Atheism is a faith

[Hallistar]

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.

How is it biased? We're going off of the literal definition here.

A- or an- is listed as a neoclassical prefix that means "not" or "without"

Theism involves deity, and being a theist means you believe in a deity.

A-theism means without theism.

You can be atheist and think theism is stupid, you can be atheist and think theism is ok, you can be atheist and not look forward to any afterlife at all, you can be atheist and look forward to one, you can be atheist and be part of a religion, you can be atheist and not be part of one.

You just can't have active faith/worship in a deity and still meet the literal definition of atheism.

[Maledixit]

I've just noticed. I'm kinda having two topics going at once here. It's getting hard to monitor. I need to put one on hold.

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.

No, I'm saying regardless of the notion of what theism and atheism actually mean, atheists put their faith in the notion of an 'atheist' as a label, and they hold it dear. Which is why you get people that think calling themselves atheist, or talking about atheism in a positive light, somehow intrinsically makes them smarter, or more socially aware than others who consider themselves theist. Where, there is no proof that shows the 'atheist' of the scenario is smarter or more awake than the theist or not.

And without proof, as many people here are obviously saying, it constitutes a faith.

Aspiring to atheism becomes a faith, without realizing it even is.

[Enadail]

No, I'm saying regardless of the notion of what theism and atheism actually mean, atheists put their faith in the notion of an 'atheist' as a label, and they hold it dear.

You just said you're not painting broad strokes, but do it here. I don't put any faith in labels nor do I hold it dear. I'm quite open to being proven wrong.

Which is why you get people that think calling themselves atheist, or talking about atheism in a positive light, somehow intrinsically makes them smarter, or more socially aware than others who consider themselves theist.

Or people do it because they think they're right, and it has nothing to do with holding it dear.

Where, there is no proof that shows the 'atheist' of the scenario is smarter or more awake than the theist or not.

In general, no, but if you want to speak at an evidential level, yes. People who choose the atheist label often do it because they've found a lack of evidence for theistic claims. Given the rest of our world works off evidence, why should theism be different?

And without proof, as many people here are obviously saying, it constitutes a faith.

There is no proof outside math. There is just no evidence to support theistic claims, which is not a faith.

Aspiring to atheism becomes a faith, without realizing it even is.

That stretches the term faith to absurd levels.

Would you say it takes faith to believe unicorns don't exist? Does it take faith to believe there is not a teapot on the exact opposite side of the sun from us that we cannot detect?

[Hallistar]

No, I'm saying regardless of the notion of what theism and atheism actually mean, atheists put their faith in the notion of an 'atheist' as a label, and they hold it dear. Which is why you get people that think calling themselves atheist, or talking about atheism in a positive light, somehow intrinsically makes them smarter, or more socially aware than others who consider themselves theist. Where, there is no proof that shows the 'atheist' of the scenario is smarter or more awake than the theist or not.

Exactly how many atheists have you seen who think they're suddenly smarter or more socially aware?

And what exactly does that have to do with the definition of atheism?

[Anachronous Rex]

Really hard to discuss this unless we choose which definition of "faith" we're talking about.

"I used to have faith in atheism, but then I found her in bed with Richard Dawkins... tramp."

I think it's pretty obvious what definition we're using.

[Maledixit]

And what exactly does that have to do with the definition of atheism?

No, I'm saying regardless of the notion of what theism and atheism actually mean, atheists put their faith in the notion of an 'atheist' as a label

Case in point.

Exactly how many atheists have you seen who think they're suddenly smarter or more socially aware?

Or people do it because they think they're right,

And case in point.

[Genivaria]

And what exactly does that have to do with the definition of atheism?

No, I'm saying regardless of the notion of what theism and atheism actually mean, atheists put their faith in the notion of an 'atheist' as a label

Case in point.

Exactly how many atheists have you seen who think they're suddenly smarter or more socially aware?

Or people do it because they think they're right,

And case in point.

You've made no points.

[Maledixit]

No, I'm saying regardless of the notion of what theism and atheism actually mean, atheists put their faith in the notion of an 'atheist' as a label, and they hold it dear.

You just said you're not painting broad strokes, but do it here. I don't put any faith in labels nor do I hold it dear. I'm quite open to being proven wrong.

Which is why you get people that think calling themselves atheist, or talking about atheism in a positive light, somehow intrinsically makes them smarter, or more socially aware than others who consider themselves theist.

Or people do it because they think they're right, and it has nothing to do with holding it dear.

Where, there is no proof that shows the 'atheist' of the scenario is smarter or more awake than the theist or not.

In general, no, but if you want to speak at an evidential level, yes. People who choose the atheist label often do it because they've found a lack of evidence for theistic claims. Given the rest of our world works off evidence, why should theism be different?

And without proof, as many people here are obviously saying, it constitutes a faith.

There is no proof outside math. There is just no evidence to support theistic claims, which is not a faith.

Aspiring to atheism becomes a faith, without realizing it even is.

That stretches the term faith to absurd levels.

Would you say it takes faith to believe unicorns don't exist? Does it take faith to believe there is not a teapot on the exact opposite side of the sun from us that we cannot detect?

I think you've missed my point. It's not about what atheists believe or think in regards to deities/lack of deities, but how their identification with the label of atheists changes their perception of themselves and their mental capacity.

Like, I want you to disregard what atheism and theism mean, just for a second, and focus only one how the simple lexical use of the words 'atheist' or 'atheism' changes a person. And then, evaluate how much empirical proof supports their perceptions of themselves and their own capacities on an individual level.

Food for thought.

[Hallistar]

And what exactly does that have to do with the definition of atheism?

No, I'm saying regardless of the notion of what theism and atheism actually mean, atheists put their faith in the notion of an 'atheist' as a label

Case in point.

That's not a point. You're saying that atheists think of a lack of theism as a label/group. That doesn't prove the definition of atheism.

Exactly how many atheists have you seen who think they're suddenly smarter or more socially aware?

Or people do it because they think they're right,

And case in point.

That's not a point either, considering that everyone of every religion, group, view, debate etc. who clarifies/corrects others does so because they think they're right. Does that mean that they think they're much more smarter? Does that mean they think they're much more wiser?

[New Chalcedon]

I’ve noticed on NS that people who are atheist get mad when a theist talks about the faith of Atheism. Faith is a believe in something everyone has faith that’s where hope and such comes from, you have faith in humanity or faith in your friends, faith isn’t mutually exclusive to religion. Atheism is a faith sense you believe there is nothing, it isn’t a religion though sense you believe there is nothing. The important bit is believing in something every human must believe in something and have faith in it whether they believe there is no god or there is one, is up to them but they must have faith and believe it.

So why do the atheist get so mad about it calling it for what it is?

Perhaps because most forms of atheism amount to a simple lack of belief. A lack of belief that God exists is not necessarily a positive belief that God does not exist (that's gnostic atheism).

[Maledixit]

You've made no points.

You can't ask someone what something has to do with a definition of atheism, when that person said prior that their message is regardless of what atheism or theism mean by definition.

You can't imply someone might be wrong about atheists thinking they're 'smarter/more aware' than others, when someone on the 'atheism isn't a faith' side pretty much implied they feel they are more right than others because of their atheist label.

This is what I meant earlier by introspection. The argument was that atheism was the height of introspection. Is it really, though?

[Enadail]

Exactly how many atheists have you seen who think they're suddenly smarter or more socially aware?

Or people do it because they think they're right,

And case in point.

That is not a point at all.

Hallistar said atheists who think they're suddenly smarter or more socially aware (when becoming atheist). I said atheists defend themselves because they think they're right. You're taking my response completely out of context and twisting it to try to prove a point that doesn't match anyway.

[Pradja]

You've made no points.

You can't ask someone what something has to do with a definition of atheism, when that person said prior that their message is regardless of what atheism or theism mean by definition.

You can't imply someone might be wrong about atheists thinking they're 'smarter/more aware' than others, when someone on the 'atheism isn't a faith' side pretty much implied they feel they are more right than others because of their atheist label.

