God does not exist. To say that God does not exist with absolute certainty is an irrational statement for the same reason as saying with absolute certainty that God does exist is irrational. But, I do not see the two as equally irrational. If I go to a popular "haunted" house and a bunch of Ghost Hunters fans show me a room that is "particularly haunted" and I look in to see an empty room where they insist there are ghosts we are not making equally faith based assertions of our positions even though I can't prove there are no ghosts any more than they can prove that there are ghosts.

The only change I'd make is the, "in this universe" bit. I'm confident that there is little evidence of most of the Gods that people espouse in this universe. Now... from whence this universe? I don't know.

Otherwise, ditto.

 

[Almo]

Atheism means "I don't know everything, but I know the steaming pile of nonsense you're selling is wrong."

I have a friend doing the novel writing month. Now that I'm aware of what that means...

Knock it off and go write! HURRY!

 

[Foster Zygote]

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

Somehow I doubt that your response would be much different than Joobz's had someone peppered a criticism of one of your positions with irrelevant, veiled insults. Joobz's response was not a deliberate distraction but rather a response to a personal attack.

 

[nonbeliever]

And bald is a hair-colour.

(Not mine, damn but I wish it was.)

This reminds me of another (also not mine):

Atheism is a religion just like health is a disease.

 

[chriswl]

If anyone is prepared to admit that they regard their disbelief in Santa Claus as requiring faith, then I'll happily concede that I also require this kind of "faith" as a basis for my belief that there is no God.

But I think this would be an odd useage of the word "faith".

 

[Jimbo07]

If anyone is prepared to admit that they regard their disbelief in Santa Claus as requiring faith, then I'll happily concede that I also require this kind of "faith" as a basis for my belief that there is no God.

Okay, this is what I'm having trouble understanding. Satellite photos can reveal that Santa's workshop is not easily identifiable at the north pole. As far as bible stories go, we are free to be skeptical of the idea that human beings turned into pillars of salt or that the sun stopped in the sky.

They're all fairy tales...

... none of which has any bearing on whether there's some incomprehensible being that molded the universe. I don't understand why atheism is not a statement of TRUTH about the universe. I don't understand why, given my disdain for a concept of Truth in questions like this, atheism has anything more to say about reality than theism. Declaring oneself an atheist adds no practical benefit to designing an experimental apparatus, say a particle collider.

 

[joobz]

Thank you for this evaluation. It's quite informative.

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



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

So if he added at the end, desipte his being an american. would be just considered an observation?

This is again an observation.


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


Again, an observation.


And again, an observation.

these I am completely ok with. I agree they are attacking the position taken and highlighting my errors. That is fine (and welcomed) by me.

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


More high order generalizations.

So had I responded to any one of the numerous inoffensive critiques on my position with a statement of:
I find these people hard to reason with becuase not only are they beligerent but they completely dellude themselves into thinking they can't possibly have faith.

that would be ok? that wouldn't be considered an attack, ad hom or otherwise?

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

So if you say something stupid, you must be part of the stupid club.

 

[Sushi]

And beyond.

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.

"Ad hominem" is attacking someone to discredit their argument, which I have not done.

I have hardly attacked him. I maybe have made it somewhat personal; but again, we've seen these arguments here a dozen times, it's been done to death. And I am especially annoyed by people misusing fallacies to somehow try to get ahead in arguments they don't understand.

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.

I never said there was a similarity; there is none. I am explaining another idea.

Sometimes people say things outside of argument not actually AS argument to express annoyance or disdain. I doubt you'd be slitting your wrists over me insulting a neo-nazi before I refuted his claims.

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

As far as insults go they were rather tame; I doubt he'll be slitting his wrists over them. As I already expressed, his "sort" make these topics with the same arguments, and they shift definitions and goalposts constantly so they'll never be wrong.

Sometimes people express disdain or annoyance, get over it.

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.

No, that was be poisoning the well, which is similar to an ad hominem attack.

And yes, it was sort of an attack on the person; given that this topic is the same-old same-old that we've seen here a million times before and they just never "get" it--maybe they don't want to.

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.

Everyone says that.

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.

*I* haven't been the only one trying to explain to him simple concepts. Do you remember Franko? Some people just don't get it, and aren't worth the time.

If someone debates by shifting definitions around, they are going to take heat for it. Maybe somewhat in the personal area, too, because there is nothing more annoying than trying to be right by playing with definitions.

And that is what he is doing.

Additionally, part of my motivation is from some of his past posts. He doesn't understand; doesn't WANT to understand, and no discussion is going to make him understand.

Take this thread, for instance. He does the same thing with trying to falsely call out the "no true scotsman" fallacy, I assume in order to sound wizened in the way of rational debate.

He continually misrepresents what people say; drawing conclusions that no rational human being would. Right after miscalling "no true scotsman" he says...

because some religions are wrong, they all must be and any future version must be? should we place the same view on science? Becuase past theories are wrong they all are? I'm not claiming 1 faith is the true faith, but rather there are faiths that do not infringe on others and therefore are not as destructable as you seem to think.

..which was in response to someone explaining why they find the Abrahamic religions reprehensible.

Here are some other statements:

Obviously, it was making fun of the extremists of each group. I thought the notion of some athiests sitting arround crapping out of their mouth to be somewhat accurate.

"Athiests" sitting arround crapping out of their mouths to be somewhat accurate? ANY position will have people saying stupid thinks, no matter how many rational arguments actually CAN be made for it. It's saying nothing; South Park's statement about atheists/atheism is pretty obvious and I think joobz has a similar belief.

my claim isn't that theism is better than atheism, but rather atheism is really just a type of theism.

A few more:

Call it what you will, Polaris, but your atheism IS your Faith. I'm not calling all atheists zealots, only ones who behave as you.

(Polaris did nothing "zealous", go check yourself)

Faith (no faith is still a faith) can always be used to start wars or cause problems. That's a problem with humanity not with religion. The assumption that the un-cola of religion is any better sounds as naive as a stoner claiming that if everyone smokes pot the world would know world peace.

"No Faith is still faith" <---wordplay, makes no sense

 

[chriswl]

Okay, this is what I'm having trouble understanding. Satellite photos can reveal that Santa's workshop is not easily identifiable at the north pole.

Oh silly you! It's a magic factory. You'd need a special, magic camera to see that!

... none of which has any bearing on whether there's some incomprehensible being that molded the universe.

How can something be said to exist and yet be incomprehensible? Not just that we don't actually understand it but that we never could. What does that mean, what kind of a thing are we talking about here and why should I take its existence seriously?

Santa Claus's ability to visit every child in the Western world in one night (and never be seen) is also incomprehensible. This is a strong argument for his non-existence.

I don't understand why atheism is not a statement of TRUTH about the universe.

In a sense it is, what's your point? (all my remarks here are about hard-atheism).

I don't understand why, given my disdain for a concept of Truth in questions like this, atheism has anything more to say about reality than theism. Declaring oneself an atheist adds no practical benefit to designing an experimental apparatus, say a particle collider.

No it doesn't. And...

 

[drkitten]

So had I responded to any one of the numerous inoffensive critiques on my position with a statement of:
I find these people hard to reason with becuase not only are they beligerent but they completely dellude themselves into thinking they can't possibly have faith.

that would be ok? that wouldn't be considered an attack, ad hom or otherwise?

Nope. It would simply be a stupid statement on your part that would cause you to lose a lot of credibility. But on the other hand, if I had responded to your stupid statement by going completely off my trolley and screaming like a fishwife about poisoned wells, I'd have lost a lot more.

So if you say something stupid, you must be part of the stupid club.

If you feel comfortable making that generalization. As I said, argument by generalization is formally fallacious, but often inductively legitimate. Certainly if you wear an Arsenal jersey, I can infer that you're an Arsenal supporter (like the rest of the people in the stadium with Arsenal jerseys on). On the other hand, since there's not that much evidence that "the stupid club" exists for me to be part of, you might want to tread a little lightly on that particular generalization.

Basically, Sushi laid an easy and somewhat puerile trap for you and you walked into it with your eyes wide shut. My sympathies are (ahem) rather limited.

 

[Jon.]

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.

So far, so good.

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.

Here's where the problems start. You seem to be saying that rejecting the premise for which evidence is weak (or non-existent, as the case may be) also requires great faith. If this is so, then it would be impossible to take a position on any matter not conclusively proven to be true without having faith. This renders the concept of faith completely meaningless, and definitely not a fit companion for hope and charity.

 

[Foster Zygote]

"Ad hominem" is attacking someone to discredit their argument, which I have not done.

If not to discredit his argument then why have you done it? Was I just to be personally insulting? You most certainly have engaged in unwarranted insult against someone who had offered you no personal offense. If you had approached the issue in a mature way as have, for example, Dunstan and Roboramma, you might have accomplished something intellectually. You'll note that Joobz has responded positively to a number of points they've made. But you had to come out swinging and making sure that Joobz new just how much contempt you had for "riff-raff" like him and so you've accomplished nothing.

I have nothing more to say to you.

 

[Sushi]

Basically, Sushi laid an easy and somewhat puerile trap for you and you walked into it with your eyes wide shut. My sympathies are (ahem) rather limited.

I meant to lay no trap for him; I would like a lot for him to wisen up and start posting...sense.

I'm a rather grouchy person and after seeing these kind of "debates" for years I've lost a lot of what little patience I was born with.

If not to discredit his argument then why have you done it? Was I just to be personally insulting? You most certainly have engaged in unwarranted insult against someone who had offered you no personal offense. If you had approached the issue in a mature way as have, for example, Dunstan and Roboramma, you might have accomplished something intellectually. You'll note that Joobz has responded positively to a number of points they've made. But you had to come out swinging and making sure that Joobz new just how much contempt you had for "riff-raff" like him and so you've accomplished nothing.

I have nothing more to say to you.

I've already explained, although I really have no need to. It annoys me, and it is how to end up expressing annoyance. If he takes offense or not, I do not really care. These debates just end up pages long with either the thread starter still not grasping their opponents' arguments or on some other random tangent, both with the same outcome: no one has changed their mind.

I've still addressed his points, because I hate seeing these arguments, no matter how much time I've already wasted with similar arguments elsewhere. Perhaps that is where my irrationality lies: responding when I know it will have no effect.

My statement of "riff-raff" about his "thinking abilities" was due to his idiotic (and yes, I am saying idiotic HERE) tangent about focusing on a nonaggressive, non-rude phrase ("I find these people hard to reason with", referring to the people who start these discussions) and poisoning wells. You'll have to excuse me if I'm not patient about THAT.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Basically, Sushi laid an easy and somewhat puerile trap for you and you walked into it with your eyes wide shut. My sympathies are (ahem) rather limited.

Don't you think that's a bit of a stretch? It seemed an awful lot more like puerile insult than a carefully and deviously laid snare.

 

[drkitten]

Don't you think that's a bit of a stretch? It seemed an awful lot more like puerile insult than a carefully and deviously laid snare.

"If you can't stand the heat,...."

 

[Sushi]

Don't you think that's a bit of a stretch? It seemed an awful lot more like puerile insult than a carefully and deviously laid snare.

STOP POISONING MY WELL WITH THE WORD PUERILE!

 

[CapelDodger]

i have no horse in this race, but why not give him athesim, which Websters claims is a doctrine (and requires the concept of deity)

Merriam-Webster: the doctrine that there is no deity

and fall back on the more skeptically inclined agnostic

Merriam-Webster: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable

(hopefully i did not miss this point made earlier in the thread!)

I'm not an agnostic, I'm an atheist. Atheism isn't a doctrine it's a recognition, as in "Atheism : the recognition that all religious and supernatural claims are products of the human imagination and have no basis in reality". That's an extension from those claims which I've actually come across, all of which are clearly made up, but given how many of those there are it seems a reasonable one.

 

[Euromutt]

Until somebody manages to refute the points Piggy made in the thread "Proof of strong atheism," claims that "atheism is/requires faith" don't merit being taken seriously.

 

[CapelDodger]

I started the thread to stop the derailing of other threads that was happening. I was trying to be a "good samaritan". But I guess no good deed...

Whatever reason you started it for you still made a nonsense of it. I'm an avowed atheist, and also make often make posts dismissing, not to say belittling, faith. By declaring that "Atheism is a faith" you are accusing me of hypocrisy. Quite wantonly.

As to adolescent? And I find the abusive arrogance you like to bring to the table nothing more than a childish attempt to seem important. I admit bringing humor to conversations and attempted to derail the intellectual strong arming that seems to occur.

My humourlessness is legendary. What you refer to as strong-arming is in fact rigour. IMO waffle is best met by precision, otherwise all that results is an endless walz around the Necropolis.

Perhaps i'll back down on atheism being a faith but i think you demonstrated quite well the potential abuse that can occur in the name of a form of atheism.

I didn't notice that latter come up, I'm just addressing the "Atheism is a faith" canard. If you concede that, my work here is done. What the latter part actually means I can't fathom. Arrogance I'll confess to, but abusive? Ungenerous, OK. Upon review I realise that my exasperation has leaked through in some previous posts, which is bad form. Mea culpa.

Did you mean the conundrum you posted in your first comment? I thought I addressed it. It might not be good, but I didn't ignore it like you claim.

Had you addressed it to me, or used my proper handle (CapelDodger, no space, "Find" cares about such things) I would have noticed.

Jeez, one at a time people.

Ok, I get the default position arguement. this goes inline with capel dodger's post.


Atheism can exist in the realm where not concept of a god exists.

Do what now? I'll assume you don't proof, and that the "not" is meant to be "no". If I err, please apprise me. I, of course, didn't mention god I mentioned religion, which you'd also claimed as a property of atheism. Precision, dear boy. You'll not prosper without it.

Yet, that is not the world we live in. It is, in a similar fashion, like the notion of a vacuum. A vacuum is where no matter exists. yet a vacuum doesn't truly exist in our universe. Even in deep space, it's just an area of extremely low pressure.

Pressure is zero when the particles in a volume have no influence on each other, and in deep space that applies. Particle density outside gas-clouds is one or two per cubic metre, far too diffuse for them to interact. Just an observation.

So is atheism.

No it isn't.

You may reject the notion of a god. You may find it wholey illogical with your world view based upon the self consistent notions of the world we live in. But to claim that there is no faith in that view can not be true.

Why not? Because you've thought up a peculiar analogy? Rigour, dear boy. You'll not prosper without it.

You can add "condescending" to my failings, no problem. When you can add "abusive" you'll know it. Ask anybody.