Do Atheists Have Faith?

[Magical Wand]

Sorry but you're mistaken due to you excluding the contradiction that I pointed out. It's because Doug's claim regarding faith resulted in it being illogical due to contradiction, that makes relying on reason not circular.

That's a non-sequitur: you didn't explain how "Doug's claim regarding faith resulted in it being illogical" entails "relying on reason not circular".

Perhaps you could explain what you mean here. For now, it clearly seems a non-sequitur, because as long as you use reason to justify reason, you're using circular reasoning (begging the question). Whether Doug contradicted himself or not is simply not relevant to this question of circular reasoning.

 

[night912]

That's a non-sequitur: you didn't explain how "Doug's claim regarding faith resulted in it being illogical" entails "relying on reason not circular".

Perhaps you could explain what you mean here. For now, it clearly seems a non-sequitur, because as long as you use reason to justify reason, you're using circular reasoning (begging the question). Whether Doug contradicted himself or not is simply not relevant to this question of circular reasoning.

Sorry, but dishonesty is not going to help make your argument logical. So what makes you think that using a strawman argument is going to make a difference?

So please stop avoiding what I said and instead, how about you addressing it. Also, yours and Doug's argument contradicting itself is relevant. Your whole argument is contingent on it being logical, and since I already pointed out why it's illogical, what makes you think that you continuing with it is going to be valid?

It's not my fault that you presented your special note and emphasized it as being important in relating to logic. And it's not my problem that you no longer like your definition for "faith" after I pointed out and explain why your argument is illogical.

And trying to shift the burden of proof onto me because you failed to meet your burden changes nothing, your argument remains to be illogical.

 

[Magical Wand]

yours and Doug's argument contradicting itself is relevant. Your whole argument is contingent on it being logical, and since I already pointed out why it's illogical, what makes you think that you continuing with it is going to be valid?

No, you didn't show the argument is illogical. All you may have shown is that the way Doug phrased it is contradictory. I can rephrase his argument in a way that won't be apparently contradictory. Instead of saying, "Someone who bases everything on reason has faith in the reasoning process." I can simply say, "Someone who believes in/accepts the reliability of reason without a valid and sound justification has faith in the reliability of reason."

Now show how this last one is contradictory. I bet you can't.

 

[night912]

No, you didn't show the argument is illogical. All you may have shown is that the way Doug phrased it is contradictory.

Finally some honesty. Glad that have come to your senses and honestly admit that yours and Doug's argument was illogical. Good for you. Two thumbs up for you.

I can rephrase his argument in a way that won't be apparently contradictory.

Of course you can, but then that wouldn't be his argument anymore.

Instead of saying, "Someone who bases everything on reason has faith in the reasoning process." I can simply say, "Someone who believes in/accepts the reliability of reason without a valid and sound justification has faith in the reliability of reason."

Now show how this last one is contradictory. I bet you can't.

So you went from a contradictory argument to a non sequitur one. Good job there.

Basically this is what you just argued:

"Someone who believes in/accepts the reliability of reason without a valid and sound justification faith has faith in the reliability of reason."

Again, it's not my fault that you chose this as the definition of the word, "faith."

(Note: it is important to define the meaning of 'faith' here. In this context faith is being defined as belief without sound justifications.

No need to continue with this discussion then.

 

[Magical Wand]

you can, but then that wouldn't be his argument anymore.

Actually, it is his argument, but explained the way actual philosophers explain it.

"Someone who believes in/accepts the reliability of reason without a valid and sound justification faith has faith in the reliability of reason."Again, it's not my fault that you chose this as the definition of the word, "faith."

How is that a non-sequitur? If I accept/believe in reason without justification, then that's faith. Am I wrong?

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Do Atheists Have Faith?
If we say the Atheism people have no faith in Atheism, will they be happy with it?
I don't think so. Right?

You won't know the answer from atheists if you answer the question instead of letting them answer it.
Right?

Is there any restriction on their answering a simple question, please?
Right?

Regards

 

[joelr]

It seems you're having a hard time understanding the very simple argument I presented to you.

All the examples you gave can be reasons why reason is reliable, but they cannot be used to justify the claim that reason is reliable. Why? Because it would be circular reasoning. I gave the example of the car salesman to illustrate that (which you modified unjustifiably).

Again, you're using your reasoning faculty in order to justify the reliability of your reasoning faculty. That's problematic because it is circular.

This has been known by epistemologists for centuries (look up "Münchhausen trilemma").

I understand regress arguments. I don't care about that. In this situation it's in response to calling Hitchen's ideas "faith". You can play regress games all day but the side who can demonstrate evidence over and over is not using faith. The situation here is an apologist trying to make reason as shallow as faith and as usual the apologist is tapdancing around and using whatever word games from epistemology he can find to put Hitchens on the same footing as his "faith".

The thing that will show reason is justified is when you discover he sells all crap cars always.

 

[Magical Wand]

I understand regress arguments. I don't care about that. In this situation it's in response to calling Hitchen's ideas "faith". You can play regress games all day but the side who can demonstrate evidence over and over is not using faith. The situation here is an apologist trying to make reason as shallow as faith and as usual the apologist is tapdancing around and using whatever word games from epistemology he can find to put Hitchens on the same footing as his "faith".

The thing that will show reason is justified is when you discover he sells all crap cars always.

The fact that you don't care about the argument shows why your following response is not adequate.

First of all, even if Doug is "trying to make reason as shallow as faith", that has no bearing on whether the argument is actually correct or not. It is an ad hominem to attack his reasons or character in order to refute the argument.

Second, this is not a word game. This is a serious argument. It is considered a fundamental and important problem in epistemology, and a serious seeker cannot just label it a "word game" and think this will solve it. No, if you can't deal with the argument seriously then why did you comment here?

 

[joelr]

The fact that you don't care about the argument shows why your following response is not adequate.

Oh no its an ad hom attack on my reasoning boo-hoo. DO not care about your opinion, any thing else?

First of all, even if Doug is "trying to make reason as shallow as faith", that has no bearing on whether the argument is actually correct or not. It is an ad hominem to attack his reasons or character in order to refute the argument.

And that's way over the top. Is everything you disagree with "ad-hom"? I don't care about the word game. I'm commenting on the fact that he's trying to make faith seem like it's reason.

Second, this is not a word game. This is a serious argument. It is considered a fundamental and important problem in epistemology, and a serious seeker cannot just label it a "word game" and think this will solve it. No, if you can't deal with the argument seriously then why did you comment here?

Because faith and reason are not on the same footing and word games will not make it true. I'm standing up against crummy arguments and people getting brainwashed into thinking myths are real. If you don't want to reply then don't. No need to pasive agressive out?

 

[Magical Wand]

...

As I suspected, you have no counter-argument. Now excuse me but I won't waste more time replying to your vacuous comments. Go bother someone else.

 

[joelr]

As I suspected, you have no counter-argument. Now excuse me but I won't waste more time replying to your vacuous comments. Go bother someone else.

Oopsy, calling me out for fake ad-hom then using ad-hom? Sketchy.

The lack of counter argument is on you. Hand waving away evidence, the scientific method, empirical evidence and so on. Hitchens is not engaged in a fundamental problem in epistemology, he's arguing against people being brainwashed by fiction. No one is saying "I believe in reason". They are saying they believe what evidence presents.