This is what I meant earlier by introspection. The argument was that atheism was the height of introspection. Is it really, though?

Listen, what exactly do you not understand? Atheism is the lack of belief, you are neither required to believe in reason or facts or in fact anything. Just the act of rejecting the idea of a godlike entity makes you an atheist.

How is that faith?

[Maledixit]

Case in point.

That's not a point. You're saying that atheists think of a lack of theism as a label/group. That doesn't prove the definition of atheism.

I didn't say it did. Because I said that for that message, I was disregarding the notions of the definition of atheism and theism, to make a point that I was focusing more about how one treats their label of 'atheist', than they do what atheism was actually about.

And case in point.

That's not a point either, considering that everyone of every religion, group, view, debate etc. who clarifies/corrects others does so because they think they're right. Does that mean that they think they're much more smarter? Does that mean they think they're much more wiser?

I'm saying people use labels for all sorts of displacement, distraction or anchors, to fill whatever existential crisis they have. And that whether someone is an atheist by default or not is irrelevant, atheists still use the identification of 'atheist' in the same way , just as any other. So just because someone is anti-theist, doesn't mean they do not place their faith in something. Their faith, is the enrichment and identity they feel the 'atheist' label gives them while they defend it so passionately.

[Enadail]

I think you've missed my point. It's not about what atheists believe or think in regards to deities/lack of deities, but how their identification with the label of atheists changes their perception of themselves and their mental capacity.

I'd love to see any evidence suggesting atheists think they're smarter because they're atheist.

As for identification changing how people perceive themselves, you have it backwards. How someone sees themselves leads to how they identify.

Like, I want you to disregard what atheism and theism mean, just for a second, and focus only one how the simple lexical use of the words 'atheist' or 'atheism' changes a person. And then, evaluate how much empirical proof supports their perceptions of themselves and their own capacities on an individual level.

So... disregard definitions to instead look at some esoteric notion that has no meaning to the topic at hand, and has no evidence to support it? Leave factual discussion for infactual discussion?

Food for thought.

Hardly, this would leave me starving.

[Maledixit]

And case in point.

That is not a point at all.

Hallistar said atheists who think they're suddenly smarter or more socially aware (when becoming atheist). I said atheists defend themselves because they think they're right. You're taking my response completely out of context and twisting it to try to prove a point that doesn't match anyway.

To be honest though, let's not beat around the bush, you were implying that atheists were more right than one's that weren't. Whether that was a freudian slip or not, or whether it was true or not, is irrelevant. By believing you are more right than someone else, you are making the implication that you are smarter than them, or more aware than them about something, within the context. That's what it means to be 'right' in the first place. So yeah, it's a point, whether you address it or not. Which is what the atheist label makes people intrinsically believe.

[Anachronous Rex]

That is not a point at all.

Hallistar said atheists who think they're suddenly smarter or more socially aware (when becoming atheist). I said atheists defend themselves because they think they're right. You're taking my response completely out of context and twisting it to try to prove a point that doesn't match anyway.

To be honest though, let's not beat around the bush, you were implying that atheists were more right than one's that weren't. Whether that was a freudian slip or not, or whether it was true or not, is irrelevant. By believing you are more right than someone else, you are making the implication that you are smarter than them, or more aware than them about something, within the context. That's what it means to be 'right' in the first place. So yeah, it's a point, whether you address it or not. Which is what the atheist label makes people intrinsically believe.

By this logic all theists everywhere implicitly decree themselves more intelligent then atheists.

[Maledixit]

You can't ask someone what something has to do with a definition of atheism, when that person said prior that their message is regardless of what atheism or theism mean by definition.

You can't imply someone might be wrong about atheists thinking they're 'smarter/more aware' than others, when someone on the 'atheism isn't a faith' side pretty much implied they feel they are more right than others because of their atheist label.

This is what I meant earlier by introspection. The argument was that atheism was the height of introspection. Is it really, though?

Listen, what exactly do you not understand? Atheism is the lack of belief, you are neither required to believe in reason or facts or in fact anything. Just the act of rejecting the idea of a godlike entity makes you an atheist.

How is that faith?

