Atheism is a faith.

[Foster Zygote]

I ask this question, because it is a point I'm still puzzled by.
It seems like in much of these arguements, skepticism can be used instead of skepticism.

Does someone need to be atheist for skeptical reasons? And if not, is this line of reasoning applicable.

I think RandFan's confusion stems from your accidental repetition of "skepticism' rather than whatever word was supposed to go in its place. Say it with me now: DOH!

 

[RandFan]

Sorry, It was a fast post in a hectic time.
You and most here use science, logic, skepticism as a basis for your atheism. You have rejected the supernatural because it doesn't fit in the logical world. But is this the only way to be an atheist?

Depends on who you ask. I say of course not. It's possible to have been raised an atheist and never thought of about it. Being an atheist doesn't make one reasonable. Sadly there are a number of atheists who are not at all reasonable.

 

[Huntster]

13 pages, and I've got to ask:

What difference does it make to a theist if an atheist has faith or atheism is a belief of some sort?

Doesn't make a damned bit of difference to me. In fact, I've known it all along, and it wasn't a problem.

Does it make a theist feel more secure in his beliefs if he believes that non-believers have to believe in their non-belief?

Not to me.

I've come up with a new definition:

Apatheist def. One who does not care one way or another regarding supposed supernatural beings.

I am an Apatheist. I really don't care if there is a god or not. I live my life as if there is no god, because no god has given me a reason to care. So, even if there is one, I don't give a ().

Get it published.

 

[Jimbo07]

When old JREF hands gather above the flood-waters decades down the line, over warm beer and meds, to discuss the old days would any be so bold as to admit they didn't hit this party? If only tangentially?

WARM BEER?!?

And here I thought I was being invited to something fun. I'll be 111 and on my second set of gold teeth before I willingly drink warm beer, by cracky!

What're you tryin' to do, start a religious war of another kind?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger
When old JREF hands gather above the flood-waters decades down the line, over warm beer and meds, to discuss the old days would any be so bold as to admit they didn't hit this party? If only tangentially?

WARM BEER?!?

And here I thought I was being invited to something fun. I'll be 111 and on my second set of gold teeth before I willingly drink warm beer, by cracky!

What're you tryin' to do, start a religious war of another kind?

Yuuuck!

Warm beer sucks!

(But, it's better than no beer at all; throw in the crick for a while............)

 

[skeptic griggsy]

Faith is the wrong term to use for atheist lack of belief period. Theists allege we are dogmatic and some people equate us with fundamentalists when all we want is evidence for a god and they have no real evidence.Fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists are the same - faith- based nonsense!The nonsense others have about us is hard to dislodge. It takes emotions to reach the religious as science and philosophy are weak ,alas. They have their own scientists and philosophers who , in my mind, lead them astray with bad argumentation however clothed.

 

[Huntster]

Faith is the wrong term to use for atheist lack of belief period. Theists allege we are dogmatic and some people equate us with fundamentalists when all we want is evidence for a god and they have no real evidence.

It doesn't matter why you have chosen to be an atheist in order to fit the criteria.

Fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists are the same - faith- based nonsense!

Close. The criteria is faith in God or spirituality.

The nonsense others have about us is hard to dislodge.

It won't be "dislodged", because it is true and earned.

 

[The Atheist]

Jeeesusssssss, what a dog's breakfast, all over something relatively simple. As a proponent of the Douglas Adams, In Your Face kind of atheism, I have an interest in this very subject and have written a couple of articles about it. It's why I am The Atheist and why the movement I'm involved in are "Extreme Atheists". The word has been polluted by namby-pamby, mincing around, "we're not anti-" brigade.

Let me just re-assert, before I answer a few of the posts worth answering, one point. Atheism = NO GOD. The definition of atheist does not allow for wavering. If your position is "there almost certainly isn't a god and I truly believe none will ever be found", you're not actually an atheist, you're almost an atheist. Do we need to research the meaning of the word "no"?

Now for some posts - how the hell did I miss this thread????

You hold out this stereotype of atheists as people who are saying "nope, there absolutely positively cannot be any form of deity whatsoever. I can't prove it, I just know it." I don't know anyone who claims that.

Well, now you do.

But then it seems that atheism relishes in ignorance. A willfull determination to not consider more because we can't detect more.

I see you've revised your opinions, based upon this thread. I salute your attitude.
Quick aside to RandFan, I forgot to copy your post, but I see you obviously use the same [lack of] skills in every thread or disagreement you have.

Philosophy is all front, and no substance.

Truer words are rarely written.

There is a good reason why atheists have to be very assertive (perhaps even appearing glib to someone with faith) in making their points - your average religious person has had their reasoning capacity so seriously dulled that a normal reasonable argument about the existence of their god completely misses the point. This is their "faith" in action - their blind belief regardless of evidence, need or discussion. Atheists have to be aggressive to get past this.

A person with faith will rarely change their mind and will often not even consider the existence of an alternative no matter how compelling. Almost every atheist I know will change their mind presented a reasonable argument. As it happens there aren't any so we come across looking like a bunch of people that won't change our minds - but that is only because we haven't been given a remotely reasonable reason to do so.

I would certainly be amenable to proof of my view being wrong, but in the lack of it, I'm happy to have 100% confidence in my atheism. As usual, your simple statement is 100% correct and should have been a thread-stopper. It wasn't!

What people do makes a difference. What they believe doesn't unless you are now going to provide evidence that it does.

I didn't see this get adequately answered, it was early on the thread, but really, you must be able to tell the difference between sectarian and other violence in the world?

However atheism does not require faith for belief.

Really? Have you proven the reasons for atheism yourself, or do you have faith in the work of others?

Repeat after me, Huntster, "I will not argue from definition and I will not play semantic games".

Well, I would have thought argument from definition, especially when it's one as clear, concise and accurate as "atheism" is the one in question was absolutely critical! If you can't agree on a simple definition, the debate's meaningless.

Theism and atheism are binary, it’s either or, they are mutually excusive and exhaustive. You either believe something or you do not.

And for a/theism, you either believe there is NO GOD or you believe there IS A GOD.

Partially correct. Atheism is a religion.

Grrr, you're winning an argument hands-down, then come out with that!

Atheism has some similarities to religion. It is NOT a religion! Methinks you just went one step too far with that one! I got my .45 ready, Pilgrim!

Atheism is not concerned with the universe at all. Maybe if I type really slowly you'll get this. Atheism is concerned with one question, and one question only, namely the existence of god. One is an atheist if one can answer Do you believe in God? with an honest no. That is all there is to atheism.

That's another nearly, but not quite. Atheism isn't a lack of belief, it's a belief that there is NO GOD.

I should have been more clear. I only meant that atheism was not, by definition, the active denial of God.

See above - it is.

This thread was fairly interesting up until about page 6, it's pretty obvious Hunster really struggles to 'get' Atheism and is trying to understand it using the constructs of his own beliefs. He's looking for the holy book of Athiesm which defines what it means to be an Athiest - unfortunately he can only find the dictionary. He's then using this to tell other people what they think/believe/have faith in despite them telling him he is wrong.

He just doesn't understand it and he never will. Worse still, he doesn't want to. The concept of a faithful Athiest is ridiculous... faithful to whom? to what?

There are no rules to athiesm. No ethics or codes to follow. Even athiests themselves will argue over what athiesm actually means because there are so many different views contained within the catch-all heading.

The word itself carries the definition though - it is the opposite of theism. You are one or the other. In the same way that things are either symmetrical or not (asymmetrical). You can further subdivide it if you want but then you just get into arguments over definitions.

Mate, I hope you keep a copy of that post and this thread somewhere handy in the future, because it will help reinforce one thing - Huntster is right. I've pointed out the only mistake he's made - so far(!)

So, yes, I'm agreeing that atheism is faith-based, because, unlike Scotsmen, Dutchmen and any other -en or -ist you wish to come up with, we can define "atheist" with 100% accuracy.

Agnostics, humanists, rationalists and Buddhists lack belief in god, but they aren't necessarily atheists. Atheists don't lack belief, we hold the belief - the faith - that our opinion of there being NO GOD, is correct. That faith is based upon science having given the answers to the questions we ask. It isn't proof - we leave that to "sceptics", who must worry everything to a slow death without 100% "evidence". Common sense can't be bought.

