Atheism is a faith.

joobz said:
agreed. But by the same view i'd say that theism doesn't make increase the jerkiness quotient of a person. It can contribute, but not cause.
Click to expand...

I basically agree. (I had a long-winded reply typed, but it was making even less sense than my usual posts.)
 
The list of all things that could exist is far far greater (this is an increadible understatement) than the list of all things that do exist.
Thus, when presented with some possible thing for which I have no evidence of it's existence, it's safe to say, "that doesn't exist."

I could be wrong, but chances are I won't be.

When evidence is supplied, the picture changes. The stronger the evidence, the more likely the thing is to exist. But until then, it's very likely true that it does not.
For instance, if I were to make a random assertion about physics - "the mass of a neutrino is X", chances are I'd be wrong. If, on the other hand, I had some evidence from which I derived that conclusion, it would be much more likely that I'd be correct.

edit: I posted this after reading the first page - didn't realise there was more. Hope this hasn't been said already...
 
I happen to agree that there is an unfortunate tendency for atheists to bash religious. But religious bash atheists all the time, so often that most people just take it for granted. Google atheism and you'll find people claiming that atheists can't be "truly" moral. And there was the guy who came on here and claimed that atheism leads to random serial killing. And of course there's the ever-present claim that we will all roast in hell for using our minds and coming to the most likely conclusion.
 
Bill Thompson said:
I think it is all how you define "god". If you define god as in invisible man who lives in the sky, then it is easy not to believe. If you define god as the literal biblical character, then it is easy not to believe.

Lots of people do not look at it this way. The classic definition is "That which no greater can be thought". What are you going to call that?

Why does the universe bother to exist at all? Nothing can be its own cause. There is a need to have a word for such a thing: The default word that explains why the universe bothers to exist. Logically, there should be nothing -- no universe or universes -- at all. Nothing should be here. The existance of the universe is a puzzle. What word do you give to explain existance itself when no other word applies?

(I know it is not scientific. But then, god does not fit in the scientific model. It is not a "how" sort of a question. It is a "why" sort of question.)

Trying to explain this away is difficult. One could say that the universe has always existed. But even that does not work. Besides, science says that this is not so and there are other problems with this model.

Also to say that there is no such thing as "That which no greater can be thought" is to imply that we petty human beings can figure it all out. That, in a sense we have infinate reasoning capacity. This, I think is foolish and absurd. We are all very limited in our ability to figure stuff out. And science is not playing along. THe more we learn the more that learned thing give us more questions. Everything we can possibly know will be either wrong or incomplete.

Mathematics (not the subject you learn in school) is behind everything in an infinately complex way. To say that there is a plan behind everything just might be true. What if I say that this view of Mathematics is God itself? Does that God not exist?

If we choose to say that even these views of what we call god is not real, then I have to think that athiesm really is a leap of faith as well.

Also, it seems to be a group of friends, a way of people with like minds to band together and attack whatever questions their belief. In this sense it too behaves like a church or a cult. The way I have seen athiests hammer religions is just as cruel as the way other religions hammer outside faiths.

---------

I wrote this too fast. I had to go back and fill-in the gaps.
Click to expand...

If the only way to define Athiesm as faith is to redefine God so as to be so pointless, vague and unimportant that He might as well not exist then Athiesm becomes less faith and more basic common sense.

If God is simply 'the thing that started it' then all the religions we have today have it wrong, God has no impact on my life/afterlife and no requirement to be worshiped. There would be no reward for believing in this God other than a purely academic being 'right or wrong' so why bother?

Either God doesn't exisit and you might as well be Athiest or God has to be redefined to the point where belief/non-belief are indistinguishable in any real sense?

As for the classic definition - "That which no greater can be thought". It makes no sense to me. First you'd have to define the scale on which 'great' is measured. Then you'd have to define how this is usefully different from 'the biggest number you can think of'. Then you'd have to convince me that whatever you suggest cannot be made greater by spending 50 cents to 'add bacon' or 'extra cheese' :)

Therefore I will postulate that IF God exists, he has a few crispy rashers of Canadian Back Bacon sitting on His head. :)
 
Atheists often think that the beleif in god or not has some importance. They can take it so far that it leaves the realm of reality and becomes faith.
eta ; I should have made that some atheists. I am an athiest and try to keep my religious beleifs to a minimum as do many others
 
Last edited:
Dogdoctor said:
Atheists often think that the beleif in god or not has some importance.
Click to expand...
Perhaps because it obviously does?
If there is a god, I'd like to know. It would almost certainly tell me other things about our universe that are worth knowing. If the christains are right, for instance, it's the most important thing I could ever find out. Ditto with some other religions.

