duderonomy Posted July 7, 2013 Author Share Posted July 7, 2013 Calling agnostics "cowards" is a cheap shot. But calling atheism "faith" is also a cheap shot. I've mentioned the evidence in several posts and people still ignore it to assert that hard atheists believe without evidence. Unless your religion is believing that "cartoon characters are not real people" then atheism is not a faith. Okay, let's get back to basics and go from there. Do we agree that by definition, belief without evidence is faith? Sure. Belief in spite of the evidence is also faith. I will stipulate that the formal definition of "atheism" includes a wide spectrum of disbelief in some form of deity or deities, including the assertion that a supreme deity or deities do not and can not exist. That is what I think we would agree is the "hard" atheist position. Will you agree that there is a difference between saying there is no evidence to assert that a deity (or group of deities) exists and the hard atheist position? Soft atheism concludes that there is no convincing evidence to believe in any god. Hard atheism concludes that there is evidence that all religion is fiction. Does hard atheism also conclude that the very concept of a god, or an intelligent designer, or a supreme being, or whatever one would call whatever came first, a fiction? That question would be an argument from the standpoint of a theist, wouldn't it? The answer of course, is that we don't know. Whatever was a first cause of all that is might be what from an atheist point of view? Nothing? Nature? No cause at all? Everything that ever was has always existed? "Nothing" never existed? Some other hypothesis? No one knows. Not theologians, not science, not atheists both soft and hard. If no one knows, then certainly I don't know, and that's why I remain agnostic. I do see design in nature, and I do see natural selection too. I really am learning from this thread. Despite raoul stopping in to shoot himself in the foot, I do appreciate what all of you are saying. Before this thread, I never would have said that I am by definition an agnostic atheist. That conflict was unfortunate. Why do you think that what came first might have been a being? As we have investigated our world everywhere (that we make progress) we find that things happen due to natural forces. When the circumstances are right events unfold on their own. I think that is a good indicator that whatever happened before the Big Bang was also a natural process that happened due to circumstances. Why would there even need to be a first cause? Things might go back infinitely. There might have always been something in another form. I think the truth is stranger than religion because reality is far more complicated than human creativity can imagine. I don't think that what came first had to be a being, but how far can infinite reduction go before it knows where it came from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 I don't think that what came first had to be a being, but how far can infinite reduction go before it knows where it came from? Unless some very different technology becomes possible the Big Bang will be the limit of our knowledge because it changed things too much to get to the previous information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted July 9, 2013 Author Share Posted July 9, 2013 Calling agnostics "cowards" is a cheap shot. But calling atheism "faith" is also a cheap shot. I've mentioned the evidence in several posts and people still ignore it to assert that hard atheists believe without evidence. Unless your religion is believing that "cartoon characters are not real people" then atheism is not a faith. Okay, let's get back to basics and go from there. Do we agree that by definition, belief without evidence is faith? Sure. Belief in spite of the evidence is also faith. I will stipulate that the formal definition of "atheism" includes a wide spectrum of disbelief in some form of deity or deities, including the assertion that a supreme deity or deities do not and can not exist. That is what I think we would agree is the "hard" atheist position. Will you agree that there is a difference between saying there is no evidence to assert that a deity (or group of deities) exists and the hard atheist position? Soft atheism concludes that there is no convincing evidence to believe in any god. Hard atheism concludes that there is evidence that all religion is fiction. Does hard atheism also conclude that the very concept of a god, or an intelligent designer, or a supreme being, or whatever one would call whatever came first, a fiction? That question would be an argument from the standpoint of a theist, wouldn't it? The answer of course, is that we don't know. Whatever was a first cause of all that is might be what from an atheist point of view? Nothing? Nature? No cause at all? Everything that ever was has always existed? "Nothing" never existed? Some other hypothesis? No one knows. Not theologians, not science, not atheists both soft and hard. If no one knows, then certainly I don't know, and that's why I remain agnostic. I do see design in nature, and I do see natural selection too. I really am learning from this thread. Despite raoul stopping in to shoot himself in the foot, I do appreciate what all of you are saying. Before this thread, I never would have said that I am by definition an agnostic atheist. That conflict was unfortunate. Why do you think that what came first might have been a being? As we have investigated our world everywhere (that we make progress) we find that things happen due to natural forces. When the circumstances are right events unfold on their own. I think that is a good indicator that whatever happened before the Big Bang was also a natural process that happened due to circumstances. Why would there even need to be a first cause? Things might go back infinitely. There might have always been