Atheism is a faith.

[Huntster]

I hope you will not mind a small revision, Tricky.

Quote:
Faith - acceptance that a proposition is true without evidence and/or in the face of contrary evidence

Please point out "contrary evidence" of the existence of God/spirituality, then point out where such a definition is recorded in any dictionary existing.

 

[Jimbo07]

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.

Hmm...

I've never been satisfied with this, especially when it comes to knowledge of the universe. IIRC Piggy was a fan of this line as well. Something to the effect of, "Since humans have been telling fairy tales for thousands of years, we know that God (or any substitute of the week) cannot exist."

My feeling is that the only reliable piece of knowledge you can take away from this is that people tell stories and even lie. So what? That would have no bearing on whether the universe had some sort of... oh geez I don't know what to say without getting into an inescapable box... um... some sort of supernatural thingy. The fact of the existence or non-existence of some supernatural thingy is quite beyond what humans do or do not believe... same as Pluto. It was there before it was observed, before humans had any knowledge of it. It could be argued that at some point in the past, people would have been fair to assume its non-existence!

I think what I'm verbally crusading for is to have weak atheism absorbed into agnosticism, rather than vice-versa, which I <3 seems to be doing.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Atheism is active in denial. It openly states that "there is no God or spirituality." It is an active position, one of denial.

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.

Exactly. That is the precise definition that is listed in the dictionary, in not-so-many-words.

In other words, atheism is a religion, it requires faith in it's denial, and that is the meaning of the word.

 

[Tricky]

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

Heart? You're making an emotional argument?

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

I will try once again to rattle the bb. Words have more than one definition. (The ones you gave had numbers by them so you would know this.) When discussing a topic, you should stick to one definition. For some words, the multiple definitions are opposites of each other. Here are some examples:

screen - Can mean either to show or to hide
sanction - Can mean either to approve or to punish
clip - can mean to cut or to join
dust - can mean to spread dust or to remove dust
weather - can mean to endure or to wear away
dispense - can mean to hand out or to get rid of
overlook - can mean to ignore or to look at.

So you can see that when discussing something, you should stick to a single, agreed upon meaning. That is why I asked you to pick one of the eight definitions of "faith" that you gave and we'll use that one. To swap definitions when you know full well that it means something different is intellectually dishonest.

Show me.

Here's an old thread dealing with the same question.

I haven't thanked you for anything.

I know. I just assumed you would since I did as you requested. Where are your manners?

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.

I thought using color might help your comprehension. I don't feel like using your preferred mechanism of learning of repeating it until you understand.

But, of course, that isn't your goal.

My goal it to try to explain my position and show good reasoning why I hold that position. That and to make jokes and have fun.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Clear is clear. It is colorless. It is neither red, yellow, purple, green, or any other color ever considered. It is colorless.

You are boxing yourself in, restricting yourself to rules which do not exist.

I've been "boxed in" from the start by the limits of language, and I don't deny it. You've been wild with the language, trying to write your own, and I won't allow it.

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.

God is not red. Depending on the theist religion, He is every color under the rainbow.

The teacher asked the wrong question (if she didn't like the answer of "the air")

What you are doing (according to the definition of "atheist") is hotly denying that the color "red" exists.

Now, if you're arguing that "color" doesn't exist, that's an entirely different debate, and one, I might add, that is easier to defeat. That is why I believe you're fighting so hard to stay here with the definition of "red".

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Dragonrock
, to assume there is nothing out there is the default position. Anything else requires proof.

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.

Thank you, T'ai Chi.

 

[LaPalida]

Exactly. That is the precise definition that is listed in the dictionary, in not-so-many-words.

In other words, atheism is a religion, it requires faith in it's denial, and that is the meaning of the word.

So a person who's never even heard of God (thus holds no belief in God) as a concept is what according to you?

 

[Jimbo07]

So a person who's never even heard of God (thus holds no belief in God) as a concept is what according to you?

For me at least, they'd fall into the agnostic position. No knowledge... not even about what's under discussion. A God would first have to be explained to them. Pragmatic problem: can you find a person who has developed language skills in their own culture, and never heard an assertion about the supernatural?

 

[Huntster]

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.

I'm not proven to exist, so you must have faith, either in acceptance, or denial:

As of 2006, no experiment has directly detected the existence of the Higgs boson, but there is some indirect evidence for it. The Higgs boson was first predicted in 1964 by the British physicist Peter Higgs, working from the ideas of Philip Anderson, and independently by others.

Or you must fight.............

Or, you may simply accept that I'm here, whether or not I exist, and deal with me.............

 

[joobz]

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?

I do not regret it, i've learned.

They bring with them their feuds and one will be Huntster (he's sort of the forum's Higgs boson)

 

[ceo_esq]

Basically, enough claims of religion have been proven demonstrably incorrect that we can reasonably infer that the rest is probably incorrect.

I don't think that works here. Try replacing "religion" with "politics" and the problem is a little clearer. If the truth or falsity of what has not been disproven depends on some way on what has been disproven, or if the primary claim on our belief rested on the credibility of the claimant, I'd be more inclined to agree. But even when I discredit the other side's witness, I don't necessarily infer that the rest of the testimony is probably incorrect; I simply take into account (or ask a fact-finder such as a jury to do so) that the testimony is not reliable evidence that its content is probably correct. It removes weight from the evidence in favor of a proposition; it's not really independent evidence in favor of the opposite proposition. That said, I confess to not having reviewed the entire thread so I'm not exactly sure what evidence you were referring to. I'll try to take the time to familiarize myself with it.

 

[Dogdoctor]

Exactly. That is the precise definition that is listed in the dictionary, in not-so-many-words.

In other words, atheism is a religion, it requires faith in it's denial, and that is the meaning of the word.

Well some atheists have faith in their denial but atheism doesn't require faith. It is not like a religion since it does not answer questions or explain anything although some atheists have beliefs that mimic a religion. Think of it this way, atheists may look at the world totally without faith. They believe there is no God or anything supernatural but have no strong belief since supernatural things are not testable other than for their effects if any in this world. No faith is required to hold those beliefs only the thought that scientifically testable data is the only useful knowledge. Atheism as a whole is totally unlike a religion since religions hold in common lots of beliefs where as the only common factor in atheism is that there is/are no god(s). A Christian is not a Christian because they believe in a god.

 

[LaPalida]

So there's a difference between belief and knowledge then. Agnosticism holds that one cannot know if a God exists or not. It says nothing about belief. Agnosticism is in a totally different camp from atheism and theism. So again what is a person who holds no belief in a God? For example I hold no belief in pink unicorns that talk in Spanish. That makes me what?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
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.

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?

Somewhat. "Not holding a particular belief" can be because you are aware of divergent beliefs, and believe that nobody can be trusted, and don't want to be involved in the fight. Or it can mean that you really don't give a damn, and don't pay attention. That is more akin to true agnosticism.

If not what does it mean to "not hold a particular belief"?

"I don't give a sheet either way. I don't have time to even get involved, I'm on my way to the Careless River country in order to not give a sheet and get away from all you sheet-givers, and I wish you'd go away. I don't even want to think about it. In fact, I don't even recognize you're asking me this question. I'm not even going to ask you what the word "God" means, because I've never heard it before, and don't give a damn what it means."

Is there ever a time when one can hold no beliefs about a particular subject? If so what would you call that?

Yes. I'd call it a lack of consciousness.

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?

a) Belief or disbelief in something because you've never heard of it is ignorance

b) A lack of belief in something because there is no evidence for it is disbelief, or great doubt

c) A lack of belief in something because you admit not knowing everything is agnosticism

d) A lack of belief in something because one is not capable of holding one is indecision.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

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".

Atheism is not concerned with the universe at all. Maybe if I type really slowly you'll get this. Atheism is concerned with one question, and one question only, namely the existence of god. One is an atheist if one can answer Do you believe in God? with an honest no. That is all there is to atheism.

Likewise, given the information that someone is an atheist, only one thing is known about them. Their position on the "cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" is not revealed by knowing they are atheist.

You could go so far as to say that they believe God was not the "cause nature, and purpose of the universe", which follows logically from not believing in God, but that does not make atheism a religion.

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......."

Nice truncation, but it's "beliefs and practices". Shall I go dig up the definition of and for you, or can you work that one out yourself?

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

You believe.

I never said I didn't. But that is not the central theme; it is the only theme. There is nothing else to atheism besides.

 

[Jimbo07]

So there's a difference between belief and knowledge then. Agnosticism holds that one cannot know if a God exists or not. It says nothing about belief. Agnosticism is in a totally different camp from atheism and theism. So again what is a person who holds no belief in a God? For example I hold no belief in pink unicorns that talk in Spanish. That makes me what?

I believe that there are no pink unicorns that talk in Spanish. That makes me an a-spanish-talking-pink-unicornist. I think it's harder to be an agnostic when specific claims are made.

I'm not agnostic about the Christians' take on God, nor about the Jews' or pretty much anyone else's for that matter... including those who might be ... hmm... strong atheists who are actually angry at their previous faith (here, I run the inherent risk of evoking a strawman, but I can at least say that I have met individuals like this).

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Atheism : Religion

Margarine : Butter

Substitute good.

Atheism : Religion

Exercise : Cakes

Substitute? Good.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Really?

What else can atheism be if not denial of God/spiritualism?

I should have been more clear. I only meant that atheism was not, by definition, the active denial of God.

And atheism says nothing about spiritualism.

 

[CapelDodger]

I do not regret it, i've learned.

You should probably get a prize. Almost everybody's here. You've got T'ai Chi and ceo_esq in the same room, that's pretty unusual. This thread has become a phaenomenon.

Of course, the Senior Partners are simply observing. As their envoy, I'm bugging out. Nothing but hurt to be earned here.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

This thread was fairly interesting up until about page 6, it's pretty obvious Hunster really struggles to 'get' Atheism and is trying to understand it using the constructs of his own beliefs. He's looking for the holy book of Athiesm which defines what it means to be an Athiest - unfortunately he can only find the dictionary. He's then using this to tell other people what they think/believe/have faith in despite them telling him he is wrong.

He just doesn't understand it and he never will. Worse still, he doesn't want to. The concept of a faithful Athiest is ridiculous... faithful to whom? to what?

There are no rules to athiesm. No ethics or codes to follow. Even athiests themselves will argue over what athiesm actually means because there are so many different views contained within the catch-all heading.

The word itself carries the definition though - it is the opposite of theism. You are one or the other. In the same way that things are either symmetrical or not (asymmetrical). You can further subdivide it if you want but then you just get into arguments over definitions.