Atheism is a faith.

[The Atheist]

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

No. The cat had faith that the box would be opened by an atheist animal rights activist before the poison was released, while Schrodinger himself believed the cat was an atheist.

 

[RandFan]

...yet somehow you think you've "handed me my head". Honey, you just go back and check

That's the thing, I did.

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!

Rhetoric. Somewhere you got it into your head that assertions and rhetoric were appropriate replacements for logical debate. Here's a hint, they aren't.

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.

Thanks, that's cool. Would you please notify me?

I have no problems debating anyone, save those incapable of even understanding the question under debate.

Again, rhetoric and assertions. It doesn't carry the day. Logic and argument carry do. I would gladly put my logic up against your rhetoric any day. I submit than any intellectually person who reads that thread will conclude that you left with your tail between your legs.

 

[The Atheist]

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.

Jesus, I would have thought that the sheer weight of incorrect assumptions of yours I've cleared up in the past 24 hours would be enough for you to begin to realise that most of your assumptions are incorrect!

You and Huntster are opposite sides of the same coin.

You actually got that right - although I think I'd actually pointed that out to you earlier, so 6/10. 0/10 for originality, but you get the six for actually remembering and being right on something!

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.

I am so bloody pleased that you think like that - many other "atheists" have exactly the same opinion. (I love your new sig!) I don't consider myself a "critical thinker" and going by the "critical thinkers" I've met in here, I'd say both of us are equally pleased on that front.

The bad news is that you've just made another ridiculously incorrect assumption. You've assumed that I wouldn't change my mind and you'd be dead wrong - again. Don't you get sick of being wrong every time? That's actually why I questioned your atheism - you're wrong on everything else, why is that the sole one you got right?

You used to be into ID and were a Mormon by choice, yet here you are attempting to mock my beliefs! You're a dag, mate, 100% pure genius! Give us a laugh, where do you stand on gay rights?

 

[Ginarley]

No. The cat had faith that the box would be opened by an atheist animal rights activist before the poison was released, while Schrodinger himself believed the cat was an atheist.

Wait - are you saying Schrodinger had faith that the cat was an atheist?

Btw - the whole argument of the OP and other posters seems to revolve around 2 distinct definitions of faith. Faith in observation and faith in the unobservable. The former is something all atheists, theists, cats and probably poison jars all share - its is not something you really have a choice in (well I suppose you could choose not to have faith that your eyes see a cliff in front of you and keep walking...) The latter is not something universal, it is a deliberate decision either made by you (or for you by your parents for example) to believe in something unobservable. There is no justification for the latter, not any need for it.

IMO an atheist rejects belief in the unobservable while a religious person does not. An atheist does not IMO reject speculation about the possibility of the unobservable, but merely rejects absolute belief in it. Since we're talking about Schrodinger, its worth noting that quantum theory is full of unobservable theory - but it is all speculation or thought until it is observed, and incidentally based in considerably stronger thought than religion.

 

[The Atheist]

I submit than any intellectually person who reads that thread will conclude that you left with your tail between your legs.

Gosh, I'm so sad about that! Any "intellectually person" [sic] who gets that impression could always engage me in debate about it - it wouldn't take long, as long as they can READ and WRITE in ENGLISH.

 

[RandFan]

Gosh, I'm so sad about that! Any "intellectually person" [sic] who gets that impression could always engage me in debate about it - it wouldn't take long, as long as they can READ and WRITE in ENGLISH.

Wow, I made a mistake, "intellectually honest person". I stand by that. That seems to be the best you have. Noting a typo.

 

[slingblade]

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

Thank you. Push the button already.

I was kind of half-arsed replying to Tai Chi. Either god's in the box, or he's not, and until we can open the box, we can't know.

I say put a really heavy weight on the box and a handful of those radiation stickers. Just to be safe.

 

[The Atheist]

Wait - are you saying Schrodinger had faith that the cat was an atheist?

Btw - the whole argument of the OP and other posters seems to revolve around 2 distinct definitions of faith. Faith in observation and faith in the unobservable. The former is something all atheists, theists, cats and probably poison jars all share - its is not something you really have a choice in (well I suppose you could choose not to have faith that your eyes see a cliff in front of you and keep walking...) The latter is not something universal, it is a deliberate decision either made by you (or for you by your parents for example) to believe in something unobservable. There is no justification for the latter, not any need for it.

IMO an atheist rejects belief in the unobservable while a religious person does not. An atheist does not IMO reject speculation about the possibility of the unobservable, but merely rejects absolute belief in it. Since we're talking about Schrodinger, its worth noting that quantum theory is full of unobservable theory - but it is all speculation or thought until it is observed, and incidentally based in considerably stronger thought than religion.

Picture of clarity, as usual. Glad to see all that bloody tax I pay is educating someone!

 

[RandFan]

Jesus, I would have thought that the sheer weight of incorrect assumptions of yours I've cleared up in the past 24 hours would be enough for you to begin to realise that most of your assumptions are incorrect!

Rhetorical. You assert things as if you are correct without any basis or support for the assertion.. It's rather pedestrian.

You actually got that right - although I think I'd actually pointed that out to you earlier, so 6/10. 0/10 for originality, but you get the six for actually remembering and being right on something!

Again, more rhetoric as if this will make you right. It doesn't. It's a waste of your time. It isn't impressing anyone and has no effect on me.

I am so bloody pleased that you think like that - many other "atheists" have exactly the same opinion. (I love your new sig!) I don't consider myself a "critical thinker" and going by the "critical thinkers" I've met in here, I'd say both of us are equally pleased on that front.

I don't doubt one bit that you are not a critical thinker. That fact has become rather obvious to everyone.

The bad news is that you've just made another ridiculously incorrect assumption. You've assumed that I wouldn't change my mind and you'd be dead wrong - again. Don't you get sick of being wrong every time? That's actually why I questioned your atheism - you're wrong on everything else, why is that the sole one you got right?

Why should anyone assume that you would change your mind? You lack critical thinking skills and you dogmatically believe in your world view. Evidence suggests that such a person is not likely to change his or her mind. It's not impossible but it is not likely.

You used to be into ID and were a Mormon by choice, yet here you are attempting to mock my beliefs! You're a dag, mate, 100% pure genius!

Ad hominem. As if my being a Mormon makes my arguments wrong or that I was an ID proponent now makes me wrong. This quote BTW contains no argument.

Give us a laugh, where do you stand on gay rights?

I am socially liberal. I want to end the drug war, legalize prostitution, keep safe a woman's right to choose and I actively campaign for gay rights. What possible difference could that make about anything?

So, your post was 100% argument free. Though you did take the opportunity to attack me personally and engage in ad hominem. It rates a smilie. How's that for rhetoric?

 

[RandFan]

Thank you. Push the button already.

Feel free to push my buttons anytime.

I was kind of half-arsed replying to Tai Chi. Either god's in the box, or he's not, and until we can open the box, we can't know.

I say put a really heavy weight on the box and a handful of those radiation stickers. Just to be safe.

Gotcha.

 

[CapelDodger]

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).

Of course I'm not arguing from ignorance. It is an observed fact that not one supernatural idea has come from anywhere but the human mind. There are a finite number of them, each one of which can be shown to be fanciful, resting on no observable evidence that cannot be otherwise explained. Every new one dreamt up can be dealt with in the same way. The supernatural is thus a human construct. We don't need to look under every pebble on every barren moon of every planet in every galaxy of the Universe to be sure there isn't a god hiding under it. We don't even have to go anywhere unihabited on Earth. The supernatural exists only in human heads.

If there are similarly deluded species on other planets the argument can simply be extended to them.

That "... all of time and space ... you'd be god ...", fine words, strung together, but devoid of import. As it is the further and deeper we look into the Universe the same we see no need to postulate anything supernatural to explain what we observe. Nothing. Zip. Nada. Squat.

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.

Of course atheism is the default position, no blastoplast has supernatural beliefs, no foetus, no unborn child. How then can atheism not be the default position?

There may be objects in your drawer. Objects demonstrably exist, drawers are generally designed to hold objects, locked drawers in particular are unlikely to be empty. The analogy doesn't stand up for a second, does it? And you have the gall to accuse other people of weak logic.

 

[Tricky]

Why should atheists be said to have faith?

I've been busy the last few days and haven't had time to rattle the bb, but I see that a good part of the last few days has been mostly an antagonistic duel. I won't comment on that because a) I don't know and don't wish to know the specifics and b) I would likely be swayed by my personal opinions of the posters.

So let me suggest a different sort of pointless diversion. That is the question of motive. Who wants atheists to declare that their beliefs are "faith"? It has been shown by polling the atheists here that they don't call their beliefs faith. It has been shown etymologically that the word derives from either lack of, or (in some cases) opposition to faith. It has been shown that skepticism in general and atheism which can be regarded as skepticism towards god(s) and religion, is adamant about requiring evidence rather than faith without evidence to support its positions.

So since most of all of the people who actually profess atheism agree that it is not a faith, who is it that so desperately needs to have it called a faith? I don't think you need to look very far. It appears to be those who dislike atheism who want to some sort of tu quoque argument to indicate that the flaws in religion are the same flaws in atheism. The atheist says, "we will only believe in God if there is evidence, not just faith," and the theist counters, "See! Your devotion to evidence is a faith!"

It seems like a sad desperate ploy by theists to drag skeptics of God into a semantical war in order to make the defense of their mythology-based beliefs seem somehow just as rational. It is naugt but a distraction to draw attention away from their empty larder of evidence.

Going to the other side, why is it so important for atheists to respond to this ploy? Other than the observation that people here like to argue, it would seem that keeping atheism from being called a faith is important to them. Well, I guess it is. The word "faith" is one of the important distinctions between woo-wooism and skepticism. It is important not to have that distinction blurred by semantical arguments from theists which range from nitpicky to downright dishonest. It is so important that atheists will tenaciously counter the nitpicking and dishonesty, even full knowing that it will not change the beliefs of the theists, nor cause them to abandon these tactics. Apparently some of us care very much that our reputation is not sullied.

 

[RandFan]

I've been busy the last few days and haven't had time to rattle the bb, but I see that a good part of the last few days has been mostly an antagonistic duel. I won't comment on that because a) I don't know and don't wish to know the specifics and b) I would likely be swayed by my personal opinions of the posters.

So let me suggest a different sort of pointless diversion. That is the question of motive. Who wants atheists to declare that their beliefs are "faith"? It has been shown by polling the atheists here that they don't call their beliefs faith. It has been shown etymologically that the word derives from either lack of, or (in some cases) opposition to faith. It has been shown that skepticism in general and atheism which can be regarded as skepticism towards god(s) and religion, is adamant about requiring evidence rather than faith without evidence to support its positions.

So since most of all of the people who actually profess atheism agree that it is not a faith, who is it that so desperately needs to have it called a faith? I don't think you need to look very far. It appears to be those who dislike atheism who want to some sort of tu quoque argument to indicate that the flaws in religion are the same flaws in atheism. The atheist says, "we will only believe in God if there is evidence, not just faith," and the theist counters, "See! Your devotion to evidence is a faith!"

It seems like a sad desperate ploy by theists to drag skeptics of God into a semantical war in order to make the defense of their mythology-based beliefs seem somehow just as rational. It is naugt but a distraction to draw attention away from their empty larder of evidence.

Going to the other side, why is it so important for atheists to respond to this ploy? Other than the observation that people here like to argue, it would seem that keeping atheism from being called a faith is important to them. Well, I guess it is. The word "faith" is one of the important distinctions between woo-wooism and skepticism. It is important not to have that distinction blurred by semantical arguments from theists which range from nitpicky to downright dishonest. It is so important that atheists will tenaciously counter the nitpicking and dishonesty, even full knowing that it will not change the beliefs of the theists, nor cause them to abandon these tactics. Apparently some of us care very much that our reputation is not sullied.

 

[CapelDodger]

WARM BEER?!?

And here I thought I was being invited to something fun. I'll be 111 and on my second set of gold teeth before I willingly drink warm beer, by cracky!

What're you tryin' to do, start a religious war of another kind?

After The Warming, refrigeration for its own sake will surely be regarded as an example of the energy-profligacy that led to it. Not socially acceptable. If you want to build an ice-house and cut ice in the winter (if you can find any), fair enough, but at that age do you want by hauling ice over the mountains? (pun intended, to my shame)

Yes. It's gonna be that bad. No cold beer. Now will you start keying SUV's? Warm beer's quite cool really, from a proper cellar or (in my case) an unheated bathroom.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

No reason why we couldn't make ice, like people did back before electricity.

 

[hammegk]

So let me suggest a different sort of pointless diversion. That is the question of motive. Who wants atheists to declare that their beliefs are "faith"?

Anyone interested in discovering if a purported atheistic has the courage to declare and defend a logical position. The philosophical position of materialism demands 100% certainty god does not -- cannot -- exist to be defended logically. Agnosticism coupled with materialism is dualism of some sort.

Although I have faith you actually know that.

 

[Tricky]

Anyone interested in discovering if a purported atheistic has the courage to declare and defend a logical position. The philosophical position of materialism demands 100% certainty god does not -- cannot -- exist to be defended logically. Agnosticism coupled with materialism is dualism of some sort.

Although I have faith you actually know that.

How about if I just support the position of materialism 99.9999%? Can I still be an atheist?

 

[CapelDodger]

Tricky your post is as refreshing as a draught of warm beer in a desert.

I can recall only one thread, Piggy's excellent "Proof of Strong Atheism", that has brought up "Atheism is a faith" from the antagonist's side. Overwhelmingly it is brought up by believers, hope-to-believers and, of course, Philosophers - who have nothing productive to spend their time on, but have an inflated sense of their own intellectual importance.

It matters to me because I sometimes argue against ideas on the grounds that they are faith-based. An argument from faith is no argument at all. Partly as a consequence, but mostly for entertainment, I also spend time belittling and deriding faith per se. To then be told that my lack of faith is a faith is to be accused of hypocrisy by some second-rate wordsmith. I take umbrage at that, I positively bristle. I abhor hypocrisy. I will not stand idly by while being accused of it.

It's good to see some of us can stand apart from the mudfights. The exponential growth of this thread is mostly down to so many ongoing feuds being attracted to the same venue. The substantial content is pretty slight.

 

[hammegk]

How about if I just support the position of materialism 99.9999%? Can I still be an atheist?

You can be an illogical dualist pretending to be an atheist as much as you want to.

Maybe if you went to 99.99999%? Oops! Nope, still illogical.

 

[Tricky]

You can be an illogical dualist pretending to be an atheist as much as you want to.

Okay, I'll take that. I'm not much into philosophical labels anyway, and I don't find it necessary to insist on 100% fidelity.

Maybe if you went to 99.99999%? Oops! Nope, still illogical.

Yeah, it's hard to be logical when one refuses to catagorically accept the assumptions on which the logic is based. (Sigh). I'll have to settle for 99.9999% logical.