Atheism is a faith.

[joobz]

well I am sure there will be hundreds of people willing to jump on this but ... oh well.

In order for your assertion to work it has to beg the question of whether the concept "god" has any validity.

I have been down this path many times in arguments with believers and it usually boils down to "something must have created it all". If yuo push hard enough the train of logic becomes

1) Everything that is created must be created by something.

2) At some point the thing doing the original creating has to be the original thing which was not created..

Of course - a moment's thought shows you that proposition 2 denies the validity of proposition 1. If uncaused creation is given as a possibility then they have obviated the need for a god.

But that aside. Unless someone can advance a credible argument that the concept of a mysterious, unknowable, invisible, all powerful entity that creates our world has some validity then there is no "faith" to be exercised. Faith would be believing that there is no god when one has been shown evidence there is.

Up to that point I just usually refer to it as sanity.

One other interesting thing I think you should rename the thread to "All faiths are atheist" after all - every faith denies at least one other god - several of them deny many gods...

interesting take, but I'm not arguing for the validity of any religion. Nor am I stating that ID occured or intelligent design.

So these points are off topic. I'm stating that there is faith in atheism.

Although, I really do like your conjucture, that all faiths are athiest. I think that kind of gets to what i'm trying to see.

 

[CapelDodger]

Ugh, I hate this argument.

Lack of a religion is as much of a "faith" as being naked is a style of fashion.

Another example. They are legion. To the rational and pragmatic mind a few examples suffice to establish a principle which may be productive. Philosophy has to examine every example and even postulate potential examples because it has no real purpose. All the useful elements of philosophy budded-off in the 19thCE to become independent fields of study, particularly science. Not surprisingly there's a Philosophy of Science, with Chairs and everything. Philosophy is all front, and no substance.

 

[joobz]

Another example. They are legion. To the rational and pragmatic mind a few examples suffice to establish a principle which may be productive. Philosophy has to examine every example and even postulate potential examples because it has no real purpose. All the useful elements of philosophy budded-off in the 19thCE to become independent fields of study, particularly science. Not surprisingly there's a Philosophy of Science, with Chairs and everything. Philosophy is all front, and no substance.

the "no substance" hits the issue that has been bugging me. There is a conceit to atheism that is just as negative as that of theists. It's the rapid dissmissal and belittlement of anyone's faith outside there own that seems to me to be the common thread.

perhaps that's what i see when I say atheism is a faith.
atheism is just as likely to denounce anyone else (under the guise of being right) as any other faith is.

 

[drkitten]

So these points are off topic. I'm stating that there is faith in atheism.

... and that's part of the problem. Rather than stating it, you should be arguing it, based on reason and evidence.

 

[Jon.]

the "no substance" hits the issue that has been bugging me. There is a conceit to atheism that is just as negative as that of theists. It's the rapid dissmissal and belittlement of anyone's faith outside there own that seems to me to be the common thread.

perhaps that's what i see when I say atheism is a faith.
atheism is just as likely to denounce anyone else (under the guise of being right) as any other faith is.

Perhaps atheists seem glib because they rarely are presented with an argument that they have not already heard (and dismissed) several times over?

I think you need to be more clear in your definitions, particularly of "atheism" and "faith." Being quick to dismiss another's point of view is not an element of faith in any definition I have previously heard.

 

[joobz]

... and that's part of the problem. Rather than stating it, you should be arguing it, based on reason and evidence.

that's a semantic debate. I have been argueing it and giving you my reasons.

 

[CapelDodger]

perhaps i wrote poorly there, and i apologize.

You're doing me no harm, no apologies needed. You harm only yourself. You launched this thread, it's not as if you made some ill-considered response. By sentence two you've entirely lost track of your case. If your intention was to clarify your position I suggest you learn from this effort and try again.

I do not wish to mean religion.

And yet you associate atheism with "other religions". From the start.

Have you ever had to write an essay? Do you lack even that basis?

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Good point. But then it seems that atheism relishes in ignorance. A willfull determination to not consider more because we can't detect more.

What makes it seem that way to you, or more accuratly, what about what people have said here makes you think WE think this? I can't speak to some who may not believe in any gods and also happen to be completely closed off to any new information, but rationally minded people are not like this. Rational people fully accept there is plenty we don't know. That's pretty much what science is all about in fact, finding out more and more information. However, there is no reason to label all that which we don't know as "god", because as of yet every single time we pull the curtain back a little further, we've yet to find god and instead find something different. We may not be winning this game of holy hide and seek, but we're still having a great time. There is no reason to believe that god exists even in the unknown. Why even bother worrying about it? So no, it's not about being willfully ignorant, it's about being rational.

