Atheism is a faith

[Ostroeuropa]

Atheism isn't a conclusion.

Does God exist? If yes or no, then you're making a claim about the noumenal realm. Since we don't have any direct experience with it, we can never know and logically we can never say we know. Since atheism makes the claim 'no' by definition, then it is making a claim about something that lacks a logical proof.

That isn't what being an atheist means.
It means we lack theism, which is the belief in god.
We don't actively believe there is no god (not all of us.)

Is 4chan really a good site to infer as a a 'norm' for internet behaviour. I'd see it as pretty extreme to be honest, but whatever?

Isn't this, like, getting way off topic?

You're the one who said we were being defensive, insulting, and barbarians.
We deny that claim, just like your other claims.
You havn't demonstrated anything you've said to be true, and when we inform you why you are wrong, you change the subject.
Just like now.

(Bumped from previous page.)

[Norstal]

The things you see in this forum is mild compared to sites like 4chan. For example, you haven't seen a decapitated penis yet as a rebuttal to your posts.

Is 4chan really a good site to infer as a a 'norm' for internet behaviour. I'd see it as pretty extreme to be honest, but whatever?

Isn't this, like, getting way off topic?

My point is that, even if people in this forum use abrasive words, you shouldn't resort to it as well.

[Enadail]

Again, generalizations and insults. You expect any of us to take you seriously?

I do not see that as an insult per-say, or in fact at all, if I'm honest. Perhaps we have a different perception and definition of what it means to insult. I guess I can accept that.

So... saying we're incapable of introspection is not an insult, but someone saying you're being childish by ignoring the evidence presented is?

Wow. Ok, go for it then...

[Pradja]

Safe in the sense that the governments don't have any policies toward religions or beliefs. And that most people in the West (specifically America and Canada because, again, haven't been to Europe), try not to start religious debates except perhaps with themselves.The moment you reveal to someone that you're atheist however, a shitstorm starts. Even well-mannered theists starts making up misconceptions about atheists and atheism.

Perhaps "persecution" is hyperbolic and it's generally safe for both theists and atheists, but I'm not fully comfortable living in the U.S as an atheist.

I wouldn't call it hyperbolic. Its certainly not physical persecution or anything compared to persecutions that existed in Nazi Germany or are going on in Africa, but its still persecution.

As an example, one of my best friends in college, with whom I had numerous religious, philosophical, etc discussions, often up till 3-4 AM, once told me at the end of one of our chats, that she thinks I'm a good person and all, but because I don't believe in Chris, will be going to hell. It showed me how she really views me: I'm a good person, but because I don't share a particular view point, I'm deserving of eternal torment.

Which even by christian idology is bullshit, if they actually read the damn book. That is if they read all of it and did not cherry-pick the stuff they like.

[Hallistar]

Safe in the sense that the governments don't have any policies toward religions or beliefs. And that most people in the West (specifically America and Canada because, again, haven't been to Europe), try not to start religious debates except perhaps with themselves.The moment you reveal to someone that you're atheist however, a shitstorm starts. Even well-mannered theists starts making up misconceptions about atheists and atheism.

Perhaps "persecution" is hyperbolic and it's generally safe for both theists and atheists, but I'm not fully comfortable living in the U.S as an atheist.

I wouldn't call it hyperbolic. Its certainly not physical persecution or anything compared to persecutions that existed in Nazi Germany or are going on in Africa, but its still persecution.

As an example, one of my best friends in college, with whom I had numerous religious, philosophical, etc discussions, often up till 3-4 AM, once told me at the end of one of our chats, that she thinks I'm a good person and all, but because I don't believe in Chris, will be going to hell. It showed me how she really views me: I'm a good person, but because I don't share a particular view point, I'm deserving of eternal torment.

It's more like we're "unguided well-intentioned sheep who have yet to see the Light™".

[Duvniask]

Atheism isn't a conclusion.

