Atheism is a faith.

[The Atheist]

Exactly my point. Many different flavours of atheism fall under the 'atheist' catagory, so to say "atheists is a faith based position" is false, because not all of these view are faith based. This has been my point all along.

Here's the conundrum. You know that, I know that, but most people in the world, I'd suggest, don't know that.

So, if the opinion is that "no evidence of god exists", (that must pre-qualify them as having checked to see if there actually is any evidence - the assertion is otherwise meaningless) is atheist and also "god? what's that?" is atheist, "Don't know, don't care" also qualifies, as does any position aside from True Agnostics ^TMIt doesn't make sense to me to put an umbrella that large over such widely differing opinions, but if that's where it's headed, I'll be happy that we coined "Extreme Atheists" as it tends not to leave much doubt - except for that bungy-jumper guy who wanted to join...

 

[The Atheist]

...snip... but this is not what Huntster (nor the OP, but he has since changed his assertion) said.

Quite right, Huntster, and I, were arguing that atheism is "no god", simply because a)we're traditionalists and that is the traditional meaning, and b) because we both enjoy giving the stew a good old stir every now and again.

Also, it is one of my hobby-horses. I don't really care what christians think about atheists - it's never going to matter, so far better to let them have a stereotype. When it turns out to be completely incorrect, they are surprised into wondering. Different story if they meet me - stereotype 100% in place - they just run away!

I am off to bed, it's nearly midnight - some of us more responsible, tax-paying types have kids to raise and money to earn!

Cheers

 

[Taffer]

Here's the conundrum. You know that, I know that, but most people in the world, I'd suggest, don't know that.

Agreed. And it is unfortunate, because we (I am a "pussy atheist" ) get grouped with the more hardcore atheists (like yourself).

So, if the opinion is that "no evidence of god exists", (that must pre-qualify them as having checked to see if there actually is any evidence - the assertion is otherwise meaningless) is atheist and also "god? what's that?" is atheist, "Don't know, don't care" also qualifies, as does any position aside from True Agnostics ^TMIt doesn't make sense to me to put an umbrella that large over such widely differing opinions, but if that's where it's headed, I'll be happy that we coined "Extreme Atheists" as it tends not to leave much doubt - except for that bungy-jumper guy who wanted to join...

We always have umbrella terms. For example, "asexual" describes the reproduction of any organism which does not reproduce sexuall, be it a virus, a bacteria, etc. The point is, "atheism" just means "not theism". We can further specificy by saying "strong atheist", "weak atheist", "strong atheistic agnostic", etc.

 

[Taffer]

Quite right, Huntster, and I, were arguing that atheism is "no god", simply because a)we're traditionalists and that is the traditional meaning, and b) because we both enjoy giving the stew a good old stir every now and again.

Also, it is one of my hobby-horses. I don't really care what christians think about atheists - it's never going to matter, so far better to let them have a stereotype. When it turns out to be completely incorrect, they are surprised into wondering. Different story if they meet me - stereotype 100% in place - they just run away!

Fair enough, mate. I still don't agree, though.

I am off to bed, it's nearly midnight - some of us more responsible, tax-paying types have kids to raise and money to earn!

Cheers

Some of us are lazy students.

 

[Ginarley]

Some of us are lazy students.

Yep

 

[Tricky]

That is a fair question.
My motives were entirely based on challenging the presumed view that atheists were intellectually superior to thiests.

I would say that they tend to be more educated, on the average, than theists. That is not a one-to-one correlation with intellect, but I would venture to say that there is enough of a correlation to be more than statistically significant. But there are always tails. (abstruse pun intended)

where CapelDodger mentioned his hatred for hypocrisy, I have a near undying hatred for arrogance. It is arrogance that causes theists to act as though they are devinely right and can go out and convert/kill at will. It is arrogance that ends debates and discussions, when one side (or both) refuses to even listen to the other out of the shear fact that they can't possibily be wrong. I was challenging the preceived arrogance that I've read on this forum and wanted to test.

I agree with you to a great extent. But I also recognize that the line between arrogance and confidence is a fuzzy one. Person 1 may defend their position with a combination of articulation and knowledge, and it will sound very much to the Person 2, on the opposite side of the issue, that Person 1 is being arrogant. In another thread I was accused of being arrogant because I was sharing what I had learned in my major field of study in college. The response was on the par of "you are an arrogant SOB because you are acting like a college degree makes you smarter than me." Sigh.

However, I will venture to say that anyone who takes the stance that they are 100% correct (on any issue) is being brazenly arrogant. Do we know anyone like that? Hmm...?

That is a fair question.
This wasn't meant to be a call that atheism is equal to theism in terms of correctness, but rather in terms of succeptibility to arrogance.

Well, that's my take at least.

I disagree with your take but only in statistical terms. I would hasten to point out that the more intelligent a person is, the more they realize how much they don't know, thus leading to a lesser liklihood of arrogance. But again, we are aware of the tails.