Accordingly, Huntster is quite right. He is quite correctly using the terms "atheism" and "faith" in their actual meanings, while many of the posts have missed this concept entirely. You can get caught up in all sorts of arguments about "strong" and "weak" atheism - it's a black and white subject. You are either an atheist or not.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I was going to post here, but now Huntster and The Atheist have me confused about definitions. I have no faith/belief in God. I don't know if I can ever know that God exists or not. What am I?

 

[I less than three logic]

And for a/theism, you either believe there is NO GOD or you believe there IS A GOD.

This is a false dichotomy.

So, yes, I'm agreeing that atheism is faith-based, because, unlike Scotsmen, Dutchmen and any other -en or -ist you wish to come up with, we can define "atheist" with 100% accuracy.

Absolutely. The parts it is made of can define the word beyond any doubt.

a- or an-
pref.
Without; not

Theism
Noun
Belief in the existence of a god or gods

A - theism: “without belief in the existence of a god or gods”

I think the usage of atheism you and huntster seem to be using is more akin to antitheism (yes hunster, it is a word in your beloved dictionary.com), not atheism.

Just for clarification.

anti- or ant-
pref.
1.
a. Opposite: antimere.
b. Opposing; against: antiapartheid.
c. Counteracting; neutralizing: antacid.
d. Destroying: antiaircraft.
2.
a. Inverse: antilogarithm.
b. Displaying opposite characteristics: antihero.

You have your prefixes mixed up. The opposite of venom is anti-venom, not a-venom. Pure water isn’t anti-venom, but it could be considered an “a-venom”. It is without venom. It is not venom. Why do you think when they created the word anti-venom, they chose "anti-" as the prefix instead of "a-"? When creating the word atheism, why do you think they chose the prefix "a-" instead of "anti-"?

Agnostics, humanists, rationalists and Buddhists lack belief in god, but they aren't necessarily atheists.

Each of those is atheism, if it is correct that they "lack belief in god". That is the only criteria needed. They may choose a different label, but as long as they "lack belief in god" they still fall under the catch all of atheism.

 

[Huntster]

I was going to post here, but now Huntster and The Atheist have me confused about definitions. I have no faith/belief in God. I don't know if I can ever know that God exists or not. What am I?

I would say that:

1) You are Tsukasa Buddha, and
2) You may be agnostic

What do you say you are?

 

[The Atheist]

I was going to post here, but now Huntster and The Atheist have me confused about definitions. I have no faith/belief in God. I don't know if I can ever know that God exists or not. What am I?

Clearly agnostic.

 

[The Atheist]

This is a false dichotomy.

Sorry, but it isn't. It's a definition of what the words mean.

Absolutely. The parts it is made of can define the word beyond any doubt.

a- or an-
pref.
Without; not

Theism
Noun
Belief in the existence of a god or gods

A - theism: “without belief in the existence of a god or gods”

I think the usage of atheism you and huntster seem to be using is more akin to antitheism (yes hunster, it is a word in your beloved dictionary.com), not atheism.

Just for clarification.

anti- or ant-
pref.
1.
a. Opposite: antimere.
b. Opposing; against: antiapartheid.
c. Counteracting; neutralizing: antacid.
d. Destroying: antiaircraft.
2.
a. Inverse: antilogarithm.
b. Displaying opposite characteristics: antihero.

You have your prefixes mixed up. The opposite of venom is anti-venom, not a-venom. Pure water isn’t anti-venom, but it could be considered an “a-venom”. It is without venom. It is not venom. Why do you think when they created the word anti-venom, they chose "anti-" as the prefix instead of "a-"? When creating the word atheism, why do you think they chose the prefix "a-" instead of "anti-"?


Each of those is atheism, if it is correct that they "lack belief in god". That is the only criteria needed. They may choose a different label, but as long as they "lack belief in god" they still fall under the catch all of atheism.

Nope, this is where we diverge - it is after all, simply a matter of semantics. I think you're confusing non-theism and atheism, you think we're confusing atheism and antitheism.

