Atheism is a faith

[Ifreann]

Atheism is by definition a very deep introspection. To come to the conclusion that you don't believe in a higher power can be quite an existential crisis, not to mention reveal deep-seated fears like thanatophobia.

I would argue that eastern philosophy is a very deep introspection, which atheism would be against.

The essence behind this is, just because you oppose something, doesn't mean you don't display similar characteristics. Whether you believe in a higher power, or whether you're fundamentally against all idea of a higher power, or whatever. The label you give yourself is useless, and both atheists and theists can display the same or similar characteristics.

Has anyone ever said that atheists and theists are wholly different in every way?

Atheism's core ideas might not be a faith, but it would be incorrect to say that atheists don't put their faith into atheism as an identity or label just the same.

What does it even mean to put one's faith in an identity or label?

A true deep introspection would be, not needing the identity or label at all.

Who said that atheists need to label themselves as such?

Babies are militant atheists out to deconvert their parents?

I wouldn't say a baby is an atheist, if it hasn't called itself one yet. A baby doesn't say it believes in a higher power, but it doesn't say it doesn't either.

You'd be wrong. Since babies cannot believe in any god or gods, they must therefore be atheists.

---

I'm sorry, it's what?

---

Identifying oneself as an atheist is a fundamental militancy? Dafuq?

I'm saying atheists are just as capable of being fundamentally militant as any theist can be.

Of course they are. Who said otherwise? Why are you even bring it up?

And that whether you consider yourself atheist or theist or not, you aren't off scott free.

Of scott-free on what, exactly?

[Maledixit]

I wouldn't say a baby is an atheist, if it hasn't called itself one yet. A baby doesn't say it believes in a higher power, but it doesn't say it doesn't either.

Babies don't believe in anything besides they're hungry, they want to shit themselves, and/or they're not being entertained. In that case, they lack theism.

But they don't actively say they don't believe in God (or whatever). They don't say anything. That's not really logical. I mean if someone is ambivalent to, say, the abortion issue. Would it be justified for a pro-lifer to say that someone by default is pro-choice just because they aren't pro-life? Would a pro-choice be justified in saying the same person was pro-life just because they were pro-choice? No they have no opinion on it, they are ambivalent, they have made no statement, they are neither. So any account is bias, from the narrative that wishes to appeal to ridicule.

I don't like that logic, because it's basically implying some kind of 'default norm'.

I wouldn't say a baby is an atheist, if it hasn't called itself one yet. A baby doesn't say it believes in a higher power, but it doesn't say it doesn't either.

A baby has no belief in a higher power (and no belief that there is no higher power). They are an atheist, whether they identify as one or not; they do not have the knowledge or mental capacity to be anything else. Funnily enough, not all atheists are firebrands, not all atheists make their atheism a core label -- some campaign against doing that -- and not all atheists are militant.

You basically just said that atheism is the default stance when one doesn't have the knowledge or mental capacity to be anything else.

I kind of can't help but feel that was a miscommunication? Feel free to correct it. I just, it seems kind of strange that you would say that, if it was the case.

I didn't say all atheists are firebrands, or they make it their core label, not all theists are either. My point is that both atheism and theism has people putting their faith in the identity and label.

Although, to be honest, given that several people here just jumped down my throat and became condescending and patronizing, just for me voicing my opinion that they didn't like, I would say that this probably wasn't the finest example of showing not all atheists are militant firebrands, to be honest.

The thing is, it's not actually a joke. The reason people, who identify as atheist, in this thread are getting so defensive, is because they feel like their label and identity is being attacked. So they have to defend it.

Well yes, when one has downright ignorant statements like "Atheism is a faith" being thrown about, one feels the need to correct them.

You cared about 'atheism' enough to feel personally bothered by it's critique. So I'd say yes, people feel like they're being attacked personally.

[OracleT]

Yes, there are theists who are also scientists however, by definition, a scientists seeks the answer in the evidence not from pre-conceived notions (although a hypothesis can come that way - its conclusions cannot)

In that way, a true scientist leaves his beliefs and religion at the door the moment he walks into his proverbial lab.

In fact there is a famous quote which I have heard but unfortunately cannot properly reference to a famous theist scientist who says exactly that. He would say he believes strongly in God but he leaves his belief at the door.

God has no place in a lab and science does very well without the god hypothesis.

There are 2 forms of evidence for any given religion. (not true about science - don't even go there!) One is personal experience and if we have learned anything it is that personal experience and opinion is the least reliable form of evidence. (ironically it the most important in a court of law - lol). The second form of evidence is scripture.

Scripture can be taken as literal or metaphoric. If it is taken as literal it is worthless. We know without a doubt, beyond contention, please don't insult reason, that the literal text of every scripture is inconsistent with known facts.

If you take scripture as metaphoric, or as parable, then how can you say any given part is true or right? Let us move beyond the superstitions of desert nomads and embrace logic and reason. The result will be a far greater world.

[Ceannairceach]

Babies don't believe in anything besides they're hungry, they want to shit themselves, and/or they're not being entertained. In that case, they lack theism.

But they don't actively say they don't believe in God (or whatever). They don't say anything. That's not really logical. I mean if someone is ambivalent to, say, the abortion issue. Would it be justified for a pro-lifer to say that someone by default is pro-choice just because they aren't pro-life? Would a pro-choice be justified in saying the same person was pro-life just because they were pro-choice? No they have no opinion on it, they are ambivalent, they have made no statement, they are neither. So any account is bias, from the narrative that wishes to appeal to ridicule.

I don't like that logic, because it's basically implying some kind of 'default norm'.

Atheism is the default, as it is an inactive state at its core. Atheism is the lack of belief. You do not have to do anything to lack belief. On the opposite side, theism requires active belief in a deity. Thus, babies are atheist, because they lack belief.

[Ifreann]

Babies don't believe in anything besides they're hungry, they want to shit themselves, and/or they're not being entertained. In that case, they lack theism.

But they don't actively say they don't believe in God (or whatever). They don't say anything. That's not really logical. I mean if someone is ambivalent to, say, the abortion issue. Would it be justified for a pro-lifer to say that someone by default is pro-choice just because they aren't pro-life? Would a pro-choice be justified in saying the same person was pro-life just because they were pro-choice? No they have no opinion on it, they are ambivalent, they have made no statement, they are neither. So any account is bias, from the narrative that wishes to appeal to ridicule.

I don't like that logic, because it's basically implying some kind of 'default norm'.

When it comes to believing in a thing's existence or not, there is a default, and that default is not believing in it.

A baby has no belief in a higher power (and no belief that there is no higher power). They are an atheist, whether they identify as one or not; they do not have the knowledge or mental capacity to be anything else. Funnily enough, not all atheists are firebrands, not all atheists make their atheism a core label -- some campaign against doing that -- and not all atheists are militant.

You basically just said that atheism is the default stance when one doesn't have the knowledge or mental capacity to be anything else.

I kind of can't help but feel that was a miscommunication? Feel free to correct it. I just, it seems kind of strange that you would say that, if it was the case.

I didn't say all atheists are firebrands, or they make it their core label, not all theists are either. My point is that both atheism and theism does have people putting their faith in the identity and label.

Which is about as worthwhile a point as "Some people with blonde hair are assholes, and some aren't". It's entirely self evident and has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Although, to be honest, given that several people here just jumped down my throat and became condescending and patronizing, just for me voicing my opinion that they didn't like, I would say that this probably wasn't the finest example of showing not all atheists are militant firebrands, to be honest.

Participating in debate and discussion on a debate and discussion forum is hardly being a militant firebrand.

Well yes, when one has downright ignorant statements like "Atheism is a faith" being thrown about, one feels the need to correct them.

You cared about 'atheism' enough to feel personally bothered by it's critique. So I'd say yes, people feel like they're being attacked personally.

You greatly over-estimate the amount one must care about something in order to post about it on NSG.

[Hallistar]

Babies don't believe in anything besides they're hungry, they want to shit themselves, and/or they're not being entertained. In that case, they lack theism.

But they don't actively say they don't believe in God (or whatever). They don't say anything. That's not really logical. I mean if someone is ambivalent to, say, the abortion issue. Would it be justified for a pro-lifer to say that someone by default is pro-choice just because they aren't pro-life? Would a pro-choice be justified in saying the same person was pro-life just because they were pro-choice? No they have no opinion on it, they are ambivalent, they have made no statement, they are neither. So any account is bias, from the narrative that wishes to appeal to ridicule.

I don't like that logic, because it's basically implying some kind of 'default norm'.

The very definition of a-theism is one who lacks theism. That means you lack outward active faith/belief in any sort of deity.

It's not an affirmation of any specific belief against deities, just a present state of lacking belief in one.

Babies don't have the ability to believe in one, therefore they lack theism as well.

Atheism does not inherently equal anti-theism, which means that you are actively against theism.

Atheism also does not mean you believe one way or another that there ultimately is no gods. You can be an atheist and be anti-theist, or be an atheist and not be anti-theist, or be an atheist and think there is no god, or be an atheist and think there might be, but you're waiting for some kind of proof.

Atheism also does not mean you are against religion as a whole, or are not part of any. There are those who lack theism, who are part of organized religions, and those who lack theism and aren't part of any religion.

[Tsuntion]

A baby has no belief in a higher power (and no belief that there is no higher power). They are an atheist, whether they identify as one or not; they do not have the knowledge or mental capacity to be anything else. Funnily enough, not all atheists are firebrands, not all atheists make their atheism a core label -- some campaign against doing that -- and not all atheists are militant.

You basically just said that atheism is the default stance when one doesn't have the knowledge or mental capacity to be anything else.

I kind of can't help but feel that was a miscommunication? Feel free to correct it. I just, it seems kind of strange that you would say that, if it was the case.

No, that's what I meant to say.

I didn't say all atheists are firebrands, or they make it their core label, not all theists are either. My point is that both atheism and theism has people putting their faith in the identity and label.

That's what your point is, sure, but that's not what was pointed to by your original post. Talking about "it's [sic] fundamental militancy" and how "[p]eople basically cling onto 'atheism' as an identity" (with no qualifier on people) really does give the impression that you consider all atheists militant and you think it's a core thing for them and so on.

Although, to be honest, given that several people here just jumped down my throat and became condescending and patronizing, just for me voicing my opinion that they didn't like, I would say that this probably wasn't the finest example of showing not all atheists are militant firebrands, to be honest.

Non-militant atheists exist. That doesn't mean I or anyone else here has to be a perfect example of one in every discussion.

[Maledixit]

What does it even mean to put one's faith in an identity or label?

Who said that atheists need to label themselves as such?

What I mean is, an atheist being protective, and passionate enough about the mention of 'atheist' or 'atheism' to suddenly feel defensive, and have to fight for it's honour, like they've been personally attacked or something.

Why? Why would it matter?

Why is atheism so important to someone?

Of course they are. Who said otherwise? Why are you even bring it up?

Of scott-free on what, exactly?

I'm saying atheists are not as devoid of faith as they might think they are.

Atheism is the default, as it is an inactive state at its core. Atheism is the lack of belief. You do not have to do anything to lack belief. On the opposite side, theism requires active belief in a deity. Thus, babies are atheist, because they lack belief.

Actually, atheism is the rejection of the belief of deities. Until a baby makes a conscious rejection, I don't see them as atheist, or theist. They don't have to be any of these boxes, for the same of academia.

[Samuraikoku]

Galileo and the Pope were friends. The pope probably protected him from the inquisition quite a bit. Also, Galileo was a fucking dick.

I know, that's why he didn't get killed.

[Maledixit]

"Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons...: for an anthropomorphic God, the atheist rejects belief in God because it is false or probably false that there is a God; for a nonanthropomorphic God... because the concept of such a God is either meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory, incomprehensible, or incoherent; for the God portrayed by some modern or contemporary theologians or philosophers... because the concept of God in question is such that it merely masks an atheistic substance—e.g., "God" is just another name for love, or ... a symbolic term for moral ideals."

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40634/atheism

[Individuality-ness]

What does it even mean to put one's faith in an identity or label?

Who said that atheists need to label themselves as such?

What I mean is, an atheist being protective, passionate enough about the mention of 'atheist' or 'atheism' to suddenly feel defensive, and have to fight for it's honour, like they've been personally attacked or something.

Why? Why would it matter?

Because people like you tend to think of atheism as something it's not? Because we're bored? Because someone's wrong on the Internet?

Of course they are. Who said otherwise? Why are you even bring it up?

Of scott-free on what, exactly?

I'm saying atheists are not as devoid of faith as they might think they are.

Ha. Ha. Hahahahaha. No.

Please look up the definition of faith and the definition of belief.

Atheism is the default, as it is an inactive state at its core. Atheism is the lack of belief. You do not have to do anything to lack belief. On the opposite side, theism requires active belief in a deity. Thus, babies are atheist, because they lack belief.

Actually, atheism is the rejection of the belief of deities. Until a baby makes a conscious rejection, I don't see them as atheist, or theist. They don't have to be any of these boxes, for the same of academia.

[citation needed]

Also, look up null hypothesis.

[Seperates]

Actually, atheism is the rejection of the belief of deities. Until a baby makes a conscious rejection, I don't see them as atheist, or theist. They don't have to be any of these boxes, for the same of academia.

Then what base is that, then? How should we define it.

[Hallistar]

You cared about 'atheism' enough to feel personally bothered by it's critique. So I'd say yes, people feel like they're being attacked personally.

I take it that Christians or other religious people who respond to negative/false comments about their religions on their threads are taking it too personally, then?

Regardless, people come here because they're bored and/or feel like posting is atleast something to use their time with. I'm on spring break, so yeah i have time to kill.

Seriously, we couldn't care less about what people like you might think about atheism at the end of the day. I forget alot of these kinds of conversations anyways. While we're here though, we're going to debate because it's a discussion forum.

[Tsuntion]

What does it even mean to put one's faith in an identity or label?

Who said that atheists need to label themselves as such?

What I mean is, an atheist being protective, and passionate enough about the mention of 'atheist' or 'atheism' to suddenly feel defensive, and have to fight for it's honour, like they've been personally attacked or something.

Why? Why would it matter?

Why is atheism so important to someone?

I want to fight ignorance. What you see as defensiveness at every mention of atheist I see as correcting people. I did this when I was still a theist; it's not that I've been personally attacked, it's just that the other person is wrong.

Of course they are. Who said otherwise? Why are you even bring it up?

Of scott-free on what, exactly?

I'm saying atheists are not as devoid of faith as they might think they are.

What do atheists have faith in? You have explained why you think some act like some people with faith, but what do they have faith in?

[Enadail]

"Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons...: for an anthropomorphic God, the atheist rejects belief in God because it is false or probably false that there is a God; for a nonanthropomorphic God... because the concept of such a God is either meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory, incomprehensible, or incoherent; for the God portrayed by some modern or contemporary theologians or philosophers... because the concept of God in question is such that it merely masks an atheistic substance—e.g., "God" is just another name for love, or ... a symbolic term for moral ideals."

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40634/atheism

And yet, that's not what atheism means. As the post says, that is a CHARACTERIZATION of atheism.

[Samuraikoku]

What do atheists have faith in? You have explained why you think some act like some people with faith, but what do they have faith in?

The Emperor. *nods*

[OracleT]

Maledixit, let me express my personal and sincere apologies if at any point any of us were overly aggressive in asserting our opinions and 'beliefs'.

I will admit that atheists do have beliefs but I don't agree that they are like theists. Although I suppose we can always find similarities, it is the differences that are really important in discussing theism vs. atheism.

At its core, theism is about believing in a supernatural entity while atheists do not.

There are different 'types' of atheists but generally most atheists would agree that they do not believe in a supernatural being because there is no plausible evidence. As Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens would say, if the stars suddenly realigned in the night sky and said 'I am here', most theists, myself included would seriously have to re-evaluate our position. Fortunately, or unfortunately as you prefer, no such fantastic event has ever happened in a post-superstitious scientifically aware society.

For those who do not already, I strongly recommend watching the videos from Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens (now deceased) as they are both extremely intelligent and really highlight a lot of the concerns that atheists feel towards religiosity.

Maledixit, please forgive any insult, direct or implied in any of my posts. I suspect most of us feel the same way. Our concerns are sincere and serious and I hope you will appreciate our desire to share and enlighten not as an attack but rather as genuine concern for our society as a whole.

[Tsuntion]

"Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons...: for an anthropomorphic God, the atheist rejects belief in God because it is false or probably false that there is a God; for a nonanthropomorphic God... because the concept of such a God is either meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory, incomprehensible, or incoherent; for the God portrayed by some modern or contemporary theologians or philosophers... because the concept of God in question is such that it merely masks an atheistic substance—e.g., "God" is just another name for love, or ... a symbolic term for moral ideals."

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40634/atheism

I did not become an atheist for one of those reasons. Does that make my lack of belief less valid? I certainly don't think so. Definitions are flexible; here, I think "rejects" can be substituted with "lacks".

[Hallistar]

"Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons...: for an anthropomorphic God, the atheist rejects belief in God because it is false or probably false that there is a God; for a nonanthropomorphic God... because the concept of such a God is either meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory, incomprehensible, or incoherent; for the God portrayed by some modern or contemporary theologians or philosophers... because the concept of God in question is such that it merely masks an atheistic substance—e.g., "God" is just another name for love, or ... a symbolic term for moral ideals."

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40634/atheism

"Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[1] In a more specific sense, theism is a monotheistic doctrine concerning the nature of a god or goddess, and their relationship to the universe.[2][3][4][5] Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

On the list of prefixes:
an-/a- not, without Examples: anemic, asymmetric

a - theism = without theism.

This is the most basic definition for being atheist. Just like you're a theist if you believe in any deity at all, you're atheist if you're outside that group.

[Maledixit]

What I mean is, an atheist being protective, passionate enough about the mention of 'atheist' or 'atheism' to suddenly feel defensive, and have to fight for it's honour, like they've been personally attacked or something.

Why? Why would it matter?

Because people like you tend to think of atheism as something it's not? Because we're bored? Because someone's wrong on the Internet?

People like me?

That's a little confrontational, personal, and out of order, isn't it? I haven't actually divulged any information about me, so you don't even know anything about me. Why the dig?

I'm saying atheists are not as devoid of faith as they might think they are.

Ha. Ha. Hahahahaha. No.

Please look up the definition of faith and the definition of belief.

Faith is confidence and trust in something, atheists have confidence and trust that when they die they just rot in the ground.

Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true. An atheists believes materialism to be the only true substance.

So, yeah.

Actually, atheism is the rejection of the belief of deities. Until a baby makes a conscious rejection, I don't see them as atheist, or theist. They don't have to be any of these boxes, for the same of academia.

[citation needed]

Also, look up null hypothesis.

Already given a citation above.

[Seperates]

"Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons...: for an anthropomorphic God, the atheist rejects belief in God because it is false or probably false that there is a God; for a nonanthropomorphic God... because the concept of such a God is either meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory, incomprehensible, or incoherent; for the God portrayed by some modern or contemporary theologians or philosophers... because the concept of God in question is such that it merely masks an atheistic substance—e.g., "God" is just another name for love, or ... a symbolic term for moral ideals."

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40634/atheism

Though it's difficult to actually characterize something that doesn't actually mean anything. Atheism is a by-product of actual practices, such as skepticism. It in of itself isn't actually a belief, nor even really a thing.

[Brythonica]

Atheism is the rejection of belief in (a) God. I think the OP generalises the word "faith" and runs with it in a game of "one-up-man-ship".

[Enadail]

atheists have confidence and trust that when they die they just rot in the ground.

No, we don't. Any more then people have faith that rainbows are not unicorn farts. In the absence of evidence supporting a claim (there is an afterlife), you accept the default position (there is no afterlife).

If what you said was true, we also trust there is no pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, and trust that the sun will rise in the morning. We trust that the moon is not made of cheese and that gremlins don't exist in engines.

Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true. An atheists believes materialism to be the only true substance.

This is also blatantly untrue, as many religions are atheist.

[Maledixit]

Then what base is that, then? How should we define it.

Why should you have to define it? Why do you feel the need to put a baby, that's yet to experience any stimuli from the world, into a box so that you can use it as a shallow means to support an internet argument? It doesn't actually matter, it shouldn't have to.

You cared about 'atheism' enough to feel personally bothered by it's critique. So I'd say yes, people feel like they're being attacked personally.

I take it that Christians or other religious people who respond to negative/false comments about their religions on their threads are taking it too personally, then?

Regardless, people come here because they're bored and/or feel like posting is atleast something to use their time with. I'm on spring break, so yeah i have time to kill.

Seriously, we couldn't care less about what people like you might think about atheism at the end of the day. I forget alot of these kinds of conversations anyways. While we're here though, we're going to debate because it's a discussion forum.

I don't mind that. I'm just saying I think atheists and theists are both capable of the same militant defensive fundamentalism. If people agree with me on that, then that's fine. There's no need to reply and say 'yeah, we know'. That's good.

[Hallistar]

Faith is confidence and trust in something, atheists have confidence and trust that when they die they just rot in the ground.

.....................................................................ugh

There are theists who believe that nothing happens when we die, and atheists (albeit fewer) who think that something does happen.

Faith is belief without proof. Literally that's why religion involves faith, because they operate on the principle of unfalsifiability. That's the whole point.

Confidence requires past examples of evidence to extrapolate a prediction.