Atheism is a faith

[Grave_n_idle]

I know many atheists who wish they were not. You seem to be spending an enormous amount of energy trying to paint atheists into your preconceptions.

Then why are they atheists? If they maintain there atheism while still having a strong desire to not be atheist, then they must have faith in the validity of their position.

That's not a logical conclusion.

The reason Atheists are Atheists is because they don't believe in gods. It's that simple.

[Xathranaar]

Your definition of faith encompasses all belief and all lack of belief. You've made it a meaningless word.

Faith is not belief, faith is trust. You can believe something without trusting in it. However at a most basic level we trust our senses (at least most of the time) and our basic outlook on life.

That is where this quote comes in:
"Men educated in [the critical habit of thought] … are slow to believe. They can hold things as possible or probable in all degrees, without certainty and without pain."

I consider it possible that my senses are deceived, I am not certain I can trust them. At the end of the day, practical considerations force me to behave as if my senses are usually accurate.

[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

Argumentum ad populum. You lose.

Stopum pretendingum you'reum rightum. I'm claiming that it is irrational for a minority to belittle a majority, not saying that everyone should be Christian because that's the dominant faith. I do not lose.

[Xathranaar]

Argumentum ad populum. You lose.

Stopum pretendingum you'reum rightum. I'm claiming that it is irrational for a minority to belittle a majority, not saying that everyone should be Christian because that's the dominant faith. I do not lose.

If this were the case, Christianity and Islam would never have developed a following. You indeed lose.

[Agymnum]

Argumentum ad populum. You lose.

Stopum pretendingum you'reum rightum. I'm claiming that it is irrational for a minority to belittle a majority, not saying that everyone should be Christian because that's the dominant faith. I do not lose.

The difference being that argumentum ad populum is a fallacy, whereas "Stopum pretendingum you'reum rightum" is a bad attempt at pig latin.

Just because the majority says it is right, does not make it right. That's the key to argumentum ad populum.

See the definition:

In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."

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

[Great Nepal]

Argumentum ad populum. You lose.

Stopum pretendingum you'reum rightum. I'm claiming that it is irrational for a minority to belittle a majority, not saying that everyone should be Christian because that's the dominant faith. I do not lose.

Learn what argumentum ad populum is.
A belief held by majority doesn't make the belief true so number of believers are irrelevant.

[Ordya]

That argument doesn't make any sense.

EDIT: Directed at Conservative Idealism.

[Multiflow]

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.

And you seem to fail to understand mine.
"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." This is exactly what I am saying.

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.

Again, I am saying the same thing.

Each time you stating the same thing I said in different form. I am not disagreeing with you. That is why my comment of saying thank you for making my point.

[Jullin]

Then why are they atheists? If they maintain there atheism while still having a strong desire to not be atheist, then they must have faith in the validity of their position.

Try and force yourself to believe that the sky is green with purple dots. If you can force yourself to believe that successfully, then you've more control over your own nature than anybody I've ever met. We can only believe what we believe. We can't forcibly take up faith.

One can lack a belief in a god and still appreciate the comfort that people must get from faith in god, and the thought of a happy afterlife.

[Individuality-ness]

Argumentum ad populum. You lose.

Stopum pretendingum you'reum rightum. I'm claiming that it is irrational for a minority to belittle a majority, not saying that everyone should be Christian because that's the dominant faith. I do not lose.

Progress stops. Religion does not exist. You still lose.

[Buddha Punk Robot Monks]

Faith does not always have to involve certainty.

Look, I'm going to make this very simple: Does it require faith for me to assume that gravity will still be working when next I step foot outside? Because that's sort of the baseline for how my beliefs work. They are consistently indicated true when tested.

Now your answer can be whatever you like, but realize that if you are going to call that faith, then your definition is so demented as to be useless.

Why does faith in a proposition, such as the sun rising every day, suddenly cease to be faith when it is constantly validated? Would faith in god suddenly cease to be faith if god wrote "I AM HERE ASSHOLES!" in the sky? Lack or presence of evidence has absolutely nothing to do with faith. Faith is a general trust in a particular quality of a phenomenon.

[Agymnum]

Look, I'm going to make this very simple: Does it require faith for me to assume that gravity will still be working when next I step foot outside? Because that's sort of the baseline for how my beliefs work. They are consistently indicated true when tested.

Now your answer can be whatever you like, but realize that if you are going to call that faith, then your definition is so demented as to be useless.

