Atheism is a faith.

[CapelDodger]

Until somebody manages to refute the points Piggy made in the thread "Proof of strong atheism," claims that "atheism is/requires faith" don't merit being taken seriously.

Absolutely. Piggy did an excellent job. He knew what the thread was for (pretty much what joobz says this one was for, to extract the issue from threads where it was a distraction from the intended theme, aka de-railing), he defined it precisely in title and OP, he quashed all attempts at derailment, and kicked ass rigorously. Go Piggy!

 

[Polaris]

(Polaris did nothing "zealous", go check yourself)
"No Faith is still faith" <---wordplay, makes no sense

Although on second thought I probably went overboard saying he cryptically called for no criticism of religion. I'm not sure what possessed me to say that, or what mindset I was in, but I looked back over his posts and I can't find any evidence that he did indeed call for that. I don't think I can defend that statement and I retract it.

 

[CapelDodger]

I have a bucket. Can you tell me what I mean when I say this?
I might mean any of the following: ...

Another for the list (we are winning the List Race, mein ... President!)

"Bucket : (archaic) a unit of disk space comprising a sector extended through one or more contiguous platters. From the Early Geek, deriving from the shape of the volume so defined."

 

[CapelDodger]

(Polaris did nothing "zealous", go check yourself)

"Go check yourself" - I am so gonna steal that !

 

[CapelDodger]

Atheism is not the opposite of organized religion. Many people believe in god but not organized religion. Absence of organized religion does not equate to atheism.

Of course it doesn't. (My exasperation eagerly suggested "Well, Duh!", but I have it well in hand.)

While there may be evidence that some of the things which organized religion says are not true, there could be some kind of power that exists that affects the world that we can't measure.

Philospophical vapidity. The human-crafted nature of organised religions is clear for all to see. Just as the human-crafted nature of any corporation or institution. The benefit of "... some kind of power ..." to productive discourse is hard to discern, although the benefit to Philosophy is obvious. If "we can't measure" it that can only mean that it has no influence on the Universe, it does not interact with it in any way - because if it did we could detect the interaction and measure it by its quantitative effect. So what's the point?

There's no value in these putative, quintessentially undefined some-kind-ofs. They're human-crafted concepts themselves. What does have value is every supernatural claim that has ever been actually thought up. None of those ever presented to me appeared in the slightest bit persuasive. Your experience might be different.

To have strong feelings about the truth of the statement "there is no god(s)" requires faith.

Bollocks. (I have to give it its head occasionally, heck, we live together.)

It doesn't require faith to not be impressed by claims of the supernatural. It only requires a bit of sense.

Those with the strongest most vehement anti-religious beliefs have faith in their own beliefs.

My atheism is irreligion not anti-religion. I was born atheist and no supernatural claim has come remotely close to convincing me of its validity. Check them out, they're all laughable. I'm anti-religion because I can clearly see the harm that religion does and has done to real people.

Atheists are not special since they don't believe in god. They can believe in things and have faith in things. The human mind is not entirely logical. However atheism does not require faith for belief.

Fine words. Strung together. Syntactically untouchable. Semantically it has a Gordian Knot feel to it, no threads leading in and none out. It's surely an exemplar of something.

Did you really mean "because" rather than "since" in the first sentence? I can make no sense of it otherwise (in context). If so, I agree, I'm not special because I don't believe in superstition. I'm special because my Mum says so. The "They can ...", is that you giving atheists permission? Whatever, I for one don't believe or have faith in things. Some things I'm convinced of, such as the human-crafted nature of all things supernatural. Why wouldn't I be? The further and deeper we look into the Universe, the same we find no reason to postulate the supernatural to explain observations.

The human mind is not entirely logical, but it's quite logical enough to dismiss superstition as laughable.

"However atheism does not require faith for belief" is simply impenetrable.

 

[CapelDodger]

Well, that sort of follows from the fact that they're both trying to argue in favor of a proposition that is patently false. They have no actual logic or evidence in favor of their position, so the best they can hope for is smoke, mirrors, and sophistry.

And they both know that they're engaging in smoke and mirrors as well. But hypocrisy has always been one of the defining characteristics of theism, so there's nothing new to report there, either.

Basically -- nothing to see, move along.

Oh yes. You are a pleasure to watch in action, drkitten."Smoke, mirrors and sophistry ". I am sooo going to steal that. (For other forums, obviously .)

