Atheism is a faith.

[Last of the Fraggles]

It doesn't deserve better, it's just all there is. We've had other threads where it's wound up that a person can define God so vaguely that it can't possibly be disproved, but it then becomes relatively useless.

I disagree with MdC.



By stating 'No God' you've put at least one constraint on what the universe cannot be. Most of us here are in agreement that God is maybe not necessary, but you'd need further knowledge, which I don't believe you have, to demonstrate that some vaguely defined super-thingy did not create the universe.

Atheism does carry with it an underlying assumption about the universe. It is not knowledge, and should not be mistaken to be.

That's my beef. To the existence/non-existence of Ed, I'm willing to say, "Bah! Irrelevant!" However, the position of atheism should not be conflated with knowledge. That is why I maintain that atheism is somewhat akin to (or is, or is a substitute for, or something) faith. I think it shares more characteristics with faith, than it does with knowledge.

No, I'm not having this I can't accept that you get partial credit for putting forward an answer that is so bad that it means absolutely nothing.

Imagine a history paper 'What were the reasons for the start of WW2?'

And the student answers 'Well there are reasons but we can never know them and really they don't matter anyway. There just were some things and I'm right.'

I think you have to draw a line and say unless a reason contains at least some of the elements that are commonly agreed upon as being 'a reason' then it isn't a reason.

Equally a God that doesn't meet any of the commonly agreed criteria of being a God isn't a God. Therefore even if that thing exists, God still does not exist.

For God to be any form of recognisable God surely its existence would have to have some form of meaning? Therefore the existence of a meaningless 'God' is not the exstence of God at all.

I think this is getting into the realms of Piggy's earlier thread...

 

[Tricky]

I think I can almost rest my case. Your answers illustrate my points beautifully.

1) What are the rules of atheism? What code of ethics do 'we' follow?
2) What does 'not necessarily' mean with regards to either being something or not being something? Where is the third option - both? Logically impossible. Neither - again logically impossible when one option encompasses the set of all other possiblities.

ETA: 3) Theism is not A faith - theism is ALL faith (using the word in its religious context). Therefore by definition atheism is NOT religious faith.

4) WTF is denialism? And how exactly as an atheist can I have faith in something I have never heard of?

You pick things up quickly, my mistreated muppet. Welcome aboard.

BTW, denialism is faith in having no faith. It's a religion, you know.

 

[RandFan]

Heh, sorry about that, RF. I quoted that from and aimed my reply at Huntster.

Here, you can have some popcorn, if you like.

I've got to get this chip off of my shoulder.

 

[Tricky]

I've got to get this chip off of my shoulder.

Just think. WWJD

(Janeane)

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

You pick things up quickly, my mistreated muppet. Welcome aboard.

BTW, denialism is faith in having no faith. It's a religion, you know.

So if i have faith in denialism I have faith in having faith in having no faith?

But how do I know that faith is true? I must have more faith still.

So I have faith in having faith in having faith in having no faith?

OOh.. I can feel myself filling up with faith...



..... I better go to the bathroom.

 

[joobz]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger
Quote:
Originally Posted by joobz
I do not regret it, i've learned.
You should probably get a prize. I agree.

Is there cash involved?

Who are the "Senior Partners"?

If I was to assuming dorkiness, I'd guess it's a reference to Wolfram and Hart from the TV show Angel.

Pain is earned. So is respect. Respect is commonly earned through pain.

well i felt a little chaffed during this, that's for sure.

 

[Tricky]

OOh.. I can feel myself filling up with faith...



..... I better go to the bathroom.

Yeth. I can thee by the look on your faith...

 

[Huntster]

....ETA: Huntster, I can't be racist, I hate all talking pink unicorns equally!

I was always raised recognizing unicorns as being white. This is the only place where I was introduced to pink ones.

I can't accept any of them, but I must admit that different colored unicorns have a "colorful" appeal.

 

[joobz]

No, I'm not having this I can't accept that you get partial credit for putting forward an answer that is so bad that it means absolutely nothing.

Imagine a history paper 'What were the reasons for the start of WW2?'

And the student answers 'Well there are reasons but we can never know them and really they don't matter anyway. There just were some things and I'm right.'

I think you have to draw a line and say unless a reason contains at least some of the elements that are commonly agreed upon as being 'a reason' then it isn't a reason.

Equally a God that doesn't meet any of the commonly agreed criteria of being a God isn't a God. Therefore even if that thing exists, God still does not exist.

For God to be any form of recognisable God surely its existence would have to have some form of meaning? Therefore the existence of a meaningless 'God' is not the exstence of God at all.

I think this is getting into the realms of Piggy's earlier thread...

ARe you saying nothing exists if we don't know it exists?
Or,
we are so far off the mark that it can't be reapplied to fit whatever God may be. Like the concept of spontaneous generation doesn't at all and can't be applied to the way life propagates.

 

[Tricky]

I was always raised recognizing unicorns as being white. This is the only place where I was introduced to pink ones.

I can't accept any of them, but I must admit that different colored unicorns have a "colorful" appeal.

According to Piers Anthony, white unicorns are unnatural.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
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.

What you allow is irrelevant. It is not up to you to allow anything. That is just how the language works.

Unfortunately, my allowance is authorized by my insistence on proper language, which I will use the dictionary to enforce.

Of course, you are free to argue with the dictionary, but you do so at your peril.

Atheism is defined in the negative just like “not red” or “not forward”, which would include going backwards, sideways, straight up or down, or not moving at all. All those are “not forward”.

Correct. And the dictionary addresses "not":

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

And, yet again (for the umpteenth time), it is still a measure of belief or faith, and not a position of knowledge.

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

Where did I say the teacher didn’t accept it?

Did you see the "if" qualifier above?

At that point I asked if you accepted the answer. Do you restrict yourself to rules that were not stated?

I choose when and when I will not answer questions. This is not a court of law, I'm not sworn, I'm not a pawn, and I have no intention of playing myself knowingly into chess-like "check" maneuvers. I will answer questions when I feel comfortable doing so.

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

No, that would be your straw man definition of atheist. Not my definition. My definition comes from exactly how the word was created. A, a prefix meaning “not” and theism, meaning “the belief that god or gods exist”, atheism is “not” – “the belief that god or gods exist”. It is “not theism”, it is just like “not red” or “not forward”.

Nice, but when I pointed out in another thread that the root of the word "ignorance" is "ignore", the dictionary was used to deny it. I didn't take up several pages of internet space arguing the point, even though I was "right".

When confronted by several large defensive linemen, take the ball toward an easier route. If none appear, hit the linemen with all you've got, and try to hurt them with more intensity than they're going to try to hurt you with.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

ARe you saying nothing exists if we don't know it exists?
Or,
we are so far off the mark that it can't be reapplied to fit whatever God may be. Like the concept of spontaneous generation doesn't at all and can't be applied to the way life propagates.

Erm..let me think... I think what I'm trying to say that is that when trying to consider whether Object A exists then you need to present a model or models of Object A that can be assessed for 'existence'. If the model you present is so far removed from 'Object A' that it couldn't meaningfully be called 'Object A' then its existence or non-existence is irrelevant to the original question.

For example, do I have a third hand in the middle of my chest? Obviously no.

But I could define an invisible, non-material third hand that does not touch anything, move anything, have any sense of touch etc etc etc. There's no way to disprove this.... but it's irrelevant because nobody in their right mind would ever class this thing as a hand even if it DID exist.

Now according to Huntster, whether you believe or not believe in the existence of this hand is a matter of pure faith... but that's obviously a lot of nonsense.

As far as I have seen, there are two types of arguments which are used to establish this 'unknowability' required to define atheism as belief/faith

1) Take all the elements of how we define or determine existence and negate them - e.g. can i touch it, see it, smell it, taste it? Can see it influence other objects etc etc? Well if we negate these and say God is something you can't see, touch, taste, smell, hear, and doesn't influence anything it's existence is unknowable. Unfortunately, that entity is also not God just as my invisible hand is not a hand.

2) Hand wavy, well you don't know everything so you can't know if God is real or not. Nah nah nah nah nah you're just as dumb as me silly Atheist I'm going to heaven you're going to hell... and you smell of wee! I don't give these arguments much time since they are really just the intellectually-challenged interpretation of point 1 above.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Nice, but when I pointed out in another thread that the root of the word "ignorance" is "ignore", the dictionary was used to deny it. I didn't take up several pages of internet space arguing the point, even though I was "right".

You need to look up 'right' in the dictionary as well as see if there is an unkown definition which means 'having one's etymology incorrect'.

'Ignore' is not the root of 'ignorance' in fact it is more the other way around. Using 'ignore' to mean something along the lines of 'deliberately not know' is a relatively modern usage.

 

[RandFan]

Just think. WWJD

(Janeane)

I do. The problem is that what I think she would do is skewed by a perverse perspective.

 

[Taffer]

Ok. That's it. I'm out. 3 pages in 1 night. Huntster is obviously immune to reason. We have explained multiple times that 'atheism' is a catch all label for all who do not believe in a god. It includes people who believe there is no god (X=~Y), people who do not believe in god (~(X=Y)) and people who do not believe in god because they only believe in things with evidence (let 'Z' equal evidence of god. Z=0, therefore X=~Y until Z>0, in which case X=Y). This is been explained over, and over, and over again. Huntster sticks to his online dictionary's definition (a definition which does not agree with other online dictionary's definitions), and continues to spout the same old claptrap. We have explained what 'atheism' means, and why the strict definition Huntster gives is incorrect. We have posted links which explain what atheism is. We have defined what we mean when we say "atheism". Huntster continues to ignore all of this, and argues against his straw man. Ok, Huntster, you win. Argue against the straw, I no longer care.

It's like arguing with a four year old.

 

[Z]

If you accept experience without experiencer ...

Yeah, I do, actually. We have to learn that there is an experiencer, and take that for granted. All we can say without assumption is that experience happens.

I'd say Thought is the name we reserve for experiencers, given some level of perceived-as-physical complexity in what we term 'lifeforms'.

Nah, thought is a process, not a thing.

Of I have no idea what actual Thought and Experiencer implies; the existence thereof is the key.

I can't parse that last sentence. Sorry.

 

[Z]

Huntster's just stupid that way.

Any educated and intelligent human realizes that language is fluid, dynamic, and evolving. Words change meanings every year. Old words die off; new words are born. Usages change, shift, and grow.

A dictionary is never, ever an authority on the meaning of a word for all time; only for the time of its publication, and only for prevalent meanings of the time. In much the same way that a newspaper doesn't define the exact details of a given event, but rather documents the event based on what information can be gathered at the time. With the raw fluidity of language, in any given discussion of this nature, one needs to clearly and concisely define one's terms ahead of time.

All this semantic juggling over what atheism means is childish and moronic. What must be addressed are the ideas themselves, rather than the words. The OP needs to specifically define what a 'faith' is, what 'atheism' is, and how the two relate. If the author of the OP fails to define his terms, the discussion cannot proceed properly. If the author defines his terms in a manner which other posters disagree with, they are certainly allowed to express their disagreement; but if all parties cannot agree on terms, the discussion cannot proceed apace. In turn, the discussion becomes pointless - especially since the author of the OP is not an authority on atheism OR faith, and hence has no basis for which to make such a sweeping generalization.

For whatever its worth, I agree that atheism is a faith - the same way that any knowledge is a faith/involves faith. Any concept in the universe you become aware of, generates a moment of faith - either in faith of the existence of that concept, or against the existence of that concept. I have faith that unicorns don't physically exist. I have faith that the sun will continue to burn tomorrow. I have faith that nowhere in our universe is there a square circle. I have faith that the Universe is the Ultimate Being, and I have faith it does exist; I also have faith that it doesn't care about us at all.

The only think I can say that I know is that experience exists. Any other statement of knowledge is based on faith, on assumption, on conjecture.

Of course, putting it into those terms causes the term 'faith' to be just as useless as my definition of God is.

Perhaps what the OP was hoping to achieve was to prove that atheism is a system of dogmatic faith against evidence, as most other religions are. Too bad that's not what they had to say.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I disagree with MdC.



By stating 'No God' you've put at least one constraint on what the universe cannot be.

Yes, and if I say "no vampires" I've put at least one constraint on the universe--that it was not created by vampires. Is avampirism my religion now, too?

Atheism does carry with it an underlying assumption about the universe.

In a superficial way, yes, atheism carries with it an underlying assumption about the universe. Every belief does; since the universe is defined as the entirety of existence, everything has to do with it. My belief that Bear Bryant is the greatest college football coach who ever lived carries with it the assumption that the universe contains college football, and coaches, and blah blah blah...

So what? Should I add Bear Bryantism to my list of religions now?

It is not knowledge, and should not be mistaken to be.

I hope you will note that I never said it was.

 

[chris epic]

Well, some people will complain that only strong (or hard) atheists assert the non-existence of God with certainty, and that you are creating a strawman.

QUOTE] "some people" that's a pretty vague response, and flashing the fallacy card was a little inappropriate. I'm wasn't diverting anyone's attention from faith and atheism by bringing up agnosticism, I was pointing out the irony of atheism, hard or soft, that its just as presumptious a notion....etc (I don't think I need to repeat myself)

 

[chris epic]

Agnosticism is the belief (yep, we’ve got another faith on our hands) that the existence of god or gods is unknowable. That it can never be known whether or not gods exist.

The the words speak for themselves. I'm not sure I'm satified with your definition of agnosticism but I could have had the wrong definition of it all this time. Theism (The ism of God) Atheism (the ism of No God) and Agnosticism (The ism of No Knowledge) Agnosticism isn't a belief like theism or atheism, its a comming-to-terms. "I dont know" plain and simple- it doesn't mean that agnostics subscribe to the certanty that the existance of God or the absoence of God will never be known, it simply means it is not known.