 

[RandFan]

See, even though we'd moved on, you just couldn't resist! Enough is enough.

If you want to move on then move on. Stop spouting such nonsense like your assertions are facts.

I will explain to you once and for all why I will not, never, no way, no how, bother to stoop down to debating with you. You're a facade, a sponge. I've known plenty of your types in my life and you come across as a classic example of the type, even further emboldened by the faceless computer sitting in front of you as you parrot.

Rhetorical. An assertion. You can't muster a single argument.

I will assert, just to make sure we keep to words you understand, (this is no simple ad hominem, Randfan, "This is Your Life")

Actually it's just a personal attack.

Read this little list, harvested from only HALF of this one, single thread, then tell me that's rhetoric.

What the hell was that supposed to prove?

So that's it. No argument. No logic. Nothing of substance. Ad hominem and rhetoric.

It's truly pathetic.

 

[chriswl]

where CapelDodger mentioned his hatred for hypocrisy, I have a near undying hatred for arrogance. It is arrogance that causes theists to act as though they are devinely right and can go out and convert/kill at will. It is arrogance that ends debates and discussions, when one side (or both) refuses to even listen to the other out of the shear fact that they can't possibily be wrong.

That's an interesting dichotomy, hatred of arrogance versus hatred of hypocrisy. I wonder how many of us fit into one camp or the other?

Arrogance dosn't bother me particularly. At worst I find it irritating, often amusing and occasionally even admirable. At least its honest. Hypocrisy, on the other hand makes my skin crawl.

 

[RandFan]

That's an interesting dichotomy, hatred of arrogance versus hatred of hypocrisy. I wonder how many of us fit into one camp or the other?

That's a fair point. It's very likely many of us inhabit both spheres.

Arrogance dosn't bother me particularly. At worst I find it irritating, often amusing and occasionally even admirable. At least its honest. Hypocrisy, on the other hand makes my skin crawl.

If I had to chose I would say hypocrisy to be worse. But, if I could ask, give me an example of when you found arrogance admirable? Do you ever find it admirable when it is in defense of a proposition that you are against?

My problem with arrogance is I find that those who are arrogant are usually incapable of questioning their held assumptions and therefore incapable of correcting themselves when they are wrong. Their arrogance blinds them. I would include myself BTW.

 

[RandFan]

ETA: What ground? I've said, right from the start, that 'atheist' in it's current usage is a catch all phrase for both the "no god" and the "no belief in god" camps. Becuase one of these positions is not based on faith (it is simply a lack of belief), the claim "Atheism is a faith" is clearly false. Now, if you said "people who claim there is no god are acting from faith", then I would agree, but this is not what Huntster (nor the OP, but he has since changed his assertion) said.

Susinct. Very good post.

 

[Jimbo07]

The point is, "atheism" just means "not theism". We can further specificy by saying "strong atheist", "weak atheist", "strong atheistic agnostic", etc.

I guess it kinda all hinges on that doesn't it? We're back to very first page stuff.
I suspect that most of the 'atheists' here fall into the camp that defines atheism as being some kind of 'not theism,' or without strong, or any, belief in a supernatural component to existence. They've adopted the label of atheism.

I've adopted the label of agnosticism.

I suspect that in practice, most of us are pretty much the same thing...

 

[RandFan]

I guess it kinda all hinges on that doesn't it? We're back to very first page stuff.
I suspect that most of the 'atheists' here fall into the camp that defines atheism as being some kind of 'not theism,' or without strong, or any, belief in a supernatural component to existence. They've adopted the label of atheism.

I've adopted the label of agnosticism.

I suspect that in practice, most of us are pretty much the same thing...

Yeah, I kinda think you are right.

For a long time I called myself agnostic. I just don't see the point anymore. It seems to be a distinction without much difference to me now. I don't have a problem with the label agnostic it's just that I no longer have a problem with the label atheist.

 

[chriswl]

If I had to chose I would say hypocrisy to be worse. But, if I could ask, give me an example of when you found arrogance admirable? Do you ever find it admirable when it is in defense of a proposition that you are against?

I suppose I should say I am talking about the kind of behaviour that is commonly labelled as "arrogant". I've never actually accused anybody of arrogance and I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean. It's an accusation that is usually wielded by people who have lost the argument and are out of all other ammunition.

 

[EverLastingGodStopper]

I have a few favorite quotes on the subject of atheism as faith.

Atheism is not a matter of faith in the same way as belief in God. In short, belief without evidence (a form of faith) is not the same as non-belief due to lack of evidence (rational refusal to assent).

"It is obvious that atheism is NOT A RELIGION in the sense that we have no particular dogmas that we are all required to subscribe to in order to be atheists.

In fact, as a purely negative philosophy (defined by what beliefs we lack), there is nothing at all to bind us together, which is a very large part of our difficulty in obtaining respect for our own civil rights cause." (-Bill Schultz)

Faith is defined as "belief without proof." Theism is faith, which is why the religious are called "the faithful." An absence of belief is not a belief itself. A person who is faithful is in possession of a particular belief (regarding the existence of a deity). A person who does not share possession of this belief is simply without this belief; faithless, atheist.