 

[CapelDodger]

I'm totally late, but I agree with Rufo here.
Everyone in that universe would constantly be 'not believing in God', or anything else for that matter. But if you would ask them: Do you believe in God, they will not say no. They will say: "Do I what in what now?"
The belief that there is no God cannot exist in a universe without belief.

ETA: Oh! Thus the default position cannot be the belief that there is no God"

This is a difficult post to interpret. You quote Rufo's "No belief that there is a God is the default position. Belief that there is no God is not" followed by my response, including a re-statment of the conundrum, which obviously wasn't what Rufo was referring to. All you seem to be agreeing with is Rufo's "No belief ..." which lacks all substance. I doubt that's what you meant.

On the probably reasonable assumption that you're actually having a go at said conundrum, good for you.

The conundrum involved belief, not supreme beings which is probably what you mean by "God". Its first incarnation involved "religion" - still not "God". If I wanted to I could give you a long and tedious runaround just on that one point. I won't, but my advice is never give the bastards an opening - and I speak as a right bastard in appropriate circumstances.

"Constantly not believing in God" implies an active mode, whereas in fact atheism is an attribute. In a Universe that did not contain the concept of a supreme being nothing could actively not believe in one. It's contradictory. It only makes sense in terms of an observer from another, god-concept-containing Universe (such as ours). The attribute of not having belief (or religion or faith or god or vague undisprovable sort-of-whatsit) would still be valid. Which would be atheism. Ergo atheism is not a faith/religion/belief/conjecture, since it can be demonstrated to exist in a Universe lacking any of them.

All the same, nice try. You're not one of the lost. Serially mispelled no doubt, but not obviously lost.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I have absolute faith that there isn't a boogie man under my bed. Oh wait, that's not faith...that's just my strong conclusion based on facts. I guess Joobz doesn't understand the difference.

 

[CapelDodger]

I'm confident that there is little evidence of most of the Gods that people espouse in this universe.

There's none at all that is objective. Squat. Nada.

Now... from whence this universe? I don't know.

The further and deeper we look into the Universe the same we see no need to postulate the supernatural to explain what we find. Nobody knows with certainty why the Universe exists at all - there are hypotheses galore - but it has nothing to with anything supernatural. I ain't confident, I'm convinced, and if you look into your heart ... aren't you convinced too?

 

[Taffer]

Let's say we are debating in person in a public forum.
Let's say I didn't shower and I'm obese.

If you were to say in one of your comments,
"You are fat and smelly. Your point that A is B is not true because of C."

How does the principle of apply to that? It seems that the first claim (while true) doesn't change the proper arguement. So are we to assume that you are concerned about my health and hygeine? It had nothing to do with the debate. To point out unrelated flaws in the person you are debating but not precisely state that those flaws are related to why the person is wrong reeks of an ethical escape hatch. It doesn't change that the other participants in the open forum may make that connection themselves and therefore be poisoning the well.

The principle of charity is basically taking the most favourable form of a person's argument you can to argue against. In this case, since he did not specifically form the fallacy, one would have to assume he is just a jerk and is not, in fact, poisoning the well.

 

[Taffer]

alright ad hom is maybe more accurate than poisoning the well. But when you made the comment of

How is that not like poisoning the well?

Because it's not. Both ad hominem and poisoning the well (a form of ad hom) are making a personal attack to show that their argument has no merit. A personal attack is not ad hom.

 

[joobz]

I think that this thread has run it's course.

I thank all that have demonstrated where my logic went wrong and I wish to apologize for any insult, direct or indirect, that my mistaken logic may have made.

I now understand why the statement "Atheism is a faith" is inherently false and wish to remove that claim.

Polaris, I thank you for your retraction. I admit that I heavy handedly labeled you as zealous and I was wrong.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Wow, Joobz, I applaud you for actually having an open enough mind to change your position based on logical discussion.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
All three fit quite well, and I will use all three consistently.

All that fit are applicable.

I have a bucket. Can you tell me what I mean when I say this?
I might mean any of the following:

Quote:
bucket:
–noun 1. a deep, cylindrical vessel, usually of metal, plastic, or wood, with a flat bottom and a semicircular bail, for collecting, carrying, or holding water, sand, fruit, etc.; pail.
2. anything resembling or suggesting this.
3. Machinery. a. any of the scoops attached to or forming the endless chain in certain types of conveyors or elevators.
b. the scoop or clamshell of a steam shovel, power shovel, or dredge.
c. a vane or blade of a waterwheel, paddle wheel, water turbine, or the like.

4. (in a dam) a concave surface at the foot of a spillway for deflecting the downward flow of water.
5. a bucketful: a bucket of sand.
6. Basketball. a. Informal. field goal.
b. the part of the keyhole extending from the foul line to the end line.

7. bucket seat.
8. Bowling. a leave of the two, four, five, and eight pins, or the three, five, six, and nine pins.

Now, let's say we start trying to discuss my bucket.

Yes. Let us begin. I will start (unless you prefer to start):

"Hey, Roborama. I've heard that you have a bucket. I've got a few, too."

Your turn.

If I change definitions mid-conversation, we're not going to get anywhere.

Maybe. Let's try.

Your turn.

Two (or three) definitions can be for the same word without being for the same concept. So, if you plan on discussing a concept (like faith) stick to one definition.

Discuss the bucket. Your turn.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
The degree of evidence dictates the level of knowledge in hand, or dictates the level of faith needed to accept the premise.

If the evidence is overwhelming, little faith is required. You "know" with a high level of certainty.

If the evidence is weak, than great faith is required to accept the premise.

It's really that simple.

Since we do not "know" if God exists or not, and there is very little or very weak evidence to establish it either way, greater faith is required to accept God, and some faith is required to state that God doesn't exist.

One can easily say God doesn't seem to exist (technically, the atheist viewpoint rephrased) in the same sense that the Easter Bunny doesn't seem to exist and one can say so without this "faith".

Thank you. That is quite correct.

We can go further with that truth. One can say "God doesn't appear to exist", or "God might not exist", etc, and no faith is required for those statements to be honest and accurate.

But as soon as one dictates certainty (God does not exist), then claims that that their certainty doesn't require faith, they are in error, or worse.

 

[Huntster]

.........As we can see here, Huntster, whom I assume is unrelated to Joobz, is engaging in word-play as well. Until you can adopt our meanings, this discussion is nothing more than people trying to find ways to use language that seems to invalid our claims even though we are not really discussing the same thing.

I most certainly am not. I'm pointing out literal fact.

 

[Sushi]

Thank you. That is quite correct.

We can go further with that truth. One can say "God doesn't appear to exist", or "God might not exist", etc, and no faith is required for those statements to be honest and accurate.

But as soon as one dictates certainty (God does not exist), then claims that that their certainty doesn't require faith, they are in error, or worse.

Certainity is vague; if someone is so certain as to be umwaverable, then yes, that is faith, even if they are atheists. If someone is somewhat certain that there is no god, again, in the same sense that one is somewhat certain that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist, then I would not call that faith.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
The degree of evidence dictates the level of knowledge in hand, or dictates the level of faith needed to accept the premise.

If the evidence is overwhelming, little faith is required. You "know" with a high level of certainty.

If the evidence is weak, than great faith is required to accept the premise.

It's really that simple.

Since we do not "know" if God exists or not, and there is very little or very weak evidence to establish it either way, greater faith is required to accept God, and some faith is required to state that God doesn't exist.

Twofold problems with definitions. Your argument is based on a definition of faith that is not religious at all....

Religion isn't a required aspect of the definition of faith, as I pointed out above by citing and linking the definition of faith.

....and your argument is based on a faulty definition of atheism.

Atheism:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Oh, oh.................You shouldn't have made me do that.............

There are those dreaded words......................

Now what are you going to do?

Correct me if I'm wrong here,folks, but I don't believe that we're saying that god simply, without a doubt, does not exist. We are, instead, saying that there is no evidence for god, and the burden of proof is upon god, and that we will not believe in something without evidence.

Oh, you can always say that. It's a foolish doctrine, and it, too, will crash, but please feel free to do so.

However, if you're afraid of the word and act of believing, you'd better not call yourself an atheist.

 

[Taffer]

Hunster, please realise there is a difference between the following three statements:
1) I do not believe a god exists.
2) I believe no god exists.
3) I believe no god exists, because of a lack of evidence, and I require evidence to believe in anything.

One of those statements is faith-based, the other two are not. Can you spot the difference?

ETA: Oh, and Huntster? Have you ever heard of the informal fallacy "argument from definition"?

 

[Huntster]

Certainity is vague; if someone is so certain as to be umwaverable, then yes, that is faith, even if they are atheists. If someone is somewhat certain that there is no god, again, in the same sense that one is somewhat certain that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist, then I would not call that faith.

I don't care what you call faith. You're not authorized to redefine the language.

I can do this as many times as needed:

Faith:

–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.