something in another form. I think the truth is stranger than religion because reality is far more complicated than human creativity can imagine. OK, I think you guys may have got it through my thick noodle at last. Can we agree with Joshpantera's #70 descriptions? Those are the definitions that work for me, and I really have given this a lot of thought and reading. To put it my own words then, these are my revised conclusions as of now... Theism requires faith. Atheism does not require faith, as there is no evidence that there is a god of any kind to put faith in. Anti-Theism does require faith, as this is the position that would posit that there is no god at all, of any kind. Anti-Theists, then are the people that by virtue of the fact that they don't know everything that can be known, or for that matter unknown, have to rely on faith and not facts to bolster their claim, as do Theists. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To mymistake, I don't really think that whatever came first had to be a being, but I just can't rule it out. You mentioned all of the religions that people have created over the centuries, and I think most of them conclude somewhere that some god or gods put us here or created us. I don't see that as any evidence of any god, but I do wonder why that happens. I can't believe that it's always for control or power that some people promote certain beliefs and sometimes millions or billions also believe it, and I'm not talking about just Christianity or Islam, or the Jewish religion, or any other 'modern' religion but also all of the Earthly religions throughout history. Why are we discussing this at all, for instance? It seems that there could be at least a vestigal memory of something in our common human past that leads people to consider whether there is a god or not. Why? Do other animals do this (I don't think anyone knows, so that's a rhetorical question)? Is the difference between the other animals and the human animal just a twist of evolution? Why do we humans look for something beyond ourselves, our tribes, our species, our humanity, and our very world? Is that a product of evolution, or is there a good scientific explanation? That I don't know, and I suppose that should be another thread. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boftx Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 [... deletia...] ...I can't believe that it's always for control or power that some people promote certain beliefs and sometimes millions or billions also believe it, and I'm not talking about just Christianity or Islam, or the Jewish religion, or any other 'modern' religion but also all of the Earthly religions throughout history. [...deletia...] I think that I can make an argument that religion was brought about by males to counter the power that females could wield over them. I think that I could also argue that religion was invented by the first 90lb weakling that realized that brains and bullshit could overcome brawn and ignorance. In other words, "God" was invented by a nerd who couldn't get laid and always got beat up. That was one smart mother..... in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted July 9, 2013 Author Share Posted July 9, 2013 [... deletia...] ...I can't believe that it's always for control or power that some people promote certain beliefs and sometimes millions or billions also believe it, and I'm not talking about just Christianity or Islam, or the Jewish religion, or any other 'modern' religion but also all of the Earthly religions throughout history. [...deletia...] I think that I can make an argument that religion was brought about by males to counter the power that females could wield over them. I think that I could also argue that religion was invented by the first 90lb weakling that realized that brains and bullshit could overcome brawn and ignorance. In other words, "God" was invented by a nerd who couldn't get laid and always got beat up. That was one smart mother..... in my opinion. Really? Make your arugment then, but I think...should this also be another thread? Editited to add "I" before "think". Just because it was a typo and it was bugging me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurari Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 How can you possibly have "faith" in a lack of belief? Faith: 1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. 2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. Obviously the second definition is out for atheists. Which leaves: Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. I have faith in myself and my conclusions, but that's really the closest I can get. I don't have a belief about gods. I don't have enough information or even a solid definition of what a god IS to even create a belief about such a thing. Nobody has proven anything one way or another about the existence of gods. Which is the crux of why I am an atheist, but others take the "no proof" as a reason to keep believing. Which is fine by me. Not my business. Anyhoo, in summary, atheism does not necessarily mean having a solid conclusion on anything, so I can't say I have faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boftx Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith Definition of FAITH 1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions 2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religin b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust [emphasis added] 3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith> — on faith: without question <took everything he said on faith> Definition 2b is of particular interest to this discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted July 9, 2013 Author Share Posted July 9, 2013 What agnosticism means should also be a seperate thread IMHO. Edited to say that I didn't mean for that to be bolded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts