Atheism is a faith.

[Moochie]

Are we born with beliefs? Or are they the result of indoctrination by our parents and the greater society in which we live?

I think the latter.

Dawkins is right -- forcing one's religion on one's children is a form of abuse.

It is entirely possible to raise children without ever foisting one's unsupportable baggage upon them.

M.

 

[Tricky]

I understand now how atheism can be seen as without faith. However, this is based off an ideality. It is the zero value on the faith scale. But like Temperature, pressure, achieving 100% efficient thermo cycles, this value cannot be reached in the real world.

You are correct that perfection or reaching the end-points cannot be achieved in the real world, so it is almost certainly true that there are no atheists without some faith in something. But it totally incorrect to use that to claim that atheism is a faith.

For example, take a supposed political scale, from 100% conservative to 100% liberal. It would be practically impossible to find someone who is 100% conservative, but to call someone who is 99% conservative "a kind of liberal" would be about the most wrong thing you could do.

Even basing your world view on logic, there are assumptions that are made that must be taken on faith.

Not at all. They are assumptions based on "if". To acknowledge that we must make assumptions is not the same thing as having "faith" that those assumptions are correct. It is simply allowing us to move forward when we admit we don't know for sure.

It must be taken on faith that any of the life questions of "why?" can be achieved through evidence based measures or faith in that these questions don’t matter.

Sorry, that doesn't make any sense to me. The question of "why" seems to usually resolve to a personal opinion. In the realm of science, "why" usually means "how" or "what are the mechanics of X?" even though the word "why" is commonly used. But like a little child who is trying to be annoying, one can ask "why" to every answer given. But still, it does not take any faith to honestly answer "I don't know", or even "perhaps we will never know".

It must be taken on faith that humanity as a whole can seek its own good without a faith in something.

No, there is some evidence for that. Besides, how can you have faith in being without faith? That's just plain silly wordplay.

It must be taken on faith that the multiverse model is wrong or that in the realm of possibilities multiverse there isn’t a chance for something more.

Nope. See "I don't know" as above.

I don’t state that all atheists take to any or all of these examples, but the fact that these creep into the mind are why atheism isn’t devoid of faith and why I call it a faith.

It appears that you want to equate faith with any belief. Believe me, you are not the first to come here with this profound discovery. I think Huntster is doing the exact same thing over on the "Bumper Sticker" thread. You wind up with a definition of 'faith' that simply doesn't mean anything like the original definition or really anything at all. You are trying to define a square circle.

Faith is belief without evidence. Skepticism is belief only with evidence. They are linguistic opposites. You cannot equate the two without destroying the meaning of both.

 

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
the zealousness exhibited about the belief in nothing)

This is where you go wrong. In the context of religion, the terms "belief" and "faith" have a different meaning than in an evidence based context.

Hans

 

[joobz]

I guess I'm just slow when it comes to a discussion outside my area of expertise. So bear with me.

You are correct that perfection or reaching the end-points cannot be achieved in the real world, so it is almost certainly true that there are no atheists without some faith in something. But it totally incorrect to use that to claim that atheism is a faith.

i get that.

Not at all. They are assumptions based on "if". To acknowledge that we must make assumptions is not the same thing as having "faith" that those assumptions are correct. It is simply allowing us to move forward when we admit we don't know for sure.

So as long as we have an "if" in front of something, it's not a faith? They does that mean a person who goes to church and takes communion based on "If god is real than I should" doesn't have faith?...
i guess not.

Sorry, that doesn't make any sense to me. The question of "why" seems to usually resolve to a personal opinion. In the realm of science, "why" usually means "how" or "what are the mechanics of X?" even though the word "why" is commonly used. But like a little child who is trying to be annoying, one can ask "why" to every answer given. But still, it does not take any faith to honestly answer "I don't know", or even "perhaps we will never know".

The second half of my statement was that we would need to assume that the "I don't know" position doesn't matter. I guess you can make that an "if" thing as well.

No, there is some evidence for that. Besides, how can you have faith in being without faith? That's just plain silly wordplay.

well, that was just stupid on my part. It was just from a claim i've heard from an atheist that they have no faith but believe that humanity is basically good.
I'd agree with that, but it still seems to me that that belief is a faith. Perhaps there is enough evidence (i'm assuming anecdotal?) to indicate that, but there also seems to be anecdotal evidence to refute that. Crime exists.

It appears that you want to equate faith with any belief. Believe me, you are not the first to come here with this profound discovery. I think Huntster is doing the exact same thing over on the "Bumper Sticker" thread. You wind up with a definition of 'faith' that simply doesn't mean anything like the original definition or really anything at all. You are trying to define a square circle.

this may be exactly what i did...but....

Faith is belief without evidence. Skepticism is belief only with evidence. They are linguistic opposites. You cannot equate the two without destroying the meaning of both.

(and this isn't meant to be a semantic thing) but
is skepticism=atheism?
I completely understand and agree with
faith = belief without evidence
skepticism = belief only with evidence

However, is skepticism the only athiestic mode? atheism is no belief in god(s), and/or the belief in no god(s). Does that need to be a skeptical view? there isn't any claim of requiring evidience for god to exist in atheism.

---
btw, I was going to pull the from the dictionary the definition of atheism, but felt it didn't help my case since it had the 2nd definition as godlessness, immorality.

 

[Huntster]

.....It appears that you want to equate faith with any belief. Believe me, you are not the first to come here with this profound discovery. I think Huntster is doing the exact same thing over on the "Bumper Sticker" thread. You wind up with a definition of 'faith' that simply doesn't mean anything like the original definition or really anything at all. You are trying to define a square circle.....

Let's see:

–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

Atheism is confidence or trust in a thing, a belief that is not based on proof, and a belief in something like a code of ethics, or standard of merit.

Atheism is a faith.

Now, I suppose you'd like to argue whether or not the dictionary has defined "the original" definition?"

 

[drkitten]

is skepticism=atheism?
I completely understand and agree with
faith = belief without evidence
skepticism = belief only with evidence

However, is skepticism the only athiestic mode?.

No, but it's the dominant one, especially since the fall of the Communist bloc and their program of enforced atheism via propaganda and intimidation. "If you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras."

 

[drkitten]

Let's see:

That's obviously a bad definition, for precisely the reasons discussed upthread.

Faith is not "a belief not based on proof", but a belief not based on evidence.

There is ample evidence supporting the idea that God does not exist, although it doesn't necessarily rise to the standard of proof.

And it's precisely the fact that there is substantial evidence in favor of atheism that makes atheism not a "faith."

 

[Tricky]

Let's see:
Atheism is confidence or trust in a thing, a belief that is not based on proof, and a belief in something like a code of ethics, or standard of merit.

Atheism is a faith.

Now, I suppose you'd like to argue whether or not the dictionary has defined "the original" definition?"

Pick one of those definitions, Huntster, and stick to it. I don't care which one, I'll stick to that one too. We all know that words can be defined in a number of ways, so changing the way you define it in mid-stream is intellectually dishonest.

 

[Huntster]

Faith is not "a belief not based on proof", but a belief not based on evidence.

More accurate, faith is based on lack of evidence. If one has proof, or a high degree of evidence, little faith is needed. You "know." It is when evidence is lacking that one is either required to have greater faith if the premise is to be accepted.

 

[drkitten]

More accurate, faith is based on lack of evidence. If one has proof, or a high degree of evidence, little faith is needed. You "know." It is when evidence is lacking that one is either required to have greater faith if the premise is to be accepted.

Which just strengthen's my point that your dictionary definition is inaccurate, and that atheism is not a faith, despite your ill-fated attempts to paint it as such.

 

[Huntster]

Pick one of those definitions, Huntster, and stick to it.

I provided all the definitions of "faith" provided as a noun, and highlighted three of them that fit.

We all know that words can be defined in a number of ways, so changing the way you define it in mid-stream is intellectually dishonest.

I'm not changing squat. Again, I provided all of them, three fit, that is not intellectually dishonest, and you clearly don't like it a bit.

Sorry. Write your own dictionary if you don't like it.

 

[Huntster]

Which just strengthen's my point that your dictionary definition is inaccurate, and that atheism is not a faith, despite your ill-fated attempts to paint it as such.

Do you have proof that God or spirituality doesn't exist?

 

[joobz]

And it's precisely the fact that there is substantial evidence in favor of atheism that makes atheism not a "faith."

Is there? I can accept the notion that there exists no evidence to support a god, but what evidence exists that says there isn't?

 

[Taffer]

Do you have proof that God or spirituality doesn't exist?

Here we go again.

Burden of proof!

 

[Foster Zygote]

You don't even know what "poisoning the well" is. "These people" was just a reference to the kind of riff-raff with your thinking abilities, "poor grammer" is a description of how you write, and "playing with words" is exactly what you are doing.

Okay, maybe you are trying to sort out your views. But as they stand they're ridiculous, incoherent, and poorly thought-out...

Well, it seems you are either unwilling, or too immature to engage in a debate with someone with whom you disagree without resorting to insult and disrespect.

 

[drkitten]

Is there? I can accept the notion that there exists no evidence to support a god, but what evidence exists that says there isn't?

A history of failed predictions by the theists, a history of active fraud on the part of the theists, and a history of incompatibilities between the claims of the theists and the actual behavior of the real world.

If persons A, B, and C all claim something and can be shown to be lying, then that evidence suggests that person D, who makes a similar claim, is lying as well.

(ETA : or are you still willing to play three-card monte with some stranger on the street? How many times, and by how many different people, do you need to get burned before you realize that it's a scam? Sure, there might be an honest monte player out there.... but I've not seen him.)

 

[Taffer]

Now that seems to be a semantic issue. The well is poisoned through the inferrence. I do not doubt that the OP has been well debated. But to bring in you have bad grammar, you can't spell, oh "these people", while veiled, there is most definitely an attempt to further invalidate my views through those not related negative accusations.

regardless if they are true or not.

Erm, no. Because you have to show that that was his intent. When we debate, we generally use the 'principle of charity'.

 

[Taffer]

Well, it seems you are either unwilling, or too immature to engage in a debate with someone with whom you disagree without resorting to insult and disrespect.

He might not have meant it that way. It's only an ad hom if the point was to show the argument invalid because of a personal trait of the arguer.

 

[drkitten]

Do you have proof that God or spirituality doesn't exist?

No, but I have evidence. "Proof" is a luxury usually reserved or mathematicians.

Belief based on evidence is not faith, by your own admission upthread.

 

[Tricky]

I provided all the definitions of "faith" provided as a noun, and highlighted three of them that fit.

I'm not changing squat. Again, I provided all of them, three fit, that is not intellectually dishonest, and you clearly don't like it a bit.

Okay, which one of those three are you going to use consistantly? And if you are not going to use one consistantly, the why should anyone be limited to the three you chose? How about I choose definition 8, Faith = Christian theology. Atheism is definitely not Christian theology. So there, I've used your dictionary to show you that Atheism is not faith.

Do you see the problem with shifting definitions in the middle of a discussion like this?