Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Is Atheism A Faith?


duderonomy

Recommended Posts

I think that there is a huge difference between not believing in any of the gods of all religions because there is lack of evidence, and not believing that there could be a god somewhere. 

Most of us here don't believe in any of the "God's" offered by the world's religions, because we haven't seen the evidence or proofs or the results promised, or for some other reason. 

 

But does absence of evidence always show evidence of absence? I've always thought that that was a bit silly, because absence of evidence is only that. It only works within what we now know.  It is not evidence of anything beyond what we have to work with.

 

To me Russell's Teapot  seems to be more about showing the absurdity of man made religions, but doesn't cover a bigger picture. What if there is a god somewhere that has no teapot, left us no ancient texts, and doesn't give a tinker's damn with human logic, including who has a burden of proof? Could there be a god like that?

 

One apology used by theists and I.D. proponents alike is that one would have to know all that there is to know about everything before one could conclude that there is no god. That makes sense, but that same argument could of course be turned around the other way: One would have to know all that there is to know about everything before one could conclude that there is a god. Still makes sense.

 

My conclusion (so far) is that it takes faith, that is believing without any known proof or evidence, to say for sure that there is or isn't a "God".  Theism takes faith. Atheism takes faith.

 

Show me a hard atheist who actually uses faith.  I'm not saying one you can define as using faith.  I mean one where the atheist uses belief without evidence.  If you are not ready to conclude atheism that does not mean atheists use faith.  As for soft atheists - see Vigile's post #25.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only when a group of rabid athiests start acting like a group of rabid christians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only when a group of rabid athiests start acting like a group of rabid christians.

 

When pigs fly over a frozen hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

I think that there is a huge difference between not believing in any of the gods of all religions because there is lack of evidence, and not believing that there could be a god somewhere. 

Most of us here don't believe in any of the "God's" offered by the world's religions, because we haven't seen the evidence or proofs or the results promised, or for some other reason. 

 

But does absence of evidence always show evidence of absence? I've always thought that that was a bit silly, because absence of evidence is only that. It only works within what we now know.  It is not evidence of anything beyond what we have to work with.

 

To me Russell's Teapot  seems to be more about showing the absurdity of man made religions, but doesn't cover a bigger picture. What if there is a god somewhere that has no teapot, left us no ancient texts, and doesn't give a tinker's damn with human logic, including who has a burden of proof? Could there be a god like that?

 

One apology used by theists and I.D. proponents alike is that one would have to know all that there is to know about everything before one could conclude that there is no god. That makes sense, but that same argument could of course be turned around the other way: One would have to know all that there is to know about everything before one could conclude that there is a god. Still makes sense.

 

My conclusion (so far) is that it takes faith, that is believing without any known proof or evidence, to say for sure that there is or isn't a "God".  Theism takes faith. Atheism takes faith.

The lingering question so far is who exactly says that there is certainly or absolutely no God of any type? 

 

Atheism doesn't suggest that and it's one hell of a straw man argument to raise against atheism in general rather than to address it to one particular minority position strand of atheism. Actually what is being discussed here is more properly anti-theism more so than atheism. I'll explain. 

 

Atheism is simple. A = "not" and theism = "God Belief."

 

The general sense of the word suggests a simple lack of belief in God(s). You don't have to conclude with certainty that God doesn't exist to simply lack belief in such a thing. You simply don't believe it. The evidence in favor is very lacking so you don't see it as something to believe in. If some better evidence were to arise you might change your mind. But for the time being you simply don't believe in Gods, hence you lack God belief. The burden of proof, faith, and belief always rests on those making the 'positive assertion' and never the other way around. 

 

An anti-theist, however, is the polar opposite of a theist and is some one making the polar opposite positive assertion. They can be a type of atheist because they also lack God belief (the anti-theistic type of atheist) but of course this is a minority among general atheists and it's quite ignorant really, just as ignorant as theism can be and for the same reasons.

 

Why?

 

Just as many posters have outlined in the thread already, it takes faith and belief of some type to counter the 'positive assertions' of theism with polar opposite 'positive assertions'. I've heard some people speak with certainty at times about God not existing or being completely impossible. But this is a very unwise position to take on. And it's not to be confused with general atheism.

 

*Apologists would like everyone thinking that atheism = anti-theism when that's not the case.

 

It seems that they want to spread confusion and raise straw men at every turn. And it works. The only way to combat these yahoos is to never let them turn it around to where you're in a position of carrying the burden of proof like they are. That's where they want the freethinker, down at their level where they might actually have a chance against you. It sounds to me like that's exactly what led into the opening post. And it worked to some degree because this Christian had you questioning atheism based on the straw man foundation that he himself laid out for the argument itself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

This question has gone out to some of the leading atheist groups and here's an example of their responses:

 

 

 


 

"What is an atheist? An atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of a god, i.e., in the existence of a supernatural being. Why doesn't the atheist believe in a god? Quite simply, because belief in a god is unreasonable. Can the atheist prove that a god does not exist? The atheist need not 'prove' the nonexistence of a god, just as one who does not believe in magic elves, fairies, and gremlins does not have to prove their nonexistence. A person who asserts the existence of something assumes the burden of proof. The theist, or god-believer, asserts the existence of a god and must prove the claim. If the theist fails in this task, reasonable people will reject the belief as groundless. Atheists do not believe in a god because there is no reason they should. But haven't philosophers proved the existence of a god? No. All such attempts have failed. Most philosophers and theologians now concede that belief in a god must rest on faith, not on reason. Then why not accept the existence of a god on faith? Because to believe on faith is to defy and abandon the judgment of one's mind. Faith conflicts with reason. It cannot give you knowledge; it can only delude you into believing that you know more than you really do. Faith is intellectually dishonest, and it should be rejected by every person of integrity."

--"Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies" by George H. Smith, 62-3.

Those Atheists who want to adhere to the "strong" or "positive" definition of the word "atheist" should perhaps consider creating a new word that best describes their position because "atheist" isn't it. The "strong" or "positive" views are an abuse of the word. Although, that abuse largely comes from theists trying to re-define the word by projecting their own desired definition to the word 'atheist.' That way theists can put all atheists into the "strong" or "positive" corner (and attempt to make endless straw man arguments). It's intellectually dishonest and we must not let them do that.

Here's another perfect example:

 

"Some dictionaries define godless as 'wicked', 'immoral'. I don't believe in gods but I am not 'wicked' nor am I 'immoral'. This means that dictionaries are not inerrant. It sounds like the religious society should be blamed for assigning a morally pejorative connotation to an ordinary descriptive adjective."

- "Loosing Faith in Faith" page 98

http://dictionary.re...earch?q=godless

 

"If so many atheists and some of their critics have insisted on the negative definition of atheism, why have some modern philosophers called for a positive definition of atheism -- atheism as the outright denial of God's existence? Part of the reason, I suspect, lies in the chasm separating freethinkers and academic philosophers. Most modern philosophers are totally unfamiliar with atheistic literature and so remain oblivious to the tradition of negative atheism contained in that literature."

http://www.positivea...it/smithdef.htm

"What Is A Freethinker?"
http://www.ffrf.org/...freethinker.php

Theists & atheists, please make the necessary adjustments. It sounds like we need to organize a campaign contacting all the dictionaries and encyclopedias asking for this correction to be made as well. We obviously cannot rely on the theistic community to make these types of corrections for us.

Children are a perfect example of having an absence of belief in the concept of God. Belief in a god is something that is taught to them by devotees. No other species seems to hold any belief in the concept of God either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

 

If scientifically undeniable evidence of a God came to be, most Atheists would become believers.

 

If scientifically undeniable evidence against any specific religion came to be, the members of that religions would disregard it and claim it's a conspiracy, trickery from Satan, somehow flawed, or some other form of denial. Most theists would remain theists.

 

A faith needs to have a strong belief to back it up. Atheism is "I'll believe it when I see it." Theism is "I'll believe what makes me feel good."

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A more interesting angle on it from my perspective is to ask: Which God do you have in mind? If you truly believe that we know nothing whatsoever about any Godlike being, then the choice is among an infinite number of possible Gods and there being no Gods. Let's take a watered-down definition of God as having no requirement of being "all good", and instead of "all powerful" we'll make do with "amazingly powerful" and instead of "all knowing" we'll take "amazingly knowledgeable". Suppose your goal is to avoid the wrath of this God. There is no Pascal's Wager for you, and here's why. For any possible God X that rewards certain behaviors and punishes others, there is another possible God Y who has an exactly inverted set of rewards and punishments. A God whose requirement for entry to heaven is torturing toddlers has as much evidence going for it as some version of the Christian God.

 

So we humans are left to figuring out what's right and wrong and how best to lead our lives on our own.

 

I'll go by "atheist" or "weak atheist" or "agnostic" or whatever term works for whoever I'm talking with.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A more interesting angle on it from my perspective is to ask: Which God do you have in mind? If you truly believe that we know nothing whatsoever about any Godlike being, then the choice is among an infinite number of possible Gods and there being no Gods. Let's take a watered-down definition of God as having no requirement of being "all good", and instead of "all powerful" we'll make do with "amazingly powerful" and instead of "all knowing" we'll take "amazingly knowledgeable". Suppose your goal is to avoid the wrath of this God. There is no Pascal's Wager for you, and here's why. For any possible God X that rewards certain behaviors and punishes others, there is another possible God Y who has an exactly inverted set of rewards and punishments. A God whose requirement for entry to heaven is torturing toddlers has as much evidence going for it as some version of the Christian God.

 

So we humans are left to figuring out what's right and wrong and how best to lead our lives on our own.

 

I'll go by "atheist" or "weak atheist" or "agnostic" or whatever term works for whoever I'm talking with.

 

 

Now that is interesting.  Imagine that some race of creatures did something which had the side effect of causing the Big Bang in our universe.  Well they would be our creator even if they didn't intend it, even if they were moral and have since become extinct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if there is a god somewhere that has no teapot, left us no ancient texts, and doesn't give a tinker's damn with human logic, including who has a burden of proof? Could there be a god like that?

 

 

Then it's existence isn't materially any different, or more relevant, than it's non-existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What if there is a god somewhere that has no teapot, left us no ancient texts, and doesn't give a tinker's damn with human logic, including who has a burden of proof? Could there be a god like that?

 

 

Then it's existence isn't materially any different, or more relevant, than it's non-existence.

And would it even be appropriate to call that a 'god'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I've read every post on this thread twice, and Joshpantera's three times (I'll follow some of the links in his post and see where that leads me), and I let them percolate in my thoughts for a couple of days.  For some reason his posts #'s 29 and 30 stood out to me, although I guess many of you said the same thing.

 

It seems that with or without faith or belief, there are almost as many descriptive pidgeon holes as there are pidgeons. To me, the description of anti-theists, or militant atheists, is more closely what I think of when I say that my conclusion (so far) is that Atheism also requires faith. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

What if there is a god somewhere that has no teapot, left us no ancient texts, and doesn't give a tinker's damn with human logic, including who has a burden of proof? Could there be a god like that?

 

Then it's existence isn't materially any different, or more relevant, than it's non-existence.

And would it even be appropriate to call that a 'god'?

 

 

I think a Deist would think so. No, I'm not a Deist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I've read every post on this thread twice, and Joshpantera's three times (I'll follow some of the links in his post and see where that leads me), and I let them percolate in my thoughts for a couple of days.  For some reason his posts #'s 29 and 30 stood out to me, although I guess many of you said the same thing.

 

It seems that with or without faith or belief, there are almost as many descriptive pidgeon holes as there are pidgeons. To me, the description of anti-theists, or militant atheists, is more closely what I think of when I say that my conclusion (so far) is that Atheism also requires faith. 

 

It really devolves into a topic of semantics and linguistics at this point. I consider myself to be a strong atheist but I don't feel the need to try and disprove the existence of deities with anyone. The only faith I have is in that of my own convictions. If we didn't live in a theistic world full of believers there wouldn't be any need for even that sort of faith. In a world with no theists we wouldn't even be asking the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a difference between disbelief and not believing.  One requires a positive position (a verb) while the other is a default position that requires no action. 

 

It could be argued that the positive action requires some level of faith, but it cannot be argued that the later does.  I can't believe or disbelieve that which I'm ignorant of.

 

The problem with trying to attach the concept of faith here to lack of belief is its an attempt to create an even playing field using the fallacy of equivocation. 

 

Och, that is a good point. Theists flock to that argument, which is why every major debate is always about the existence or non-existence of God as opposed to the flagrant silliness contained in the Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If atheism is a faith, it is the faith in reality vs a faith in unproven works and mythology.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well, I've read every post on this thread twice, and Joshpantera's three times (I'll follow some of the links in his post and see where that leads me), and I let them percolate in my thoughts for a couple of days.  For some reason his posts #'s 29 and 30 stood out to me, although I guess many of you said the same thing.

 

It seems that with or without faith or belief, there are almost as many descriptive pidgeon holes as there are pidgeons. To me, the description of anti-theists, or militant atheists, is more closely what I think of when I say that my conclusion (so far) is that Atheism also requires faith. 

 

It really devolves into a topic of semantics and linguistics at this point. I consider myself to be a strong atheist but I don't feel the need to try and disprove the existence of deities with anyone. The only faith I have is in that of my own convictions. If we didn't live in a theistic world full of believers there wouldn't be any need for even that sort of faith. In a world with no theists we wouldn't even be asking the question.

 

I see what you are saying about linguistics and semantics, but still, if we ("we") are to communicate, we have to accept our common language. Words change over time, but I am looking for an answer beyond our mutual gutteral grunts and groans...

 

How do you suppose it is that we live in a theistic world full of believers? Do you suppose that humans are only animals? I do, at this point, but why the theism/atheism then?  Why do so many billions of "us" think that there is something else?

I can't say what the other animals think, but it seems that most in our group of animals has a belief in something that science has yet to explain.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Well, I've read every post on this thread twice, and Joshpantera's three times (I'll follow some of the links in his post and see where that leads me), and I let them percolate in my thoughts for a couple of days.  For some reason his posts #'s 29 and 30 stood out to me, although I guess many of you said the same thing.

 

It seems that with or without faith or belief, there are almost as many descriptive pidgeon holes as there are pidgeons. To me, the description of anti-theists, or militant atheists, is more closely what I think of when I say that my conclusion (so far) is that Atheism also requires faith. 

 

It really devolves into a topic of semantics and linguistics at this point. I consider myself to be a strong atheist but I don't feel the need to try and disprove the existence of deities with anyone. The only faith I have is in that of my own convictions. If we didn't live in a theistic world full of believers there wouldn't be any need for even that sort of faith. In a world with no theists we wouldn't even be asking the question.

 

I see what you are saying about linguistics and semantics, but still, if we ("we") are to communicate, we have to accept our common language. Words change over time, but I am looking for an answer beyond our mutual gutteral grunts and groans...

 

How do you suppose it is that we live in a theistic world full of believers? Do you suppose that humans are only animals? I do, at this point, but why the theism/atheism then?  Why do so many billions of "us" think that there is something else?

I can't say what the other animals think, but it seems that most in our group of animals has a belief in something that science has yet to explain.  

 

 

Yes, we humans are only animals. We have bones, flesh, blood, and DNA. We are no different than any other mammal in this regard. We human animals, being self aware, know we will eventually perish. Our ego does not want to believe it will cease to exist. Thus the belief in gods/afterlife found in every culture throughout the world. Since nobody has been able to ask a dead person what death is like we, as humans, have conjured up as many religions as there have been cultures to try and assuage our collective egos. I was a believer in this for almost 40 years. I had a very strong faith which was a belief in god and the afterlife with no physical evidence. When I deconverted I didn't switch faiths, like a Mormon switching to Catholicism, but rather negated faith in my life and allowed my ego to accept reality and face the world as it really is instead of how I, and religion, wished it to be.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

There are no foxes in atheist holes.

 

Or something like that.

 

Seriously, I can't believe (see what I did there?) this "debate" continues decade after decade. Does anyone consult a dictionary these days? The word "asymmetrical" indicates only that the described item is not symmetrical; it doesn't indicate anything else. The word "atheist" indicates only that the described person is not theistic, that is, for whatever reasons, not a believer in gods. It doesn't address what the person does believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no foxes in atheist holes.

 

Or something like that.

 

Seriously, I can't believe (see what I did there?) this "debate" continues decade after decade. Does anyone consult a dictionary these days? The word "asymmetrical" indicates only that the described item is not symmetrical; it doesn't indicate anything else. The word "atheist" indicates only that the described person is not theistic, that is, for whatever reasons, not a believer in gods. It doesn't address what the person does believe.

Is there a word for people who affirmatively believe there are no gods?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There are no foxes in atheist holes.

 

Or something like that.

 

Seriously, I can't believe (see what I did there?) this "debate" continues decade after decade. Does anyone consult a dictionary these days? The word "asymmetrical" indicates only that the described item is not symmetrical; it doesn't indicate anything else. The word "atheist" indicates only that the described person is not theistic, that is, for whatever reasons, not a believer in gods. It doesn't address what the person does believe.

Is there a word for people who affirmatively believe there are no gods?

 

 

The term is hard atheist or strong atheist.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Well, I've read every post on this thread twice, and Joshpantera's three times (I'll follow some of the links in his post and see where that leads me), and I let them percolate in my thoughts for a couple of days.  For some reason his posts #'s 29 and 30 stood out to me, although I guess many of you said the same thing.

 

It seems that with or without faith or belief, there are almost as many descriptive pidgeon holes as there are pidgeons. To me, the description of anti-theists, or militant atheists, is more closely what I think of when I say that my conclusion (so far) is that Atheism also requires faith. 

I could tell that the previous posts weren't necessarily getting through and I thought I might take whirl at trying to make it more understandable. I admit that I didn't really understand this topic either until I payed closer attention to what the leading atheist organizations had to say on the matter. 

 

You're probably leaning towards agnostic because of the way you have perceived atheism as a positive assertion. When you're probably a weak atheist.

 

You go as agnostic in your description.

 

That simply means not-knowing. But that doesn't necessarily exclude you from weak atheism. Have you heard of this yet? 

 

 

 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known.[1][2][3]

 

That narrows it down a bit more eh? 

 

Of the two - agnostic atheist or agnostic theist - which do you think better describes the position you've been trying to lay out so far? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no foxes in atheist holes.

 

Or something like that.

 

Seriously, I can't believe (see what I did there?) this "debate" continues decade after decade. Does anyone consult a dictionary these days? The word "asymmetrical" indicates only that the described item is not symmetrical; it doesn't indicate anything else. The word "atheist" indicates only that the described person is not theistic, that is, for whatever reasons, not a believer in gods. It doesn't address what the person does believe.

 

Maybe the debate goes on decade after decade because there is no proof on either side, and both have to rely on faith?

 

I guess I'm an atheist too, being agnostic. Agnostic, to me, means I don't know if there is or isn't a god, which of course means that I don't believe that there is one, but I can't say for sure that there isn't one either. I don't, in other words, know what to believe.   

 

According to the links in Joshpantera's post, there are atheist groups expressing a need to petition dictionary publishers to correctly describe the word "atheism".  Consulting a dictionary then would give me a correct definition of atheism?

 

What do believers in a god and people who believe there is no god have in common?  I would say belief, or faith in their own respective points of view, neither of which have any proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There are no foxes in atheist holes.

 

Or something like that.

 

Seriously, I can't believe (see what I did there?) this "debate" continues decade after decade. Does anyone consult a dictionary these days? The word "asymmetrical" indicates only that the described item is not symmetrical; it doesn't indicate anything else. The word "atheist" indicates only that the described person is not theistic, that is, for whatever reasons, not a believer in gods. It doesn't address what the person does believe.

 

Maybe the debate goes on decade after decade because there is no proof on either side, and both have to rely on faith?

 

I guess I'm an atheist too, being agnostic. Agnostic, to me, means I don't know if there is or isn't a god, which of course means that I don't believe that there is one, but I can't say for sure that there isn't one either. I don't, in other words, know what to believe.   

 

According to the links in Joshpantera's post, there are atheist groups expressing a need to petition dictionary publishers to correctly describe the word "atheism".  Consulting a dictionary then would give me a correct definition of atheism?

 

What do believers in a god and people who believe there is no god have in common?  I would say belief, or faith in their own respective points of view, neither of which have any proof.

 

 

 

Did you find a flaw in my argument?  The entire body of archeology and anthropology has unearthed a large sum of evidence showing that humans create gods.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
According to the links in Joshpantera's post, there are atheist groups expressing a need to petition dictionary publishers to correctly describe the word "atheism".  Consulting a dictionary then would give me a correct definition of atheism?

That's what they hope for. If it were clearly defined instead of relying on theistic bent definitions it wouldn't be nearly as confusing for people.

 

 

What do believers in a god and people who believe there is no god have in common?  I would say belief, or faith in their own respective points of view, neither of which have any proof.

When you define it this way your point rings as true. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well, I've read every post on this thread twice, and Joshpantera's three times (I'll follow some of the links in his post and see where that leads me), and I let them percolate in my thoughts for a couple of days.  For some reason his posts #'s 29 and 30 stood out to me, although I guess many of you said the same thing.

 

It seems that with or without faith or belief, there are almost as many descriptive pidgeon holes as there are pidgeons. To me, the description of anti-theists, or militant atheists, is more closely what I think of when I say that my conclusion (so far) is that Atheism also requires faith. 

I could tell that the previous posts weren't necessarily getting through and I thought I might take whirl at trying to make it more understandable. I admit that I didn't really understand this topic either until I payed closer attention to what the leading atheist organizations had to say on the matter. 

 

You're probably leaning towards agnostic because of the way you have perceived atheism as a positive assertion. When you're probably a weak atheist.

 

You go as agnostic in your description.

 

That simply means not-knowing. So If you don't know if Gods exist, then you don't have a positive belief in the existence of God(s). You're essentially lacking that positive belief in God. So then you'd be atheist and agnostic upon further examination. 

 

 

 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known.[1][2][3]

 

That narrows it down a bit more eh? 

 

Of the two - agnostic atheist or agnostic theist - which do you think better describes the position you've been trying to lay out so far? 

 

 

You posted this while I was responding to florduh's post. If I had to narrow it down, I would say I am an agnostic atheist. You might gather that from what I just posted. I haven't followed all of the links you posted yet either, by the way.

 

Still the point is; does anyone know for sure, and how do they know? Is there proof of any god, or disproof of any god?  It seems that there is an absence of evidence either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.