Atheism is a faith

[ayani]

i think it counts as a faith, insomuch as it certainly counts as a cosmology or ideology concerning the (non)existence of divinities or the supernatural.

 

[Scuba Pete]

You don't listen, do you?

I have listened enough to know that there is no excuse for flames. This effectively ends our discussion. Let me know when you can be civil.

 

[Smoke]

i think it counts as a faith, insomuch as it certainly counts as a cosmology or ideology concerning the (non)existence of divinities or the supernatural.

No, atheism is not a specific cosmology or ideology. It doesn't even necessarily entail disbelief in the supernatural. (Although it does in my case.)

 

[Willamena]

from dictionary.com:
a·the·ist
n. someone who denies the existence of god

Seems to me like the definition is the same as what I said only worded differently. The meaning behind both statements is the same. So according to the definition I am not lying. In order for the statement "atheists believe god is nonexistent" to be a lie it would have to mean that the opposite is the truth. And for an atheist to believe in God would be a contradiction in terms.

Nonexistence is a different kettle of fish from disbelief.

 

[Willamena]

Inventing an argument that your opponent never made, presenting it as if the opponent had made the argument and striking down the argument that was never made BECAUSE it is easier to do than rebutt the opponent's REAL arguments is "raising a strawman".

Regards,
Scott

No diffeence, in my mind, between what you say and what I do.

 

[ayani]

No, atheism is not a specific cosmology or ideology. It doesn't even necessarily entail disbelief in the supernatural. (Although it does in my case.)

i think it is... it's a cosmology in that it states that there *is* no God, therefor making a statement about the nature of the universe and humans' relation to it. granted there is much diversity here, but i think that still qualifies as a definitive statement about the nature of the universe (sans-God).

 

[Willamena]

You do realize that that equates to the same thing as "belief in the nonexistence of god(s)." And if dictionary.com's "version" of atheism is incorrect what EVIDENCE do you have that YOUR "version" IS correct.

Not really. Switching the order around in any set of words makes it mean a different thing.

LIke if I said, "I'm going to the store to get a taco," it doesn't mean the same as if I say, "I'm going to get a taco at the store."

Totally different.

 

[Smoke]

i think it is... it's a cosmology in that it states that there *is* no God, therefor making a statement about the nature of the universe and humans' relation to it. granted there is much diversity here, but i think that still qualifies as a definitive statement about the nature of the universe (sans-God).

By the same token, I might claim that your non-belief in fairies (assuming you don't believe in fairies) makes a statement about the nature of flowers and humans' relation to them. But such a statement would really be entirely in my mind, not in yours.

 

[Willamena]

Everyone: do you see faith as a positive or negative attribute? Do you feel that reliance on faith is a good thing or a bad thing? Do you think that your assertion (one way or another) that atheism is either a faith or not is dependant on your personal feelings about faith?

Faith is utterly essential to the make-up of a human being. If you don't have faith in something, anything, you're not human.

Edit: so, like 'positive'.

 

[Smoke]

Faith is utterly essential to the make-up of a human being. If you don't have faith in something, anything, you're not human.

Why?

 

[Willamena]

i think it is... it's a cosmology in that it states that there *is* no God, therefor making a statement about the nature of the universe and humans' relation to it. granted there is much diversity here, but i think that still qualifies as a definitive statement about the nature of the universe (sans-God).

It doesn't have to be a cosmology in that it requires no description of how the universe was made.

Humans making a statment about the nature of the universe and their relation to god does not require for others making no statement that they make an inverse statement.

(woot)

 

[Willamena]

Why?

Because we know what we know, and that's all we know. (to paraphrase a famous Sailor Man)

There is a split some (of a philosophical bend) make between the world as we know it and the world as it "really is."

If you find yourself making - even a bit - that same split, then you'll see what is effectively two worlds: the world as we know it, and the world as it really is. And one of the two in the split falls to the way-side, and you can easily guess that it's more often us. We put the world apart from us as being more important than the world is to us.

To be human is to know things. If you're not conscious, then it's all for naught. To be human is to know the world as we know it; to hold the world apart from us superior to us is to say that "to be us" is inferior. Lots of people do this. Lots.

To be human is to have faith that the world as we know it is the world as it is. That says a lot. It says something about reality. It says something about us. It says something about the split. And probably most importantly, it says something about how we exist in this reality.

That's what religions are about.

 

[Smoke]

To be human is to have faith that the world as we know it is the world as it is. That says a lot. It says something about reality. It says something about us. It says something about the split. And probably most importantly, it says something about how we exist in this reality.

That's what religions are about.

I'm really not sure what you're getting at. We're part of reality, and we have some knowledge of reality, but our knowledge is incomplete.

I don't understand, either, at all how having "faith that the world as we know it is the world as it is" has anything at all to do with religion. Many -- maybe most -- religions tell us that the world is in fact not as we know it; that there is a reality we have not observed that has been revealed through avatars of the divine or through prophets, and that we ought to have faith in these revelations even though we have not experienced them and don't "know" them.

 

[gnostic]

Faith means belief, not necessarily a belief in a god. Just belief.

Faith actually means having "trust" in a belief or set of belief. Faith is not just belief on its own.

In any case, I voted, no.

 

[Willamena]

I'm really not sure what you're getting at. We're part of reality, and we have some knowledge of reality, but our knowledge is incomplete.

I don't understand, either, at all how having "faith that the world as we know it is the world as it is" has anything at all to do with religion. Many -- maybe most -- religions tell us that the world is in fact not as we know it; that there is a reality we have not observed that has been revealed through avatars of the divine or through prophets, and that we ought to have faith in these revelations even though we have not experienced them and don't "know" them.

You had asked why I beleved that faith was essential to being human. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with being religious (and it does).

 

[Papersock]

faith-belief that is NOT based on PROOF.

My disbelief of a god is a conclusion based on evidence, not proof, since I don't think god can be proven or disproven. I would call myself an atheist because at present I find it highly unlikely that a god exists.

So, I voted no. But it could be an argument of semantics.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Of course atheism is a faith, howbeit a negative one. This according to Professor Lawrence M. Principe of John Hopkins University, lecturer on science and religion. He's right, of course. To denial is non-religious religious-like dogma. Period. (Interesting lectures...if anyone is interested, you might find them at your public library on CD.)

 

[Papersock]

Of course atheism is a faith, howbeit a negative one. This according to Professor Lawrence M. Principe of John Hopkins University, lecturer on science and religion. He's right, of course. To denial is non-religious religious-like dogma. Period. (Interesting lectures...if anyone is interested, you might find them at your public library on CD.)

How is it a dogma, exactly?

 

[Jeremiah]

Of course atheism is a faith, howbeit a negative one. This according to Professor Lawrence M. Principe of John Hopkins University, lecturer on science and religion. He's right, of course. To denial is non-religious religious-like dogma. Period. (Interesting lectures...if anyone is interested, you might find them at your public library on CD.)

That's nonsense; atheism is the absence of belief in the supernatural not the denial of.
To deny a belief in God, I would first have to have a belief in God.

 

[shadow_fire]

I'm an Atheist, and no, it isn't a faith.