Unfortunately, the Oxford Dictionary is THE authority on the English language. I can't speak for American English, and neither does Oxford, but its meaning is clear: belief that no god exists. That is different from your interpretation, but in my language and usage, there is only one possible outcome - not a lack of belief, active disbelief.

 

[I less than three logic]

I was going to post here, but now Huntster and The Atheist have me confused about definitions. I have no faith/belief in God. I don't know if I can ever know that God exists or not. What am I?

I would say you are both agnostic and an atheist. They are by no means mutually exclusive.

This "I have no faith/belief in God" makes you an atheist, and this, "I don't know if I can ever know that God exists or not." makes you agnostic.

 

[Huntster]

...As a proponent of the Douglas Adams, In Your Face kind of atheism, I have an interest in this very subject and have written a couple of articles about it. It's why I am The Atheist and why the movement I'm involved in are "Extreme Atheists". The word has been polluted by namby-pamby, mincing around, "we're not anti-" brigade.

Cowards.

Let me just re-assert, before I answer a few of the posts worth answering, one point. Atheism = NO GOD. The definition of atheist does not allow for wavering. If your position is "there almost certainly isn't a god and I truly believe none will ever be found", you're not actually an atheist, you're almost an atheist. Do we need to research the meaning of the word "no"?

I agree 100%

Originally Posted by Huntster
Partially correct. Atheism is a religion.

Grrr, you're winning an argument hands-down, then come out with that!

None of us is perfect. With so much typing in the past few days, call it a slip of the fingers.

Atheism has some similarities to religion. It is NOT a religion! Methinks you just went one step too far with that one! I got my .45 ready, Pilgrim!

Well, maybe I did go too far with that one. Maybe..........

Mate, I hope you keep a copy of that post and this thread somewhere handy in the future, because it will help reinforce one thing - Huntster is right. I've pointed out the only mistake he's made - so far(!)

So, yes, I'm agreeing that atheism is faith-based, because, unlike Scotsmen, Dutchmen and any other -en or -ist you wish to come up with, we can define "atheist" with 100% accuracy.

Agnostics, humanists, rationalists and Buddhists lack belief in god, but they aren't necessarily atheists. Atheists don't lack belief, we hold the belief - the faith - that our opinion of there being NO GOD, is correct. That faith is based upon science having given the answers to the questions we ask. It isn't proof - we leave that to "sceptics", who must worry everything to a slow death without 100% "evidence". Common sense can't be bought.

Accordingly, Huntster is quite right. He is quite correctly using the terms "atheism" and "faith" in their actual meanings, while many of the posts have missed this concept entirely. You can get caught up in all sorts of arguments about "strong" and "weak" atheism - it's a black and white subject. You are either an atheist or not.

I'm hoping that your excellent, to-the-point approach works. You're 100% correct. I couldn't have said it better, and obviously I didn't, because the message didn't seem to get through.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I would say that:

1) You are Tsukasa Buddha, and
2) You may be agnostic

What do you say you are?

Well, I agree with #1 . When asked, I typically respond with, "I am technically agnostic, but practically atheist."

 

[I less than three logic]

Sorry, but it isn't. It's a definition of what the words mean.Nope, this is where we diverge - it is after all, simply a matter of semantics. I think you're confusing non-theism and atheism, you think we're confusing atheism and antitheism.

Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree I suppose. Non-theism is atheism to me. They mean the exact same thing. I believe I have clearly shown why I hold that opinion as well.

 

[Huntster]

...When asked, I typically respond with, "I am technically agnostic, but practically atheist."

Seems fair enough.

 

[The Atheist]

Well, I agree with #1 . When asked, I typically respond with, "I am technically agnostic, but practically atheist."

I'm with you on that - keep to that and you'll be spot on - unless you manage to develop the kind of fanaticism I manage!

(You'll need to sharpen your teeth, though.)

 

[The Atheist]

Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree I suppose. Non-theism is atheism to me. They mean the exact same thing. I believe I have clearly shown why I hold that opinion as well.

Pretty much ditto the whole post! If I add "not" inbetween "is" and "atheism" and "don't" in the next sentence, I could easily type that. Simple common sense.