Atheism is a faith.

Polaris said:
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.
Click to expand...
I would request some of you to review that thread.
It hits more of the issues that did set me off.
It's the presumption that massive evil is the exclusive domain of religion that got to me. but polaris never did exlpain why I may be wrong in my last exchange, so I'm left to assume he's currently searching for his 4 boobed dreamdate.:o
 
Joobz, you're simply wrong. It takes no faith at all to conclude that there is no evidence of a god and thus, no reason to believe in one. Faith is not a conclusion, it's the declaration of knowledge without reason, logic or thought.
 
Hardline, somewhat ridiculous atheism: There is no god, ever, and nothing you can do or say will convince me. Not unlike the theist's claim of an extant, but invisible and non-observable god.

Atheism that I think most of us subscribe to: There is no evidence for a god. It is highly unlikely that a god exists. The burden of proof is upon any non-observable god to prove that they exist.

I might have the burden of proof bit slightly off, so correct me if this argument is wrong somehow. An omniscient god knows that we exist. We, on the other hand, know no such thing about this omniscient god. I believe that puts the burden of proof on the one whose existence is not immediately provable to the other party.
 
Glen.Nogami said:
Hardline, somewhat ridiculous atheism: There is no god, ever, and nothing you can do or say will convince me. Not unlike the theist's claim of an extant, but invisible and non-observable god.

Atheism that I think most of us subscribe to: There is no evidence for a god. It is highly unlikely that a god exists. The burden of proof is upon any non-observable god to prove that they exist.

I might have the burden of proof bit slightly off, so correct me if this argument is wrong somehow. An omniscient god knows that we exist. We, on the other hand, know no such thing about this omniscient god. I believe that puts the burden of proof on the one whose existence is not immediately provable to the other party.
Click to expand...
and that is the kind i could subscribe to, but for some reason.
I don't really feel it yet. Does that make sense?
 
It doesn't make any sense at all. However, belief in any gods never really makes sense.
 
Roboramma said:
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.
Click to expand...

I was trying to mimic the chick tract form of argumentation.
 
joobz said:
and that is the kind i could subscribe to, but for some reason.
I don't really feel it yet. Does that make sense?
Click to expand...

Sure it does. I was at that stage once myself. I didn't make a quantum leap from theist to atheist, it happened gradually. Not that I'm implying that you need to reach the same conclusions that I did, but I can understand where you're coming from.
 
joobz said:
and that is the kind i could subscribe to, but for some reason.
I don't really feel it yet. Does that make sense?
Click to expand...

Some may have misunderstood this, but it makes sense to me. I think you're looking for an emotional nature to it. Unfortunatly, I can offer none (I have my own, but it is irrelevent to you, as would anyone else's, as it's subjective). You'll have to decide that for yourself. All I can say is that, god or no god, for me it's enough to find what joy there is in life, and I've found plenty. All in all you seem to be a fairly sensible sort who's just looking for a debate, and I can respect that. Keep in mind that the sheer number of dogmatic sorts who come by who won't ever be willing to accept even the possibility that their logic is in some way flawed on anything has made even me rather jaded. Sorry if that gives a bad impression of a number of people here. Even I assumed the worst and I shouldn't have. That said, I'll still debate logic that doesn't add up when you present it. If you are the person who is willing to debate rationally and accept when an argument has been refuted, that'll be fine. If you decide that in spite of the lack of a need for god in explaining things, you still, for emotional reasons, would rather believe in one's existance, that's fine too so long as you don't use that belief to support an argument or any decisions beyond ones that only affect you personally.
 
joobz said:
I would request some of you to review that thread.
It hits more of the issues that did set me off.
It's the presumption that massive evil is the exclusive domain of religion that got to me. but polaris never did exlpain why I may be wrong in my last exchange, so I'm left to assume he's currently searching for his 4 boobed dreamdate.:o
Click to expand...

Two is fine with me until I have four hands.

I never said that religion was the exclusive domain of evil - you put words in my mouth. I said it possessed the greatest capacity for evil with the least defensible reasons. Your attempts to label the atrocities of the worst Communist dictators as atheistic in nature were really a stretch, as they were done in the name of Communism (which for all purposes was a non-theistic religion and required a great deal of faith). Also note that I am very mindful of my words. When I say "religion" I mean religion. When I say "faith" I mean faith. Those are not interchangeable. Just thought I'd point that out.

You can't prove a negative. You made the same assertion there that you did in the title of your OP here. I'm glad you created a separate thread, open to more members than the linked one would - perhaps you'll realize the flaw in your reasoning here.

I've got no problem with people reading over that thread. Be my guest, I'm a big boy. Unlike you, I believe there are things that require a strong stance. I draw the line at returning the haranguing and proseletyzing that atheists usually get from theists. I don't want to convert anybody - I only wish to be tolerated and left alone in my own beliefs. Your statement that I'm an atheistic zealot is particularly galling for that reason. I didn't mention it then, I'm mentioning it now.
 
Polaris said:
Two is fine with me until I have four hands.

