Faith, Theism, And Atheism

[Dra_Mucd_Uha]

I have heard it said that both Theists and Athesits require faith for what they believe in. I have started reading a book titled I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek. It's the Christian response to Atheism.

 

It explains that whether you are a Theist or an Atheist, you require faith. The difference, besides beliefs? The Theist seems to believe it requires more faith to be an Atheist, and the Atheist seems to believe it require more faith to be a Theist. Agnostics... well... they don't require faith at all, lol. And to be honest, I'm beginning to lean more towards Agnosticism than Atheism. Why? I can't prove that God doesn't exist, nor can I prove that he does exist. How does someone prove one or the other? And to believe in one or the other, doesn't that require faith to some extent?

 

-Dra Mucd Uha

[Lycorth]

Hey, it's all good, bro. Make your decision using your brain and all available facts, and just don't let the Xian zombies make you think that believing in something equals a desire to fill a Jesus™-shaped hole in your heart.

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

Atheism does require some faith, just not Christian Faith and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

Non Religioun Related Faith: Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

 

Christian Faith is quite different.

 

Christian Faith:

1. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

2. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

[Asimov]

I have heard it said that both Theists and Athesits require faith for what they believe in. I have started reading a book titled I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek. It's the Christian response to Atheism.

 

It explains that whether you are a Theist or an Atheist, you require faith. The difference, besides beliefs? The Theist seems to believe it requires more faith to be an Atheist, and the Atheist seems to believe it require more faith to be a Theist. Agnostics... well... they don't require faith at all, lol. And to be honest, I'm beginning to lean more towards Agnosticism than Atheism. Why? I can't prove that God doesn't exist, nor can I prove that he does exist. How does someone prove one or the other? And to believe in one or the other, doesn't that require faith to some extent?

 

-Dra Mucd Uha

 

Frank Turek is an ignorant asshole.

 

1) Define faith.

2) Define Atheism.

3) Define Theism.

 

I think it requires faith to be a theist, it requires no faith to be an atheist (in regards to God's existence)

 

agnosticism has nothing to do with theology except in terms of stating whether or not we can know if God exists.

[saxyroze]

How does the author(s) explain an atheist’s faith? I don’t understand. To have faith one must have something to have faith in…if an atheist doesn’t have anything to have faith in, how can he/she have faith? Unless this person is trying to say ‘to believe in nothing is to believe in something’. Anyway, my main point is, how does the author(s) explain this?

[Fweethawt]

If Atheism requires faith, then my ass requires (specifically) a holy-water enima.

 

 

I tell you what - the more that I hear "Atheism requires faith", the more it's starting to fuckin' sicken me. All they are doing is playing word games to try and make it seem as though Atheism is no better than their position. If they can fit the faith-card in there somewhere, then, to an outsider or questioner, it looks as though the two positions are equal, so there's no reason to question.

 

 

Fuck these people and everyone that tries to defend that position.

[greasemonkey]

does not collecting stamps qualify as a hobby?!

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

 

I tell you what - the more that I hear "Atheism requires faith", the more it's starting to fuckin' sicken me. All they are doing is playing word games to try and make it seem as though Atheism is no better than their position.

 

exactly. It also sickens me that they talk about the "evolutionist's" faith. They want to redefine every bunch of ideas as a "faith."

[Fweethawt]

I tell you what - the more that I hear "Atheism requires faith", the more it's starting to fuckin' sicken me. All they are doing is playing word games to try and make it seem as though Atheism is no better than their position.

exactly. It also sickens me that they talk about the "evolutionist's" faith. They want to redefine every bunch of ideas as a "faith."

And why do they do that? Because faith is the weaker position. And that's why they at least want to make it SEEM like all other positions aren't better than theirs.

[Reverend AtheiStar]

I have heard it said that both Theists and Athesits require faith for what they believe in. I have started reading a book titled I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek. It's the Christian response to Atheism.

 

It explains that whether you are a Theist or an Atheist, you require faith. The difference, besides beliefs? The Theist seems to believe it requires more faith to be an Atheist, and the Atheist seems to believe it require more faith to be a Theist. Agnostics... well... they don't require faith at all, lol. And to be honest, I'm beginning to lean more towards Agnosticism than Atheism. Why? I can't prove that God doesn't exist, nor can I prove that he does exist. How does someone prove one or the other? And to believe in one or the other, doesn't that require faith to some extent?

 

-Dra Mucd Uha

 

The average Atheist simply lacks belief in all gods and goddesses. It takes no faith to have the absence of something. It's really that simple.

[qadeshet]

The average Atheist simply lacks belief in all gods and goddesses. It takes no faith to have the absence of something. It's really that simple.

 

 

AtheiStar, your defination is that of weak, or soft, Atheism. Strong Atheism goes further and claims, based on logic, perhaps, but without proof, that there are no gods. Weak Atheism is little distinguishable from Agnosticism.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

Strong atheism, sometimes called positive atheism, hard atheism or gnostic atheism, is the philosophical position that no deity exists. It is a form of explicit atheism, meaning that it consciously rejects theism. It is contrasted with weak atheism, which is the lack or absence of belief in deities, without the additional claim that deities do not exist. The strong atheist positively asserts, at the very least, that no deities exist, and may go further and claim that the existence of certain deities is logically impossible.

 

While strong atheism does not necessarily preclude belief in supernatural entities or processes in general, strong atheists can have naturalistic tendencies and would likely also reject such beliefs. However, spiritual or supernatural beliefs would not preclude someone from being a strong atheist.

 

Some strong atheists qualify their position by stating what specific deities they think do not exist. They may believe that deities, such as the Abrahamic God, do not exist, based on the description of these deities provided by their followers. They may believe certain gods to be logically impossible based on these descriptions, or they may be swayed by one or many of the arguments against the existence of deities with certain characteristics (for example, that the problem of evil makes it impossible for a deity to be an omnipotent, completely benevolent/loving creator of everything). It is not unusual for a person to be a strong atheist with respect to particular deities and be a weak atheist with respect to other gods. Indeed, one may be (and in fact the overwhelming majority of theists are) a theist with respect to one or several deities and a strong or weak atheist with respect to all other deities. For example, Christians typically believe that the God of the Bible exists, but believe that Zeus, Thor, Krishna, and so forth, do not. A typical atheist joke is that there is only a small difference between a strong atheist and a Christian: they agree that most deities don't exist and disagree about only one of them.

 

For the sake of discussion, it would be helpful if Atheists would identify their own brand of Atheism.

[Reverend AtheiStar]

AtheiStar, your defination is that of weak, or soft, Atheism.

 

I know this. This is why I used the word "average." Strong Atheists, such as myself, go beyond average.

 

Strong Atheism goes further and claims, based on logic, perhaps, but without proof, that there are no gods.

 

Again, preaching to the choir. I know this. I am a strong Atheist. I believe, due to all the available evidence, there to be no gods or goddesses. At the same time, I lack belief in these beings. I consider all gods and goddesses to have been given birth by the phenomena of anthropomorphism. For more on this please read my essay on the subject here.

 

Weak Atheism is little distinguishable from Agnosticism.

 

Ah, but here you are wrong. There are only two types of Agnostics, theistic and Atheistic. For more on this please read this.

[Vigile]

Does it take faith to determine that the sun will rise tomorow? Yeah, some would say so. Based on the fact that the sun has indeed risen every day of your life and based on the fact that scientific evidence suggest that the sun has risen every day for millenia probabilities are pretty damn high that the sun will rise tomorrow.

 

Christian faith on the other hand expects you to believe, with absolutely no evidence mind you, that a long time ago some guy you never met was born of a virgin (something that we can determine based on science and experience to be impossible), lived a supposed pure life and then became magically undead after dying for your sins (whatever that means).

 

Is it the same thing to believe that the sun will rise and that some guy did something that was before and since never performed and based on our current understanding of the world impossible?

 

Reliance on probabilities and logic may be determined to be faith by some definitions (not mine mind you) but they are an entirely different animal than the type of faith xtians use to accept their beliefs.

[Checkmate]

does not collecting stamps qualify as a hobby?!

Also: "Atheism is a religion, like baldness is a hair color."

 

I don't even argue anymore with people who claim atheism requires faith. This statement typically comes from the idiots who believe fairy tales are "true". So consider the source. Such people should be mocked and ignored for the fools they are.

[Thurisaz]

Is it the same thing to believe that the sun will rise and that some guy did something that was before and since never performed and based on our current understanding of the world impossible?

 

Heh, I was about to post pretty much the same. Even including the rising sun example.

 

Of course, if we want to follow the German proverb "Glauben heißt nicht wissen" (to believe means to not know) and assume that "know", in this context, means "be 100 % sure", then we might define atheism as a "faith". Of course, by that extremely broad definition everything's a "faith".

 

So what remains? The question of how to judge the probability of a belief or "faith" being correct. And in this game, atheists/scientists/freethinkers et cetera are usually far ahead while fundies are still asleep at the starting line.

[Antlerman]

I have heard it said that both Theists and Athesits require faith for what they believe in. I have started reading a book titled I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek. It's the Christian response to Atheism.

 

It explains that whether you are a Theist or an Atheist, you require faith. The difference, besides beliefs? The Theist seems to believe it requires more faith to be an Atheist, and the Atheist seems to believe it require more faith to be a Theist. Agnostics... well... they don't require faith at all, lol. And to be honest, I'm beginning to lean more towards Agnosticism than Atheism. Why? I can't prove that God doesn't exist, nor can I prove that he does exist. How does someone prove one or the other? And to believe in one or the other, doesn't that require faith to some extent?

 

-Dra Mucd Uha

The theist stating this is creating a straw man argument. It is a logic fallacy he tries to promote to make some sort of artificial case for his position. The fact is atheists are simply rejecting faith in the fantastical. Atheist is an absence of faith in a deity, not faith in something else. This person is being intellectually dishonest.

 

Do you believe in pink unicorns and leprechauns? No? Is your position of rejecting belief in them based on faith, or are you simply not accepting the fantastical claims of Leprechaun believers without credible support? Are you agnostic about Leprechauns? I'm not. I have an absence of any faith that they exist. That is cannot be misconstrued by the Leprechaun believers that I have a faith in no-leprechauns or a no-faith faith. I am simply not moving from the natural position of accepting the natural world as reality, to having faith in something that would be supernatural and defies sound logic. That is what being an atheist is. It is an absence of faith.

 

However, if there were some genuinely arguable evidence of Leprechauns (like some tiny green skeletal remains), and I wasn't really sure whether they existed or not, then I would be "agnostic" about them. I would be "undecided" or "uncommitted" about the controvery. But, since there is no credible evidence to consider seriously, I simply will continue to choose to not move beyond the rational into the non-rational world of faith based reality.

 

I suppose the best that could be said about being atheist is that it is a "choice". I choose to not spend any further energy considering the claims of those promoting the fantastical. I have looked at their proofs and arguments and found them faulted and unacceptable. Leprechauns, pink unicorns, and Jehovah are mythologies, not real beings interacting with the natural world. I do not need any faith whatsover to reject claims of the fantastical without credible evidence.

 

The Christian who claims all this stuff is real, is as "unbelievable" as those from the Sacred Order of the Green Little Folk are. I have no faith in their claims.

[Dra_Mucd_Uha]

Okay. I think the definition of Atheist is the prime factor here. According to this book, and Atheist is one who believes God doesn't exists. According to what you have said, an Atheist is one who doesn't believe God exists. Even though in a sense it sounds the same, I can see the difference. By the book, and Atheist is one who claims that he knows (believes) God doesn't exist. They seem to be making a religion out of it. But according to the replies here, an Atheist is one who refuses to believe in the idea that a God exists. It's not about what you believe about God's absense then, but about what you disbelieve about his presence.

 

Am I correct?

[Reverend AtheiStar]

Okay. I think the definition of Atheist is the prime factor here. According to this book, and Atheist is one who believes God doesn't exists. According to what you have said, an Atheist is one who doesn't believe God exists. Even though in a sense it sounds the same, I can see the difference. By the book, and Atheist is one who claims that he knows (believes) God doesn't exist. They seem to be making a religion out of it. But according to the replies here, an Atheist is one who refuses to believe in the idea that a God exists. It's not about what you believe about God's absense then, but about what you disbelieve about his presence.

 

Am I correct?

 

One of the biggest problems I can raise with the book is the fact that it presents the equation in the classic and completely disingenuous false dichotomy. It makes it look like it's only Christianity vs. Atheism. This is not the case. Man has created millions upon millions of gods and goddesses. Every Atheist, be they strong or weak, lacks belief in all gods and goddesses. This is a major distinction that the apologist doesn't want to mention because it shows that he, just like we, disbelieves in millions of deities! This is a giant can of worms so massive that he is wise to omit it.

 

As far an Atheism being a religion, it really doesn't matter whether it's belief or the lack thereof. It just doesn't fit the definition. Look for yourself:

 

re·li·gion n.

 

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

 

You see? None apply. We are disqualified on quite a few grounds!

[Dra_Mucd_Uha]

Okay. I think the definition of Atheist is the prime factor here. According to this book, and Atheist is one who believes God doesn't exists. According to what you have said, an Atheist is one who doesn't believe God exists. Even though in a sense it sounds the same, I can see the difference. By the book, and Atheist is one who claims that he knows (believes) God doesn't exist. They seem to be making a religion out of it. But according to the replies here, an Atheist is one who refuses to believe in the idea that a God exists. It's not about what you believe about God's absense then, but about what you disbelieve about his presence.

 

Am I correct?

 

One of the biggest problems I can raise with the book is the fact that it presents the equation in the classic and completely disingenuous false dichotomy. It makes it look like it's only Christianity vs. Atheism. This is not the case. Man has created millions upon millions of gods and goddesses. Every Atheist, be they strong or weak, lacks belief in all gods and goddesses. This is a major distinction that the apologist doesn't want to mention because it shows that he, just like we, disbelieves in millions of deities! This is a giant can of worms so massive that he is wise to omit it.

 

As far an Atheism being a religion, it really doesn't matter whether it's belief or the lack thereof. It just doesn't fit the definition. Look for yourself:

 

re·li·gion n.

 

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

 

You see? None apply. We are disqualified on quite a few grounds!

Thanks. Yes, once again it comes down to the definitions. Makes sense to me

 

It bothers me though that so many people look down on Atheists the way they do. I as a believer remember looking down on anyone I met that were Atheist. Ironic that I would become one. Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony...

 

Thanks for your help in clearing that up.

 

-Dra Mucd Uha

[Reverend AtheiStar]

It bothers me though that so many people look down on Atheists the way they do. I as a believer remember looking down on anyone I met that were Atheist. Ironic that I would become one. Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony...

 

It's a lack of open socialization with us. Once they hang out with an Atheist or Atheists they see they're not the bad people they've been painted to be. In fact, you might get a surprised "You're an Atheist? But you're a good person!" That's not so bad. What has irritated me the most has been the "I don't believe you're an Atheist." Really? Do I question whether you really believe in an invisible bearded white man who lives in the clouds and watches every single thing you do? No, I believe you. Please grant me the same and quit the disbelief of disbelief.

 

Thanks for your help in clearing that up.

 

You're welcome.