Atheism is a faith.

[thaiboxerken]

From Hunster's quote of dictionary.com.

Faith: 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion

Yep, we can do this as many times as you'd like. In the context of this thread, religious faith is the type of "faith" that is being discussed, not any of the other definitions you've highlighted. But you already know this, and would prefer to discuss this at a dishonest level and equivocate definitions as you see fit.

 

[Huntster]

Hunster, please realise there is a difference between the following three statements:
1) I do not believe a god exists.
2) I believe no god exists.
3) I believe no god exists, because of a lack of evidence, and I require evidence to believe in anything.

One of those statements is faith-based, the other two are not. Can you spot the difference?

Nope. You're trying to create a difference, but you fail miserably, because all three statements have a unifying word; believe.

ETA: Oh, and Huntster? Have you ever heard of the informal fallacy "argument from definition"?

Oh, I'm sure I'm going to hear a lot about it soon.

 

[Huntster]

From Hunster's quote of dictionary.com.

Faith: 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion

Yep, we can do this as many times as you'd like.

Please do. That is my favorite definition of faith. It's the one that I identify with the most.

However, it certainly isn't the only one, as the dictionary so clearly illustrates.

 

[thaiboxerken]

In the context of this thread, it's the only definition that matters. Atheists do not have faith, according to that definition. Now feel free to go to mass and pretend to eat man-flesh.

 

[Taffer]

Nope. You're trying to create a difference, but you fail miserably, because all three statements have a unifying word; believe.

Completely, utterly, false. The fact that you try to claim this shows me you are dishonest in your argument. A word is a word, not an argument. Try understanding the meaning of each of the three statements and then you might understand. If you need help telling the difference, I'll be happy to explain it to you.

Oh, I'm sure I'm going to hear a lot about it soon.

You have been told more times then I can count why this is a fallacy, Huntster, yet you continue to stick to it. When are you going to listen?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
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.

I'm not changing anything. Nor will you.

Originally Posted by Huntster
All that fit are applicable.

Who decides if they "fit". You?

The definition itself.

Originally Posted by Huntster
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".

Christian theology isn't the only definition of faith. In fact, it isn't even the first. Again:

–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

I'm playing by your rules, Huntster. You allow changing definitions if by doing so they support your point.

Again, they don't change. They include. Christian theology is a faith. So is "confidence or trust in a person or thing", "belief that is not based on proof", and "belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc."

Originally Posted by Huntster
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.

I don't need to hold it in my mind. I'm quite "faithful" that you and yours will continue to try to escape this reality with great consternation, allowing me to continue to pound the painful truth home.

It would be best to leave it alone. The pain will go away soon.

 

[Huntster]

....Now feel free to go to mass and pretend to eat man-flesh.

That fact of the matter is that my hunger is being slaked right now.

I'm eating your silly ass up, yet you're going to continue to feed me, because you just can't stand the truth.

 

[Huntster]

Completely, utterly, false. The fact that you try to claim this shows me you are dishonest in your argument.

I'm the dishonest one?

Do you deny the word "believe" was in each and every one of the example sentences you offered?

You have been told more times then I can count why this is a fallacy, Huntster, yet you continue to stick to it. When are you going to listen?

To you?

When you are correct.

 

[Polaris]

Polaris, I thank you for your retraction. I admit that I heavy handedly labeled you as zealous and I was wrong.

Hey, no hard feelings.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
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.

Originally Posted by Huntster
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.

Nope. I clearly wrote (and highlighted):

....and some faith is required to state that God doesn't exist.

I did not write that "great faith" was required.

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.

That is correct. If you are like Tricky (who actually tried to argue that there is no such concept as "proof"), you are literally dripping in faith, unless you take no position of certainty at all.

This renders the concept of faith completely meaningless, and definitely not a fit companion for hope and charity.

Incorrect. Again, depending on the amount and strength of evidence, faith increases or subsides. This makes faith as important as Christ illustrated, even for everyday life.

 

[Taffer]

I'm the dishonest one?

Yes.

Do you deny the word "believe" was in each and every one of the example sentences you offered?

Of course not. I used the word "believe". It is you who is dishonestly playing with definitions and playing semantics, and not debating the substance of my post.

To you?

To anyone.

When you are correct.

We have clearly explained multiple times why you are performing a fallacy. We have clearly shown that it is true. It is you who refuses to listen, and continues to play with definitions and with semantics. I find it hard to believe you will ever listen to us, but one can always hope.

 

[I less than three logic]

I'm the dishonest one?

Do you deny the word "believe" was in each and every one of the example sentences you offered?

Easily remedied.

Hunster, please realise there is a difference between the following three statements:
1) I do not think a god exists.
2) I think no god exists.
3) I think no god exists, because of a lack of evidence, and I require evidence to hold the opinion that in anything exists.

Didn't change the meaning any, and now we're not using faith... right? Didn't use believe.

 

[Taffer]

Easily remedied.

Hunster, please realise there is a difference between the following three statements:
1) I do not think a god exists.
2) I think no god exists.
3) I think no god exists, because of a lack of evidence, and I require evidence to hold the opinion that in anything exists.

Didn't change the meaning any, and not we're not using faith... right? Didn't use believe.

Thank you I <3 Logic.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
I'm the dishonest one?

Yes.

Please establish how that is so, so I can destroy that excuse as well.

Quote:
Do you deny the word "believe" was in each and every one of the example sentences you offered?

Of course not. I used the word "believe". It is you who is dishonestly playing with definitions and playing semantics, and not debating the substance of my post.

You are trying to escape the fact that you cannot know if God does not exist, thus you are rendered to believe that is the case.

That is addressing the substance and very foundation of your post and position.

Quote:
To you?

To anyone.

I will listen to anyone who is correct.

You are not.

Quote:
When you are correct.

We have clearly explained multiple times why you are performing a fallacy.

And I reject your attempt to escape the facts with that excuse.

We have clearly shown that it is true.

You have not shown anything. I have shown, several times, and with the definitions of several different words (including the word "atheist" itself) that belief, or faith is a required component.

Others in this thread have offered the escape of agnosticism, however it doesn't appear that many want to take that honorable route (why, I don't know).

It is you who refuses to listen, and continues to play with definitions and with semantics. I find it hard to believe you will ever listen to us, but one can always hope.

As long as you are so clearly incorrect, I will not "listen" to you.

 

[Taffer]

Please establish how that is so, so I can destroy that excuse as well.

"Destroy"? I have already explained this to you. If you are so egotistical to think you have "destroyed" anything, then far be it from me to tell you you are wrong.

You are trying to escape the fact that you cannot know if God does not exist, thus you are rendered to believe that is the case.

That is addressing the substance and very foundation of your post and position.

Only one of the positions I posted stated an affirmative belief in the absense of a god. Try again.

I will listen to anyone who is correct.

You are not.

If you say so.

And I reject your attempt to escape the facts with that excuse.

It is a fallacy, not an excuse. Perhaps you should look up the definition of "fallacy" as well, so you know what it means.

You have not shown anything. I have shown, several times, and with the definitions of several different words (including the word "atheist" itself) that belief, or faith is a required component.

Others in this thread have offered the escape of agnosticism, however it doesn't appear that many want to take that honorable route (why, I don't know).

You are arguing from definition, yet again. You claim that atheism is from faith, and we should be 'agnostic'. But that is from your definition of atheism. This is why arguing from definition is a fallacy.

As long as you are so clearly incorrect, I will not "listen" to you.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
I'm the dishonest one?

Do you deny the word "believe" was in each and every one of the example sentences you offered?

Easily remedied.

Hunster, please realise there is a difference between the following three statements:
1) I do not think a god exists.
2) I think no god exists.
3) I think no god exists, because of a lack of evidence, and I require evidence to hold the opinion that in anything exists.

Didn't change the meaning any, and now we're not using faith... right? Didn't use believe.

Yup. That ought to make many here a bit more comfortable............

A bit:

–verb (used without object)
1. to have a conscious mind, to some extent of reasoning, remembering experiences, making rational decisions, etc.
2. to employ one's mind rationally and objectively in evaluating or dealing with a given situation: Think carefully before you begin.
3. to have a certain thing as the subject of one's thoughts: I was thinking about you. We could think of nothing else.
4. to call something to one's conscious mind: I couldn't think of his phone number.
5. to consider something as a possible action, choice, etc.: She thought about cutting her hair.
6. to invent or conceive of something: We thought of a new plan.
7. to have consideration or regard for someone: Think of others first.
8. to esteem a person or thing as indicated: to think badly of someone.
9. to have a belief or opinion as indicated: I think so.
10. (of a device or machine, esp. a computer) to use artificial intelligence to perform an activity analogous to human thought.
–verb (used with object) 11. to have or form in the mind as an idea, conception, etc.
12. to consider for evaluation or for possible action upon: Think the deal over.
13. to regard as specified: He thought me unkind.
14. to believe to be true of someone or something: to think evil of the neighbors.
15. to analyze or evolve rationally: to think the problem out.
16. to have as a plan or intention: I thought that I would go.
17. to anticipate or expect: I did not think to find you here.
–adjective 18. of or pertaining to thinking or thought.
19. Informal. stimulating or challenging to the intellect or mind: the think book of the year. Compare think piece.

Therefore, an atheist should think there is no God.

But, atheism is still a doctrine or belief:

–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

And that was the subject of the thread, wasn't it?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Please establish how that is so, so I can destroy that excuse as well.

"Destroy"? I have already explained this to you.

You made an unsupported statement. You established nothing.

Quote:
You are trying to escape the fact that you cannot know if God does not exist, thus you are rendered to believe that is the case.

That is addressing the substance and very foundation of your post and position.

Only one of the positions I posted stated an affirmative belief in the absense of a god. Try again.

One does not need to believe in an affirmative. One can also believe in the negative.

It is belief nonetheless, because it is unknown.

Quote:
I will listen to anyone who is correct.

You are not.

If you say so.

I do, you agree, thus it is so.

Quote:
And I reject your attempt to escape the facts with that excuse.

It is a fallacy, not an excuse. Perhaps you should look up the definition of "fallacy" as well, so you know what it means.

Okay:

–noun, plural -cies. 1. a deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief, etc.: That the world is flat was at one time a popular fallacy.
2. a misleading or unsound argument.
3. deceptive, misleading, or false nature; erroneousness.
4. Logic. any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound.
5. Obsolete. deception.

Since I supported my position with the definitions of "faith" and "atheism", I did not "mislead", I was not "unsound", I was not "deceptive, misleading, or of false nature", and I was "logical."

You have offered nothing to support your faulty position but your own words, which I have pointed out to be inaccurate or outright wrong.

Give me some evidence of the "fallacy" of my argument.

Quote:
You have not shown anything. I have shown, several times, and with the definitions of several different words (including the word "atheist" itself) that belief, or faith is a required component.

Others in this thread have offered the escape of agnosticism, however it doesn't appear that many want to take that honorable route (why, I don't know).

You are arguing from definition, yet again. You claim that atheism is from faith, and we should be 'agnostic'. But that is from your definition of atheism. This is why arguing from definition is a fallacy.

Are you blind? Have you not reviewed the links that I cited?

Those are not "my" definitions. They were cited in their entirety and linked to dictionary.com.

Again, you have offered nothing to support your words but more of your words, with no supporting evidence whatsoever.

 

[Taffer]

Repeat after me, Huntster, "I will not argue from definition and I will not play semantic games".

 

[I less than three logic]

And that was the subject of the thread, wasn't it?

No, the thread is about atheism being a faith, not a belief. They do not necessarily mean the same thing. Apparently you only know how to read the dictionary literally, but the difference between connotation and denotation continues to escape you. You seem to think that all beliefs are faith, yet belief also means just to hold an opinion. So therefore, all opinions must be a faith as well. This is just nonsense.

 

[Huntster]

Repeat after me, Huntster, "I will not argue from definition and I will not play semantic games".

No.

Start doing your research in order to support your lame position.