Atheism is a faith

[Free South Califas]

2. Faith in the evidence? Unless, you have performed all the experiments yourself?

Not even close, no. The scientific method has established standards in this area that date back centuries, justified by reason. No one person can perform an experiment in every field, let alone every experiment necessary to inform each and every scientific fact ze accepts. Most people perform exactly zero peer-reviewed studies in any discipline, yet we are all very confident in gravity and the structural integrity of the built things we rely on. Most scientists are lucky to get published in two sciences, yet biologists are capable of accepting facts of linguistics, and linguists facts of chemistry, etc. You fail to comprehend the fundamental difference between belief and acceptance. You do not believe the Earth revolves around the Sun, you either accept the evidence or you don't. That's an intellectual choice, not a feeling of trust.

IMO, the ideal stance is "There might be a god, but reason holds that there probably isn't".

Your ideal is antirational, then. It presumes things not in evidence. "There might be a god" only in the quantum sense in which I am just as likely to turn into a barrel of monkeys if I spin around really, really fast. There is no Barrelist movement, but that has no bearing on the evidence.

[Grave_n_idle]

Athiesm is not a faith. Faith is believing in something with no facts. Atheists only believe in facts. You sir are wrong.

Atheists can believe things with no evidence - the only thing they are united on, is the lack of belief in gods.

[Xathranaar]

A person who does not believe in a god, and thinks he or she can prove that those gods which people do believe in do not exist, is an agnostic theist?

Proof that mainstream religions are false does not justify gnostic atheism.

The point is: that's the form gnostic atheism tends to take.

And really, it's a tad unreasonable to demand otherwise. Given that there is no consistent definition of god, we can only deal in those definitions which are provided.

[Multiflow]

2. Faith in the evidence? Unless, you have performed all the experiments yourself?

Not even close, no. The scientific method has established standards in this area that date back centuries, justified by reason. No one person can perform an experiment in every field, let alone every experiment necessary to inform each and every scientific fact ze accepts. Most people perform exactly zero peer-reviewed studies in any discipline, yet we are all very confident in gravity and the structural integrity of the built things we rely on. Most scientists are lucky to get published in two sciences, yet biologists are capable of accepting facts of linguistics, and linguists facts of chemistry, etc. You fail to comprehend the fundamental difference between belief and acceptance. You do not believe the Earth revolves around the Sun, you either accept the evidence or you don't. That's an intellectual choice, not a feeling of trust.

Thank you for making my point.

[Minarchist States Of Equality]

Athiesm is not a faith. Faith is believing in something with no facts. Atheists only believe in facts. You sir are wrong.

Untrue. Atheists just lack belief in God. That doesn't mean they can't believe in all sorts of things that are not facts.

I mean, Christ, I have my objections to some of the ideas inherent to religion and to theism, but some atheist folks need to get over this whole mentality that they're so much smarter than those "dummy dum dum religious folks" they've got going on. And yes, your post does imply exactly that.

I can't wait until a secular world is finally forged and everyone realizes how much bullshit religion is.

Secularism and religion can co-exist. I look forward to the day more people realize this.

I never said that I'm smarter than you I'm just stating the definition of faith and religious wise we have none.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Untrue. Atheists just lack belief in God. That doesn't mean they can't believe in all sorts of things that are not facts.

I mean, Christ, I have my objections to some of the ideas inherent to religion and to theism, but some atheist folks need to get over this whole mentality that they're so much smarter than those "dummy dum dum religious folks" they've got going on. And yes, your post does imply exactly that.



Secularism and religion can co-exist. I look forward to the day more people realize this.

I never said that I'm smarter than you I'm just stating the definition of faith and religious wise we have none.

I'm an atheist.

I objected to your statement that atheists only beleive in facts. That isn't true.

[Conservative Idealism]

If atheists don't have faith but do believe in facts (which is a falsity, anyway), then why do they choose to ignore the following facts?

- Approximately 85% of the world's population (estimates range from between 80% and 90%) practices a religion or otherwise establishes a faith - just over one billion people, out of seven billion.
- Christianity, as a whole, has just over twice the following of all forms of irreligion, with more than two billion followers. Islam is also more widely practiced than the lack of religion.
- Nearly half (probably closer to 40%) of non-religious people hold belief in a higher power, but simply don't have a religious preference. This would indicate that there are just over five hundred million atheists/antitheists/apatheists.

