Atheism is a faith

[Pradja]

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.

You have confidence and trust that theism is wrong, no?

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

Surely that's a complete oxymoron. But hey, I'm open minded, so if you want to share a case, I'll listen.

What exactly do you not understand?

[Sociobiology]

"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

so you and everyone else is an atheist?

because you reject for more gods than you accept.

[Hallistar]

You have confidence and trust that theism is wrong, no?

That's not a prerequisite for being an a-theist, but you can be an atheist and trust that theism is wrong. Just like you can lack active outward faith in a specific deity and still think that there could be a deity afterall (In the deist sense).

Of course, it should be repeated that faith or lack thereof in a deity is not intertwined with faith or lack thereof in an afterlife.

[Enadail]

You have confidence and trust that theism is wrong, no?

I have no evidence to support the claims theism makes, so I do not believe in theism. Any more than I have evidence to support there is a magic walrus under Saturn's moons.

And regardless, faith is ABSOLUTE confidence or trust. No, I do not have ABSOLUTE confidence or trust that theism is wrong.

Surely that's a complete oxymoron. But hey, I'm open minded, so if you want to share a case, I'll listen.

Atheism is the rejection of a God belief, not the rejection of religion. Many religions don't believe in a God concept, Jainism (the religion I was raised in) and Buddhism to name two.

[Sociobiology]

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.

You have confidence and trust that theism is wrong, no?

not based on faith, but on evidence.
belief=/= faith
faith as a belief the disregards evidence.

[Maledixit]

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.

You want to fight ignorance? So you see some things has more superior or inferior than others, to a value of intelligence or awareness? You fight, because you feel like you have to defend, you defend because you are attached to a stance in a manner not to dissimilar to religious people, a stance that sets a rigid criteria over what is perceived as right and wrong, that you must preach and educate to others, to maintain that stance you hold dear?

Otherwise, to be honest, you probably wouldn't give a crap.

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?

I said atheists put their faith into 'atheism'. This is important. It's not anything atheism is talking about or preaching (in regards to secularization or science etc), it's about faith in atheism as a philosophical strand in itself. It's simply notions like, if one gives themselves the label of atheist, they may think they are suddenly far more intelligent, or socially conscious etc, than someone that considers themselves a theist. And this is not intrinsic, but people put their faith into the notion that it is.

Really, the fact that you mention keywords like 'ignorance' or 'wrong' above, kind of support this. The feeling of people believing they are intrinsically more aware, or more right than others, just from the 'atheist' label alone. When empirical evidence may show the theist to be smarter and more universally conscious. The proof, therefore, may not support the view, so it would be a faith.

[Salra]

Atheism is not faith based, it's a logical assumption made based on available evidence. Belief in god persists regardless of any evidence to the contrary - that is faith.

[Samuraikoku]

Maledixit, just in case you missed.

Surely that's a complete oxymoron. But hey, I'm open minded, so if you want to share a case, I'll listen.

What god do Buddhists worship?

[Enadail]

I said atheists put their faith into 'atheism'.

The problem with that is its a circular argument. You're saying atheist put faith in their lack of belief in a God for which have faith in the lack of belief in a God, etc. For this to be taken seriously, you'd have to show that atheists are prone to such circular reasoning, in general. Or that its an attribute they display.

Atheism is the lack of belief in something. Saying atheists put their faith into it implies that someone who doesn't believe in Bigfoot or pixies or unicorns puts faith in their lack of belief in these things, and that evidence has no play in it at all.

[Maledixit]

Thanks Samuraikoku. Sorry, it's easy to miss posts on this.

Maledixit, just in case you missed.

What god do Buddhists worship?

My knowledge of Buddhism is that they believe in deities, but they don't actually worship any of them. I still consider them theists, and it's still classified as a religion.

[Hallistar]

if one gives themselves the label of atheist, they may think they are suddenly far more intelligent, or socially conscious

Since when does clarifying atheism mean we think we're far more intelligent than theists? Do you really think most of us are "militant atheists"?

If you're referring to anti-theists, then yes there are some on here, but not all of us.

Does a theist clarifying something about their theistic religion on a forum mean they are self-centered, think they're better than everyone else, and are being militant?

[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

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

Definitions are fluid. The point it's making, is that claims are complex. And that some definitions can be seen as more adequate than others for different reasons.

[Maledixit]

Animals don't believe in god, yet they are considered atheists. Babies don't believe in Cthulu either, yet you would most certainly say that they are acthuluist, even though they haven't made a conscious rejection.

Furthermore, thanks to psychology, we have evidence that we will just die and rot. Therefore we don't need to have faith in that belief.

Animals, to some people, aren't even considered to have the same level of cognition to a human. I mean we could go into that, but it's probably going to be Pandora's box.

For the record, no I probably wouldn't say a baby was acthuluist until it knew who Cthulu was, but whatever I guess. >_>

[Samuraikoku]

My knowledge of Buddhism is that they believe in deities, but they don't actually worship any of them. I still consider them theists, and it's still classified as a religion.

WRONG!

http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/buddhaatheism.htm

[Sociobiology]

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

Definitions are fluid. The point it's making, is that claims are complex. And that some definitions can be seen as more adequate than others for different reasons.

but the definition you are using applies to nearly every person on the planet, so it is not very useful.

do you believe in Zeus, Odin, Kali, Anansi, Mahuika, ect.

[Czechanada]

Animals don't believe in god, yet they are considered atheists. Babies don't believe in Cthulu either, yet you would most certainly say that they are acthuluist, even though they haven't made a conscious rejection.

Furthermore, thanks to psychology, we have evidence that we will just die and rot. Therefore we don't need to have faith in that belief.

Animals, to some people, aren't even considered to have the same level of cognition to a human. I mean we could go into that, but it's probably going to be Pandora's box.

For the record, no I probably wouldn't say a baby was acthuluist until it knew who Cthulu was, but whatever I guess. >_>

So the animals who lack the cognition of humans don't believe in a god. Therefore, they are atheist. They may not be aware of it, but they are not theists.

[Enadail]

What god do Buddhists worship?

My knowledge of Buddhism is that they believe in deities, but they don't actually worship any of them. I still consider them theists, and it's still classified as a religion.

Buddhists don't believe in deities. And theism and religion are not related. Theism means having a belief in a God. It has nothing to do with religion. You could be a theist and have no religion, you could be religious and have no God.

Jainism is a FAR more cut and dry example of a religion without a god concept. There is no god, there are no spirits. There is a soul idea, but there is no mystical/mystical being(s) in charge of anything.

[Maledixit]

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.

I agree. Atheism is more often than not a result of mere apathy.

I feel atheism used to be a state of apathy, back when religion was like... a really big thing that everyone practically worshipped out of nothing but fear. But now, not so much.

Atheists are everywhere, and people care about their atheism. That's why you're all discussing in this thread right now, because you give a crap about it enough to want to type it, or defend it when you feel it's being attacked. I don't think atheism is the same state of apathy it once was to be honest.

Things have changed a hell of a lot in the space of 50 years. And definitions and labels evolve with it. Even stuff like conservatism, liberalism and socialism mean different things now, than they probably did back then. A good example of an evolving term is radicalism, it definitely means something different depending on the context.

[Enadail]

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

Definitions are fluid. The point it's making, is that claims are complex. And that some definitions can be seen as more adequate than others for different reasons.

Actually, definitions are quite solid, just sometimes, something can have multiple meanings, and meanings can change over time. This is neither of those cases.

Theism is the belief in a God(s). Atheism is a lack of any such belief. Its VERY straight forward. Its not nuanced at all.

[Czechanada]

I agree. Atheism is more often than not a result of mere apathy.

I feel atheism used to be a state of apathy, back when religion was like... a really big thing that everyone practically worshipped out of nothing but fear. But now, not so much.

Atheists are everywhere, and people care about their atheism. That's why you're all discussing in this thread right now, because you give a crap about it enough to want to type it, or defend it when you feel it's being attacked. I don't think atheism is the same state of apathy it once was to be honest.

Things have changed a hell of a lot in the space of 50 years. And definitions and labels evolve with it. Even stuff like conservatism, liberalism and socialism mean different things now, than they probably did back then. A good example of an evolving term is radicalism, it definitely means something different depending on the context.

Of course, because there are no atheists who debate things just for recreation.

[Maledixit]

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.

Yes, but what people are and have pointed out to you: that's not what you said in the beginning, which is WHY people "jumped down your throat". You never said both are capable, you simply implied that atheism has an underlying militant fundamentalism.

I said atheists can be militantly fundamentalists just like theists, which is obvious knowledge. I didn't say all of them were. I don't know where you even got this from to be honest. I just said it happens.

I feel atheism used to be a state of apathy, back when religion was like... a really big thing that everyone practically worshipped out of nothing but fear. But now, not so much.

Atheists are everywhere, and people care about their atheism. That's why you're all discussing in this thread right now, because you give a crap about it enough to want to type it, or defend it when you feel it's being attacked. I don't think atheism is the same state of apathy it once was to be honest.

Things have changed a hell of a lot in the space of 50 years. And definitions and labels evolve with it. Even stuff like conservatism, liberalism and socialism mean different things now, than they probably did back then. A good example of an evolving term is radicalism, it definitely means something different depending on the context.

Of course, because there are no atheists who debate things just for recreation.

Not to this passionate level, no.

People here are not apathetic to atheism, in any way. They're very much defensive of it. That's pretty obvious.

Definitions are fluid. The point it's making, is that claims are complex. And that some definitions can be seen as more adequate than others for different reasons.

Actually, definitions are quite solid, just sometimes, something can have multiple meanings, and meanings can change over time. This is neither of those cases.

Theism is the belief in a God(s). Atheism is a lack of any such belief. Its VERY straight forward. Its not nuanced at all.

Sorry, I don't agree.

Definitions are only solid, in the hands of the pen holders, infusing their bias into mainstream narratives.

I'd say the same for most things actually.

I mean I can guarantee one person reading this is a Marxist, who could challenge others' mainstream definition of the word 'ideology' for instance, no matter how many stand against them. It's similar to that. People use the definitions to suit their purpose, and quite often, ignore the interpretations that would turn it around and make them look bad.

[Maledixit]

[double post, delete]

[Sociobiology]

Yes, but what people are and have pointed out to you: that's not what you said in the beginning, which is WHY people "jumped down your throat". You never said both are capable, you simply implied that atheism has an underlying militant fundamentalism.

I said atheists can be militantly fundamentalists just like theists, which is obvious knowledge. I didn't say all of them were. I don't know where you even got this from to be honest. I just said it happens.

as Niven once said, "There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool following it."

[Genivaria]

I said atheists can be militantly fundamentalists just like theists, which is obvious knowledge. I didn't say all of them were. I don't know where you even got this from to be honest. I just said it happens.

as Niven once said, "There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool following it."

Hmph, sad truth that.

[Cannot think of a name]

Why is it so hard for atheist to just say it is their faith and leave it at that?

In my case, it's not that it's "hard," it's that doing so would make the word "faith" so vague as to be meaningless, and I don't see any good reason to do that.

I don't say that I have "faith" regarding the non-existence of quizblorg. If asked, I suppose I'd say I do not believe in quizblorg, but that's mainly because I've yet to be given a working and testable definition of quizblorg. I can't possibly say whether or not I believe in something that hasn't even been defined.

I also don't say that I have "faith" that unicorns are mythological. I find the evidence pretty conclusive on that subject, and it would be as silly of me to profess "faith" in the non-existence of unicorns as it would be for me to say that I have "faith" that my desk exists.

All Hail Quizblorg.