Atheism is a faith

[doppelganger]

"march onward" - "become comfortable"

"darkness" - "bask"

Same thing just different emotes.

Maybe. But "marching into the darkness" suggests a passive nihilism, while "basking in the mystery" suggests an active nihilism.

 

[doppelganger]

Here's a little article that summarizes the difference quite nicely I think: Active vs Passive [email protected]

Passive nihilsim is indicative of a decline in spiritual power. It is characterized by the inability to create, or in the extreme to react. The passive nihilist is one who, when faced with the world's uncertainty, withdraws and refuses to enagage the world. For him, uncertainty is a sufficient condition not to proceed through life, and so paralysed by fear of the unknown and unknowable he does nothing. Nietzsche described this condition as ".. the weary nihilism that no longer attacks..a passive nihilism, a sign of weakness".

Active Nihilism on the other hand, is indicative of a relative increase in spiritual power. the active nihilist sees freedom where the passive nihilist sees absurdity or meaninglessness. He chooses action and creation instead of passivity and withdrawal. For him, the lack of objective standards of truth motivates self created standards and criteria. The active nihilist is not active despite the unknown but because of it. He possesses a store of creative energy and power which allows him to impose personal meaning on the world while never forgetting that hes is the source and progenitor of that meaning. He is heroic in this sense, facing the world with courage and purpose.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Here's a little article that summarizes the difference quite nicely I think: Active vs Passive [email protected]

That was interesting. Thanks.

 

[Jeremiah]

Here's a little article that summarizes the difference quite nicely I think: Active vs Passive [email protected]

I didn’t realize that I sounded so pessimistic; I have always thought of myself as an optimist.

But I have always considered withdrawal an option but it seemed too risky a path. I figured if I chose withdrawal one of two things was likely to happen. I would either go insane where I would get lost or fall into despair than kill myself. The risk is too high for me the only reasonable option that I can see is to take control my life. I thought “march onward into darkness” symbolize bold positive forward movement; it seemed like a noble idea to me. But anyways it means to me that despite the fact that all my eyes see is a lost cause it will not cause me to falter, ever! I have decided to seek the most effective means in which I can do good. To me this seems like the most reasonable choice

But perhaps there is room to say there are four options -


Blind faith

Withdrawal

Suicide

Embrace life


Or maybe we could say -

Mental suicide

Physical suicide

Embrace Life

 

[Jeremiah]

atheism is a faith.

I know you like your gobbledygook but let’s simplify things.

If we say

Theism = Belief in God

Atheism = No belief in God

And

Faith = belief

Well wait minute, how heck can something defined as no belief be considered belief. Because we are talking about atheism right? Not scientism or chaosism or gobbledygookism?

Let’s try that one more time.

Let’s say,

a = total empirical knowledge.

b= belief in God

c= theist

d = atheist


a + b =c

a = d

See you're trying to make atheism out to be more then it is. It simply no belief in God and nothing more. If it is a no belief it can not be a belief.

 

[St0ne]

Ah Oh he comes my non dualism problem again. As I see it atheism is like non dualism.
If we take -1, 0, 1 then lets make faith 1 and atheism 0, I'm not quite sure how to describe -1. Anyone able to help me here?

 

[gnomon]

Sometimes people think about words until all meaning is utterly obliterated.

 

[MoonWater]

The thing is Atheism is also defined as "belief that there is no God". This is where the trouble arises. While by definition "no belief in God" could be said to not be a faith statment "belief that there IS NO God" by definition would be a faith statment. Both are used to describe Atheism. So the trouble is which is the correct definition? Are they both valid? If "no belief in God" is the most accurate definition then what of those Atheists who consistently call God and religion delusions and say that "there is no God"? And what really is the difference between "no belief in God" and "beleif that there is no God"?

 

[Jeremiah]

Ah Oh he comes my non dualism problem again. As I see it atheism is like non dualism.
If we take -1, 0, 1 then lets make faith 1 and atheism 0, I'm not quite sure how to describe -1. Anyone able to help me here?

Atheism is no belief in God not non dualism.

 

[Jeremiah]

And what really is the difference between "no belief in God" and "beleif that there is no God"?

One is a belief the other is not.

I'll make this really simple prove God exist and I'll believe it. Not a single God claim ever presented to me was provable therefore not worth a belief. Beliefs are precious things one needs to spend them wisely.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Sorry for not answering this sooner ... I have been on travel and haven't had a spare minute to reply.

Yes it does. But I never assumed special revelation doesn't exist, in fact, I know that it does 'exist.' (In the form of emotion/personal experience.) What it isn't useful for, however, is convincing others of what was revealed. The belief that the specially revealed person is telling the truth is 'faith.' It's possible he's just lying, misinterpreted, or is crazy. If what he said could be demonstrated, it would require less faith (because it has rationale behind it). How often are specially revealed truths able to be demonstrated?

They can't be demonstrated, otherwise they would be general revelations.

String theory actually addresses this. It's this particular configuration simply because we're observing it as such. If we observed it as different, it would be different. We are actually observing it differently, just in a different universe/timeline. And if we weren't observing it, and nothing else was observing it, it wouldn't actually exist. I hate quantum physics sometimes, it's such a brain strain.

But there is not a reason for there to be a configuration to be observed in the first place. The event of observation requires an particular observer and a particular observation.

So you believe that God is simply existance? Why call it God? Why not call it existance? [sic - I wish I could learn me some gud spellin. ]

I see God as the infinite pool at the heart of existence that all created things spring from. Thus He is omniscient and omnipotent and ultimately creative.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Atheism does not provide nor intend to provide and explanation as to the origin of existence.

The atheist is not required in any way to provide for themselves or others a theory of creation. They may do so if they wish but that would be the individual’s choice.

I agree that atheism in itself (by definition) does not require faith, however, if the atheist has a worldview that leads to or accompanies atheism, that worldview contains beliefs which require faith.

 

[MoonWater]

One is a belief the other is not.

I'll make this really simple prove God exist and I'll believe it. Not a single God claim ever presented to me was provable therefore not worth a belief. Beliefs are precious things one needs to spend them wisely.

Yet they could also be seen as simply two ways of saying the same thing.

Do you think you could address the other questions in the post as well?

 

[Nick Soapdish]

We can't get all the answers you want. Is that too hard for you to handle?

So you're assuming that if you don't know everything abut the Universe, including how it got here and how it works, you're just going to put God into the equation? How pathetic

Your reproaching "God of the gaps" will always exist. It is not possible for science to explain the "why" to any philosophical question, only the "how". You are welcome to believe there is no "why", but to me that seems intellectually unsatisfactory, contrary to my personal experience and intuitions, and emotionally chilling.

In other words, God explains nothing

I do not expect my words to "prove" God's existence to everyone, but rather to explain my own intuitions about God.

 

[camanintx]

Atheisim is nothing more then agnosticism at best.
And that is how I believe atheism can only be associated with faith

Atheism states, "there is no god" ,that is not faith, but an inaccurate and invalid statement ,only left to be nothing more then a logical assumption with limited facts.
That statement is an absolute statement ,which in itself is misleading and false, unless that one has absolute knowledge of all things.
The best an atheist can say is,with my limited knowledge regarding the proof of the existence of God , I don;t really know ,therefore making him agnostic if anything.
Now that takes faith !!!!

I have to take issue with this position roli. If God is defined in such a way that it's existence is logically impossible, then one can take the position that “there is no God” without having absolute knowledge of all things. That takes atheism far beyond the agnostic position of “I don’t really know.”

 

[Jeremiah]

I agree that atheism in itself (by definition) does not require faith, however, if the atheist has a worldview that leads to or accompanies atheism, that worldview contains beliefs which require faith.

The title says atheism not atheist.

And we are not talking about "worldviews".

 

[Nick Soapdish]

It "pops" into existence because you are self-conscious and it is the object of your subject.

But where did I come from? If it from the world I exist in, doesn't that introduce a chicken and egg problem? Oh the joys of philosophy in the age of quantum mechanics! :drool:

This is because language and thought organizes the universe of experiences into things and gives them useful attributes modeled in thought. The order and complexity you see is the order in your own thoughts. The simple proof for this is that both "order" and "complexity" are personal judgments or assessments.

That is fine, but we cannot deny that the order and complexity actually exist can we? Gravity is real and it has order to it.

Everything you've said you need "God" for, can by explained by understanding the function of language and thought and being aware of the human tendency for confusing the signs for the things signified.

Are you proposing that we should not believe in anything? Yikes! Is there no way to become wise?

 

[Jeremiah]

Yet they could also be seen as simply two ways of saying the same thing.

We covered this before.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/962189-post450.html <---click for post 450

 

[Nick Soapdish]

The title says atheism not atheist.

And we are not talking about "worldviews".

Is this a "gotcha" game? Shall we talk about quarterbacks without talking about football next?

 

[Jeremiah]

Is this a "gotcha" game? Shall we talk about quarterbacks without talking about football next?

We are not talking about football either.