Am I to understand that just 8% of the world's population (and a still minor 16% of the U.S.'s) seeks to dismiss very widely held beliefs as irrational? Oh, my God! /badpun

[Cannot think of a name]

Not even close, no. The scientific method has established standards in this area that date back centuries, justified by reason. No one person can perform an experiment in every field, let alone every experiment necessary to inform each and every scientific fact ze accepts. Most people perform exactly zero peer-reviewed studies in any discipline, yet we are all very confident in gravity and the structural integrity of the built things we rely on. Most scientists are lucky to get published in two sciences, yet biologists are capable of accepting facts of linguistics, and linguists facts of chemistry, etc. You fail to comprehend the fundamental difference between belief and acceptance. You do not believe the Earth revolves around the Sun, you either accept the evidence or you don't. That's an intellectual choice, not a feeling of trust.

Thank you for making my point.

By missing his?

[Copenhagen Metropolis]

When I just now read this thread title for some reason I thought it said "Atheism is a fish."

My two cents: atheism is faith in a lack of faith, so yes.

Atheism is not faith in a lack of faith

[Zottistan]

Proof that mainstream religions are false does not justify gnostic atheism.

The point is: that's the form gnostic atheism tends to take.

And really, it's a tad unreasonable to demand otherwise. Given that there is no consistent definition of god, we can only deal in those definitions which are provided.

Many of which are unfalsifiable. Hence gnostic theism is irrational and belief-based.

[Great Nepal]

If atheists don't have faith but do believe in facts (which is a falsity, anyway), then why do they choose to ignore the following facts?

- Approximately 85% of the world's population (estimates range from between 80% and 90%) practices a religion or otherwise establishes a faith - just over one billion people, out of seven billion.
- Christianity, as a whole, has just over twice the following of all forms of irreligion, with more than two billion followers. Islam is also more widely practiced than the lack of religion.
- Nearly half (probably closer to 40%) of non-religious people hold belief in a higher power, but simply don't have a religious preference. This would indicate that there are just over five hundred million atheists/antitheists/apatheists.

Am I to understand that just 8% of the world's population (and a still minor 16% of the U.S.'s) seeks to dismiss very widely held beliefs as irrational? Oh, my God! /badpun

Argumentum ad populum. You lose.

[Individuality-ness]

If atheists don't have faith but do believe in facts (which is a falsity, anyway), then why do they choose to ignore the following facts?

- Approximately 85% of the world's population (estimates range from between 80% and 90%) practices a religion or otherwise establishes a faith - just over one billion people, out of seven billion.
- Christianity, as a whole, has just over twice the following of all forms of irreligion, with more than two billion followers. Islam is also more widely practiced than the lack of religion.
- Nearly half (probably closer to 40%) of non-religious people hold belief in a higher power, but simply don't have a religious preference. This would indicate that there are just over five hundred million atheists/antitheists/apatheists.

Am I to understand that just 8% of the world's population (and a still minor 16% of the U.S.'s) seeks to dismiss very widely held beliefs as irrational? Oh, my God! /badpun

And? Just because it's a popular idea doesn't mean that it's sound. I'm not ignoring it, I'm just saying that's a logical fallacy.

[Xathranaar]

If atheists don't have faith but do believe in facts (which is a falsity, anyway), then why do they choose to ignore the following facts?

- Approximately 85% of the world's population (estimates range from between 80% and 90%) practices a religion or otherwise establishes a faith - just over one billion people, out of seven billion.
- Christianity, as a whole, has just over twice the following of all forms of irreligion, with more than two billion followers. Islam is also more widely practiced than the lack of religion.
- Nearly half (probably closer to 40%) of non-religious people hold belief in a higher power, but simply don't have a religious preference. This would indicate that there are just over five hundred million atheists/antitheists/apatheists.

Am I to understand that just 8% of the world's population (and a still minor 16% of the U.S.'s) seeks to dismiss very widely held beliefs as irrational? Oh, my God! /badpun

As far as I know, no atheist has ever ignored these.

Or perhaps you think that being numerous somehow proves you right?

[Choronzon]

If atheists don't have faith but do believe in facts (which is a falsity, anyway), then why do they choose to ignore the following facts?

- Approximately 85% of the world's population (estimates range from between 80% and 90%) practices a religion or otherwise establishes a faith - just over one billion people, out of seven billion.
- Christianity, as a whole, has just over twice the following of all forms of irreligion, with more than two billion followers. Islam is also more widely practiced than the lack of religion.
- Nearly half (probably closer to 40%) of non-religious people hold belief in a higher power, but simply don't have a religious preference. This would indicate that there are just over five hundred million atheists/antitheists/apatheists.

What a shit argument.

This is all well and good, but completely irrelevant to the truth of an idea. The majority of humanity believed all kinds of stupid shit throughout our history. Shit that we now know is shit because 8% of the population challenged it.

[Mavorpen]

Am I to understand that just 8% of the world's population (and a still minor 16% of the U.S.'s) seeks to dismiss very widely held beliefs as irrational? Oh, my God! /badpun

Yes.

[Cannot think of a name]

If atheists don't have faith but do believe in facts (which is a falsity, anyway), then why do they choose to ignore the following facts?

- Approximately 85% of the world's population (estimates range from between 80% and 90%) practices a religion or otherwise establishes a faith - just over one billion people, out of seven billion.
- Christianity, as a whole, has just over twice the following of all forms of irreligion, with more than two billion followers. Islam is also more widely practiced than the lack of religion.
- Nearly half (probably closer to 40%) of non-religious people hold belief in a higher power, but simply don't have a religious preference. This would indicate that there are just over five hundred million atheists/antitheists/apatheists.

Am I to understand that just 8% of the world's population (and a still minor 16% of the U.S.'s) seeks to dismiss very widely held beliefs as irrational? Oh, my God! /badpun

I'm not sure how you get the impression that they ignore those facts as much as are crushingly aware of them...where do you get the impression that they ignore them? Moreover, what is it you think those numbers prove?

[Individuality-ness]

If atheists don't have faith but do believe in facts (which is a falsity, anyway), then why do they choose to ignore the following facts?

- Approximately 85% of the world's population (estimates range from between 80% and 90%) practices a religion or otherwise establishes a faith - just over one billion people, out of seven billion.
- Christianity, as a whole, has just over twice the following of all forms of irreligion, with more than two billion followers. Islam is also more widely practiced than the lack of religion.
- Nearly half (probably closer to 40%) of non-religious people hold belief in a higher power, but simply don't have a religious preference. This would indicate that there are just over five hundred million atheists/antitheists/apatheists.

Am I to understand that just 8% of the world's population (and a still minor 16% of the U.S.'s) seeks to dismiss very widely held beliefs as irrational? Oh, my God! /badpun

Argumentum ad populum. You loose.

lose*

[Choronzon]

If atheists don't have faith but do believe in facts (which is a falsity, anyway), then why do they choose to ignore the following facts?

- Approximately 85% of the world's population (estimates range from between 80% and 90%) practices a religion or otherwise establishes a faith - just over one billion people, out of seven billion.
- Christianity, as a whole, has just over twice the following of all forms of irreligion, with more than two billion followers. Islam is also more widely practiced than the lack of religion.
- Nearly half (probably closer to 40%) of non-religious people hold belief in a higher power, but simply don't have a religious preference. This would indicate that there are just over five hundred million atheists/antitheists/apatheists.

Am I to understand that just 8% of the world's population (and a still minor 16% of the U.S.'s) seeks to dismiss very widely held beliefs as irrational? Oh, my God! /badpun

As far as I know, no atheist has ever ignored these.

Or perhaps you think that being numerous somehow proves you right?

One million Elvis fans can't be wrong!

[Cannot think of a name]

I didn't just get ninja'd, I got ninja'd Foot style.

[EnragedMaldivians]

If atheists don't have faith but do believe in facts (which is a falsity, anyway), then why do they choose to ignore the following facts?

- Approximately 85% of the world's population (estimates range from between 80% and 90%) practices a religion or otherwise establishes a faith - just over one billion people, out of seven billion.
- Christianity, as a whole, has just over twice the following of all forms of irreligion, with more than two billion followers. Islam is also more widely practiced than the lack of religion.
- Nearly half (probably closer to 40%) of non-religious people hold belief in a higher power, but simply don't have a religious preference. This would indicate that there are just over five hundred million atheists/antitheists/apatheists.

Am I to understand that just 8% of the world's population (and a still minor 16% of the U.S.'s) seeks to dismiss very widely held beliefs as irrational? Oh, my God! /badpun

Was Christianity less right under Nero's reign than it is today? Did it become more right as it increased in number of adherents as a proportion of the world population? Is Islam currently the second "most right" religion in the world?

[New England and The Maritimes]

Nope, an absence of faith.

[Xathranaar]

If atheists don't have faith but do believe in facts (which is a falsity, anyway), then why do they choose to ignore the following facts?

- Approximately 85% of the world's population (estimates range from between 80% and 90%) practices a religion or otherwise establishes a faith - just over one billion people, out of seven billion.
- Christianity, as a whole, has just over twice the following of all forms of irreligion, with more than two billion followers. Islam is also more widely practiced than the lack of religion.
- Nearly half (probably closer to 40%) of non-religious people hold belief in a higher power, but simply don't have a religious preference. This would indicate that there are just over five hundred million atheists/antitheists/apatheists.

What a shit argument.

This is all well and good, but completely irrelevant to the truth of an idea. The majority of humanity believed all kinds of stupid shit throughout our history. Shit that we now know is shit because 8% of the population challenged it.

And really, Christians should know this.

What percentage of the world population was Christian in 30 AD?

I guess that proves that Ahura Mazda is the one true god.

[Minarchist States Of Equality]

If atheists don't have faith but do believe in facts (which is a falsity, anyway), then why do they choose to ignore the following facts?

- Approximately 85% of the world's population (estimates range from between 80% and 90%) practices a religion or otherwise establishes a faith - just over one billion people, out of seven billion.
- Christianity, as a whole, has just over twice the following of all forms of irreligion, with more than two billion followers. Islam is also more widely practiced than the lack of religion.
- Nearly half (probably closer to 40%) of non-religious people hold belief in a higher power, but simply don't have a religious preference. This would indicate that there are just over five hundred million atheists/antitheists/apatheists.

Am I to understand that just 8% of the world's population (and a still minor 16% of the U.S.'s) seeks to dismiss very widely held beliefs as irrational? Oh, my God! /badpun

Religion is adults that refuse to let go of their imaginary friends.

[Free South Califas]

Not even close, no. The scientific method has established standards in this area that date back centuries, justified by reason. No one person can perform an experiment in every field, let alone every experiment necessary to inform each and every scientific fact ze accepts. Most people perform exactly zero peer-reviewed studies in any discipline, yet we are all very confident in gravity and the structural integrity of the built things we rely on. Most scientists are lucky to get published in two sciences, yet biologists are capable of accepting facts of linguistics, and linguists facts of chemistry, etc. You fail to comprehend the fundamental difference between belief and acceptance. You do not believe the Earth revolves around the Sun, you either accept the evidence or you don't. That's an intellectual choice, not a feeling of trust.

Thank you for making my point.

I did no such thing. You fail to understand my post. Accepting the evidence is not equivalent to simply appealing to authority. You may be unable to comprehend the process of applying reason to test evidence, but not everyone is so deeply disabled. An effective teacher can model the process of critical thinking, but if you simply appeal to her authority as a justification for believing the things she says, she has taught you nothing.

The belief without evidence in not believing things without evidence?

That, my friend, is called a "deepity." To the extent that it is true it is trivial, to the extent that it is profound it is false.

Yes, faith in not taking things on faith. That is, atheists trust (ie have faith) that there is nothings to be known in the universe that cannot be known without evidence,

No. No faith is required to accept the null hypothesis by default; that is accomplished through reason. You are twisting the word around to the point where it hardly means anything.

For example, I have no faith whatsoever in the proposition that frogs are incapable of wielding swords. I do not place my faith in the notion that frogs are incapable of wielding swords. Never have I believed such a thing. Faith would be required to believe that frogs can wield swords; "have a little faith" only works in that direction. I do not believe, but merely accept that frogs cannot wield swords.

We all have faith in the education that we have received, that it is right and correct. Have you tested that education, personally seen the veracity of its claims? Or do you rely on what others have said, because of the authority given them?

Appeal to authority is not relevant to the scientific method. If anyone thinks they understand science on the authority of science teachers, they are wrong, as such a thing is impossible.

Reread what I wrote, it applies to both sides.

No, it does not, and that is not a neutral argument.

[Minarchist States Of Equality]

I never said that I'm smarter than you I'm just stating the definition of faith and religious wise we have none.

I'm an atheist.
I objected to your statement that atheists only beleive in facts. That isn't true.

They only believe in facts religiously.