Is atheism a "faith"?

[Dr. Imago]

Okay, having a debate with someone who insists that atheism is a faith. I did a search to try to find some of the salient discussions that have been had recently on the topic, but this one (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24001&highlight=atheism+faith) just didn't help to answer the question.

I'm not talking about atheism as a religion. I would mostly align my life philosophy with Secular Humanism, but I would hardly call this a religion either. But, it may become a bit harder to deny that atheism is a "faith" in a semantic argument (which I don't want this to become with this person).

Here's my premise:

(1) A faith is, essentially, a blind belief in something with no evidence. One believes wholeheartedly in something for which there is no definitive proof.

(2) Religion is a faith because there is no definitive, objective, reproducibility in any of it's core tennets or foundations, yet people are willing to forgive this fact and decide to accept fully those tennets.

(3) Atheism is therefore not a faith because you can't adopt a belief paradigm that doesn't have a definible context. Religion (whichever one) does because it usually has a code (Bible, Koran, etc.) and considers itself absolute. Atheism is "lack of belief" and therefore lack of faith, by definition.

This person's counterargument is, essentially, that atheists have an absolute belief that there isn't a God they have faith that this is true. Therefore, faith (in the purest sense of the word) for the atheist centers on the absolute belief that God does not exist - separating itself from agnosticism.

I've tried to convince this person that atheists do not actively disbelieve in God. Likewise, it is simply a rejection of the current paradigm, limitless open to other possibilities because of this, and therefore has nothing to do with "faith".

Where am I going wrong? Is there any other stronger argument that I can make why atheism is not a faith without getting into a semantics debate? Or, is the latter unavoidable?

Thanks for your help.

-TT

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by ThirdTwin

This person's counterargument is, essentially, that atheists have an absolute belief that there isn't a God they have faith that this is true. Therefore, faith (in the purest sense of the word) for the atheist centers on the absolute belief that God does not exist - separating itself from agnosticism.

You can tell this person that he has no business telling me how absolute my disbelief in God is.

[neutrino_cannon]

While proving that something does not exist, especially in a potentially infinite universe is not possible, positing the less absurd of two unproven statements in likely a better idea.

Consider, if there was a God, than it would either require an entity that operates entirely out of line with known physical laws or one that operates on entirely new laws. The line between the two is thin and blurry. Certainly magnetism operated outside of known physical law thousands of years ago, and must have seemed like magic.

The best argument against God is that there is no evidence of God, and there is no deficit in our current understanding of the universe that necessarily requires a God to solve. Of course, all that non luminous matter causing all the gravity we don't see could be God, which would mean that God is really, really fat.

As a final note, Carl Sagan states in "Broca's Brain" that whether or not we believe in God depends very much on what we mean by God. If by God we mean a force that extends throughout all the universe and is more powerful than we are, then gravity might be God.

[MRC_Hans]

Actually, of course, atheism is no more a faith than not playing soccer is a sport. However, I like to put things on their head: What does it matter? How does it vindicate somebody's religious beliefs to point out that atheism is a faith? If you were discussing HIS religion, simply ask him not to change the subject.

Hans

[Michael Redman]

If someone contends that there can't possibly be a god, then that's a faith, as I see it. Simply not believing that there is a god is not a faith.

[Buddy]

Third Twin,

I think that the problem is not if Atheism actually incorporates blind faith, but rather the preconceptions of the person you were discussing this with. I think that many theists cannot concieve of a life without some sort of faith and they are misplacing their delusions onto you. It makes them feel better to think that atheism is a belief from faith, then they can dismiss us they same way they dismiss all of the other religions. (after all each theist is sure that their brand of religion is the one true religion and all of the others are misled people).

Buddy

[Stimpson J. Cat]

ThirdTwin,

Where am I going wrong? Is there any other stronger argument that I can make why atheism is not a faith without getting into a semantics debate? Or, is the latter unavoidable?

What religion is he?

Think of some thing which the most extreme members of his religion believe, but which he does not.

As an example, if he is Catholic:

Tell him that Christianity is stupid because we know the universe is more than 6000 years old.

When he insists that not all Christians believe in Biblical literalism, point out to him that not all atheists hold the absolute conviction that there is no God.

If he still does not see the flaw in his reasoning, then give up. You can't reason with people who dodn't have any idea what reasoning is.


Dr. Stupid

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by ThirdTwin
But, it may become a bit harder to deny that atheism is a "faith" in a semantic argument (which I don't want this to become with this person).


Step 1: Define "faith." You have done so below, but does this agree with the other person's concept of it? Before arguing whether atheism constitutes Yulibeth, you need to know what is meant by Yulibeth.


Here's my premise:

(1) A faith is, essentially, a blind belief in something with no evidence. One believes wholeheartedly in something for which there is no definitive proof.

(2) Religion is a faith because there is no definitive, objective, reproducibility in any of it's core tennets or foundations, yet people are willing to forgive this fact and decide to accept fully those tennets.


Here's the problem: what belief does atheism entail? The only belief that _I_ have that makes an atheist is that no one has provided any evidence or reason for me to believe in god. That is not a belief without evidence.

The "core tennet" of my atheism: there is no evidence for god. That is most certainly objective.



This person's counterargument is, essentially, that atheists have an absolute belief that there isn't a God they have faith that this is true. Therefore, faith (in the purest sense of the word) for the atheist centers on the absolute belief that God does not exist - separating itself from agnosticism.

I've tried to convince this person that atheists do not actively disbelieve in God. Likewise, it is simply a rejection of the current paradigm, limitless open to other possibilities because of this, and therefore has nothing to do with "faith".

Where am I going wrong? Is there any other stronger argument that I can make why atheism is not a faith without getting into a semantics debate? Or, is the latter unavoidable?
-TT

Basically, the person is making the mistake about the belief that is "absolute." I don't know anything to be "absolutely" true, and would never make that claim. I don't know the sun will rise tomorrow. It is likely going to happen, but to say "absolutely"? No way.

We don't know anything absolutely. It could all be an illusion for all we know. I can recognize that. Apparently, your friend cannot. That's the reason you aren't going to have any success in this matter.

[kourama]

Well, it gets kinda messy, and it becomes necessary to define everyhting to make sure your point is clear.

I think your definition of faith is a bit off. There is blind-faith and justified-faith. What you described is blind faith, faith without support. As Randi once described, he has faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, and that is justified by a lifetime of experience and a solid bodify of scientific evidence.

Religion, as you've decribed it is one example of a spectrum of belif systems that could be considered religion.

Atheism comes in different flavours too, but the most basic types are the hard ("I believe there is no god" and soft ("I don't believe there is a god"). Even this is a bit fuzzy, because the agnostics would point out that a useful definition of what a god is doesn't exist.

Your friends argument that believe in the non-existence of gods is a faith is true, but what kind of faith is it?

If we are talking about the god described in the bible, then the evidence available is that god either:

1) doesn't exist
2) exists but doesn't care to do anything to improve the world and is hence responsible through inaction for the evil on earth, and indirectly responsible for having created evil in the first place
3) exists and is unaware of the problems on earth, and hence can still be good, but is not worhty or worship since nothing we do catches his/her notice
4) exists is aware of our plight on earth, and cannot change anything for the better, in which case is not much of a god and doesn't deserve our worship.

I think I'll go with 1 if I must, but I generally prefer the soft-atheist approach which is "I don't believe in gods" that way, I don't have to argue over definitions of what a god is, the vague definition that most people claim to understand will do. I also don't have to prove god doesn't exist becuase the burden of proof is on the believer.

hth.

[kourama]

Wow, while I typed my response, 8 more got posted. Ain't the internet grand!?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by kourama
Wow, while I typed my response, 8 more got posted. Ain't the internet grand!?

And your response wasn't refuted in any of them ....:D

Something to feel good about...


My response:

What everybody else said... ( This is too easy... )

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by kourama
Well, it gets kinda messy, and it becomes necessary to define everyhting to make sure your point is clear.

I think your definition of faith is a bit off. There is blind-faith and justified-faith. What you described is blind faith, faith without support. As Randi once described, he has faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, and that is justified by a lifetime of experience and a solid bodify of scientific evidence.


Which is also know as "empiricism."

I don't have "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow. I believe it is very likely to rise tomorrow because there is plenty of evidence that it will (starting with all of cosmology). Why should we call a belief based on evidence "faith"? If that is the case, then every belief is faith, which renders the concept more or less meaningless.

[kourama]

pgwenthold,

I dunno, I think the words faith and belief can be interchanged, but I hate getting bogged down in subtleties of definitions.

Then again, that sorta seems to be the topic here. How do you distinguish belief and faith?

I have faith in my wife's ability to win our next argument; this is also based on a large body of evidence. Are you saying this is now a belief, and not faith, since it is empirically well supported?

[triadboy]

This is a good definition of 'faith' taken from yourdictionary.com: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Is non-belief belief? I don't belief so.


[Belief is one of those words if said over and over, begins to sound funny.]

[Pahansiri]

Greetings ThirdTwin


1) A faith is, essentially, a blind belief in something with no evidence. One believes wholeheartedly in something for which there is no definitive proof.


That would be blind faith. Faith like many things can be expressed in degrees.

As Buddhist a base of our “religion” is the Kalama Sutra

Kalama Sutta

Do not believe in anything (simply)
because you have heard it.

Do not believe in traditions because they
have been handed down for many generations.

Do not believe in anything because it is
spoken and rumoured by many.

Do not believe in anything (simply) because
it is found written in your religious books.

Do not believe in anything merely on the authority
of your teachers and elders.

But after observation and analysis
when you find that anything agrees with reason
and is conductive to the good and benefit of one and all
then accept it and live up to it.

Buddha
(Anguttara Nikaya Vol. 1, 188-193 P.T.S. Ed.)

At some point one who can be free form fears and blind faith follows what seems to be logical. For me looking at Buddhism as a whole seeing so many things so logical and things proven truth I look at things that may be unknown and have some faith they are probably or have a good chance of being true.


You say One believes wholeheartedly in something for which there is no definitive proof.

This is the case with many in many beliefs but you as a materialist atheist can not prove with absolute certainty there is no God or Gods etc.

You look at what you believe is logical conclusions as to this and have faith it is most likely the case. It is still faith as you can not prove it to be so.



(2) Religion is a faith because there is no definitive, objective, reproducibility in any of it's core tennets or foundations, yet people are willing to forgive this fact and decide to accept fully those tennets.

This is a case that is so often stated by so many about so many things and is I would say almost always if not always wrong.

“all these think that” “ all these do that” “ all this or that are this or that” this is silliness.

You say “ religion is this or that grouping all religions as the one thing you say they are and all people within these beliefs.

May I ask do you know all religions? What they fully teach or believe? All people in them?

You group all religions together, as I pointed out my “religion” does not believe in a God or soul etc, nor does Jainsum for example. I, Buddhism does not follow anything blindly etc.

Again look at this(2) Religion is a faith because there is no definitive, objective, reproducibility in any of it's core tennets or foundations,

Prove this to be true.

List all religions and then all the core tenets or foundations or all beliefs and prove there is no definitive, objective, reproducibility in them.

Also do this prove definitive, there is no God or Gods if you can not you have then placed yourself and belief into this “group” you just formed , the lost blind faith followers.

This becomes like the Christians that demand anyone not Christian is “lost” “blind” same old song different singer.



(3) Atheism is therefore not a faith because you can't adopt a belief paradigm that doesn't have a definible context. Religion (whichever one) does because it usually has a code (Bible, Koran, etc.) and considers itself absolute. Atheism is "lack of belief" and therefore lack of faith, by definition.

Really?

Can you prove unquestionably there is no God or Gods?


Please do not play the word games that Atheism is "lack of belief" and means you are not saying you do not believe in a God. "lack of belief" is disbelieve in God just as it is in Santa.

Many times ( and greatly because in this society it is jammed in peoples faces) it is Atheist who talk about the God idea.

"lack of belief" for the God Idea I believe is logical but can not demand there is not or say I know there is not, fact is I do not care.

Word games become a toll of many God based groups, most Atheism should be seen for what it is and operate as science does . No demands of a knowledge not known, open eyes saying show me, prove it.


Tell your friend you respect his right to believe as he will and ask him if he can give you and other the same respect he seeks. Also tell him if he demands you are wrong and he is right you are willing to look at any data, facts, proof and or logical conclusion. Until that point be as friends and give the same respect he seeks.

Just what I believe.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by kourama
pgwenthold,

I dunno, I think the words faith and belief can be interchanged, but I hate getting bogged down in subtleties of definitions.

Then again, that sorta seems to be the topic here. How do you distinguish belief and faith?


One logical way to do it is to make faith a subset of belief. You hold a belief. It is based on material evidence or logical proof (see post above), or it is not. If it is based on material evidence or logical proof, it is empirical. If not, it is faith.

If you want to consider faith and belief as the same thing, then you have to be careful to not fall for a bait and switch (aha, atheists have faith just like theists! No we don't, bucko)

Of course, then you have to distinguish between "justified faith" (i.e. empirical) and "blind faith." So make it easy. Call it empirical vs faith. Both subsets of belief.


I have faith in my wife's ability to win our next argument; this is also based on a large body of evidence. Are you saying this is now a belief, and not faith, since it is empirically well supported?

Are you saying it _isn't_ a belief? You most certainly hold a belief that your wife will win your next argument. I don't know why you call it faith.

One could probably call it a universal truth, but that is a different story.

[kourama]

Of course, then you have to distinguish between "justified faith" (i.e. empirical) and "blind faith." So make it easy. Call it empirical vs faith. Both subsets of belief.

OK, so you just don't like the terminology, but our ideas seem to be in sync.

I don't have a problem with it, so I'm comfortable using the term "faith" and then disambiguating as necessary.

I guess I should have made the connection a little clearer above, the atheist and the theist can both be said to have "faith" that the sun will rise tommorrow, it's just that the theist also has faith that it is riding on the back of a giant turtle. I wouldn't say that atheist have faith "just like" theists, because that would put blind faith and justified faith on the same level.

I can see why you wouldn't want to use the word, because someone with a shallow understanding of the argument might make the silly "just like theists" comment you mentioned, but hopefully you can debate with someone of somewhat sturdier intellectual timber.

[Azathoth]

These sorts of arguments depend so much on the definitions of slippery things like 'faith', 'belief' and 'atheism'. sigh.

Anyway, I admit that my belief that there is no god is based on faith. In the same way that my belief that there is no tooth fairy is based on faith.

I have no definitive evidence for either claim, but I believe them.

But which takes 'more' faith?

To believe something doesn't exist when there is no clear evidence of it.
or
To believe something does exist when there is no clear evidence of it.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Azathoth
These sorts of arguments depend so much on the definitions of slippery things like 'faith', 'belief' and 'atheism'. sigh.

Anyway, I admit that my belief that there is no god is based on faith. In the same way that my belief that there is no tooth fairy is based on faith.

I have no definitive evidence for either claim, but I believe them.

But which takes 'more' faith?

To believe something doesn't exist when there is no clear evidence of it.
or
To believe something does exist when there is no clear evidence of it.

Very honest very good post, I believe.:clap:

[Rayn]

I agree with Kourama, that "the sun rising tomorrow" is inherently a "faith," albeit a somewhat justified one.

Hume's problem of induction displays our folly of applying our knowledge of the past as a justification of the future. Personally, I believe that TLOP help us to predict the future, but essentially we do have "faith" that the world we live in will stay as logically consistent and our inferences about sensory experience are still valid. I have no qualms in using "faith" in this manner, but I understand that there are many who dislike such usage. These same people would probably have an issue with the fact that I have "faith" in humanity as well. Go figure.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by kourama


OK, so you just don't like the terminology, but our ideas seem to be in sync.

I don't have a problem with it, so I'm comfortable using the term "faith" and then disambiguating as necessary.


heck, I don't have any problems, either, but it can lead to big problems. The main problem is the old "bait and switch," where the discussion leads to an acknowledgement that, if every belief is faith, then yes, atheists operate on faith. But aha! says the theist, then you have faith just like theists do. We all have faith in something. We all have faith that the floor will be there when you wake in the morning and that the sun will rise. The theist also has faith that God exists. Atheists and theists alike have faith, they just have faith in different things. Thus, the atheistic position holds no rational superiority to theism because they are both just based on faith.

Which is of course, total bs and results from a bait and switch. By calling all beliefs faith, they can group empirical belief and non-supported belief into the same category and then brush over the drastic difference between them.

[Yahweh]

This deserves a nice Yahweh analysis...

Originally posted by ThirdTwin
Okay, having a debate with someone who insists that atheism is a faith. I did a search to try to find some of the salient discussions that have been had recently on the topic, but this one (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24001&highlight=atheism+faith) just didn't help to answer the question.
Atheism is only a faith if you dont know why you are an atheist. In my case, I have extensive knowledge of the bible, I am brilliant with science, I have a wealth of Philosophical knowledge, I know logic, I know reasoning... what I'm getting at is the fact that my atheism is not based on faith.

I'm not talking about atheism as a religion. I would mostly align my life philosophy with Secular Humanism, but I would hardly call this a religion either. But, it may become a bit harder to deny that atheism is a "faith" in a semantic argument (which I don't want this to become with this person).

Here's my premise:

(1) A faith is, essentially, a blind belief in something with no evidence. One believes wholeheartedly in something for which there is no definitive proof.
That is a brilliant definition of faith. Now, why would anyone assume any educated atheist (such as myself) keeps his beliefs through faith?

(2) Religion is a faith because there is no definitive, objective, reproducibility in any of it's core tennets or foundations, yet people are willing to forgive this fact and decide to accept fully those tennets.
That is why Christianity is a faith. I like to look at faith in two ways: Its both an "accept what you're told" or "stick your head in the ground and ignore the science around you". Sure, atheism can be based on faith, but thats only when you have limited understanding of science. But, I dont think most atheists are ignorant of science, therefore an educated person's atheism is not a faith.

(3) Atheism is therefore not a faith because you can't adopt a belief paradigm that doesn't have a definible context. Religion (whichever one) does because it usually has a code (Bible, Koran, etc.) and considers itself absolute. Atheism is "lack of belief" and therefore lack of faith, by definition.
Exactly.

This person's counterargument is, essentially, that atheists have an absolute belief that there isn't a God they have faith that this is true. Therefore, faith (in the purest sense of the word) for the atheist centers on the absolute belief that God does not exist - separating itself from agnosticism.
Its a pathetic counterarguement at best. The counterarguement is under the assumption atheists believe without proof (Yahweh points out the obvious like a true master...).

All things in the universe can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena, nothing can exist outside the laws of physics, anything that fails to meet those two criteria cannot and does not exist.

Seing as how the universe can and did come about in ways explainable in terms of matter and physical phenomena, its good reasoning to see how the universe came about without any need for a deity.

Seeing as how nothing can exist outside the laws of physics, its good reasoning to assume any given deity does not exist.

I've tried to convince this person that atheists do not actively disbelieve in God. Likewise, it is simply a rejection of the current paradigm, limitless open to other possibilities because of this, and therefore has nothing to do with "faith".
I dont actively disbelieve in God, I'm sure most other atheists dont either. In fact, I'd love to believe in God. But if you see my reasoning above, I am actually unable to believe in God.

Where am I going wrong? Is there any other stronger argument that I can make why atheism is not a faith without getting into a semantics debate? Or, is the latter unavoidable?
Where are you going wrong? The person you are debating with clearly has no idea what he is talking about. Couple that with his own arrogance, his refusal to admit his assumption is inaccurate, and finally his misdefinition of the word "faith", you wont get very far with him. Oh well, no reason why you shouldnt try.

Show the guy to these boards, he might learn a thing or two.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Rayn
I agree with Kourama, that "the sun rising tomorrow" is inherently a "faith," albeit a somewhat justified one.

"somewhat justified"? The belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is _massively_ justified! It's not just that it has happened every day of recorded history, either, it is because we have an understanding of how cosmology works, etc. The belief that there is any more of a miniscule chance (barring an undected comet or wrath of god) that the sun will _not_ rise tomorrow has absolutely no justification.


Hume's problem of induction displays our folly of applying our knowledge of the past as a justification of the future. Personally, I believe that TLOP help us to predict the future, but essentially we do have "faith" that the world we live in will stay as logically consistent and our inferences about sensory experience are still valid.

Of course, this is empirically justified, as well.

Patterns have to be established before they can be extrapolated into the future. If you had a number generator, and were looking at recent patterns of it to make predictions of the future, and kept finding that you had no success in making those predictions, you would not use it as an inductive tool.

IOW, "justified" is only justified as long as it works.

I always like to point out how we humans actually have a wonderful ability to predict the future. I hold a book in front of me and let go, I predict it will fall toward the floor. You know what? It does!

About a month ago, there were people telling us to keep an eye on the night sky because one of the lights was going to become much brighter than usual. Sure enough, I went out at the prescribed time and there it was, just as was predicted. And it was beautiful.

On the other hand, when a religious evangelist tells us that the rapture will come "any day now," or an astrologer says that there will be problems in the world because such-and-such a leader is a Capricorn I don't pay attention because they have not demonstrated any predictive capability.

Could it all be a house of cards? Of course it could, but if it is, it appears to not matter right now. If it does ever matter, it is going to be a much bigger problem than just whether I should be going to church on Sunday.

[Bentspoon]

then when God comes down to stand in front of me and stops the world, and moves mountains before my very eyes, and provides all kinds of proof and display of his awesome powers .....



I still will not believe for I have faith in atheism.

For that is Faith - ofttimes called blind faith for a very good reason. If belief in Gods was not a faith then 9/11 would have shaken it from its foundations. But faith holds true despite the facts - despite the obvious.

It is in this that the difference between atheism and religion lies.

Bentspoon

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
If someone contends that there can't possibly be a god, then that's a faith, as I see it. Simply not believing that there is a god is not a faith.

There's the rub.


Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
What religion is he?

She is a born-again Christian (surprised?). Also, she is also an extremely intelligent person who has a hard time reconciling her religious beliefs against scientific knowledge, if that matters.

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Think of some thing which the most extreme members of his religion believe, but which he does not.

As an example, if he is Catholic:

Tell him that Christianity is stupid because we know the universe is more than 6000 years old.

When he insists that not all Christians believe in Biblical literalism, point out to him that not all atheists hold the absolute conviction that there is no God.

If he still does not see the flaw in his reasoning, then give up. You can't reason with people who dodn't have any idea what reasoning is.


Dr. Stupid

Stimpy, as always your comments are extremely appreciated. She and I have had numerous discussions over the past two years and, for the most part, I blow her out of the water when the topic arises. Now claiming that my atheism is a faith seems to be likely only a new debate tactic of hers and she remains stalwart in this position. It just may be her way of thinking she is 'winning the argument' for the moment.

I also agree with you about her not being able to "see the flaw[s] in [her] reasoning", though. The problem is that I think she does see the flaws but suppresses them. Now, she is trying to attack my position as a "faith" as I have dismissed hers as one as well - my beliefs (and, of course, I recognize them as such) are based on empiricism, not unsupportable wishful thinking. I don't consider them faith-based. She doesn't accept that. I can't seem to get it across to her that in order for it to be a faith, I'd have to fully accept the false dilemma of the God concept: he either exists or he doesn't. If I accepted the possibility that he could exist, and then flat out denied that existence - then I could see how this could be consider a "faith" in my own beliefs. I can see how this would devolve into a semantic argument centered around the pure definition of faith. I don't want that to happen.

It's a somewhat subtle distinction that I'm having a hard time getting across to her.

-TT

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
The "core tennet" of my atheism: there is no evidence for god. That is most certainly objective.

Basically, the person is making the mistake about the belief that is "absolute." I don't know anything to be "absolutely" true, and would never make that claim. I don't know the sun will rise tomorrow. It is likely going to happen, but to say "absolutely"? No way.

We don't know anything absolutely. It could all be an illusion for all we know. I can recognize that. Apparently, your friend cannot. That's the reason you aren't going to have any success in this matter.

Yes. This is the crux of it. But, she now claims, that because I refuse to believe in God (and accept the false dilemma), I am showing "faith" that there isn't a God.

:mad:

Circular argument? I'm beginning to recognize the futility.

-TT

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Which is also know as "empiricism."

I don't have "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow. I believe it is very likely to rise tomorrow because there is plenty of evidence that it will (starting with all of cosmology). Why should we call a belief based on evidence "faith"? If that is the case, then every belief is faith, which renders the concept more or less meaningless.

Ditto. Wholeheartedly agree.

I think this is the only point I can leave her with.

-TT

[Dr. Imago]

Thank you for your response, Pahansiri.

Originally posted by Pahansiri
At some point one who can be free form fears and blind faith follows what seems to be logical. For me looking at Buddhism as a whole seeing so many things so logical and things proven truth I look at things that may be unknown and have some faith they are probably or have a good chance of being true.

I agree. I think that the "Tao Te Ching" and the Buddhist philosophy have "religionified" basic human nature and found a path to minimize suffering. I think that this is the core of all religions: to provide a solace and meaning to an otherwise meaningless world, and as a way to cope with the self-realization of our own mortalities.

But, that's not what this discussion is about...


Originally posted by Pahansiri
This is the case with many in many beliefs but you as a materialist atheist can not prove with absolute certainty there is no God or Gods etc.

I think this is the crux, again, of the argument. I do not adopt or accept the paradigm. It is a false dilemma: there either is(are) God(s) or there are not. This concept is a human construct that has no basis in anything observable. I could equally say, "There are little purple fairies living on a planet in another galaxy" and no one could disprove it. To even consider this, you have to accept that this is a possibility. However, I do not even consider this. You wouldn't say that I have "faith" that purple fairies don't exist or that I even "believe" that they don't? Considering the limitless iterations of the imagination, it would be absurd to say that I have faith in the non-existence of anything my brain can imagine. I do trust my experience and, based on that, form opinions and degrees of certainty about what will happen next. But, I'm open to other possibilities as well. How is that a faith, however you want to define it?

Originally posted by Pahansiri
You look at what you believe is logical conclusions as to this and have faith it is most likely the case. It is still faith as you can not prove it to be so.

See above.

Originally posted by Pahansiri
You say “ religion is this or that grouping all religions as the one thing you say they are and all people within these beliefs.

May I ask do you know all religions? What they fully teach or believe? All people in them?

You group all religions together, as I pointed out my “religion” does not believe in a God or soul etc, nor does Jainsum for example. I, Buddhism does not follow anything blindly etc.

Again look at this

Prove this to be true.

List all religions and then all the core tenets or foundations or all beliefs and prove there is no definitive, objective, reproducibility in them.

Uh... I leave that to you. ;) While I attempted to answer that above, I think you are divagating and detracting from the core argument, my friend.

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Also do this prove definitive, there is no God or Gods if you can not you have then placed yourself and belief into this “group” you just formed , the lost blind faith followers.

...

Can you prove unquestionably there is no God or Gods?

I don't think that this is my responsibility. I cannot prove any unfalsifiable premise. I reject the entire notion outright. How does this make my current belief system a "faith", especially if I'm willing to change it given demonstrable evidence?


Originally posted by Pahansiri
Please do not play the word games that Atheism is "lack of belief" and means you are not saying you do not believe in a God. "lack of belief" is disbelieve in God just as it is in Santa.

No, I don't think it's a word game. I think it is a rejection of the paradigm that many of us have been saturated in and brainwashed to being born into Western Judeo-Christian culture. No one stops to question the fundamental premise: how did the God concept arise and is it even valid?

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Many times ( and greatly because in this society it is jammed in peoples faces) it is Atheist who talk about the God idea.

"lack of belief" for the God Idea I believe is logical but can not demand there is not or say I know there is not, fact is I do not care.

Therefore, it is not a faith, right?

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Word games become a toll of many God based groups, most Atheism should be seen for what it is and operate as science does . No demands of a knowledge not known, open eyes saying show me, prove it.

I agree. And, that's why I don't want this to become a semantics argument. I'm really and sincerely trying to make her understand what I see as an important distinction. Of course, she could only be clutching at some weak defense of what I see as an untennable position, as stated above.

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Tell your friend you respect his right to believe as he will and ask him if he can give you and other the same respect he seeks. Also tell him if he demands you are wrong and he is right you are willing to look at any data, facts, proof and or logical conclusion. Until that point be as friends and give the same respect he seeks.

This is not in question. The question at hand is about atheism being a faith. I do not believe that it meets the definition. As for my friend, she and I have a very strong bond and will, undoubtedly, remain lifelong friends.

-TT

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pahansiri

Really? Can you prove unquestionably there is no God or Gods?


But that's YOUR belief - YOU need to prove the existence of god.

Using your line of reasoning - If I believe in blue unicorns, but you don't - then you get labeled an Anti-Blunicornian. Why? You've never seen one. You've never heard of anyone who HAS seen one. But now I'm going to tell you that Anti-Blunicornian is your religion, because you have to have 'faith' that they don't exist. It's goofy.

Please feel free to believe in invisible creatures. But if I choose not to - please don't label me an "anti-believer". If there were any evidence, I would be checking into it - but I've done my studies and there's nothing there.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

One more possibility. Tell her that even if your atheism is a faith, that this doesn't make her faith rational. In other words, you tell her that her faith is irrational because it is a belief that is not based on evidence. Her claim that you believe something which is not based on evidence, true or false, has no relevance to the question of whether her belief is rational or not. At best, it means that you are both being irrational.

Once you get her to admit that her own belief is irrational, you can explain why you do not think your lack of belief is.


Dr. Stupid

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by ThirdTwin


Ditto. Wholeheartedly agree.

I think this is the only point I can leave her with.

-TT

Is this friend of yours one of those doctor types? If so, she should be able to distinguish between empiricism and faith.

In terms of her insistance, ask her if she believes patient X has herpes (chose a patient who doesn't). Ask her why she doesn't think he has herpes. The short answer _better_ be "Because he doesn't show any symptoms of it."

The same goes with an atheist and god. The universe just doesn't show any symptoms.

[homunculus]

I think the problem here is semantic. Atheism, etymologically (and throughout the philosophical literature) means "against god". It enscapsulates not just the "lack of belief", but the stance that GOD DOES NOT EXIST. Now, there are logical hurdles here, since it is incumbent on anyone making a claim to "prove" it. Since it is impossible to adduce non-evidence in support of non-existence (or positive evidence for a negative claim), this will hardly be forthcoming.

But before we can even get this far, we have to establish which 'god' he is denying...

It is frequently touted in "skeptic" circles (and by you, here) that atheism is nevertheless the "default" position, the burden being on the believer to "prove" HIS claims, but only because the common usage of "atheism" seems have changed recently (much like the definition of "skeptic"), at least since the Internet revolution...

I usually settle for "agnostic", since religious types are less threatened by it. It's much harder to criticize the "don't know, don't much care" position!

Paul.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by homunculus
I think the problem here is semantic. Atheism, etymologically (and throughout the philosophical literature) means "against god".


I could be wrong, but doesn't the " A " in Atheist mean " without "...



Against would be " ANTItheist "...

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by triadboy
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pahansiri

Really? Can you prove unquestionably there is no God or Gods?


But that's YOUR belief - YOU need to prove the existence of god.

Using your line of reasoning - If I believe in blue unicorns, but you don't - then you get labeled an Anti-Blunicornian. Why? You've never seen one. You've never heard of anyone who HAS seen one. But now I'm going to tell you that Anti-Blunicornian is your religion, because you have to have 'faith' that they don't exist. It's goofy.

Please feel free to believe in invisible creatures. But if I choose not to - please don't label me an "anti-believer". If there were any evidence, I would be checking into it - but I've done my studies and there's nothing there.


Greetings triadboy.

I will respond to your post first and then to ThirdTwin’s.

Your post brings to light many things.

One being people speak and react without taking the time to attain facts.

We make quick judgments from seeing or hearing tiny parts of a conversation or hearing what may be said or said by others about someone, gossip etc.

You clearly did not take the time to read my post or your desires allowed you to ignore most that was written and hone in on a few words which you then take out of context, doing so because you did not read the words before or after the few words.

Please allow me to demonstrate.


I had writen:
Really? Can you prove unquestionably there is no God or Gods?

You responded:
But that's YOUR belief - YOU need to prove the existence of god.

Really? Where did I say I believed in a God or Gods? I clearly said as a Buddhist I do NOT believe in such but respect that people did.

I clearly say the belief is irrelevant and illogical. I say this in one form or the other several times.

Please take the time to read and understand before you jump to conclusions.

You have done what people in God based beliefs often do, you WANTED to believe what you did, that I believed in a God. But you ignored all the facts proving I do not.


Using your line of reasoning - If I believe in blue unicorns, but you don't - then you get labeled an Anti-Blunicornian. Why? You've never seen one. You've never heard of anyone who HAS seen one. But now I'm going to tell you that Anti-Blunicornian is your religion, because you have to have 'faith' that they don't exist. It's goofy.

LOL, my friend what is “goofy” is your posting this and not taking the time to read what I had written, right?


Please feel free to believe in invisible creatures. But if I choose not to - please don't label me an "anti-believer". If there were any evidence, I would be checking into it - but I've done my studies and there's nothing there.

Hmmm is that not what I had said? Well for people ho took the time to read what I had written would have seen that.

Be well my new friend.

[homunculus]

I could be wrong, but doesn't the " A " in Atheist mean " without "...

Not generally, no. From "A Dictionary of Philosophy", Rev. 2nd Edition, Antony Flew, p.29:

"Atheism. The rejection of belief in God (NB: note not given here as "lack of belief"...)whether on the grounds that it is meaningful but false to say that God exists, or, as the logical positivists held, that it is meaningless and hence neither true nor false (see logical positivism). It can be said with some point that atheism exists only in relation to some conception of deity (NB: note not given as "lack of belief" again...), the professed atheist can always reasonably be asked what God he denies, ..... etc."

(Emphasis mine)

The "a" before "theos", in many Greek-derived words, does mean "against". A-theist means (literally) "against god". How can anyone profess this, and not see that it is a postive assertion (if uttered) and must then be defended and advanced, rather than just held lto be a passive stance of "lack of belief"?

Paul.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by homunculus
[BThe "a" before "theos", in many Greek-derived words, does mean "against". [/B]

If so, it is an unusual use of the prefix a-.

A-moral: not moral
a-symmetric: not symmetric (which is very different from anti-symmetric, which means "opposing symmetry")
a-political: not political

So why the special pleading for a-theist, which, in accordance with those above would be "not theist."

"anti" establishment - against the establishment
etc

anti is the prefix that reflects "against."

[CWL]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Actually, of course, atheism is no more a faith than not playing soccer is a sport.

Indeed. Or no more that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Anyway, I'm tired of religious fanaticts telling me that my non-belief is "just another religion". Time to turn the question around.

I submit that we are all atheists, more or less. I personally just happen to believe in one less god than the Christians.

[homunculus]

A-moral: not moral
a-symmetric: not symmetric (which is very different from anti-symmetric, which means "opposing symmetry")
a-political: not political

So why the special pleading for a-theist, which, in accordance with those above would be "not theist."

No "special pleading". I already provided one dictionary definition. Here's another, though:

"atheism

"...the belief that, or the philosophical position according to which, God, gods, deities, and supernatural powers do not exist. In this respect it is similar to secularism and opposed to any variety of theism. In the last two centuries, some of the most influential atheistic hilosophers have been Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell, and Jean-Paul Sartre. Atheism is to be contrasted with agnosticism, which takes a doubtful attitude towards the existence of God(s) but does not proclaim disbelief. Popularly, atheism is often taken to imply a lack of any ideals or values whatsoever (see immoralism), but this connotation rests on the controversial assumption that religious or supernatural values are the only real values."

Pulled this off the Net, first philosophical dictionary I came to, at http://www.swif.uniba.it/lei/foldop/

Paul.

[homunculus]

To be fair though, that definition includes Betrand Russell as an atheist, as opposed to an agnostic.

Which is a bit of a cock-up for a philosophical dictionary, since Russell even wrote a pamphlet entitled Why I Am An Agnostic!

Paul.

[Pahansiri]

Greetings ThirdTwin, I hope all is well.


But, that's not what this discussion is about...

I would not agree.


You said

1-A faith is, essentially, a blind belief in something with no evidence. One believes wholeheartedly in something for which there is no definitive proof.

(2) Religion is a faith because there is no definitive, objective, reproducibility in any of it's core tennets or foundations, yet people are willing to forgive this fact and decide to accept fully those tennets.

1- You limit a word “Faith” to having only one meaning as to degree. I pointed out that what you say is the one degree is Blind faith and not the other variable degrees of faith.
2- I point out that your again saying that a word has one meaning and all things found under the umbrella of this word, that being religion is illogical.



As to my saying:
This is the case with many in many beliefs but you as a materialist atheist can not prove with absolute certainty there is no God or Gods etc.

you respond:

I think this is the crux, again, of the argument. I do not adopt or accept the paradigm.It is a false dilemma: there either is(are) God(s) or there are not. This concept is a human construct that has no basis in anything observable. .

I agree.


I could equally say, "There are little purple fairies living on a planet in another galaxy" and no one could disprove it. To even consider this, you have to accept that this is a possibility. However, I do not even consider this.

But as you have avoided you could not say for sure there is not, in fact the example you give is not a good or beneficial example to give to support your position.

The fact is there are more planets then we could I assume ever know, countless. It is within logic to assume from what is and can be known, that being there is life here that there could be life in other worlds.

It is logical or within the logical realm to believe that similar causes and conditions that allowed life to arise here also do and have occurred over and over throughout the vastness and endless space.

Could these other life forms on some other planet be purple and what ever a fairy is, how can you know there could not?

There are many life forms on this planet we would have never believed could exist until found as to looks, the conditions they live under etc.



Do you Limit in a almost Christian like look at what is life or can be? Do you believe because life here looks or behaves in such a way it would have to be the same everywhere? That would be a God based belief that “we are special and God loves us so much”.

The need to “be special”.

I had a Christian friend say to me he can disprove evolution, he said “ if evolution was true we would all be a big blob with one eye”.

After I stopped laughing and asked the logical questions like. WHY?

I pointed out 1- even if we were a blob with one eye that would be our reality and how we look now would be so very strange. 2- that the causes and conditions here directed evolution as to what would and would not work.

So on some planet the conditions may allow small purple things.

Now as to the God Idea it does not seem logical because of can be observed. BUT it is possible that some being did set it up and walked away.

Do I believe it, no, is it possible yes. To say no, to demand no is no different then a Christian demanding there is, you would have to have a blind faith to say it is in no way possible.


What I know for sure is there sure is much I do not know. If you believe you know everything about the vastness of space and all that is just because of life on this tiny rock you have a great blind faith.

Originally posted by Pahansiri
You say “ religion is this or that grouping all religions as the one thing you say they are and all people within these beliefs.

May I ask do you know all religions? What they fully teach or believe? All people in them?

You group all religions together, as I pointed out my “religion” does not believe in a God or soul etc, nor does Jainsum for example. I, Buddhism does not follow anything blindly etc.


Again look at this

Prove this to be true.

List all religions and then all the core tenets or foundations or all beliefs and prove there is no definitive, objective, reproducibility in them. .[/quote]

You responded

Uh... I leave that to you. While I attempted to answer that above, I think you are divagating and detracting from the core argument, my friend.

My friend you have avoided my questions and yes they are relevant because of your statement, the following.

(2) Religion is a faith because there is no definitive, objective, reproducibility in any of it's core tennets or foundations, yet people are willing to forgive this fact and decide to accept fully those tennets.

As you see, YOU made a statement “religion” is this or that demanding that all things that fall within the grouping of religion are this or that.

PLEASE answer my questions as I have done for you

1-May I ask do you know all religions?
2-What they fully teach or believe?
3-All people in them?
4-List all religions and then all the core tenets or foundations or all beliefs and prove there is no definitive, objective, reproducibility in them.

I don't think that this is my responsibility. I cannot prove any unfalsifiable premise. I reject the entire notion outright. How does this make my current belief system a "faith", especially if I'm willing to change it given demonstrable evidence?


As to I cannot prove any unfalsifiable premise

I agree but when you demand as unshakable fact that someone is wrong and you are right the burden shifts to you. That is the problem with not just letting someone who demands Gods are true prove it. The burden is theirs.

We can offer all kinds of logical conclusions and facts to support them but when we demand anything we can not prove we have become like them. Demanding something they can not prove.


You say I reject the entire notion outright.

That is a closed mind, just like a fundamentalist Christian demanding they hold the only truth.You have a faith and belief you are right and it is supported with the facts and logical conclusion that you can acquire from available date within life on this rock.

Do I agree there is not one, a creator yes, can I prove it, know it for sure, no and I lose little sleep caring either way.

No, I don't think it's a word game. I think it is a rejection of the paradigm that many of us have been saturated in and brainwashed to being born into Western Judeo-Christian culture. No one stops to question the fundamental premise: how did the God concept arise and is it even valid?

Really? I know many who have, millions this site is filled with them. It is why I am not Christian or of any other god based belief.

You are a very intelligent person but I believe allow emotion, a desire to be right or “on the right team” to make sweeping statements. That is what people of blind faith do.


Be well my new friend it was nice to talk to you.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by homunculus

The "a" before "theos", in many Greek-derived words, does mean "against". A-theist means (literally) "against god". How can anyone profess this, and not see that it is a postive assertion (if uttered) and must then be defended and advanced, rather than just held lto be a passive stance of "lack of belief"?

Paul.

The a- before Greek words means without and not against. :)


Oh I forgot, FWIW I am Greek and I have a PhD in Classical Studies.

[homunculus]

See, I told you guys the problem was semantic!

We're just arguing about what "faith" means, and what's our favourite definition of "athiesm"...

Who cares?!

I'm whatever you say I am, baby ;)

Paul.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by homunculus
See, I told you guys the problem was semantic!

I haven't read the thread. Somebody invited me to check this thread just to check the translation of a Greek word in English.

I'm whatever you say I am, baby ;)

Paul.

Are you addressing to me?

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Pahansiri

Be well my new friend.

Sorry. You are completely right. I didn't even know I was talking to you. :-) I thought I was speaking to a theist. My apologies.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by triadboy


Sorry. You are completely right. I didn't even know I was talking to you. :-) I thought I was speaking to a theist. My apologies.

That is OK my friend triadboy we all ( or many) have done it when we rush from time to time.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by homunculus
A-moral: not moral
a-symmetric: not symmetric (which is very different from anti-symmetric, which means "opposing symmetry")
a-political: not political

So why the special pleading for a-theist, which, in accordance with those above would be "not theist."

No "special pleading". I already provided one dictionary definition. Here's another, though:




Why isn't it special pleading? You want to treat the a- in atheist different from how it is treated in all other words. What's the justification?

Lastly, dueling dictionaries is boring. We have already seen a dictionary definition in line with my characterization. So now we have to decide which dictionary is right, and we are back at square one.

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
I pointed out that what you say is the one degree is Blind faith and not the other variable degrees of faith.

This is where I think problems arise. We attempt to put a finer point on things. I'm talking about "FAITH", not dividing it into blind faith or any "other variable degrees". Faith is faith. Why subdivide it?

Originally posted by Pahansiri
I point out that your again saying that a word has one meaning and all things found under the umbrella of this word, that being religion is illogical.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=faith

1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
Date: 13th century
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

I think for the sake of this discussion, 2 and 3 are relevant. For each, I can definitely say they do not apply to atheism for the reasons I've pointed out previously (i.e., a true atheist, as many here have already stated, would change their minds if definitive proof of a God(s) existence became known and, not having that in front of them, there's no need to actively disbelieve in something that is not provable). It's important that you understand the distinction. Furthermore, I'm not particuarly concerned, again, for further dividing and qualifying faith into "blind" or whatever else.

Originally posted by Pahansiri
But as you have avoided you could not say for sure there is not, in fact the example you give is not a good or beneficial example to give to support your position.

The fact is there are more planets then we could I assume ever know, countless. It is within logic to assume from what is and can be known, that being there is life here that there could be life in other worlds.

It is logical or within the logical realm to believe that similar causes and conditions that allowed life to arise here also do and have occurred over and over throughout the vastness and endless space.

Could these other life forms on some other planet be purple and what ever a fairy is, how can you know there could not?

There are many life forms on this planet we would have never believed could exist until found as to looks, the conditions they live under etc.

This is precisely the type of mental masturbation, pardon my bluntness and no personally directed harm or insult intended, that believers like to engage in. I tried (apparently unsuccessfully) to state why this line of thinking is irrelevant and no productive to the discussion at hand. I answered this contention with this...

Originally posted by ThirdTwin
Considering the limitless iterations of the imagination, it would be absurd to say that I have faith in the non-existence of anything my brain can imagine. I do trust my experience and, based on that, form opinions and degrees of certainty about what will happen next. But, I'm open to other possibilities as well.

Is that not clear enough? How is that a "faith" based belief system? Just answer that, someone, please.

Yet, you go on, seeming to put a lot of words in my mouth...

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Do you Limit in a almost Christian like look at what is life or can be?

No. See above.

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Do you believe because life here looks or behaves in such a way it would have to be the same everywhere? That would be a God based belief that “we are special and God loves us so much”.

No. But, I don't concern myself with conjecture, other than for entertainment purposes and scientific pursuit. Furthermore, I do not place any firm belief that something that I may imagine is indeed real. I don't accept that, because there may be purple fairies in another galaxy, that there necessarily are. That is something believers of all God-based religions do. Do you see the distinction?

Again, I ask - how is this "faith"?


Originally posted by Pahansiri
Now as to the God Idea it does not seem logical because of can be observed. BUT it is possible that some being did set it up and walked away.

Do I believe it, no, is it possible yes. To say no, to demand no is no different then a Christian demanding there is, you would have to have a blind faith to say it is in no way possible.

I agree and I don't think good (and often misunderstood) atheists do this either. Faith-based religions believe, without definible proof, that God is real. This is the basis of their faith.

Originally posted by Pahansiri
What I know for sure is there sure is much I do not know. If you believe you know everything about the vastness of space and all that is just because of life on this tiny rock you have a great blind faith.

:confused: Where did I ever say that?


Originally posted by Pahansiri
My friend you have avoided my questions and yes they are relevant because of your statement, the following.

...

As you see, YOU made a statement “religion” is this or that demanding that all things that fall within the grouping of religion are this or that.

PLEASE answer my questions as I have done for you

1-May I ask do you know all religions?
2-What they fully teach or believe?
3-All people in them?
4-List all religions and then all the core tenets or foundations or all beliefs and prove there is no definitive, objective, reproducibility in them.

How is this relevant to the discussion? If you'd like to discuss the particular aspects of any particular religion, I'd be happy to discuss them point-by-point perhaps on a separate thread.

Originally posted by Pahansiri
I agree but when you demand as unshakable fact that someone is wrong and you are right the burden shifts to you. That is the problem with not just letting someone who demands Gods are true prove it. The burden is theirs.

We can offer all kinds of logical conclusions and facts to support them but when we demand anything we can not prove we have become like them. Demanding something they can not prove.

Let me clarify...

I reject the false dilemma. I think that it is futile to, beyond speculation, place "faith" in anything. Belief should be based on empiricism and the known physical laws of the universe. (But, that's just my opinion.)

Originally posted by Pahansiri
That is a closed mind, just like a fundamentalist Christian demanding they hold the only truth.You have a faith and belief you are right and it is supported with the facts and logical conclusion that you can acquire from available date within life on this rock.

Please re-read what I said above and explain to me how that is in anyway closeminded.

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Do I agree there is not one, a creator yes, can I prove it, know it for sure, no and I lose little sleep caring either way.

This is the operative definition of faith. You have faith in something that you cannot prove. I, on the other hand, do not even need to entertain the premise because there is nothing in my experience that tells me that this is or isn't true, real or unreal. It is mere speculation. Just because we can ponder something doesn't make it real. I don't have "faith" in that knowledge because it isn't based on anything. And, were something to come along to prove to me otherwise, then I would be willing to change my mind.

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Really? I know many who have, millions this site is filled with them. It is why I am not Christian or of any other god based belief.

You're splitting hairs and being a bit pedantic. As I stated originally, I do not want this to be an argument on semantics (which, it is becoming apparent, seems to be unfortunately unavoidable). Most people do not question the fundamental false dilemma (i.e., "there is either a God(s) or there isn't" and all of the mythos that flows from blanketly accepting that premise). This is what I reject. My experiences have led me to believe that the entire paradigm has no basis. I have no experiences that tell me otherwise.

Again, I ask you: How does this meet the definition of "faith"?

Originally posted by Pahansiri
You are a very intelligent person but I believe allow emotion, a desire to be right or “on the right team” to make sweeping statements. That is what people of blind faith do.

Ad hominem. Please do not attempt to insinuate or speculate on my emotional state. It is completely irrelevant to the discussion and serves only to distract.

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Be well my new friend it was nice to talk to you.

Likewise. :)

-TT

(edit: clarify which part of the definition of "faith", from Merriam-Webster's website, applies to this discussion)

[Pahansiri]

Greetings again ThirdTwin.



This is where I think problems arise. We attempt to put a finer point on things. I'm talking about "FAITH", not dividing it into blind faith or any "other variable degrees". Faith is faith. Why subdivide it?

Let us return to your first post

(1) A faith is, essentially, ablindbelief in something with no
evidence. One believes wholeheartedly in something for which there is no definitive proof .


Keeping that in mind let us look at the definitions you came up with from your site, I will offer another site to follow.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=faith

quote:1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
Date: 13th century
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

Using definition 1 and applying your definition of faith from your first post.


1- When your father left for work when you were a child and told you he would be home that night and bring you food to eat and say a toy.

By the definition you offer as to the site and then your personal definition it would seem you had (1) A faith is, essentially, ablindbelief in something with no
evidence. One believes wholeheartedly in something for which there is no definitive proof .

That your father would come home, you had no reason to believe he would and to believe it was silly. Right?

When you if you have married your mate, back to item 1 of the web definition you offer and then adding your personal defanition (1) A faith is, essentially, ablindbelief in something with noevidence. One believes wholeheartedly in something for which there is no definitive proof .

You have no base to believe she loves you or will stay with you or be faithful. Right?

I could use many examples, buying a new car, will it last even an hour etc etc etc.


These would be a few reasons to subdivide it.

I offer:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith

8 entries found for faith.
faith Audio pronunciation of faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

I leave out item 2-4 as they also fall in line of the religious ( many religions) definitions or application.

But lets look well at 1 and 6

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

6. A set of principles or beliefs.


These would be a few reasons to Why subdivide it.


Your statement like the one about “ religion” were too sweeping.

I think for the sake of this discussion, 2 and 3 are relevant.

So just ignore anything other then what suits your desires? That is very fundamental Christian of you.


For each, I can definitely say they do not apply to atheism for the reasons I've pointed out previously (i.e., a true atheist, as many here have already stated, would change their minds if definitive proof of a God(s) existence became known and, not having that in front of them, there's no need to actively disbelieve in something that is not provable).

Not at all my point as I have demonstrated. One would hope all would not fear to change when a truth is proven.

But that was not my point and I am sure you know that from what I have written.

It's important that you understand the distinction.

? I understand your seeking to twist a word to fit your personal definition while ignoring other facts. This would contrary to what you said would be “a real” atheist.

My points have been clear there is a distinction between blind faith and a belief in that someone for example has thought me 7 things that to me seem from all date and long logical looks to be truth. There is 3 other things I have yet to be able to prove are truth and am not sure yet they seem they could be logical and he ( etc) has been right. I have a faith/belief in him what he says.



Furthermore, I'm not particuarly concerned, again, for further dividing and qualifying faith into "blind" or whatever else.

Why? This is a response I often get in debate with fundamental Christians. “ I – God- the Bible said so so it’s true and you just are too dumb, slow, blind, lost to understand”



Originally posted by Pahansiri
But as you have avoided you could not say for sure there is not, in fact the example you give is not a good or beneficial example to give to support your position.

The fact is there are more planets then we could I assume ever know, countless. It is within logic to assume from what is and can be known, that being there is life here that there could be life in other worlds.

It is logical or within the logical realm to believe that similar causes and conditions that allowed life to arise here also do and have occurred over and over throughout the vastness and endless space.

Could these other life forms on some other planet be purple and what ever a fairy is, how can you know there could not?

There are many life forms on this planet we would have never believed could exist until found as to looks, the conditions they live under etc.

You “responded”

This is precisely the type of mental masturbation, pardon my bluntness and no personally directed harm or insult intended, that believers like to engage in. I tried (apparently unsuccessfully) to state why this line of thinking is irrelevant and no productive to the discussion at hand. I answered this contention with this...

Are you a Christian??? Tell the truth.

Your “response is a very common reply by many who can not answer a question or support their position, it seem anger is starting to arise that I do not agree.

Your response contains.

1- personal attacks. I am wrong, lost engaged in “mental masturbation,” because I dare point out a logical conclusion.
1- You then say “I tried (apparently unsuccessfully)” your 2 attempt to shift the light on me as I did something wrong rather the you just answer and address what I said. Tisk tisk.
1- Again rather then respond or address, be respectful as I have answering every point you make you seek to attack me. My friend I am sure you are fooling no one.

Sad I was hoping for better.

No. But, I don't concern myself with conjecture, other than for entertainment purposes and scientific pursuit. Furthermore, I do not place any firm belief that something that I may imagine is indeed real. I don't accept that,


I am glad that is not how the many scientist through the ages have thought as we would still be in caves.

The atom could not be true as it is unseen right? No one believed in before, planets past ours cures for illnesses, travel to the moon, TV etc etc.


there may be purple fairies in another galaxy, that there necessarily are. That is something believers of all God-based religions do. Do you see the distinction?

No, but nice twisting my friend. God-based religions say God is true because, an open mind says things unknown ( some) can be true, say life on other planets and there is a good chance they will not look like you.. You sound very Christian. They also believe that there is only life here because we are ‘special”.

I wrote; for sure is there sure is much I do not know. If you believe you know everything about the vastness of space and all that is just because of life on this tiny rock you have a great blind faith.

Please read again, I said IF you believe, and I state this from the date you give me. You did not say you do know everything but do say for sure X, Y, Z DO NOT and can not exist or happen or be.

So to say something is a FACT one must know everything about that thing.


I wrote for the 2nd time: My friend you have avoided my questions and yes they are relevant because of your statement, the following.


As you see, YOU made a statement “religion” is this or that demanding that all things that fall within the grouping of religion are this or that.

PLEASE answer my questions as I have done for you

1-May I ask do you know all religions?
2-What they fully teach or believe?
3-All people in them?
4-List all religions and then all the core tenets or foundations or all beliefs and prove there is no definitive, objective, reproducibility in them.

You responded and refused to answer the questions AGAIN.


How is this relevant to the discussion? If you'd like to discuss the particular aspects of any particular religion, I'd be happy to discuss them point-by-point perhaps on a separate thread.

How is this relevant. Well as I have pointed out several times as you know you said to start this thread.


(2) Religion is a faith because there is no definitive, objective, reproducibility in any of it's core tennets or foundations, yet people are willing to forgive this fact and decide to accept fully those tennets.

As I have pointed out several times here you make several statements saying these statements are FACT.

1- you say “religion is” here you group all religions together that would mean you know all religions and their complete beliefs.
2- You say “there is no definitive, objective, reproducibility in any of it's core tennets or foundations” this indicates you know all about all religions and their teachings.
3- You say “yet people are willing to forgive this fact and decide to accept fully those tennets.” Here you do not come out and ALL people in religions do this but one can assume from your statements you may be saying ALL. So how can you know what all people do, think or feel?

For these reasons I had asked the logical questions you failed to address.

Let me clarify...

I reject the false dilemma. I think that it is futile to, beyond speculation, place "faith" in anything. Belief should be based on empiricism and the known physical laws of the universe. (But, that's just my opinion.)

Good thing the great inverters, explores, scientist did not think this way. The known physical laws of the universe were slowly learned beliefs abandoned along the way and sometimes re looked at as perhaps true when new evidence was attained. This happens all the time greatly as related to health care and the body.

Funny at one time people used leaches and maggots on wounds and we modern smart people though “oh how savage and uneducated” now we again use leaches and maggots on wounds.

You are twisting and turning rather then just admit you spoke to broadly for one and, which is your choice and I respect it refuse to believe in the logical conclusions I give for a belief/faith that the God idea seems to be illogical.

You have faith in what you believe in as to the God idea.

I wrote Do I agree there is not one, a creator? yes, can I prove it, know it for sure, no. and I lose little sleep caring either way.



This is the operative definition of faith. You have faith in something that you cannot prove.

I have faith in my reasoning, my look at logic my look at what is available. I have faith in my conclusion and also know if I am wrong that is cool and know I can not know for sure, or care.




yet you post about it over and over, over and over…lol My friend you have entertained the premise many times and drawn a conclusion that being you do not it to be true.

This is silly. You are acting like a fundamentalist Christian.

[quote]Just because we can ponder something doesn't make it real.


So you pondered it but never “entertained the premise” LOL

is not to I don't have "faith" in that knowledge because it isn't based on anything. And, were something to come along to prove to me otherwise, then I would be willing to change my mind.

I am not sure that is the truth you seem to grasp as hard to what you want to believe as a God believed does to the Bible. Contradictions are irrelevant to you both.

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Really? I know many who have, millions this site is filled with them. It is why I am not Christian or of any other god based belief.

In response to you saying No one stops to question the fundamental premise: how did the God concept arise and is it even valid?

You respond.


You're splitting hairs and being a bit pedantic.

lol, it seems as much as you keep saying if someone prove you wrong you will admit it and change belief, yet everything I post and use your own words you declare me bad, splitting hairs and pedantic.

Your statement was clearly again, an overstatement and wrong, just admit it. Why attach the one point at a mistake rather then fix the mistake?

It seems you are saying if your girlfriend says “ I love only you forever, you are the best and I never wish to be with another” then next night she sleeps with someone else you would not mind as to say anything would be splitting hairs?

What about the new car again. The salesmen says this car has an NEW motor and it is a 8 cylinder and gets 30 miles to the gallon. Then you find it is a rebuilt motor, 4 cylinder and gets 3 miles to the gallon. If you complain would it be just splitting hairs?

As I stated originally, I do not want this to be an argument on semantics (which, it is becoming apparent, seems to be unfortunately unavoidable).

Can you show me in your original post where you said that? I can not find it.


Most people do not question the fundamental false dilemma (i.e., "there is either a God(s) or there isn't" and all of the mythos that flows from blanketly accepting that premise). This is what I reject. My experiences have led me to believe that the entire paradigm has no basis. I have no experiences that tell me otherwise.

And you have faith in your belief in that.

Be well my friend, I will be moving on from this thread.

May you and all beings be well and happy.

[Dr. Imago]

With all due respect, Pahanisiri, it is becoming obvious you are just trying to pick a fight with me. I won't be baited. I think it's clear that definition 1 relates to "faith" in other people (which I could equally argues is based on empiricism by the way - i.e., trust is earned) and I think I stated why it doesn't apply to this argument.

The rest of your post, I'll admit, I just didn't want to read after that point. I have a very hard time following your logic, thinking pattern, and writing style, I'll admit, as it seems a bit tangential. Furthermore, you only seem bent on attempting to send me on some wild goose chase in order that you may perceive that you have won this argument, when the primary question starting this thread remains (poorly and insufficiently answered, at that) as to how atheism is a faith.

I'm satisfied that you are unable to answer that question. I hope you had a nice weekend, and have a good day.

:)

-ThirdTwin

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by ThirdTwin
.........when the primary question starting this thread remains (poorly and insufficiently answered, at that) as to how atheism is a faith.


-ThirdTwin

Do you feel there have been any worthwhile refutations of such a claim...?

[Dub]

I think the problem is that some people take such a broad use of the term "faith" that it could be applied to any and every single thought possible - therefore rendering the term meaningless. I believe im posting this thread on this forum so therefore I have faith that im doing it. But is that really the same as having faith that the tooth fairy exists? Of course not. In the context of religous debate the term faith needs to be specifically defined. I think a better term for 'belief based on evidence' is 'confidence'. I am confident that the sun will rise tommorow. That confidence is based on evidence. 'Confidence' that a God exists however, is not based on evidence, and is thus unfounded.

So many debates seem to go off-topic as they fall into pure sematics. It seems sometimes people argue the semantics as they cant argue the actual point.

I have an idea which I think may settle alot of debates like this and prevent them from going off-topic. Perhaps the JREF forum should have its own dictionary which gives specific definitions for commonly used terminology. This would also prevent dictionary wars. Just an idea. What do other people think about this?

PS. I have also started another thread addressing this issue in the 'Community' section with a poll on it.

[Yahzi]

If atheism is a faith, then what is the word for someone who lacks faith? Or is the claim that a functioning human mind must necessarily have faith in something?

If the later is the claim, then the argument shifts from one of definition to one of epistimology.

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Do you feel there have been any worthwhile refutations of such a claim...?

Not really. I think, as I surmised initially and has been proven in this thread, that the only way we (i.e., believers and non-believers) will be able to broach the subject is through arguing semantics (then eventually linguistics, and finally semiotics). For example, we can't agree on what the definition of "faith" is (semantics), so we argue about it's context (linguistics), and finally we end up on all of the evocative interpretations, history, and subtle signs and meanings of the word "faith" and how it relates to religion and/or areligion - i.e., what is really meant by the word "faith" (semiotics).

Futile, pointless, and boring.

I still stand by the primary principle that faith (be it "conditional", blind, or whatever) has to accept a truth based on no reproducible evidence; it is interpretation. It's just that simple and it's unnecessary to try to obfuscate it with overinterpretation. All religions are, by default, faith-based regardless whether or not they incorporate a "God concept". Trying to put a finer point on it rapidly devolves into a pissing contest, as Pahansiri has adeptly demonstrated. And, I'm just not interested in that.

It's a simple question, in my mind, that has a simple answer. Faith an atheism are immiscible concepts. I'll have to further accept the fact that my friend is just being stubborn.

-TT

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Yahzi
If atheism is a faith, then what is the word for someone who lacks faith? Or is the claim that a functioning human mind must necessarily have faith in something?

If the later is the claim, then the argument shifts from one of definition to one of epistimology.



The fact that so many religious types ( and others ) make such a big fuss about; " You must have faith !! "; it implies that there is some defineable state of mind in which faith is lacking, or even absent.

... So yeah'.. What is that state ?

I know we've hammered this out pretty thin before, and even in this thread, but it seems to boil down to:

Either I have reason to believe in something or I have faith..
With evidence in hand, faith is not necessary...

Saying I have faith, equates to " I have no evidence '..

How can one rationally assert/pretend that ' faith ' is a valid substitute for evidence?

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Either I have reason to believe in something or I have faith..
With evidence in hand, faith is not necessary...

Saying I have faith, equates to " I have no evidence '..

How can one rationally assert/pretend that ' faith ' is a valid substitute for evidence?

Diogenes, thank you. I think you just boiled it down and summed it up perfectly. This is exactly what I was looking for.

I will use this, if you don't mind. :)

-TT

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by ThirdTwin




Trying to put a finer point on it rapidly devolves into a pissing contest, as Pahansiri has adeptly demonstrated. And, I'm just not interested in that.


-TT

Translation:

I pointed out using your post, your words your mistakes, over statements, generalizations etc and you are angry.


I do not mind anyone judging my post but offer that all first read them in their entirety.

It seems some are judging what I “may have said” by what Twin is saying if the exchanges are read it believe it will become more clear.

I will offer Twin and anyone to post from any of my post where I said “atheism is a faith”.

Vanna what prize do we have waiting for the one that can find where Pahansiri said “atheism is a faith”?

Read my post, I do ramble on at times well all the time But I am very thorough and as we see from Twin when I call someone on a sweeping statement they make, well rather then just say “hey you’re right” they turn and engage in personal attacks and, well fibs.
But that is OK.. Be well all.

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
I will offer Twin and anyone to post from any of my post where I said “atheism is a faith”.

Vanna what prize do we have waiting for the one that can find where Pahansiri said “atheism is a faith”?

I never claimed you did. I said you never answered the primary question.

Instead, you rabbled on offering up a spurious, irrelevant, Herculean challenge on some pedantic points apparently simultaneously attempting (I think... don't know for sure [?]) to make some counterclaim (again, not sure [?]) that not all religions are faith based.

Quite simply, I disagree. And, furthermore, (as you can see above) I state why. But, that still is not the point of the thread.

:confused:

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Read my post, I do ramble on at times well all the time But I am very thorough and as we see from Twin when I call someone on a sweeping statement they make, well rather then just say “hey you’re right” they turn and engage in personal attacks and, well fibs.
But that is OK.. Be well all.

I think, again, I reclarified the salient points of my premise. The rest, as Shakespeare so nicely put it, is "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Have a nice day, my friend. :)

-TT

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by ThirdTwin




I think, again, I reclarified the salient points of my premise. The rest, as Shakespeare so nicely put it, is "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Have a nice day, my friend. :)

-TT



When one can not defend their position with logic, facts etc anger so often arises, they fear being wrong or being shown to be wrong. Anger and name calling arises.


''Name calling and labeling. Extremists are quick to
resort to epithets (liar, Nazi, fabian, et al.) to label and
condemn opponents in order to divert attention from their
arguments and to discourage others from hearing them
out.''

This was taken from the book by John George and Laird
Wilcox titled ''American Extremists'' ISBN 1-57392-058-4
copyright 1996.

It was found under the sub-heading of "The Traits of
"Extremists"p.56.


when one is afraid, they are always so offensive about it. [Buddha]


"The conquering of fear is the beginning of wisdom" [Bertrand Russell

“, Like a strong man nourished on royal food, one goes about, roaring, searching out an opponent. Wherever the opponent is, go there, strong man. As before, there's no battle here. Those who dispute, taking hold of a view, saying, 'This, and this only, is true,' those you can talk to. Here there is nothing -- no confrontation at the birth of disputes. Among those who live above confrontation not pitting view against view, whom would you gain as an opponent among those who are grasping no more? So here you come, conjecturing, your mind conjuring viewpoints. You're paired off with a pure one, and so cannot proceed.. I wish you only well being and happiness, freedom from anger
on your way. :)
{Buddha}

Be well my friend.

[jj]

Atheism, of course, is not one viewpoint, does not have a formal or informal dogma, and does not consist of people sharing a particular point of view.

It is, rather, just the same kind of group that thinks that the moon is NOT made of green cheese, it is a group of people who does NOT share a particular view.

Unlike two people who are theists, both of whom hold a particular view, two atheists are not automatically coupled by a given point of view, rather solely by a lack of a given point of view. They have no more "in common" than a-green-cheesists, or a-martian-invasionists.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by jj

It is, rather, just the same kind of group that thinks that the moon is NOT made of green cheese, it is a group of people who does NOT share a particular view.



A faith is defined in terms of what it is. Atheism is defined in terms of what it isn't. Never the twain shall meet.

[jj]

Originally posted by Sundog


A faith is defined in terms of what it is. Atheism is defined in terms of what it isn't. Never the twain shall meet.

I trust you weren't expecting me to argue that one, were you? :)

[Sundog]

Originally posted by jj


I trust you weren't expecting me to argue that one, were you? :)

Nope!

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
When one can not defend their position with logic, facts etc anger so often arises, they fear being wrong or being shown to be wrong. Anger and name calling arises.


''Name calling and labeling. Extremists are quick to
resort to epithets (liar, Nazi, fabian, et al.) to label and
condemn opponents in order to divert attention from their
arguments and to discourage others from hearing them
out.''

This was taken from the book by John George and Laird
Wilcox titled ''American Extremists'' ISBN 1-57392-058-4
copyright 1996.

It was found under the sub-heading of "The Traits of
"Extremists"p.56.


when one is afraid, they are always so offensive about it. [Buddha]


"The conquering of fear is the beginning of wisdom" [Bertrand Russell

“, Like a strong man nourished on royal food, one goes about, roaring, searching out an opponent. Wherever the opponent is, go there, strong man. As before, there's no battle here. Those who dispute, taking hold of a view, saying, 'This, and this only, is true,' those you can talk to. Here there is nothing -- no confrontation at the birth of disputes. Among those who live above confrontation not pitting view against view, whom would you gain as an opponent among those who are grasping no more? So here you come, conjecturing, your mind conjuring viewpoints. You're paired off with a pure one, and so cannot proceed.. I wish you only well being and happiness, freedom from anger
on your way. :)
{Buddha}

Be well my friend.

Haha! Classic! Hysterical! Nice try, but at this point I'm going to have to invoke Godwin's Law (http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html).

Debate over. You lose.

Be well, my friend. :p

:D

-TT

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by ThirdTwin


Haha! Classic! Hysterical! Nice try, but at this point I'm going to have to invoke Godwin's Law (http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html).

Debate over. You lose.

Be well, my friend. :p

:D

-TT


lol :rub: