Isn’t Atheism a faith-based non-religion?

[Valjean]

But how can it be faith based when it has no faith in anything???

 

[Segev Moran]

They have faith in doubt. Right? Please

Regards

No,
We have no Faith
There is a big difference and for some reason it seems theists (mostly) are finding it hard to understand.
For some odd reason It seems that saying "I don't believe in..." is interpreted by many as "I believe there is no..."
These are two different statements.
I Can say I Don't believe the skies are green... or I believe the skies are not Green...
The first is stating that I am not convinced that the skies are green yet if sufficient evidence will arise I might be convinced.
The second statement is stating that even if the skies are green, I don't believe they are.

Same goes for Atheism.
We don't believe there is a God..
Its different than saying we believe there is no God..
From our POV, there is just not enough evidence to support the Idea of God.. It might be that there is A God..we just don't know it therefore we don't think it is true.
Hope that made some sense

 

[Segev Moran]

Yes, you can use the word that way. I would personally not call atheism a ''faith'', though..
I did reference to it as a religion in another thread addressing such, though. I have now revised my position, to such, that although atheism is faith based, it is not a ''religion''

Can you explain how it is Faith based?
I'm really puzzled by this statement.
Faith is believing something to be true without sufficient evidence.
Atheists claim they don't believe something to be true without sufficient evidence.
Saying atheism is faith is like saying:

I Have faith that I don't have faith...
Impossible statement

 

[Windwalker]

Atheism is a lack of conviction.

Then why say you are an Atheist? Why not say nothing instead?

 

[Windwalker]

If there were no theists. Athiesm wouldn't. even exist as a term.

If there were no atheism theism wouldn't exist as a term.

 

[Windwalker]

But how can it be faith based when it has no faith in anything???

But it does have faith. It is a faith that the natural world is all there is, and all that comes with that. It is a conviction of the natural order of things and from that how one should live one's life. Sraddha is the Hindu term for faith which means to set one's heart upon something. That's what faith really is. Theism is an expression of faith. Atheism is an expression of faith. I have no problem with either.

 

[paarsurrey]

But how can it be faith based when it has no faith in anything???

G-d exists irrespective of if one believes in Him or not, irrespective of if one gives an evidence for His existence or not, that is the reason as to why some believers are called as faith based.

Atheism people, if they cannot provide positives evidence of "non-existence of G-d" of the same kind they want from the believers to provide, on the same standards they are also faith-based non-religion.

Right? Please

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Yes, you can use the word that way. I would personally not call atheism a ''faith'', though..
I did reference to it as a religion in another thread addressing such, though. I have now revised my position, to such, that although atheism is faith based, it is not a ''religion''

Thanks for endorsement to the actual stance of Atheism.
It is for this that I wrote that Atheism is a faith-based non-religion.
Does one agree? Please
Regards

 

[YmirGF]

G-d exists irrespective of if one believes in Him or not, irrespective of if one gives an evidence for His existence or not, that is the reason as to why some believers are called as faith based.

Not really, the only thing you have is that you really, really, really, really believe there is a God. Nothing more.

Atheism people, if they cannot provide positives evidence of "non-existence of G-d" of the same kind they want from the believers to provide, on the same standards they are also faith-based non-religion.

Do you understand how truly odd that sounds in English, @paarsurrey The statement doesn't make much sense. By the way.... how are atheist supposed to PROVE, or offer evidence that God does not exist? Answer that one and I'll give you a cookie.

Right? Please

Regards

 

[Quintessence]

Understood, but I'm taking the "conviction there are no Gods" part. Strong atheists may have this conviction, but the sine qua non of atheism is simply a lack of belief. LOL -- OK, point taken, but you're speaking of a subset of strong atheists.

When I use the term "atheist" I never mean "lack of belief," because that is not how the term has been used historically and the implications of this newer definition render the word "atheist" into the realm of useless absurdity even more than it already is. You're right that I'm speaking of a subset of atheists, but not how you are thinking about it.

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
They have faith in doubt. Right? Please

Yes, you can use the word that way. I would personally not call atheism a ''faith'', though..
I did reference to it as a religion in another thread addressing such, though. I have now revised my position, to such, that although atheism is faith based, it is not a ''religion''

If one cannot provide positive evidence for "non-existence of G-d", then of course one's ascribes to a "Faith of Atheism" or "Religion of Atheism".
If one can provide positive evidence for "non-existence of G-d", then one can belong to a reasonable "Atheism" non-faith and non-religion.