Why does faith in a proposition, such as the sun rising every day, suddenly cease to be faith when it is constantly validated? Would faith in god suddenly cease to be faith if god wrote "I AM HERE ASSHOLES!" in the sky? Lack or presence of evidence has absolutely nothing to do with faith. Faith is a general trust in a particular quality of a phenomenon.

Faith is general trust in a particular quality of a phenomenon without proof.

Note the without proof part. If it's proven, it takes no faith to believe.

Hence, I don't put faith in scientific theory, because scientific theory has sufficient proof to believe without needing to suspend logic (a key tenet of faith).

[Ordya]

Look, I'm going to make this very simple: Does it require faith for me to assume that gravity will still be working when next I step foot outside? Because that's sort of the baseline for how my beliefs work. They are consistently indicated true when tested.

Now your answer can be whatever you like, but realize that if you are going to call that faith, then your definition is so demented as to be useless.

Why does faith in a proposition, such as the sun rising every day, suddenly cease to be faith when it is constantly validated? Would faith in god suddenly cease to be faith if god wrote "I AM HERE ASSHOLES!" in the sky? Lack or presence of evidence has absolutely nothing to do with faith. Faith is a general trust in a particular quality of a phenomenon.

Faith is the belief in more than what you know.

[Conservative Idealism]

Stopum pretendingum you'reum rightum. I'm claiming that it is irrational for a minority to belittle a majority, not saying that everyone should be Christian because that's the dominant faith. I do not lose.

Learn what argumentum ad populum is.
A belief held by majority doesn't make the belief true so number of believers are irrelevant.

I figured that part out. What I can't figure out is why pointing out that irreligion has a much smaller following than religion falls under the fallacy. I'm not using it to prove an argument unrelated to it (that would be non sequitur, or something along those lines). I'm using it to put the whole idea into perspective.

[Xathranaar]

Look, I'm going to make this very simple: Does it require faith for me to assume that gravity will still be working when next I step foot outside? Because that's sort of the baseline for how my beliefs work. They are consistently indicated true when tested.

Now your answer can be whatever you like, but realize that if you are going to call that faith, then your definition is so demented as to be useless.

Why does faith in a proposition, such as the sun rising every day, suddenly cease to be faith when it is constantly validated? Would faith in god suddenly cease to be faith if god wrote "I AM HERE ASSHOLES!" in the sky? Lack or presence of evidence has absolutely nothing to do with faith. Faith is a general trust in a particular quality of a phenomenon.

It's not faith, it is pattern recognization. I didn't come up with the belief that there is this thing called the sun that seems to rise and set in the sky, I just noticed that it happens, and noticed that it seems to happen often; even regularly.

Yes, faith would not be faith if there were proof.

[Individuality-ness]

Learn what argumentum ad populum is.
A belief held by majority doesn't make the belief true so number of believers are irrelevant.

I figured that part out. What I can't figure out is why pointing out that irreligion has a much smaller following than religion falls under the fallacy. I'm not using it to prove an argument unrelated to it (that would be non sequitur, or something along those lines). I'm using it to put the whole idea into perspective.

Because you're claiming that popularity in an idea makes it valid. That's a logical fallacy.

[Choronzon]

Stopum pretendingum you'reum rightum. I'm claiming that it is irrational for a minority to belittle a majority, not saying that everyone should be Christian because that's the dominant faith. I do not lose.

Why is it irrational? And can you make your argument without appealing to the bandwagoning effect?

[Great Nepal]

Learn what argumentum ad populum is.
A belief held by majority doesn't make the belief true so number of believers are irrelevant.

I figured that part out. What I can't figure out is why pointing out that irreligion has a much smaller following than religion falls under the fallacy. I'm not using it to prove an argument unrelated to it (that would be non sequitur, or something along those lines). I'm using it to put the whole idea into perspective.

Perspective being that number of people on either side is irrelevant.

[Agymnum]

Learn what argumentum ad populum is.
A belief held by majority doesn't make the belief true so number of believers are irrelevant.

I figured that part out. What I can't figure out is why pointing out that irreligion has a much smaller following than religion falls under the fallacy. I'm not using it to prove an argument unrelated to it (that would be non sequitur, or something along those lines). I'm using it to put the whole idea into perspective.

You're trying to claim that irreligion/atheism are illogical on the basis of number of adherents.

You're using argumentum ad populum to accomplish this. Your claim is that it's ridiculous for a few to ridicule the many on the basis that "if more believe, who are the few to say that they are wrong?"

Regardless of what the majority believe, what is wrong will remain wrong and what is right will remain right.

[Xathranaar]

Learn what argumentum ad populum is.
A belief held by majority doesn't make the belief true so number of believers are irrelevant.

I figured that part out. What I can't figure out is why pointing out that irreligion has a much smaller following than religion falls under the fallacy. I'm not using it to prove an argument unrelated to it (that would be non sequitur, or something along those lines). I'm using it to put the whole idea into perspective.

Here's hoping you eventually go the way of Conservative Morality, because as it stands you're not telling us anything we don't know; but you are telling us in a way that is suggestive of some form of critique, which you are clearly incapable of following up on.

[Copenhagen Metropolis]

Argumentum ad populum. You lose.

I'm claiming that it is irrational for a minority to belittle a majority

Why?

You do know that those who believe in the Christian god is a minority, right? By your ''logic'' that means that your god doesn't exist.

You are also aware of the fact that a majority once thought that the Earth was flat - but that it actually isn't...?

I do not lose.

You most certainly do.

[Conservative Idealism]

I figured that part out. What I can't figure out is why pointing out that irreligion has a much smaller following than religion falls under the fallacy. I'm not using it to prove an argument unrelated to it (that would be non sequitur, or something along those lines). I'm using it to put the whole idea into perspective.

You're trying to claim that irreligion/atheism are illogical on the basis of number of adherents.

You're using argumentum ad populum to accomplish this. Your claim is that it's ridiculous for a few to ridicule the many on the basis that "if more believe, who are the few to say that they are wrong?"

Regardless of what the majority believe, what is wrong will remain wrong and what is right will remain right.

I'm actually making an inverse of that claim.

I find it perfectly logical that there are people that deny belief in any God, seeing as there are so many who deny mine in particular.

What I find illogical is that many atheists find religion completely illogical despite its number of adherents. If more believe, who are the few to say that the more never should have believed in the first place?

[The Itating Stoner Bear]

Why does faith in a proposition, such as the sun rising every day, suddenly cease to be faith when it is constantly validated? Would faith in god suddenly cease to be faith if god wrote "I AM HERE ASSHOLES!" in the sky? Lack or presence of evidence has absolutely nothing to do with faith. Faith is a general trust in a particular quality of a phenomenon.

Faith is general trust in a particular quality of a phenomenon without proof.

Note the without proof part. If it's proven, it takes no faith to believe.

Hence, I don't put faith in scientific theory, because scientific theory has sufficient proof to believe without needing to suspend logic (a key tenet of faith).

That's a silly definition. If we are talking about the same phenomenon within the human of trusting a particular phenomenon, the process is the same whether there is proof for it or not. Same activity, yet you are tryng to divide it into two seperate activities.

[Xathranaar]

You're trying to claim that irreligion/atheism are illogical on the basis of number of adherents.

You're using argumentum ad populum to accomplish this. Your claim is that it's ridiculous for a few to ridicule the many on the basis that "if more believe, who are the few to say that they are wrong?"

Regardless of what the majority believe, what is wrong will remain wrong and what is right will remain right.

I'm actually making an inverse of that claim.

I find it perfectly logical that there are people that deny belief in any God, seeing as there are so many who deny mine in particular.

What I find illogical is that many atheists find religion completely illogical despite its number of adherents. If more believe, who are the few to say that the more never should have believed in the first place?

Replace theism with slavery, or atheism with women's suffrage, and see how that argument works for you.

[Great Nepal]

You're trying to claim that irreligion/atheism are illogical on the basis of number of adherents.

You're using argumentum ad populum to accomplish this. Your claim is that it's ridiculous for a few to ridicule the many on the basis that "if more believe, who are the few to say that they are wrong?"

Regardless of what the majority believe, what is wrong will remain wrong and what is right will remain right.

I'm actually making an inverse of that claim.

I find it perfectly logical that there are people that deny belief in any God, seeing as there are so many who deny mine in particular.

What I find illogical is that many atheists find religion completely illogical despite its number of adherents. If more believe, who are the few to say that the more never should have believed in the first place?

Because number of adherents is irrelevant.
Something illogical will be illogical and something logical will be logical regardless of how many people there are in either side.