I never said that religion was the exclusive domain of evil - you put words in my mouth. I said it possessed the greatest capacity for evil with the least defensible reasons.
Click to expand...
You stated
It's the idea of putting religion above criticism, which you seem to cryptically be calling for, that makes it a particular evil. While it's not the only evil, it is a magnifier of the others - think how much more horrible wars, slavery, ethnic strife become when you throw in the idea that one or both sides are doing it for Gooooood!

No, they should all go.
Click to expand...
This view to put athiesm above other faiths was equally appauling to me. I'd say that you can convince anyone to do anything for the good. that doesn't take a religion. Actually, your call for the abolishment of all religions could easily take a negative turn. I'm not saying you specificlly, but enough people with that view together and there you go.

So, how is atheism any better?

Your attempts to label the atrocities of the worst Communist dictators as atheistic in nature were really a stretch, as they were done in the name of Communism (which for all purposes was a non-theistic religion and required a great deal of faith). Also note that I am very mindful of my words. When I say "religion" I mean religion. When I say "faith" I mean faith. Those are not interchangeable. Just thought I'd point that out.
Click to expand...
I don't see how communist attoricities were less because there wasn't a theism present. as to your specificity in definition, great. But I wonder why you think atheism couldn't ogranize into one?

You can't prove a negative. You made the same assertion there that you did in the title of your OP here. I'm glad you created a separate thread, open to more members than the linked one would - perhaps you'll realize the flaw in your reasoning here.

I've got no problem with people reading over that thread. Be my guest, I'm a big boy.
Click to expand...
I never claimed you weren't a big boy. I was pointing out that I wasn't hiding anything and was making a valid request to have my points debated. That's all. I'm trying to learn and grow, not convert anyone. But when you say things like
It's the religion itself, the institution, that is far and away capable of much greater horror than good.
Click to expand...
that make it seem that you are calling for a complete abolishment of religion, a very thiest attitude.

Unlike you, I believe there are things that require a strong stance. I draw the line at returning the haranguing and proseletyzing that atheists usually get from theists. I don't want to convert anybody - I only wish to be tolerated and left alone in my own beliefs. Your statement that I'm an atheistic zealot is particularly galling for that reason. I didn't mention it then, I'm mentioning it now.
Click to expand...
Now you are putting word into my mouth. I've already mentioned that I believe in strong stances on certain topics. Religion and faith isn't one of them. It's my view that the strong stances pro or con religion and or faith is where you start to get the problems. So in that regard, my strong stance is against zealous faith.

I had already aknowledged that it was wrong to assume that from your statements you had a zealous nature, but when your claim that my views are capable of causing horrors beyond what your views are seems insulting.
 
Understandable, but again you are claiming that atheism is faith. Taken literally, the word only means a lack of faith or belief in any sort of diety. It could be for rational reasons or irrational, and an atheist can still have some sort of faith.

Could it be possible to have some sort of atheist war against theistic religions where they are all imprisoned or worse? Yes. Is that an actual danger? I doubt it. The only real difference that matters to me is that the universe shows no signs of the existance of a god, therefor that seems to be the logical conclusion. There are two possibilities but that doesn't make them equally probable.

Please explain why atheism requires faith. You are merely stating that it IS a faith without explaining why.
 
Glen.Nogami said:
Not really. Could you maybe elaborate on "some reason?"
Click to expand...
Maybe it's residual guilt of abandoning the religion I was raised. The question of betrayal to my family, my mom.
Maybe it's in part that i'm not certain if i want to feel a loss of comfort. I don't even know if I feel the comfort from it.
Maybe i'm still waiting for some irrational sign.

These are only really part of my views. One other issue was that many atheists i've ran across in person tended to be arrogant SOBS. This is probably a poor selection since I probably ran across many more who were great, but didn't feel the need to force it down my throat.
I guess as a type of polarizing response, I had a disdain for atheism as for most theisms.
then coming to this website, I greatly enjoyed the debates on science, but reading the arrogant views of some atheists, it rewoke those feelings.


That's I guess it in a nut shell.
thanks for asking:o
 
I never felt a sense of betrayal as I started reasoning my way out of religion, except against that ol' god I used to worship (suffice it to say after a certain point, the point where I stopped believing, that no longer bothered me). I did have an issue with worrying about what friends and family might say, do, or think of me, but I was just too honest with myself to let that affect what I thought was true or false (meaning I knew it had no bearing on reality and I've never been able to lie to myself in that particular fasion, just be delusional).
 
I wouldn't necissarily characterize atheism with the word "faith" because "faith" lends itself to "hope" and having hope for nothing greater than the scope of a universe composed by random chance sounds a bit beligerant.

I would agree, though, that atheism rests in a certainty of the absence of a God which is JUST AS presumptuous as resting in the certainty of the existance of a god. And its the world "presumptious" that sounds much more fitting for atheism than the term "faith."
 
Dogdoctor said:
Atheists commit crimes, that is no evidence
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was evidence that religion leads to violence more than other non-religious beliefs or ideologies.
I said it was evidence that people's beleifs influence their actions. Read back to the claim that we're discussing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom