Atheism is a faith.

Huntster said:
Atheism is active in denial. It openly states that "there is no God or spirituality." It is an active position, one of denial.
Click to expand...

Before an atheist can deny God or spirituality that atheist must have faith that they exist. If they never had faith that they exist then there is nothing to deny. In other words if an atheist looks at the world and see nothing supernatural, there is no active denial involved and instead there are unsupported claims of existence which are dismissed as unsupported claims.
 
Huntster said:
Clear is clear. It is colorless. It is neither red, yellow, purple, green, or any other color ever considered. It is colorless.
Click to expand...
You are boxing yourself in, restricting yourself to rules which do not exist.

Here is an example. A kindergartner teacher asks the class to point out anything in the room that is not red.

The first student says the white board. The teacher agrees, the white board is white and it is in the room.

The next says his pencil. The teacher agrees, the pencil is yellow, and it is in the room.

The third student says her notebook. The teacher agrees, the notebook is green, and it is in the room.

The fourth says the air. Do you agree? Is the air red? The air is in the room. However, it isn't a color, but the question wasn't to name a color other than red, but anything that is "not red" and in the room. The air, to me, fits that description, the student was correct.
 
Dragonrock said:
, to assume there is nothing out there is the default position. Anything else requires proof.
Click to expand...

What's your proof that nothing is out there? You believe that because you are saying "no thing is out there" that suddenly nothing becomes not a claim?

Why do policemen pat down people and look in their pockets? You'd think that they'd just assume there is nothing there.

The actual "default" position is that we simply don't know and can't say for sure what is out there.
 
Tricky said:
Originally Posted by Huntster
Originally Posted by Huntster
Appropriate to the fact that the definition of "religion" actually demonstrates that "atheism" is a religion.

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas
Except that it doesn't. All you have shown is an ability to interpret text through your own biases to assume something which says nothing at all relevant bolsters your own opinion. Not all that impressive a feat.
Click to expand...

Anybody out there get this? I know there is.

I can use some help here.
Click to expand...
He disagrees with you.
Click to expand...

I understand that.

I'm seeking help in penetrating the hardness of heart.

Refers to your selection and changing of the definitions you use (bias) and assuming (using your own beliefs as assumptions to interpret the posts of others) resulting in (deliberate?) misunderstanding of what they have said.
Click to expand...

I do not select or change. The language is defined by authority above you and I. I change nothing.

This is a fairly common technique among believers on these boards, even those less clever than you.
Click to expand...

Show me.

There you go. Maybe you ought to try some of that learning that is not based on repetition. It really is an enormous boon to reading comprehension.
Click to expand...

Show me.

You're welcome.
Click to expand...

I haven't thanked you for anything.

However, your use of color is "colorful", but it hasn't been beneficial to the debate. The parables of color (in text) between me and <3 has been a good attempt at breaking impasse.

But, of course, that isn't your goal............
 
drkitten said:
Faith is belief without evidence. We have ample evidence that nothing is out there.
Click to expand...
I don't know if there is anything out there. I don't know if it's actually knowable. The evidence I have for this is the failure of anybody who can demonstrate that they know to show up.
 
Ten pages in three days or so. Way to generate traffic, joobz. Remember what I said about attracting the big beasts with such a come-****-me thread title? They bring with them their feuds and one will be Huntster (he's sort of the forum's Higgs boson) and a multi-faceted mudfight will ensue to no particular purpose.
 
drkitten said:
Faith is belief without evidence. We have ample evidence that nothing is out there.
Click to expand...

Strictly speaking, don't we have ample evidence that nothing need be out there, in terms of specific astronomical cases (i.e. no hand of God keeping planets apart)?

Do we have even a shred of evidence that nothing is out there?

We don't have proof. But only mathematicians can demand proof.
Click to expand...

Right. And that's why I'm back to my whole song and dance about atheism being a (substitute for) faith, Truth is an artificial construct, no practical consequences, blah blah blah...
 
Jimbo07 said:
Strictly speaking, don't we have ample evidence that nothing need be out there, in terms of specific astronomical cases (i.e. no hand of God keeping planets apart)?

Do we have even a shred of evidence that nothing is out there?
Click to expand...

That's a good question. Depending on what we hypothesize "something" to be, it can be difficult to say that we have evidence of its absence. I'd say that we certainly have a state of affairs in which it is not unreasonable not to believe that there is something out there, which is at least theoretically different from believing that there is nothing.
 
Huntster said:
That is incorrect. Zero is agnosticism. Atheism is some degree of the negative. Zero requires no faith. The positive and negative do, because it cannot be known. Zero is the default.
Click to expand...
I disagree. So let me ask this first:

1. You're saying that "Not holding a particular belief is a belief in itself". Is that correct? If not what does it mean to "not hold a particular belief"? Is there ever a time when one can hold no beliefs about a particular subject? If so what would you call that?

2. What's the difference between a) a lack of belief in something because you've never heard of it, b) a lack of belief in something because there is no evidence for it and, c) lack of belief in something without knowing everything, d) a lack of belief in something because one is not capable of holding one?
 
Last edited:
I less than three logic said:
Agreed. Try substituting one for the other while baking. ;)
Click to expand...

It's all in the context of practical application:

Strawberry and Raspberry jam are both spreads for toast and have similarities. Margarine, although different in many ways, also makes an enjoyable spread for toast!
 
Marquis de Carabas said:
Then I'll spell it out for you...

Atheism, as defined above, is a position (a doctrine, a belief, call it what you will) on a single question: the existence or non-existence of God.

So, let's look at the definitions of religion you highlighted...

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe
So, religion is concerned with the universe and what it's for, not God, which is what atheism is concerned with.
Click to expand...

Since the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe is the central foundation of many religions (certainly Christianity, not to mention the cultural war between Christianity and Evolutionists in the public arena), God is involved deeply. Atheism denies God. Atheism is anti-God. Atheism, by default, is concerned "with the universe".

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
This definition is merely for the picking out of the common ground among various sects of a religion as given in (1). Unless something can be classed by (1) as a religion--as atheism cannot--this is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

It most certainly is not irrelevant. Atheism is "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects', and what's more, it is apparent on this very thread that atheists have their own sects among the faith.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

Atheists share (by definition) one belief, and no practices. Again, it fails.
Click to expand...

By admission, you agree that "atheists share (by definition) one belief..."

Therefore, it holds. There is "a body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs......."

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
This one is essentially metaphor. I can't believe you seriously highlighted it.
Click to expand...

You believe there is no God. That is the central theme of atheism.

You believe.

7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
And, um, what religious rites do atheists have again?
Click to expand...

No rites. Just religion.

So you see, your highlighted entries completely fail to show that atheism is a religion.
Click to expand...

Quite the contrary. In fact, your words confirm it.

That you believe it did show this, I can only conclude that you are so blinded by your bias that it affects your ability to read and comprehend dictionaries, believing them to support you when they do not.
Click to expand...

John 9: 39-41

Then Jesus said, "I came into this world for judgment, so that those who do not see might see, and those who do see might become blind." Some of the Pharisees who were with him heard this and said to him, "Surely we are not also blind, are we?" Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you are saying, 'We see,' so your sin remains.
Click to expand...
 
Jimbo07 said:
Do we have even a shred of evidence that nothing is out there?
Click to expand...

Yes. Posted upthread.

Basically, enough claims of religion have been proven demonstrably incorrect that we can reasonably infer that the rest is probably incorrect. You don't need to eat an entire apple to know that it's rotten.
 
Tricky said:
Using my own words:

Belief - acceptance that a proposition is true. May be based on evidence, indoctrination, or anything else.

Faith - acceptance that a proposition is true without evidence.

Funk and Wagnalls may not agree, but that will be the way I will consistantly use them so that you won't be confused.
Click to expand...

And your words are more valid than Funk & Wagnall's...............why?
 
I less than three logic said:
Originally Posted by Huntster
Please carefully illustrate the difference between "belief" and "faith".
Click to expand...
To use the one both you and hammegk agree with on, the belief that thought exist, according to both of you is not faith. There is irrefutable evidence for ourselves that thought exists. We accept it as true. We believe it is true.
Click to expand...

No, we know it to be true. 100% It's undeniable. It is known.

Tricky stated it well, belief is the acceptance of something. It is to hold an opinion. It is to think it is correct.
Click to expand...

So, atheism is a "belief"?

Faith is to do so without sufficient or any evidence.
Click to expand...

So, why can't atheism be a "faith"? What evidence do you have that God does not exist?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom