Atheism is a faith.

[ChristineR]

One formulation of "strong" and "weak" atheism goes like this:

Weak atheist: There is no evidence that there is a God.
Strong Atheist: There is evidence that there is no God.

Neither position fits the definition of faith, which is belief despite a lack of evidence. Some atheists might say that there is a vanishingly small chance that there is a god, just as there is a vanishingly small chance that there are fairies in my living room. But no one would say that my belief that there are no fairies in my living room is a matter of "faith."

Actually I think you can find something atheists (at least this one)have faith in.

1. That there is such a thing as objective truth.
2. That the universe follows observable laws (which may or may not include certain random and unpredictable behaviors).
3. That effects have causes.

I'm sure others can add some more of this sort. In any case what you are left with is either (a) no God, or a (b) God that intervenes and acts so rarely that he/she/it leaves no evidence of its existence, or a (c)God that chooses to act in such that all the evidence points to there being no God.

If you have "faith" in my points 1-3, you really are forced to the conclusions (a)-(c).

I do admit that a PhD in Philopsophy might have some more things to say about this. He might find a (d) or he might rewrite my (1-3).

 

[Dunstan]

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

And anyone, atheist or otherwise, who claims so is wrong. So what? Because some hypothetical atheist makes an erroneous statement doesn't make your erroneous statements any less erroneous.

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?

First of all, "can" is the key word. Yes, you can find atheists who want atheists to organize, have an identifying symbol, create and implement an official code of moral behaviour. You can also find atheists who disagree with those efforts.

More importantly, so what? Atheism isn't a "faith" or a "religion" because some atheists want to (and perhaps, in some cases, do) organize, adopt a symbol, etc., any more than political parties or golf clubs are. You're veering off topic.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

I'd actually contest those 3 matters of faith. The last two especially have an overabundance of evidence pointing to such a conclusion. As to there being "objective truth", that's really a matter of definition. Really all science is is a method that strives to reduce, as much as possible, anything that might interfere in obtaining accurate information. We call the result, if not "objective truth", at least the closest we'll be able to get to it.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

First post here so hope it makes sense....

These kind of 'athiesm is a faith', 'evolution is just a theory' etc etc arguments bother me because they are really just an attempt to cloud the issues and paint everything as being so unsure and unknowable that every point of view is just as valid as any other.... and they clearly aren't.

If you take the OP title 'Athiesm is faith' - there are a few problems.

First of all you would have to tell me what do Athiests have faith in? Pretty difficult to do given that Athiesm is a catch-all, none of the above type tag. I suppose the strongest argument you could make is that Athiesm is a faith in the same way that 0 is a number - only on paper, but not in any real sense.

However, I think the previous poster nailed it when he said athiesm can exist without the existence of faith. Suppose someone could identify the 'faith-centre' of the brain such that, without this an individual could not experience faith in anything- not God, not that the sun would rise, not that the lights will turn to green. If an individual then had this part of the brain surgically removed they would be truly faithless. What then would we call their position with respect to existence/non-existence of God - surely athiesm? And if not athiesm then how would the position be distinguished from athiesm?

Also interesting to note that after time and experience the individual would regain an 'expectation' that the sun would rise, the lights would turn to green, etc etc through empirical evidence. An expectation of God would not return in this way though.

That's not to say that some aspects of some athiests beliefs are not faith-based - for example, I would say that if an athiest was convinced that science would eventually answer every question we have then at present that would be a faith in science. Even then, I think we would be discussing a different meaning of faith though.

If the argument is a different one and is trying to suggest that not believing in God is just as much a guess as believing in God then I still disagree. The only way that would make sense is if the probability of God existing is exactly equal to the probability that he doesn't. And I don't think that's the case given that every potential God put forward by religion seems to be at odds with reality as we experience it and understand it.

So there we have it 'Athiest = unfaithiest' (Put that on a bumper sticker!)

 

[Dogdoctor]

If you hold the position that you have no opinion on the matter then you truly have no belief. Once you have an opinion then you have a belief and letting go of it once confronted with new information will require a greater effort. The more that you are convinced your opinion is truth, the harder it will be to let go of it when confronted with new information.

 

[CapelDodger]

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

There's a bit of the bully in me, I won't deny, it's unattractive but there it is. But that's not why you're caught between me and a hard place. That's down to you coming out with such a provocative thread-title backed-up by ... nothing. That's going to attract some of the big beasts who've heard your adolescent wanderings before.

I'm eager to put this whole "atheism is a religion/belief/faith/conjecture" to rest in Argameddon style, and where better to do that than the ground you've introduced? "Atheism is a faith". Come one, come all, lets sort this thing out. Anyone out there still think they've got an argument to support the thread-title? Any one girded to knock them into the dust?

While we're about that, joobz, you might apply yourself to the conundrum I set. A few times. If you keep ignoring me I might well take umbrage.

 

[Vox Humana]

First post here so hope it makes sense....

These kind of 'athiesm is a faith', 'evolution is just a theory' etc etc arguments bother me because they are really just an attempt to cloud the issues and paint everything as being so unsure and unknowable that every point of view is just as valid as any other.... and they clearly aren't.

If you take the OP title 'Athiesm is faith' - there are a few problems.

First of all you would have to tell me what do Athiests have faith in? Pretty difficult to do given that Athiesm is a catch-all, none of the above type tag. I suppose the strongest argument you could make is that Athiesm is a faith in the same way that 0 is a number - only on paper, but not in any real sense.

However, I think the previous poster nailed it when he said athiesm can exist without the existence of faith. Suppose someone could identify the 'faith-centre' of the brain such that, without this an individual could not experience faith in anything- not God, not that the sun would rise, not that the lights will turn to green. If an individual then had this part of the brain surgically removed they would be truly faithless. What then would we call their position with respect to existence/non-existence of God - surely athiesm? And if not athiesm then how would the position be distinguished from athiesm?

Also interesting to note that after time and experience the individual would regain an 'expectation' that the sun would rise, the lights would turn to green, etc etc through empirical evidence. An expectation of God would not return in this way though.

That's not to say that some aspects of some athiests beliefs are not faith-based - for example, I would say that if an athiest was convinced that science would eventually answer every question we have then at present that would be a faith in science. Even then, I think we would be discussing a different meaning of faith though.

If the argument is a different one and is trying to suggest that not believing in God is just as much a guess as believing in God then I still disagree. The only way that would make sense is if the probability of God existing is exactly equal to the probability that he doesn't. And I don't think that's the case given that every potential God put forward by religion seems to be at odds with reality as we experience it and understand it.

So there we have it 'Athiest = unfaithiest' (Put that on a bumper sticker!)

Well said, LotF. Welcome to the forum!

 

[Bill Thompson]

A belief that there is no god doesn't require faith. It's called the default position. Having no belief in god somehow suggests there is a god.

ETA: Dang you, Dragonrock!

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.

 

[Sushi]

Joobz seems to enjoy playing with definitions and terms, despite his poor grammar. For example, he's talked about "faith" in a person or thing and "faith" in the religious sense. They're different things; trusting in someone's abilities is far different than belief in certain metaphysical claims.

He also seems to enjoy redefining "religion" and "atheism" and "belief" to support his opposition to atheism and to desperately try to attach the word "faith" to atheism in order to discredit it.

I find these people hard to reason with because not only are they dishonest to others, but they seem to enjoy misleading themselves because they so desperately want to be right.

His trying to label atheism "a faith", despite the fact that atheists hold that there is no evidence for the existence of "God" (whatever that may be) so it's doubtful that such a thing exists, especially given its "nature". I mean, if someone said they don't believe in the boogeyman, nobody would bat an eyelash, despite the fact that even "boogeyman" is a very vague sort of entity. You can equivocate about "higher powers" and switch around what atheism entails but just because you use words that can describe what we are talking about, does not mean we are really discussing the same thing.

It doesn't make you clever, either.

Atheism is as much of a faith as not believing in the boogeyman is a faith. And if you want to go that line, you've defined faith into uselessness.

 

[lenny]

Consider this : if nobody had ever thought up a religion, there would be no concept of religion for philosophers to knaw over, yet there would still be atheism. If atheism can exist in a world without the concept of religion, how is it a religion?

i have no horse in this race, but why not give him athesim, which Websters claims is a doctrine (and requires the concept of deity)

Merriam-Webster: the doctrine that there is no deity

and fall back on the more skeptically inclined agnostic

Merriam-Webster: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable

(hopefully i did not miss this point made earlier in the thread!)

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

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. "That which no greater can be thought" what are you going to call that?

The default word that explains why the universe bothers to exist? Shouldn't logically there be nothing at all? What word do you give to explain existance itself when no other word applies?

But to say that this sort of thing does not exist is to say that the universe has always existed. But 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?

On behalf of all atheists, I humbly apologise for an inability to disprove an infinitely redefineable concept.

 

[fuelair]

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.

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

To presume nothing else is out there requires faith.
The primary argument against this point is the Russell's Teapot analogy. However, I feel that it simply explains the absurdity of specific examples of god but fails to demonstrate why thinking there is nothing more (god like) isn't a faith.


well, this is my Forum opener. There were some quite good comments made in other forums against me and I'd like to address those when I get more time.
Thank you.
joobz

You are free to believe this, your belief makes no change in reality.

 

[joobz]

There's a bit of the bully in me, I won't deny, it's unattractive but there it is. But that's not why you're caught between me and a hard place. That's down to you coming out with such a provocative thread-title backed-up by ... nothing. That's going to attract some of the big beasts who've heard your adolescent wanderings before.

I started the thread to stop the derailing of other threads that was happening. I was trying to be a "good samaritan". But I guess no good deed...As to adolescent? And I find the abusive arrogance you like to bring to the table nothing more than a childish attempt to seem important. I admit bringing humor to conversations and attempted to derail the intellectual strong arming that seems to occur.

I'm eager to put this whole "atheism is a religion/belief/faith/conjecture" to rest in Argameddon style, and where better to do that than the ground you've introduced? "Atheism is a faith". Come one, come all, lets sort this thing out. Anyone out there still think they've got an argument to support the thread-title? Any one girded to knock them into the dust?

Perhaps i'll back down on atheism being a faith but i think you demonstrated quite well the potential abuse that can occur in the name of a form of atheism.

While we're about that, joobz, you might apply yourself to the conundrum I set. A few times. If you keep ignoring me I might well take umbrage.

Did you mean the conundrum you posted in your first comment? I thought I addressed it. It might not be good, but I didn't ignore it like you claim.

Jeez, one at a time people.

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


Atheism can exist in the realm where not concept of a god exists. Yet, that is not the world we live in. It is, in a similar fashion, like the notion of a vacuum. A vacuum is where no matter exists. yet a vacuum doesn't truly exist in our universe. Even in deep space, it's just an area of extremely low pressure. So is atheism. You may reject the notion of a god. You may find it wholey illogical with your world view based upon the self consistent notions of the world we live in. But to claim that there is no faith in that view can not be true.

 

[Bill Thompson]

On behalf of all atheists, I humbly apologise for an inability to disprove an infinitely redefineable concept.

good one.

 

[Sushi]

Perhaps i'll back down on atheism being a faith but i think you demonstrated quite well the potential abuse that can occur in the name of a form of atheism.

Again he plays with words!

Atheism is not a set of supernatural beliefs with a moral twist like religions are.

He is not "abusing" you in the name of atheism anymore than laughing at an angry teenager who calls himself a "fascist" is "abuse in the name of democracy".

People laugh at other people sometimes because they have silly ideas.

 

[ChristineR]

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.

This sounds like deism, not theism. It reminds me of those T-shirts that read:

AND GOD SAID

(insert Maxwell's equations here)

and there was light.

I can understand your desire to worship Maxwell's equations, but I doubt if that is going to fit anyone's definition of "God." Further, when I hear this sort of argument the presenter almost invariably tries to make the leap from math/first cause/Maxwell straight to Jesus. The sort of "God" you describe has no personality (at least not one that can be deduced from the evidence) and has no interest in worship. Feeling this sort of awe and even attaching ritual to it requires no particular faith. It's when you start attaching unsupported conclusions to it that you end up with what most of us would call "God."

 

[Dunstan]

Perhaps i'll back down on atheism being a faith but i think you demonstrated quite well the potential abuse that can occur in the name of a form of atheism.

I'm not saying that any "abuse" has been committed by anyone in this thread, but let's assume arguendo that it has. Does it not occur to you that this would simply reflect on the manners (or lack thereof) of a particular poster, and not on "a form of atheism"? Some people are jerks, including some atheists. That doesn't make jerkiness (jerkitude? jerkosity?) a form of atheism, any more than the existence of some utilitarians who are jerks means that there's a sub-branch of utilitarianism for jerks.

I look forward to you clarifying what you mean by "back[ing] down." If you've re-evaluated your position based on these discussions, that is to your credit.

 

[joobz]

Again he plays with words!

Atheism is not a set of supernatural beliefs with a moral twist like religions are.

He is not "abusing" you in the name of atheism anymore than laughing at an angry teenager who calls himself a "fascist" is "abuse in the name of democracy".

People laugh at other people sometimes because they have silly ideas.

I am not trying to play with words.
And I'd say that all theists do is laugh at the silly ideas of others.
If that's where it stayed, then great. But it tends not to.
It seems that the motivation to "laugh at silly thiest" ideas can be easily thought in the same light as a theist. I see no superiority. I do not insist that all atheists act superior but many seem to.

 

[joobz]

I'm not saying that any "abuse" has been committed by anyone in this thread, but let's assume arguendo that it has. Does it not occur to you that this would simply reflect on the manners (or lack thereof) of a particular poster, and not on "a form of atheism"? Some people are jerks, including some atheists. That doesn't make jerkiness (jerkitude? jerkosity?) a form of atheism, any more than the existence of some utilitarians who are jerks means that there's a sub-branch of utilitarianism for jerks.

I look forward to you clarifying what you mean by "back[ing] down." If you've re-evaluated your position based on these discussions, that is to your credit.

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

-edit-I do need to proof read more.

 

[joobz]

Joobz seems to enjoy playing with definitions and terms, despite his poor grammar. For example, he's talked about "faith" in a person or thing and "faith" in the religious sense. They're different things; trusting in someone's abilities is far different than belief in certain metaphysical claims.

He also seems to enjoy redefining "religion" and "atheism" and "belief" to support his opposition to atheism and to desperately try to attach the word "faith" to atheism in order to discredit it.

I find these people hard to reason with because not only are they dishonest to others, but they seem to enjoy misleading themselves because they so desperately want to be right.

You are trying to poison the well(these people, poor grammar, playing with words) I've never claimed to be trying to discredit atheism. I'm trying to sort out my views. I really don't know where I stand.

But, Thank you for being polite and respectful to me.