 

[joobz]

Perhaps atheists seem glib because they rarely are presented with an argument that they have not already heard (and dismissed) several times over?

I think you need to be more clear in your definitions, particularly of "atheism" and "faith." Being quick to dismiss another's point of view is not an element of faith in any definition I have previously heard.

This may be my own failing becuase of a lack of a solid internal definition. I've actually been using this forum in it's proper intent, to learn. I've read many posts and seen much action that has irked me, and i couldn't figure out why. So, i've been posting trying to isolate what it is that bothers me. and the glibness as you state may be exactly that.

I think it is especially since it comes from a preceived sense of superiority just like other faiths have (maybe i should switch back to calling it religions).

In a seperate thread I was duly called out for seperate posts where I stated that strong religious views irritate me and then also posted that I like to make fun of agnostics for being too wishy washy.

It seems when it comes to something as personal as faith to be so zealously sure of your position (whether it is atheism or a theism) comes off as beligerent and abusive. In that regard i see atheism as being equally guilty (or at least potentially as guilty). And seeing some of the rather dissmissive comments, i can say that this isn't too wrong.

For that reason, it seemed to me that atheism had to be similar to theism. that atheists can believe they are above the trappings of theism (or classically theistic type of action) had to stem from something. So I conjectured that that something was faith.

Again, I'd like to thank all who had constructive comments to make.

 

[DangerousBeliefs]

the "no substance" hits the issue that has been bugging me. There is a conceit to atheism that is just as negative as that of theists. It's the rapid dissmissal and belittlement of anyone's faith outside there own that seems to me to be the common thread.

perhaps that's what i see when I say atheism is a faith.
atheism is just as likely to denounce anyone else (under the guise of being right) as any other faith is.

Well, let's look at it another way.

Me - There's an invisible dragon in my garage.

You - I don't see one.

Me - There is.

You - Well, you believe there is.

Me - No, he is there. You believe he isn't!

Ok, you see where this is going? I would assert that there is no evidence that any Gods' exist. As soon as there is some, then I am just like theists in my "beliefs". But since there is no evidence, just as there is no evidence for the invisible dragon in my garage. I do not believe it isn't there. It really ISN'T THERE!

I think you're confusing the beliefs of some athiests that we need to convince folks that their beliefs of an invisible dragon...er ... God, are ridiculous.

I do not believe this. I believe as long as folks aren't hurting themselves and others, they can believe whatever fantasy/fairy tales they want.

That's Secular Humanism... and it IS a philosophy (or call it a religion if you want).

That doesn't make the invisible dragon any more real!

 

[Rufo]

No, it isn't.

See, we can play the "unsupported assertion" game too!

Is that a request for me to support my assertion?

Ok, I get the default position arguement. this goes inline with capel dodger's post.

Well, in my opinion things changes when you have heard of a concept and when you haven't. Still, I would suppose someone who has not heard of the concept of God (or made it up, or, if there is a God, had contact with it) would probably not hold any other position.

Deep.

I wouldn't say that. Quite shallow.

Care to have a crack at "How can atheism be a belief when it can exist in a Universe without the concept of belief?". Fitted to my previously supplied template.

Why? Have I disagreed with anything you stated? I think that was a good post.

 

[joobz]

You're doing me no harm, no apologies needed. You harm only yourself. You launched this thread, it's not as if you made some ill-considered response. By sentence two you've entirely lost track of your case. If your intention was to clarify your position I suggest you learn from this effort and try again.


And yet you associate atheism with "other religions". From the start.

Have you ever had to write an essay? Do you lack even that basis?

Interesting that you need to attack me or my ability to write. When did posting to a message board, an online communication forum, equal to writing a complete essay.

And as far as my case goes, no I didn't lose track of anything. I thought we were having a discussion. A view can change and augment based upon the information being given. that's how ideas are created.

 

[CapelDodger]

perhaps that's what i see when I say atheism is a faith.

What you are is thoroughly confused. I predicted (to myself, you'll have to take that on faith) that after your Religion and somebody else's "Belief", "Faith" would be the next refuge. "How can atheism be a faith when it can exist in a Universe without the concept of faith?", as per previous template.

After Faith the trail runs thin ...

 

[joobz]

What you are is thoroughly confused. I predicted (to myself, you'll have to take that on faith) that after your Religion and somebody else's "Belief", "Faith" would be the next refuge. "How can atheism be a faith when it can exist in a Universe without the concept of faith?", as per previous template.

After Faith the trail runs thin ...

did you also predict I'd go back to using religion.
Seriously, capeldodger, you seem to enjoy the belittlement game.

 

[joobz]

I think you're confusing the beliefs of some athiests that we need to convince folks that their beliefs of an invisible dragon...er ... God, are ridiculous.