Does God exist? If yes or no, then you're making a claim about the noumenal realm. Since we don't have any direct experience with it, we can never know and logically we can never say we know. Since atheism makes the claim 'no' by definition, then it is making a claim about something that lacks a logical proof.

All you have to do, for you to be an atheist is think:

"I don't believe in god."


Not:

"God doesn't exist, and i'm 100% sure about that."

[Maledixit]

Ok. I'm kinda bored of this thread now, there's no mature discussion going on, which was what I wanted. I've already stood up and said my piece, so now it's just group polarization and spam. So unless there's something vital I need to read, I'm off. But hit me a P.M or something if you need to.

[Imperiatom]

To be frank, I tend to dismiss anyone that gets too bent up over binaries.

Life is, and has never been, and will never be, that simple. No matter how much people want to simplify it.

Binary divisions are for people that don't want to think any further.

So you're just going to ignore the truth because you don't like it?

Alrighty then. You have fun with that.

No monotheistic religion is for people that don't want to think any farther.

[The Amyclae]

Yeah, of course atheism is a faith. Kant summed it up rather simply: there are no logical proofs for the noumenal realm. If someone reaches a conclusion about it, then faith is present.

Wait a minute

...

What?

What is faith? Belief that is not based on proof. By definition, anything within the noumenal 'arena' (or 'world' or area of our brain or whatever please you) lacks proof. We have no direct experience of it and any claim about it rests on a belief that lacks a logical proof. It doesn't take a full-blown, unrepentant, unreconstructed Kantian to agree with that.

[Condunum]

Ok. I'm kinda bored of this thread now. I've already stood up and said my piece, so now it's just group polarization and spam. So unless there's something vital I need to read, I'm off. But hit me a P.M or something if you need to.

Translation: I have had my lulz and you guise aren't getting of mad anymoar so it's not worth it.

[Curiosityness]

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

Religious faith-belief in something without evidence
Faith that scientists have-you have faith that it will occur again because of past experiences

[Duvniask]

Wait a minute

...

What?

What is faith? Belief that is not based on proof. By definition, anything within the noumenal 'arena' (or 'world' or area of our brain or whatever please you) lacks proof. We have no direct experience of it and any claim about it rests on a belief that lacks a logical proof. It doesn't take a full-blown, unrepentant, unreconstructed Kantian to agree with that.

I as an agnostic atheist, do not claim full proof.

Rather I conclude, that there is no evidence for the existence of god(s), and therefore do not have blind faith.

[Hallistar]

Atheism isn't a conclusion.

Does God exist? If yes or no, then you're making a claim about the noumenal realm. Since we don't have any direct experience with it, we can never know and logically we can never say we know. Since atheism makes the claim 'no' by definition, then it is making a claim about something that lacks a logical proof.

Before Maledixit starts with the bs about how we're being defensive and taking this too personally by clarifying this up;

Atheism is the lack of theism. Theism is the belief in deities. A- and An- are prefixes which mean "not or without", so Atheism at it's core means that you do not have active outward faith in a deity (or deities).

There are atheists who are part of religions, there are atheists who aren't in any. There are also atheists who are anti-theist, and those who don't have problems with theism.

From what I understand, Gnostic atheism is that logical proof stance.

[Norstal]

Safe in the sense that the governments don't have any policies toward religions or beliefs. And that most people in the West (specifically America and Canada because, again, haven't been to Europe), try not to start religious debates except perhaps with themselves.The moment you reveal to someone that you're atheist however, a shitstorm starts. Even well-mannered theists starts making up misconceptions about atheists and atheism.

Perhaps "persecution" is hyperbolic and it's generally safe for both theists and atheists, but I'm not fully comfortable living in the U.S as an atheist.

I wouldn't call it hyperbolic. Its certainly not physical persecution or anything compared to persecutions that existed in Nazi Germany or are going on in Africa, but its still persecution.

As an example, one of my best friends in college, with whom I had numerous religious, philosophical, etc discussions, often up till 3-4 AM, once told me at the end of one of our chats, that she thinks I'm a good person and all, but because I don't believe in Chris, will be going to hell. It showed me how she really views me: I'm a good person, but because I don't share a particular view point, I'm deserving of eternal torment.

That's exactly what I had as well. Christians probably don't think of it as persecution, but it's still not nice. They might be friendly to you and act nice, but deep inside, there's still hatred against atheists.

[Pradja]

Wait a minute

...

What?

What is faith? Belief that is not based on proof. By definition, anything within the noumenal 'arena' (or 'world' or area of our brain or whatever please you) lacks proof. We have no direct experience of it and any claim about it rests on a belief that lacks a logical proof. It doesn't take a full-blown, unrepentant, unreconstructed Kantian to agree with that.

It only takes someone who simply rejects the theistic concept, even without any conclusion or reason, just because they don't like, to be an atheist, therefore; no you are wrong.

[Samuraikoku]

Ok. I'm kinda bored of this thread now, there's no mature discussion going on, which was what I wanted. I've already stood up and said my piece, so now it's just group polarization and spam. So unless there's something vital I need to read, I'm off. But hit me a P.M or something if you need to.

I'll take that as a TKO.

[Imperiatom]

Safe in the sense that the governments don't have any policies toward religions or beliefs. And that most people in the West (specifically America and Canada because, again, haven't been to Europe), try not to start religious debates except perhaps with themselves.The moment you reveal to someone that you're atheist however, a shitstorm starts. Even well-mannered theists starts making up misconceptions about atheists and atheism.

Perhaps "persecution" is hyperbolic and it's generally safe for both theists and atheists, but I'm not fully comfortable living in the U.S as an atheist.

I wouldn't call it hyperbolic. Its certainly not physical persecution or anything compared to persecutions that existed in Nazi Germany or are going on in Africa, but its still persecution.

As an example, one of my best friends in college, with whom I had numerous religious, philosophical, etc discussions, often up till 3-4 AM, once told me at the end of one of our chats, that she thinks I'm a good person and all, but because I don't believe in Chris, will be going to hell. It showed me how she really views me: I'm a good person, but because I don't share a particular view point, I'm deserving of eternal torment.

I think her way of thinking just proves that even if god does exist that humans have the potential to be better on both a loving and moral level.

[Enadail]

Wait a minute

...

What?

What is faith? Belief that is not based on proof. By definition, anything within the noumenal 'arena' (or 'world' or area of our brain or whatever please you) lacks proof. We have no direct experience of it and any claim about it rests on a belief that lacks a logical proof. It doesn't take a full-blown, unrepentant, unreconstructed Kantian to agree with that.

faith
/fāTH/
Noun

Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.


Its pretty cut and dry: complete trust or faith in something, often without proof. Given most atheists don't completely reject the possibility of a God, its by no mean faith.

[The Amyclae]

Does God exist? If yes or no, then you're making a claim about the noumenal realm. Since we don't have any direct experience with it, we can never know and logically we can never say we know. Since atheism makes the claim 'no' by definition, then it is making a claim about something that lacks a logical proof.

That isn't what being an atheist means.
It means we lack theism, which is the belief in god.
We don't actively believe there is no god (not all of us.)

You don't seem to understand... Philosophy/logic.

You can't passively disagree with a premise. The negation of A and A are two claims about the world whether you make it "actively" or not.

[Imperiatom]

No as i don't believe in the Saṃsāra or the four truth's. so Buddhism can't possibly prove me wrong.

"So it is disbelief in religion in general."

You can be an atheist and a Buddhist. Atheism does not comment on religion in general, only religion in particular.

I know its not believing in a god but but if you are a Buddhist then you still have a belief in what might be described as supernatural.

[The Amyclae]

Does God exist? If yes or no, then you're making a claim about the noumenal realm. Since we don't have any direct experience with it, we can never know and logically we can never say we know. Since atheism makes the claim 'no' by definition, then it is making a claim about something that lacks a logical proof.

All you have to do, for you to be an atheist is think:

"I don't believe in god."


Not:

"God doesn't exist, and i'm 100% sure about that."

Thank you for proving the point. "I don't believe in god," as you make clear, does not have any logical proofs surrounding it. It's not a statement about the world, much less a monotheistic entity, but a statement of your own subjective worldview. That it is to say, a statement about your faith.

[Ostroeuropa]

That isn't what being an atheist means.
It means we lack theism, which is the belief in god.
We don't actively believe there is no god (not all of us.)

You don't seem to understand... Philosophy/logic.

You can't passively disagree with a premise. The negation of A and A are two claims about the world whether you make it "actively" or not.

...
Excuse me?
For one, "God exists" is a conclusion (Y), not a premise (X). It is entirely correct and consistent to disagree that in a statement of:
X, therefore Y.
can be disregarded on grounds of X being untrue or illogical, but still have absolutely no stance on whether Y is true.
I do not believe any argument for the existence of god proves his existence (I disregard X's.)
As a result, I lack any firm opinion on Y.
Don't condescend others by saying they don't understand something when you mix up premises and conclusions.

[Duvniask]

All you have to do, for you to be an atheist is think:

"I don't believe in god."


Not:

"God doesn't exist, and i'm 100% sure about that."

Thank you for proving the point. "I don't believe in god," as you make clear, does not have any logical proofs surrounding it. It's not a statement about the world, but a statement of your own subjective worldview. That it is to say, a statement about your faith.

Ugh, I mean holy shit.

Do you know where the burden of proof lies? It lies with the one claiming something.
By no means does an atheist have to claim, that they with certainty know, that god doesn't exist, rather that they see no evidence for it.

So it's not a faith.

[Ostroeuropa]

All you have to do, for you to be an atheist is think:

"I don't believe in god."


Not:

"God doesn't exist, and i'm 100% sure about that."

Thank you for proving the point. "I don't believe in god," as you make clear, does not have any logical proofs surrounding it. It's not a statement about the world, much less a monotheistic entity, but a statement of your own subjective worldview. That it is to say, a statement about your faith.

Is not collecting stamps a hobby?
To not believe in something means you simply lack belief in it.
It is different from active disbelief.

As an example, I am currently holding a lighter.
Do you believe me, or not?
Do you actively disbelieve me?

The fact such a simple thought experiment blows your argument out of the water demonstrates you havn't adjusted for your biases, suggesting you havn't ever actually read a philosophy book nor attended a class on the subject.

[The Amyclae]

You don't seem to understand... Philosophy/logic.

You can't passively disagree with a premise. The negation of A and A are two claims about the world whether you make it "actively" or not.

...
Excuse me?
For one, "God exists" is a conclusion (Y), not a premise (X). It is entirely correct and consistent to disagree that in a statement of:
X, therefore Y.

Actually, since we're talking about atheism the presence of God definitely seems like a premise. "Atheism is a faith," which is my contention, certainly sounds like a conclusion because it is one. A related conclusion could be God exists, but in this instance it is definitely a premise. Such as it were, I have been framing my replies around 'God does not exist thus I am an atheist' or alternatively 'God does exist thus I am theist.' Certainly, it would be inane and counterproductive to use the focus of the OP ('Is atheism a faith?') as a premise. It would beg the conclusion of whether atheism is a faith if the answer to it was embedded in a premise.

can be disregarded on grounds of X being untrue or illogical, but still have absolutely no stance on whether Y is true.
I do not believe any argument for the existence of god proves his existence (I disregard X's.)
As a result, I lack any firm opinion on Y.
Don't condescend others by saying they don't understand something when you mix up premises and conclusions.

Again, you prove the point. Anything regarding a claim about the noumenal realm is, by definition, beyond logical. That you make a claim that all proofs for the existence of God is illogical is, by definition, an illogical statement in of itself.