Atheism is a faith

[Jayhawker Soule]

You're up in the Chicago area, right? Not sure what type of trout you have over there, but I am game!

Salvelinus mercurious teenyweenious.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

If "Faith" can mean whatever I want it to, then I can define it to include peanut butter and the Inside-The-Egg Egg Scrambler, right?

Quite right. But with atheism comes hidden assumptions and unspoken beliefs that require faith. Sorry, but there's no way of getting around it or the fact that an atheist can be a dogmatic as any fundamentalist.

 

[Smoke]

Quite right. But with atheism comes hidden assumptions and unspoken beliefs that require faith. Sorry, but there's no way of getting around it or the fact that an atheist can be a dogmatic as any fundamentalist.

An atheist can be the King of Siam, but that doesn't mean atheism is Siamese royalty.

 

[MoonWater]

Quite right. But with atheism comes hidden assumptions and unspoken beliefs that require faith. Sorry, but there's no way of getting around it or the fact that an atheist can be a dogmatic as any fundamentalist.

Quite true. Whether you say an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God or someone who believes God doesn't exist the end result is the same and there is neither evidence nor proof to back up the idea that God doesn't exist. Therefore regardless of how you word it it is still a belief, for it is an idea that is accepted as true even though it is not immediately provable. Whether you say "God doesn't exist." or "I don't believe in God." you can't prove God's nonexistence and thus both those statements are based on belief not fact. Because of this Atheism can be called a faith because regardless of how you word it the definition of Atheism is belief based and belief requires faith.

 

[MoonWater]

An atheist can be the King of Siam, but that doesn't mean atheism is Siamese royalty.

That's because Atheism has nothing to do with Siamese royalty. But the definition of Atheism falls under the category of faith because God's nonexistence cannot be proven. The phrase "God doesn't exist." is accepted as true by all Atheists(if they didn't accept it they wouldn't be atheist). However the phrase cannot be proven. It is not fact and there is no evidence to back up the claim. Thus whether they like it or not an Atheist is "taking it in FAITH" that God doesn't exist. And because "God doesn't exist" is pretty much the whole basis of Atheism that makes Atheism a faith. (Please keep in mind this doesn't make an Atheist any less of an Atheist.)

 

[Smoke]

Quite true. Whether you say an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God or someone who believes God doesn't exist the end result is the same and there is neither evidence nor proof to back up the idea that God doesn't exist. Therefore regardless of how you word it it is still a belief, for it is an idea that is accepted as true even though it is not immediately provable. Whether you say "God doesn't exist." or "I don't believe in God." you can't prove God's nonexistence and thus both those statements are based on belief not fact. Because of this Atheism can be called a faith because regardless of how you word it the definition of Atheism is belief based and belief requires faith.

You know what? I have come to see the light on one point of Catholic dogma. I now believe in invincible ignorance. However, that's not faith, either. I have actual evidence of it.

Thy sins are forgiven thee; go in peace.

 

[MoonWater]

You know what? I have come to see the light on one point of Catholic dogma. I now believe in invincible ignorance. However, that's not faith, either. I have actual evidence of it.

Thy sins are forgiven thee; go in peace.

"invincible ignorance?" Well I could say the same about you. If you can't stand to have your ideas put to scrutiny then you shouldn't be in the debate forum. You gave your argument all I did was a rebuttle. That is not a sign of ignorance it is a sign of debate. And experience has tought me that people only resort to insults when they feel they've lost an argument. If you wish to debate fine but if your going to insult someone for simply stating their viewpoint and backing it up then you should leave or don't be surprised if you find yourself reported. If you see flaws in my argument then point them out and use them to strengthen your own argument. Plan old insulting is considered flaming and is against the rules of the forum. So be civil or leave.

 

[Booko]

"invincible ignorance?" Well I could say the same about you. If you can't stand to have your ideas put to scrutiny then you shouldn't be in the debate forum. You gave your argument all I did was a rebuttle. That is not a sign of ignorance it is a sign of debate. And experience has tought me that people only resort to insults when they feel they've lost an argument. If you wish to debate fine but if your going to insult someone for simply stating their viewpoint and backing it up then you should leave or don't be surprised if you find yourself reported. If you see flaws in my argument then point them out and use them to strengthen your own argument. Plan old insulting is considered flaming and is against the rules of the forum. So be civil or leave.

"Invincible ignorance" is not a personal remark. It's the name of a logical fallacy.

Honestly, would you not expect to read technical terms from logic in a debate forum?

 

[gnomon]

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.

I find this to be a most inaccurate description of what it means to be human. However, such a concept is perhaps just one of mere opinion.

 

[MoonWater]

"Invincible ignorance" is not a personal remark. It's the name of a logical fallacy.

Honestly, would you not expect to read technical terms from logic in a debate forum?

"ignorance" is often used as an insult and I've never before heard it used to point out a "logical fallacy." If that was the point of the remark then I apologize for reacting as I did. HOWEVER, if one is going to say that another has committed a "logical fallacy" then they should back up that statement by stating what the fallacy is and where it was committed. To simply say I've comitted a logical fallacy does nothing. If it can be pointed out and explained then the fallacy could be used to poke holes in my argument and make the opposing argument stronger.

 

[MoonWater]

I find this to a most inaccurate description of what it means to be human. However, such a concept is perhaps just one of mere opinion.

You're right it is opinion:yes:. But so is most everything else. So what is YOUR opinion on what it means to be human?

 

[Papersock]

Most atheists say that there is a difference between not believing in god and believing that there is no god. But what is the difference?
Animals most likely do not believe in god. They do not have faith that god does not exist, they simply have no beliefs. In this sense one could make the argument that all inanimate objects are athiests.
If someone is not a theist, by default they are an atheist.

 

[Storm]

If someone is not a theist, by default they are an atheist.

Incorrect. By that logic, I should be an atheist.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Panentheists are simply symantically challenged.

 

[Storm]

Panentheists are simply symantically challenged.

LOL

 

[MoonWater]

Most atheists say that there is a difference between not believing in god and believing that there is no god. But what is the difference?
Animals most likely do not believe in god. They do not have faith that god does not exist, they simply have no beliefs. In this sense one could make the argument that all inanimate objects are athiests.
If someone is not a theist, by default they are an atheist.

Can you PROVE an animal has no beliefs? If not then that statement itself is faith based. Also animals do not fall under the category of "inanimate objects". in fact they are the exact opposite.

 

[doppelganger]

there's no way of getting around it or the fact that an atheist can be a dogmatic as any fundamentalist.

Of that, there is little doubt.

 

[gnomon]

faith-belief that is NOT based on PROOF.
many religious people claim that the phrase "there is a god." is fact while many Atheists claim that the phrase "there is NO god" is fact. The truth is however that neither phrase is fact or even fact based but they are both FAITH based. While there is no evidence to back up the claim that there is a God there is also no evidence to back up the claim that there is NO God. Your thoughts? Keep in mind I am not simply refering to the abrahamic god in this argument but however anyone would define God/ Goddess/ supreme being or force, whatever you call it/them and however you may define it/them.

(if there is already a thread on this let me know and provide a link and I'll simply join in the discussion in that thread. Otherwise have at it.)

The only fact in this discussion is that the terms "atheist" and "atheism" are no longer terms capable of conveying any meaning useful for intelligent discussion. Either someone accepts the traditional meaning of atheism based on its etymology (which I used to do) or the more commonly used meaning of active denial (a common, non-philosophical meaning).

Now when people ask me my religion I respond...No.
Then they call me an atheist and I say whatever makes you feel secure in your own beliefs then go right ahead. I've been called much worse.

 

[gnomon]

You're right it is opinion:yes:. But so is most everything else. So what is YOUR opinion on what it means to be human?

A rather dry definition based on genetics. As I get older my views get rather boring.

 

[Papersock]

Can you PROVE an animal has no beliefs? If not then that statement itself is faith based. Also animals do not fall under the category of "inanimate objects". in fact they are the exact opposite.

Some of them might and we just don't know it. But most animals do not have the cognitive ability to believe in much of anything. Unless you have a very wide definition of the word believe. I doubt very much that bacteria are "aware" of anything in the same sense we are.
And I did not say that animals are inanimate objects. I said that inanimate objects do not believe in god. Do I have to present proof of that?