Right? Please

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Can you explain how it is Faith based?
I'm really puzzled by this statement.
Faith is believing something to be true without sufficient evidence.
Atheists claim they don't believe something to be true without sufficient evidence.
Saying atheism is faith is like saying:
I Have faith that I don't have faith...
Impossible statement

"Faith is believing something to be true without sufficient evidence."
Now please provide one's positive evidence of "non-existence of G-d", of the same kind one demands from the believers to provide. Will one, please?
Regards

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

But it does have faith. It is a faith that the natural world is all there is, and all that comes with that. It is a conviction of the natural order of things and from that how one should live one's life.

Literally none of that is true.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

"Faith is believing something to be true without sufficient evidence."
Now please provide one's positive evidence of "non-existence of G-d", of the same kind one demands from the believers to provide. Will one, please?
Regards

Now please provide one's positive evidence of "non-existence of Russel's Teapot", of the same kind one demands from the believers to provide. Will one, please?
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Can you explain how it is Faith based?
I'm really puzzled by this statement.
Faith is believing something to be true without sufficient evidence.
Atheists claim they don't believe something to be true without sufficient evidence.
Saying atheism is faith is like saying:
I Have faith that I don't have faith...
Impossible statement

"I Have faith that I don't have faith..."
That is exactly one's position.
One doesn't need to admit or declare it. Does one need to? Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Can you explain how it is Faith based?
I'm really puzzled by this statement.
Faith is believing something to be true without sufficient evidence.
Atheists claim they don't believe something to be true without sufficient evidence.
Saying atheism is faith is like saying:
I Have faith that I don't have faith...
Impossible statement

"Impossible statement"
Well that is Atheism's mission impossible, they belong to .
One doesn't need to admit or declare it. Does one need to? Please

Regards

 

[Acim]

Trust is a tricky word.

The whole idea of skepticism is not that you only trust naturalistic explainations, or that you only mistrust any potential supernatural explainations.

It only means that you want your understanding of reality to conform as closely as possible to actual reality.

If I am given a supernatural claim, but no evidence to explain it, and no demonstrable way to replicate the phenomena, then I have no warrant to accept that claim as likely.

On the ther hand, there are many other naturalistic claims that I accept as probably true, because there is enough evidence to give me warrant to accept the claim.

Can you give me an example of a common rejection of a supernatural claim where you believe the rejection is faith based?

Maybe we can go from there.

I'm not sure how to address your question, but is not what I was getting at. The evidence for a physical world existing is based on circular reasoning, and ultimately faith. This is also true with evidence for a spiritual world/existence. So, I see both positions resting (ultimately) on faith. I think it plausible for any person to have both faiths, but not necessarily at the same time.

Trust is to me as tricky of a word as faith. Faith has the connotation of religious faith, and is I think (and I believe most people think) the far more common usage of the term. Yet it has the denotation (or primary dictionary definition of): complete trust or confidence in someone or something

God/s is also a tricky word. If the term is revealed (and explained) through a comprehensive text, i.e doctrine, it likely has a systematic thought seeking to be consistent in the meaning of the word (God, or gods). Yet, dictionaries make it clear that lots of things observed in the physical world have connotation of god(s). Money as your god. Parents as your god. Rock gods. Athletic gods. I do not see these as supernatural claims, but claims that gods do exist, do influence people in supreme ways, and aren't entirely different than what is at heart of that which spiritual/religious texts are calling for believers to understand.

So an atheist has to maintain consistency in denying those gods. I believe none do, and instead are only going with connotation of particular set of gods. Or like perhaps all that have a positive belief in god(s), they are doubtful in relation to a particular set, and plausibly accepting of other gods. But given the stance that atheism is, it doesn't permit any positive belief of any god. IMO, that actually takes enormous faith to maintain that, but I honestly think it not actually occurring in most to all cases of atheists. Because of the fundamental faiths existing, chances are a conscious person is going to make something into their 'god.' Likely using other terminology. Yet, very likely claiming such thing(s) have profound and supreme influence on their life, daily activity. Quite possibly expressing pride in relation to such thing(s). Those may be abstract 'thing(s).' I think it entirely abstract given how consciousness actually works, but realize that is debatable, or at core of mind-body dilemma.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

paarsurrey said: ↑
They have faith in doubt. Right? Please


If one cannot provide positive evidence for "non-existence of G-d", then of course one's ascribes to a "Faith of Atheism" or "Religion of Atheism".
If one can provided positive evidence for "non-existence of G-d", then one can belong to a reasonable "Atheism" non-faith and non-religion.

Right? Please

Regards

Can you provide positive evidence for the non-existence of dragons?

If you can't, does this mean you're in a religion with everyone else who doesn't believe in dragons?

 

[Windwalker]

Literally none of that is true.

None of it? Really?

 

[Acim]

But how can it be faith based when it has no faith in anything???

That would be fascinating, if that were accurate.