But that is no more of a confusion to think that all theists want to root out other religions (including atheism).

it seems that all of the trappings that make religion repugant to many atheists can also be performed by atheists. So where's the difference?

Anyway, by your stated definition, Can I be a secular humanist too? I hope to think that i live my life that way.

 

[Ginarley]

There is a good reason why atheists have to be very assertive (perhaps even appearing glib to someone with faith) in making their points - your average religious person has had their reasoning capacity so seriously dulled that a normal reasonable argument about the existence of their god completely misses the point. This is their "faith" in action - their blind belief regardless of evidence, need or discussion. Atheists have to be aggressive to get past this.

A person with faith will rarely change their mind and will often not even consider the existence of an alternative no matter how compelling. Almost every atheist I know will change their mind presented a reasonable argument. As it happens there aren't any so we come across looking like a bunch of people that won't change our minds - but that is only because we haven't been given a remotely reasonable reason to do so.

 

[CapelDodger]

Interesting that you need to attack me or my ability to write. When did posting to a message board, an online communication forum, equal to writing a complete essay.

Your inability to write clearly and to a point doesn't need to be flushed out by my attack, you stuck it up there as the OP of your thread. You must have planned the thread. You must have thought about what you were going to say and how. And by sentence 2 you're begging the question, and by post X you're trying to tell me why you used "othr religions" when that wasn't what you meant.

And as far as my case goes, no I didn't lose track of anything. I thought we were having a discussion. A view can change and augment based upon the information being given. that's how ideas are created.

I'm not having a discussion with you until you come up with something to discuss. If you can put forward an attempt to crack my conundrum we would have.

 

[DangerousBeliefs]

it seems that all of the trappings that make religion repugant to many atheists can also be performed by atheists. So where's the difference?

The difference is that we have our eyes and ears open. We can look at the Universe and wonder at it's beauty without saying "God did it" or "God says no".

Anyway, by your stated definition, Can I be a secular humanist too? I hope to think that i live my life that way.

Of course. Although, if you believe in God, technically, you're a religious humanist.

 

[Steven Howard]

I've made this contention now in multiple threads and I wish to centralize it. The issue is a view on what atheism is compared to other religions.

the primary issue I have is the notion that atheism is some how not bogged down by ideologies like other religions. That some how, atheists are not encumbered with faith.

Twice in as many paragraphs, you've implied that atheism is a religion. It's not, in any commonly used sense of the word. Atheists don't worship. They engage in no rituals, observances, or devotions. Every religion I can think of has some form of practice or custom that sets its members apart from non-members. But there's no ritual, no custom, no overt act of any kind that you can point to as indicating someone's an atheist.

Try it with me now:

"I know those people are Christians because they're taking communion."
"I know those people are Jews because they're celebrating Passover."
"I know those people are Muslims because they're facing Mecca to pray."
"I know those people are atheists because they're _____". What goes in the blank?

My primary conjecture is this: A belief that there is no god or to have no belief in god is still a faith.

Are you sure that "conjecture" is the word you want here?

Anyway, depending on what you mean by "faith", it's possible to defend the statement "A belief that there are no gods is a faith." To say "To have no belief in gods is a faith," however, is nonsense or at best special pleading. At this point, people generally bring up leprechauns as an example, or invisible pink unicorns. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a popular recent variation. I have a much more mundane example that illustrates the same idea.

Suppose I were to write down a declarative sentence on a piece of paper, without showing it to you. Call this Statement A. It's a simple statement which is unequivocally true or false, like "The sky is blue" or "My name is Susan." Now, without knowing what it is, do you believe Statement A is true? Of course not, that would be foolish. So we can agree that you don't believe it's true. It would be equally foolish to believe that it was false.

Clearly, there's a difference between not believing that Statement A is true, and believing that Statement A is false. And clearly, there's no faith necessary to not believe Statement A.

Now, suppose I reveal Statement A, and it's something for which you have no evidence one way or the other. It could be something trivial like "I had a turkey sandwich for lunch on Tuesday," or "I have a blue pen on my desk." It could be something weird and silly like "Bigfoot stole my car," or "Gods are real and they're very, very good at hiding." If you didn't believe it was true (or false) before, and you have no evidence to confirm or deny it, does it now require faith to keep not believing it's true? If so, why?

 

[hammegk]

A couple comments: re name of god, FSM, 6" fairy, whatever, who cares what your pet name for god is or is not?

Re not collecting stamps, etcetc, a god who fits into our reality of shared perceptions of stuff we name material to me hides a category error. Numinous experiences -- on which individuals may, and sfaik do base their belief in god -- cannot be shared. One's choice given such an experience is one's mental facilities don't work right, or something exists that one's concept of god seems appropriate for.