On the other hand, if there is not a god, I certainly don't want to live my life as though there were. I'd be labouring under a falsehood that could lead me to false conclusions about what I should do. My basic understanding of the universe would be fatally flawed- and this could easily lead to futher flawed conclusions. Practically, I'd probably waste time doing things that are of no use to me. Some of the actions that it could lead me to might be worse than wasteful - they'd be destructive.
 
All you people who think that Gremlins are not the cause of mechanical failure are all acting on faith-like belief that Gremlins are not the cause. That puts you on an equal footing with those who do have faith that Gremlins are the cause of all mechanical failure. You're just true-believers, too. So there!

Your wrenches and ratchets are no better at dealing with mechanical failure than rattles and fetishes.

...points and snickers...."whutevah!"
 
Sushi said:
Joobz seems to enjoy playing with definitions and terms, despite his poor grammar.
Click to expand...
I've seen the grammar card played before. Unless we're discussing English composition I fail to see what that has to do with the debate at hand. I happen to know that Joobz is a very intelligent person who can communicate exceptionally well verbally. But I've seen him type. He types very fast. And because he's very busy he doesn't always take the time to proof read his informal compositions. He may not write with the eloquence of language of Thomas Huxley or Stephen Gould but if you underestimate his intelligence based on the level of refinement of his prose you are making an error.

It doesn't make you clever, either.
Click to expand...
This veiled insult bothers me as well. Joobz has been nothing but polite to everyone here and has clearly indicated his desire to discuss these matters in an open debate forum. I also know that there isn't an ounce of arrogance or desire to appear clever within his constitution. If you enjoy debating people who disagree with you then Joobz is the person to do it with because he'll actually read what you post and consider it. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them a troll or weak minded.
 
Last edited:
Roboramma said:
Perhaps because it obviously does?
If there is a god, I'd like to know. It would almost certainly tell me other things about our universe that are worth knowing. If the christains are right, for instance, it's the most important thing I could ever find out. Ditto with some other religions.

On the other hand, if there is not a god, I certainly don't want to live my life as though there were. I'd be labouring under a falsehood that could lead me to false conclusions about what I should do. My basic understanding of the universe would be fatally flawed- and this could easily lead to futher flawed conclusions. Practically, I'd probably waste time doing things that are of no use to me. Some of the actions that it could lead me to might be worse than wasteful - they'd be destructive.
Click to expand...

What people do makes a difference. What they believe doesn't unless you are now going to provide evidence that it does.
 
Roboramma said:
The list of all things that could exist is far far greater (this is an increadible understatement) than the list of all things that do exist.
Thus, when presented with some possible thing for which I have no evidence of it's existence, it's safe to say, "that doesn't exist."

I could be wrong, but chances are I won't be.

When evidence is supplied, the picture changes. The stronger the evidence, the more likely the thing is to exist. But until then, it's very likely true that it does not.
For instance, if I were to make a random assertion about physics - "the mass of a neutrino is X", chances are I'd be wrong. If, on the other hand, I had some evidence from which I derived that conclusion, it would be much more likely that I'd be correct.

edit: I posted this after reading the first page - didn't realise there was more. Hope this hasn't been said already...
Click to expand...

Well stated. I would agree that any atheist who claims to have absolute knowledge that no gods exist is delusional. But none of the rational atheists I know of would ever make that claim. A rational atheist states that there is no evidence for the existence of gods and lives his/her life on the assumption that they do not exist. But they stop short of claiming to know with certainty that they do not exist. By some definitions that could be called agnosticism but I feel many atheists (myself included) are loath to use the "agnostic" label because so many people equate that with a middle of the road "God might exist but he might not, you tell me" position.