I find the weak/strong distinction to be useful here. Implicit (weak) atheism, defined as simple absence of theism, can never be said to be a faith, for the reason I stated above. An absence of a belief is not a belief. It could be argued that explicit (strong) atheism, which is the assertion that no gods or supernatural beings exist, is a position of faith. However, I imagine that an informed strong atheist could make a case for why this is not so.

I prefer to label myself as an agnostic atheist, one who thinks that we can not know such a thing as a supreme being, but who also fails to possess the particular faith of any religion, and who is without theism.

 

[Taffer]

I guess it kinda all hinges on that doesn't it? We're back to very first page stuff.
I suspect that most of the 'atheists' here fall into the camp that defines atheism as being some kind of 'not theism,' or without strong, or any, belief in a supernatural component to existence. They've adopted the label of atheism.

I've adopted the label of agnosticism.

I suspect that in practice, most of us are pretty much the same thing...

This is fair enough, mate. The problem, for me at least, is that 'agnosticism' is not restricted to a theistic philosophy. You can be agnostic about lots of things, but 'atheism' only considers theism. I consider myself an agnostic about everything (or, in epistemology, an epistemological skeptic), but also an atheist. This is because agnosticism is an epistemological stance, while atheism is not.

 

[RandFan]

I suppose I should say I am talking about the kind of behaviour that is commonly labelled as "arrogant". I've never actually accused anybody of arrogance and I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean.

The dictionary defines arrogance as "offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride"

I find politicians like George Bush to be, at times, arrogant. I think arrogance is when you refuse to consider that you could be wrong especially in the face of evidence that you are. I think arrogance is typically marked by smugness and condescension. When a politician talks down to reporters and is dismissive of their questions and persist that it is they, the reporters, who don't understand. That to me, is arrogance.

So do you believe that no one is ever arrogant? Do you believe that a person can be smug? Do you believe that there is such a thing as hubris? Have you ever been patronized by someone in authority? I have, I find such people arrogant.

It's an accusation that is usually wielded by people who have lost the argument and are out of all other ammunition.

I think you have a point. I'm curious though, The Atheist says that he is arrogant. What do you think he means by that?

 

[Region Rat]

This is fair enough, mate. The problem, for me at least, is that 'agnosticism' is not restricted to a theistic philosophy. You can be agnostic about lots of things, but 'atheism' only considers theism. I consider myself an agnostic about everything (or, in epistemology, an epistemological skeptic), but also an atheist. This is because agnosticism is an epistemological stance, while atheism is not.

I agree, but consider this. With regards to the question of supernatural beings, everyone is an agnostic. Knowbody knows for sure whether a supernatural being or beings exist or ever have existed.
Some people choose to believe that they do. They have faith, some more than others, that something is out there. These people are theists.
Some people choose not to believe they exist, or to believe that they do not exist. They are weak atheists or strong atheists, respectively. They either do not have faith that something is out there, or they have faith that nothing is.
My point is, people choose to be on the theist side or the atheist side, all while being technically agnostic. How about that?

 

[Tricky]

I prefer to label myself as an agnostic atheist, one who thinks that we can not know such a thing as a supreme being, but who also fails to possess the particular faith of any religion, and who is without theism.

Me too, but try explaining that to the average person on the street. Like Jimbo, I usually just say "agnostic" so I don't have to explain my position in detail, as well as the difference between "belief" and "knowledge".

eta:
And epistimology. No way I can explain epistimology. I'm not sure I understand it myself.

 

[Taffer]

I agree, but consider this. With regards to the question of supernatural beings, everyone is an agnostic. Knowbody knows for sure whether a supernatural being or beings exist or ever have existed.
Some people choose to believe that they do. They have faith, some more than others, that something is out there. These people are theists.
Some people choose not to believe they exist, or to believe that they do not exist. They are weak atheists or strong atheists, respectively. They either do not have faith that something is out there, or they have faith that nothing is.
My point is, people choose to be on the theist side or the atheist side, all while being technically agnostic. How about that?

I think some on both camps would disagree, but I'm fine with this.

Like I said, there is a difference between agnosticism and atheism, not just the meanings, but the whole 'genre' they're applied to. As long as everyone knows what's what, I'm perfectly content.

 

[Taffer]

eta:
And epistimology. No way I can explain epistimology. I'm not sure I understand it myself.

Simply stated, the question "what is knowledge". Or, and this is by far the more common question, "can we know anything for certain?" This is where the duality of the term "skeptic" comes into play. There are (my terminology here) 'mundane' skeptics (i.e. randi, "ghosts don't exist until we have proof", etc), and then there are 'epistemic' skeptics "we cannot know anything for certain". Now that I think about it, agnosticism is ever so slightly different, in saying "we cannot know anything for certain, and it's pointless to even try".