Again, I am not talking about atheism's beliefs as a philosophical school at the moment.

I am talking about what the label of atheism does to one's self perception.

I've already said this.

I mean, I can repeat this as much as I like. It just seems like I'm spamming the same post now.

[Enadail]

To be honest though, let's not beat around the bush, you were implying that atheists were more right than one's that weren't.

No, I wasn't. I was saying atheists defend themselves because they think they're right. And that people that choose the atheist label do so because of a lack of evidence for theism.

Whether that was a freudian slip or not, or whether it was true or not, is irrelevant.

And non existent.

By believing you are more right than someone else, you are making the implication that you are smarter than them, or more aware than them about something, within the context.

That is true. As a web developer, I am far more right about web marketing and site design then an accountant. Its because I am smarter and more aware on the topic. That has nothing to do with the topic.

That's what it means to be 'right' in the first place. So yeah, it's a point, whether you address it or not.

No, its not. Its you coloring my response with your perception of atheists.

[Hallistar]

That is not a point at all.

Hallistar said atheists who think they're suddenly smarter or more socially aware (when becoming atheist). I said atheists defend themselves because they think they're right. You're taking my response completely out of context and twisting it to try to prove a point that doesn't match anyway.

To be honest though, let's not beat around the bush, you were implying that atheists were more right than one's that weren't. Whether that was a freudian slip or not, or whether it was true or not, is irrelevant. By believing you are more right than someone else, you are making the implication that you are smarter than them, or more aware than them about something, within the context. That's what it means to be 'right' in the first place. So yeah, it's a point, whether you address it or not. Which is what the atheist label makes people intrinsically believe.

What you consistently fail to realize, is that he was saying that a person who clarifies others does so because they think they're right. That's what people of any ideology/religion/whatever think when they clarify others. It has nothing to do with an atheist (label?) and is not some kind of freudian slip.

[Hallistar]

Listen, what exactly do you not understand? Atheism is the lack of belief, you are neither required to believe in reason or facts or in fact anything. Just the act of rejecting the idea of a godlike entity makes you an atheist.

How is that faith?

Again, I am not talking about atheism's beliefs as a philosophical school at the moment.

I am talking about what the label of atheism does to one's self perception.

I've already said this.

I mean, I can repeat this as much as I like. It just seems like I'm spamming the same post now.

I've known theists who think that because they're theist they're more wiser because they don't need proof to believe in a deity. Does that mean that all theists have the issue of thinking they're unduly better, smarter and wiser than atheists? Does that mean that the "theist" label does this to someone?

[Pradja]

Listen, what exactly do you not understand? Atheism is the lack of belief, you are neither required to believe in reason or facts or in fact anything. Just the act of rejecting the idea of a godlike entity makes you an atheist.

How is that faith?

1. Again, I am not talking about atheism's beliefs as a philosophical school at the moment.

2. I am talking about what the label of atheism does to one's self perception.

I've already said this.

I mean, I can repeat this as much as I like. It just seems like I'm spamming the same post now.

1. But that is the only thing that matters. Because it is not more, its a philosophical school of thought, like anthroprocentrism, thats it.

2. Nothing?

[Nordic sons]

Atheism = not believing in GOD = no FAITH in GOD

[Maledixit]

I think you've missed my point. It's not about what atheists believe or think in regards to deities/lack of deities, but how their identification with the label of atheists changes their perception of themselves and their mental capacity.

I'd love to see any evidence suggesting atheists think they're smarter because they're atheist.

That's the point, there is no proof. Which, as many have said so far, by definition, no proof means faith. And yes, many atheists believe themselves to be smarter or more awake than theists. This isn't a ground breaking discovery.

Think of all the jags theists get thrown at them. Hell, even the notion of freethought as a thing shows it, it implies theists are not thinking for themselves. Secularization makes implications on the intelligence of those that are still theists.

[Beezyland]

As an atheist, I believe there is no God/god/godess/animal totem/etc. Therefore, I have belief but certainly no faith. I was faithful to my deceased wife whom I married in a courthouse before a magistrate, none of which has to do with a theism, be it mono or multi.