And did anyone's sig ever match a post so well as in the one I just quoted?:D
 
I wrote a blog on this because I was frustrated hearing people claim that atheism requires faith. It was written for myspace, so keep the audience in mind if you bear reading it!

If it seems too long, try reading the scenarios below...

***

For people who claim atheism is a religion, or that (strong) atheism requires just as much faith as theism:

I'm a strong atheist. I claim no gods exist. Do I know this with certainty? No. But certainty is an impossible and unecessary burden for belief (or non belief) to be rational.

Unless you can show me god is logical via reason, or verfiable via either my senses, or the scientific method, the default mode HAS TO BE that no gods exist. This has to be the deafult mode.

Since I cannot sense any gods, nor have I seen any compelling logical arguments for a god's existence, my strong atheism is perfectly rational.

***

You must follow the rules of logic when you debate. If you don't you automatically lose. If you reject reason as the basis for deciding whether or not to believe in something, then you are not worth debating. That doesn't mean your position is wrong. It does mean, though, that further conversations with you would be pointless (as if you spoke a language I didn't).

Theists demand the illogical when they ask atheists to prove with certainty that gods don't exist (usually asked smugly knowing that since this is impossible, they can then claim-- incorrectly-- that atheism is just as faith-based as their belief)

"Prove that x doesn't exist, and do it with certainty." Impossible and unnecessary.

We don't require that level of proof for any other thing we could potentially believe in. Why do we require it for (pick your) god?

There are two rules:

1) If I can verify x with logic, my senses or the scientific method, then it is rational to believe in x.

2) If I can't perceive x, and if x has no logical support, and if x can't be verified with the scientific method, then game over. It is rational to not believe in x.

Moreover, when (2) applies the burden (not with certainty of course!) rests squarely with the person asserting that this unseen x exists, despite no logical reason for it needing to exist, and despite no evidence via the scientific method suggesting that it might exist.

Consider these two scenarios, to really beat this to death:

Scenario 1:

Atheist: Hey, look at this tree.

Theist: I don't believe you.

Atheist: No, really, look here.

Theist: Well, i see something that my eyes tell me looks like a tree, but that depends on me having faith that my senses are accuracte.

Atheist: Ok, so you admit your senses are telling you this thing might be a tree. You say all you have is faith, though, not proof, as your senses might not be accurate.

I'm going to also demonstrate with logic that the tree exists. Bend over please.

Theist: but why? (assuming position).

Atheist: Do you feel the tree limb thrust squarely up your arse? Doesn't it feel like tree bark scractching your insides? Can you feel the leaves that sheer off the tree and gently caress your back? Doesn't your screaming in agony suggest that this tree actually exists, and that it's limb is in your bum?

In other words: something you were not sure about (whether this thing was indeed a tree) has been verified inductively, becuase it has effects on your body quite similar to what a philosopher would predict were a tree in a forrest to fall in your arse. That this tree had physical effects on your person suggests at some level it exists.

Theist: Hmmm, ok, you've proved this is a tree. Hey, can we try that again!


Scenario 2:

Theist: Hey, jesus exists.

Atheist: Ok, show me him.

Theist: You can't perceive him through your senses, you just gotta have faith.

Atheist: Ok provide some logical argument for why something I can't verify with my senses, nonetheless exists.

Theist: Well, I can't do that either. All I gots is the argument from design and perhaps pascal's wager, but you clever heathens have already exposed the invalidity of those arguments. Again, if you just had faith that jesus exists, you would know in your heart that jesus exists.

Atheist: But faith is belief in the absence of reason. It is irrational-- in fact, it is the opposite of reason.

Theist. Yeah, but it's all I got. And my belief is based only on faith, which is irrational. You've convinced me!

Hey, can we try that tree demonstration again!
 
Foster Zygote said:
Well stated. I would agree that any atheist who claims to have absolute knowledge that no gods exist is delusional. But none of the rational atheists I know of would ever make that claim. A rational atheist states that there is no evidence for the existence of gods and lives his/her life on the assumption that they do not exist. But they stop short of claiming to know with certainty that they do not exist. By some definitions that could be called agnosticism but I feel many atheists (myself included) are loath to use the "agnostic" label because so many people equate that with a middle of the road "God might exist but he might not, you tell me" position.

And did anyone's sig ever match a post so well as in the one I just quoted?:D
Click to expand...

My personal take on the whole thing is:

1) I can't know for 100% sure whether every single possible definition of God/Gods does not exist.

2) Every model suggested of God so far by religion does not fit with reality and therefore is false.

3) Alternative theories of God are generally vague and unprovable but do not involve any direct impact on my day to day life.

Therefore, either God does not exist or God does exist and I have absolutely no way of knowing what he wants or expects from me (if anything) - my behaviours under both of these conditions are the same, so I guess I am athiest or at least act like
one.

EDIT: Can the OP point out where the faith is in my position?
 
Last edited:
Roboramma said:
The list of all things that could exist is far far greater (this is an increadible understatement) than the list of all things that do exist.
Thus, when presented with some possible thing for which I have no evidence of it's existence, it's safe to say, "that doesn't exist."

I could be wrong, but chances are I won't be.

When evidence is supplied, the picture changes. The stronger the evidence, the more likely the thing is to exist. But until then, it's very likely true that it does not.
For instance, if I were to make a random assertion about physics - "the mass of a neutrino is X", chances are I'd be wrong. If, on the other hand, I had some evidence from which I derived that conclusion, it would be much more likely that I'd be correct.

edit: I posted this after reading the first page - didn't realise there was more. Hope this hasn't been said already...
Click to expand...
This is a view i'm comfortable with. But if you consider the theory of a multidimentional universe like David Deutsch suggests, then the infinite number of possibilities may actually be. (I don't know if I can buy this either). But if such a view of the universe is currently plausible, then doesn't it stand to reason that the likelyhood that a god would exist in one of these possibilities. At least, this doesn't conflict with current theory.
 
bpesta22 said:
Theist. Yeah, but it's all I got. And my belief is based only on faith, which is irrational. You've convinced me!
Click to expand...

I've never liked the put words in people's mouths until they agree with you style of argument. I remember a poster a few months back used a similar track to show that anyone who doesn't believe in souls should be a serial killer. Better to just argue with real people.
 
El Greco said:
Always God, God, God, God.... Same old, same old. I'm getting bored with this. Why don't people start more interesting threads like "A belief that there are no women with four boobs is still faith" ? What's more interesting in a God than in a woman with four boobs ?
Click to expand...

I feel partially responsible for the creation of this thread. It was my argument with joobz here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67378 that I think was at least a semi-catalyst.

I felt compelled to at least make one post, however, I am willing to bow to higher intelligence. I honestly don't think I could have come up with the analogy which I am quoting here, and I'm stating El Greco has said everything I would have wanted to say about this subject.
 
joobz said:
This is a view i'm comfortable with. But if you consider the theory of a multidimentional universe like David Deutsch suggests, then the infinite number of possibilities may actually be. (I don't know if I can buy this either). But if such a view of the universe is currently plausible, then doesn't it stand to reason that the likelyhood that a god would exist in one of these possibilities. At least, this doesn't conflict with current theory.
Click to expand...

By some definition of "god" sure, maybe. But as it wouldn't exist in our universe or be able to affect our universe in any way, I don't think it really meets the definition of "god" that I, (or most people) use.
If we lived in that other universe we might be right to say "god exists". But we don't.
 
Last of the Fraggles said:
My personal take on the whole thing is:

1) I can't know for 100% sure whether every single possible definition of God/Gods does not exist.

2) Every model suggested of God so far by religion does not fit with reality and therefore is false.

3) Alternative theories of God are generally vague and unprovable but do not involve any direct impact on my day to day life.

Therefore, either God does not exist or God does exist and I have absolutely no way of knowing what he wants or expects from me (if anything) - my behaviours under both of these conditions are the same, so I guess I am athiest or at least act like
one.

EDIT: Can the OP point out where the faith is in my position?
Click to expand...
if i was purely sticking with the OP, i'd say that the fact that you can consider the notion a god but say it doesn't affect you would be a faith.

But I think now that this faith point was a wrong attempt at where I was merging the atheism and theism.


I still think that both are equal in their utility and in thier damage. But you can state that is a fault with the person and not the belief.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom