Atheism is a faith.

[RandFan]

Sorry, that was a very poor choice of word. I meant "decisive", in that you'll either take a position on something or not, instead of engaging in vague hand-wavings.

Agreed, thanks. Though it turns out I'm not a good sort of atheist according to our resident expert The Atheist.

 

[slingblade]

I had this discussion with one of my sons the other night. He brought up good points, and so did I.

Yes, the words we use can be troublesome, I agree. Belief, faith, know, truth.

I turned from Christianity at first because I'd been hurt, and was angry. All the promises made to me by the bible and religious people had not been kept, not one single promise. I kept my end of the deal as well as I was able to keep it, and expected a supreme power like God to keep his end. He promised to protect me, to love me, to comfort me, to change me, to help me, if only I would call on his name.

I wore my knees out praying, and got only abuse from other Christians in return. Yes, I made mistakes. Yes, I sinned. I asked forgiveness and tried to do better. Life just kept getting worse. I just kept relying on God. Nothing changed.

It was only when I finally said "Screw this!" and set out to do what I knew I needed to do that life slowly got better, in at least some respects. I left the abuse behind. I left the pain, the lies, the blows, the cheating, the loneliness, all of that behind me. I left God behind and turned Pagan.

But that didn't work either. I had a hard time taking it seriously, and couldn't shake the feeling I had discarded one crutch for another. So I abandoned everything, out of anger alone. I felt misled and deceived, right down to my supposed soul.

Then I found good reasons, logical, sound reasons, for getting rid of my crutches. I found critical thinking and logic, and they plainly showed me I was doing the sensible thing. I abandoned magical, wishful thinking, and tried to retrain myself to depend on myself. It's working, slowly, but a lot better than religion ever worked.

Take the lottery, for instance. I could really stand to win the lottery. Most of us could. But I used to go through unbelievable rituals to try to tweak my odds: being really nice to people the day I bought my ticket, having no bad thoughts that day, praying, forgiving, being extra, extra good. And I didn't win, and so I got mad at God.

Now I know it's just random chance if I win or not, and chance is not in my favor in the lottery. If I don't win, I no longer get mad--how can you get mad at random chance? I still play, and still hope I'll win, but it's so much easier to shrug off if I don't.

Or take everyday interactions with people. If people stand in my way or set out to harm me, it is not the devil attacking me! It is stupid people being stupid people. It is even me, being stupid too, and not realizing it. It isn't cosmic agencies which keep me down: it's poor choices, poor thinking, my own big stupid mouth (Hi! I'm an atheist! Huh? What do you mean I can't be a teacher???), but it is not supernatural forces.

Is my atheism just another form of faith? Well, what if it is? It still isn't founded or predicated on the idea of a cosmic agency. My son asked me what if God is really there, but he just isn't acting the way you think he should?

Then God's a great big jerk. Period. To me, it's all one. If there is no God, why waste time on magical thinking? And if there is a God, he's never done me any good, so why waste time on magical thinking?

I'm better off, MUCH better off, depending on myself alone. And that's how I choose to live. Call it whatever you want. It's a religion of the self? Okay, I'm fine with that. It's about time I worshiped myself and took care of me.

I'm the only one who will, and the only one who should.

 

[The Atheist]

I had this discussion with one of my sons the other night. He brought up good points, and so did I.

Yes, the words we use can be troublesome, I agree. Belief, faith, know, truth.

I turned from Christianity at first because I'd been hurt, and was angry. All the promises made to me by the bible and religious people had not been kept, not one single promise. I kept my end of the deal as well as I was able to keep it, and expected a supreme power like God to keep his end. He promised to protect me, to love me, to comfort me, to change me, to help me, if only I would call on his name.

I wore my knees out praying, and got only abuse from other Christians in return. Yes, I made mistakes. Yes, I sinned. I asked forgiveness and tried to do better. Life just kept getting worse. I just kept relying on God. Nothing changed.

It was only when I finally said "Screw this!" and set out to do what I knew I needed to do that life slowly got better, in at least some respects. I left the abuse behind. I left the pain, the lies, the blows, the cheating, the loneliness, all of that behind me. I left God behind and turned Pagan.

But that didn't work either. I had a hard time taking it seriously, and couldn't shake the feeling I had discarded one crutch for another. So I abandoned everything, out of anger alone. I felt misled and deceived, right down to my supposed soul.

Then I found good reasons, logical, sound reasons, for getting rid of my crutches. I found critical thinking and logic, and they plainly showed me I was doing the sensible thing. I abandoned magical, wishful thinking, and tried to retrain myself to depend on myself. It's working, slowly, but a lot better than religion ever worked.

Take the lottery, for instance. I could really stand to win the lottery. Most of us could. But I used to go through unbelievable rituals to try to tweak my odds: being really nice to people the day I bought my ticket, having no bad thoughts that day, praying, forgiving, being extra, extra good. And I didn't win, and so I got mad at God.

Now I know it's just random chance if I win or not, and chance is not in my favor in the lottery. If I don't win, I no longer get mad--how can you get mad at random chance? I still play, and still hope I'll win, but it's so much easier to shrug off if I don't.

Or take everyday interactions with people. If people stand in my way or set out to harm me, it is not the devil attacking me! It is stupid people being stupid people. It is even me, being stupid too, and not realizing it. It isn't cosmic agencies which keep me down: it's poor choices, poor thinking, my own big stupid mouth (Hi! I'm an atheist! Huh? What do you mean I can't be a teacher???), but it is not supernatural forces.

Is my atheism just another form of faith? Well, what if it is? It still isn't founded or predicated on the idea of a cosmic agency. My son asked me what if God is really there, but he just isn't acting the way you think he should?

Then God's a great big jerk. Period. To me, it's all one. If there is no God, why waste time on magical thinking? And if there is a God, he's never done me any good, so why waste time on magical thinking?

I'm better off, MUCH better off, depending on myself alone. And that's how I choose to live. Call it whatever you want. It's a religion of the self? Okay, I'm fine with that. It's about time I worshiped myself and took care of me.

I'm the only one who will, and the only one who should.

Bloody well said!

 

[Dogdoctor]

No problem. I don't want to start an argument with you, but I do recommend that you check out what it says about the word "belief" in the dictionary, because it really is a synonym for "have faith in" to the extent that "adherence to a religion or doctrine" is one of the descriptions...

I don't get hung up on the definitions of words. There are several meanings to most words so language is inaccurate however the issue as to whether atheism is faith depends on what the exact definitions you are using for those words and rather pointless since it is just a word used to describe things and doesn't matter other than for the sake placing a label on something. Whatever words you use to describe atheism or religion they remain the same but if you are willing to use a specific definition then you can try to communicate a thought about them. So the whole basis of this argument depends on what definition is being used. So far there has been no agreement on a definition as far as I know.

 

[The Atheist]

No true Scotsman?

Dear me, you just don't get it, do you? We have covered all this, but I accept that your reading skills aren't too flash, so I'll make it easy for you.

There are atheists in terms of the actual meaning of the word, i.e. people like myself who believe that there is NO GOD.

The term, as used in this thread, also covers people who don't actively disbelieve in god/s, but who still keep that little piece of faith locked away in the back drawer. These people - including you - say; "I don't believe in god (but until 100% proof of his/her non-existence is discovered, I am going to sit on the fence a little.)"

I don't believe in god, what is there to question about my atheism?

Nothing at all - see above.

No substance to Blind Watchmaker? No substance to God Delusion? No substance to Harris or Dennett? You don't read them but you declare that there is no substance to them. And you would know this how?

Wow, ask me a tough one, honey! Let me see - there is absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE that god either exists or does not exist. Can you agree with that? There is presently NO EVIDENCE of the non-existence of god/s. We can prove and disprove lots of things in life - god isn't one of them. Accordingly, what are those books going to be other than opinion? What substance can possibly be in a book on a subject which has no evidence? Please feel free to try and dispute that miniscule point. Anecdotes, opinions and your very own favourite, rhetoric.

But you relate well to Huntster, a guy who believes that the Bible is a good source for morality.

Hey, both Huntster and I find that hilarious! I have no problem with people who at least know their own minds enough to state a position firmly and be 100% convinced of it. Whether it's right or wrong doesn't interest me as much as the decisiveness of the person. Vacillation, I loathe.

You are an odd duck TA. You have contempt for me because I'm not a true atheist or something like that. My atheism isn't up to your snuff. I don't put sugar on my porridge so you take issue with me.

You don't know anything about me. You are as presumptuous as you are arrogant.

Here we go with that ASSUME again. I had hoped that your constantly wrong assumptions may have settled down, but alas, I was wrong. You are yet another JREF "critical thinker" who only thinks critically as long as your rules are adhered to and people agree with your (often mistaken) beliefs.

I don't care at all what your position on religion is. My contempt for you is entirely based upon your inability to understand simple concepts, explained in minute detail, while your replies move on any tangent aside from the one under discussion. This thread's a very good example of that. Your posts indicate a person who doesn't really know what he thinks, hence my comment about how you maybe still haven't gotten over Joe Smith.

I admit to being arrogant anytime. I also have a very low threshold for fools. I have an even lower threshold for dealing with people who claim to be self-sufficient "critical thinkers" but who then spout off BS learned by rote from books written by their heroes. In short, I don't rate you at all. I find you devoid of character, intelligence and wit. You try so hard to appear intellectual, by asking inane, irrelevant questions, then dismissing anyone disagreeing with you by a variety of tried and tired methods. (To see examples, check your posts to see how poorly you've dealt with it all. Count the strawmen, the appeals to authority and the ad hominems - you'll be beating me on every count.) Bad luck that me, who "brings nothing to JREF" should be the one to have to point this out to you.

Adios, honey.

 

[The Atheist]

I don't get hung up on the definitions of words. There are several meanings to most words so language is inaccurate however the issue as to whether atheism is faith depends on what the exact definitions you are using for those words and rather pointless since it is just a word used to describe things and doesn't matter other than for the sake placing a label on something. Whatever words you use to describe atheism or religion they remain the same but if you are willing to use a specific definition then you can try to communicate a thought about them. So the whole basis of this argument depends on what definition is being used. So far there has been no agreement on a definition as far as I know.

I'd largely agree with your post and I can confirm that we have cleared up the definition of "atheist" in this thread. We'll settle for "belief that there is no god". I will contend forever that that's wrong, but I'm happy to let the consensus opinion on meaning rule. It's actually the main reason why my group calls itself "Extreme Atheists" - to ensure that we don't get mistaken for people who just don't accept god. We actively disbelieve in the concept. Semantics, I agree, but definitions of words are actually quite important - without clear meanings, we may as return to the caves and grunt.

I think that, broken down to the lowest common denominators, the OP is just too difficult a question as it was put. I feel that there's an element of faith in most areas outside of pure science and mathematics, but people shy away from the word "faith". Not sure why, but I bet the religious connotation has something to do with it! Whether you wish to "believe" something rather than "having faith" in it, is irrelevant from a semantic point of view. You either know it, or you believe it to be so. One act requires an element of faith, the other doesn't.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Call it a substitute if you want. Margarine ain't butter.

Um, of course margarine isn't butter, that's the point.

 

[RandFan]

Dear me, you just don't get it, do you? We have covered all this, but I accept that your reading skills aren't too flash, so I'll make it easy for you.

I'm not sure why you persist with the silly rhetoric. It's not impressing anyone.

There are atheists in terms of the actual meaning of the word, i.e. people like myself who believe that there is NO GOD.

The term, as used in this thread, also covers people who don't actively disbelieve in god/s, but who still keep that little piece of faith locked away in the back drawer. These people - including you - say; "I don't believe in god (but until 100% proof of his/her non-existence is discovered, I am going to sit on the fence a little.)"

This did not answer the question.

Nothing at all - see above.

Then why did you say you question my atheism?

Wow, ask me a tough one, honey! Let me see - there is absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE that god either exists or does not exist. Can you agree with that? There is presently NO EVIDENCE of the non-existence of god/s. We can prove and disprove lots of things in life - god isn't one of them. Accordingly, what are those books going to be other than opinion? What substance can possibly be in a book on a subject which has no evidence? Please feel free to try and dispute that miniscule point. Anecdotes, opinions and your very own favourite, rhetoric.

? Again, you are not making any sense. The book isn't out to prove that god doesn't exist. That doesn't mean that there is no substance. On the contrary, there is lots of evidience and substance as to why people are deluded.

Hey, both Huntster and I find that hilarious! I have no problem with people who at least know their own minds enough to state a position firmly and be 100% convinced of it. Whether it's right or wrong doesn't interest me as much as the decisiveness of the person. Vacillation, I loathe.

Who is vacilating and why is blind faith a virtue?

I don't care at all what your position on religion is. My contempt for you is entirely based upon your inability to understand simple concepts...

There is no basis for this at all. You have simply asserted that I did not understand something. You seem to think your assertions are valid in and of themselves. They are not.

I don't rate you at all. I find you devoid of character, intelligence and wit. You try so hard to appear intellectual, by asking inane, irrelevant questions, then dismissing anyone disagreeing with you by a variety of tried and tired methods. (To see examples, check your posts to see how poorly you've dealt with it all. Count the strawmen, the appeals to authority and the ad hominems - you'll be beating me on every count.) Bad luck that me, who "brings nothing to JREF" should be the one to have to point this out to you.

Odd for a guy that has engaged in many fallacies. As I said, you are as presumptious as you are arrogant.

You got your head handed to you and you don't like it so your only recourse is personal attack. Fine.

 

[RandFan]

It's actually the main reason why my group calls itself "Extreme Atheists" - to ensure that we don't get mistaken for people who just don't accept god. We actively disbelieve in the concept.

And why is this at all important to anyone? Who cares if you have turned atheism into a belief? Why is such a belief virtuous? Does it not just invite confusion and plays into the hands of theists who accuse atheists of practicing a religion? I'd say yes. I'd say your brand of atheism is just one of arrogance. It serves no purpose. It does not advance science. It doesn't do anything but serve your own emotions.

 

[T'ai Chi]

As a strong atheist,I find that theists haven't and never will show a god and that here absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence and not a n argument from ignorance.

Strong atheism = weak logic. You are indeed arguing from ignorance. You have no basis to conclude there is no god(s) nor will there ever be, considering you have not surveyed all of space and time (if you did that, you'd be the god, thus disproving your own hypothesis).

It is like I may or may not have an object in my desk drawer. You haven't seen it, and the drawer might be locked only to you. Therefore you conclude that any object cannot exist in the drawer (and then have the gall to claim that that is the default position).

That about sums it up.

 

[RandFan]

Strong atheism = weak logic. You are indeed arguing from ignorance.

I didn't think I would agree with you T'ai Chi but I think I do as to some atheists like The Atheist.

 

[slingblade]

Schrodinger's Cat.

 

[RandFan]

Schrodinger's Cat.

? you lost me. BTW, that was a good post earlier.

 

[Dogdoctor]

I'd largely agree with your post and I can confirm that we have cleared up the definition of "atheist" in this thread. We'll settle for "belief that there is no god". I will contend forever that that's wrong, but I'm happy to let the consensus opinion on meaning rule. It's actually the main reason why my group calls itself "Extreme Atheists" - to ensure that we don't get mistaken for people who just don't accept god. We actively disbelieve in the concept. Semantics, I agree, but definitions of words are actually quite important - without clear meanings, we may as return to the caves and grunt.

I think that, broken down to the lowest common denominators, the OP is just too difficult a question as it was put. I feel that there's an element of faith in most areas outside of pure science and mathematics, but people shy away from the word "faith". Not sure why, but I bet the religious connotation has something to do with it! Whether you wish to "believe" something rather than "having faith" in it, is irrelevant from a semantic point of view. You either know it, or you believe it to be so. One act requires an element of faith, the other doesn't.

Ok atheist is agreed upon except beleif is not and since beleif is one of the words to describe atheist then by extension the definiton of atheist is not agreed upon. Then you introduce the word know without including a definition.

 

[Ginarley]

Schrodinger's Cat.

So Schrodinger's cat is simultaneously a faithful atheist and not a faithful atheist until we open the box and observe it?

 

[The Atheist]

Strong atheism = weak logic. You are indeed arguing from ignorance. You have no basis to conclude there is no god(s) nor will there ever be, considering you have not surveyed all of space and time (if you did that, you'd be the god, thus disproving your own hypothesis).

It is like I may or may not have an object in my desk drawer. You haven't seen it, and the drawer might be locked only to you. Therefore you conclude that any object cannot exist in the drawer (and then have the gall to claim that that is the default position).

That about sums it up.

I'm not surprised RandFan agrees with you - you make as much sense as he does!

 

[The Atheist]

It does not advance science.

Dear, oh dear. Can you ever be original?

That's so dumb, you should frame it and hang it on your bedroom wall. Please do tell me, honey, how does YOUR atheism "advance science"? What a drongo!

 

[The Atheist]

You got your head handed to you and you don't like it so your only recourse is personal attack. Fine.

Got to hand it to you, honey, you've been whipped like Tom Sawyer, yet somehow you think you've "handed me my head". Honey, you just go back and check - I haven't wasted time arguing with you, simply because I've got so far a head start over you that it would just be downright unfair. You can't read, you can't grasp simple concepts and you don't know what context is. Maybe in your next life, RandFan!

Come and check the links on my atheist pages soon, you've beaten me so badly, I'm going to preserve links to your posts. I am so shamed. I suggest that now you've tried all the tricks in the book, including claiming victory in the face of comprehensive defeat, that you need to brush up a little on your techniques for dealing with non-sceptics. Scientists love you, honey, don't despair.

(I will repeat my previous message to you - I have no problems debating anyone, save those incapable of even understanding the question under debate. Get the picture, hon? You just keep telling the world that it's because I'm scared of your giant intellect. Some will even believe you!)

 

[The Atheist]

Ok atheist is agreed upon except beleif is not and since beleif is one of the words to describe atheist then by extension the definiton of atheist is not agreed upon. Then you introduce the word know without including a definition.

I can fix all this with one quick link.

 

[RandFan]

Dear, oh dear. Can you ever be original?

That's so dumb, you should frame it and hang it on your bedroom wall. Please do tell me, honey, how does YOUR atheism "advance science"? What a drongo!

I hold truths provisionally and I'm not dogmatic in my beliefs. When better evidence comes along I can change those beliefs. Such a non-dogmatic view is complementary of science and not antithetical to it. It doesn't play into the hands of sophists who claim that atheism is based on faith as much as religion is based on faith. It is for this reason I went from an ID proponent to an ID opponent. I follow evidence relying on empiricism, logic and reason and not my emotions and biases. I'm skeptical of my biases. Those who are religious don't. Science can't advance unless scientists (folks like Hawking, Einstein, Bohr and Pinker) and philosophers (folks like Dennett) question there held assumptions.

I'm willing to question any assumption but I will hold on tight to the ones I have unless and until a good argument comes along demonstrating why I am wrong.

You and Huntster are opposite sides of the same coin. He will never leave religion because he will never be willing to question his held assumptions. Likewise you will never change any of your beliefs for the same reason. You just happened to hit on atheism and I would say that is a net negative for critical thinking and enlightenment.