Is Atheism faith?

[Len Hyet]

NO IT IS NOT. IF ANYONE SAYS ELSE LOOK AT MY FLAG AND READ IT.

Mkay, few things buddy.

1) Lose the caps lock. Shouting just makes you look immature.

2) If someone says "Atheism is a Faith" your response is "Come and take it". Which makes no sense. Unless you're threatening them with the assault rifle on your flag, which is a big nono on NSG.

[Sun Wukong]

NO IT IS NOT. IF ANYONE SAYS ELSE LOOK AT MY FLAG AND READ IT.

"Last edited by Qwertywerty on Sun Jan 26, 2014 4:27 pm, edited 1 time in total."

The most worrisome aspect of this post, is that this is the 'improved' version.

[The Broken Russian States]

NO IT IS NOT. IF ANYONE SAYS ELSE LOOK AT MY FLAG AND READ IT.

"Last edited by Qwertywerty on Sun Jan 26, 2014 4:27 pm, edited 1 time in total."

The most worrisome aspect of this post, is that this is the 'improved' version.

He had an image that didn't work

[United Prefectures of Appia]

If Atheism is a religion, then having a bald head is a hairstyle. Your high school buddies telling you not to jump off a bridge is peer pressure, or that your mother nags you for the habit of not smoking. Or perhaps not collecting stamps is a hobby. Engaging in abstinence with your girlfriend is a form of sexual position.

[Mavorpen]

If Atheism is a religion, then having a bald head is a hairstyle. Your high school buddies telling you not to jump off a bridge is peer pressure, or that your mother nags you for the habit of not smoking. Or perhaps not collecting stamps is a hobby. Engaging in abstinence with your girlfriend is a form of sexual position.

The bald example is rather poor, considering that bald CAN be a hairstyle. It not being a hair color is more accurate.

[Threlizdun]

No, a lack of belief does not necessitate faith, unless you are about to propose that infants have faith in the nonexistence of a deity.

Infants don't know anything about such things, any more than animals do. That said, I agree that lack of belief in an existence does not necessarily mean faith in a nonexistence.

Not having any knowledge about theism prevents them from being theism. Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, hence Atheism. If an infant does not believe in a deity then it is an atheist.

[Sociobiology]

If Atheism is a religion, then having a bald head is a hairstyle. Your high school buddies telling you not to jump off a bridge is peer pressure, or that your mother nags you for the habit of not smoking. Or perhaps not collecting stamps is a hobby. Engaging in abstinence with your girlfriend is a form of sexual position.

The bald example is rather poor, considering that bald CAN be a hairstyle. It not being a hair color is more accurate.

actually it can't be a hair style shaved however can.

[Sociobiology]

Any decision on the theism question requires some measure of faith, the only position not requiring faith is that of an agnostic.

Some agnostics are theists. They believe in a god (or gods) but accept it is impossible to know for sure.

Agnosticism is still not a 'third way' between belief and disbelief.

sure it is, it just depends on the type.

[Euronion]

It most certainly is.

[Sun Wukong]

It most certainly is.

And just because everyone who is an atheists insists that they don't have faith is no reason to doubt that.

[Euronion]

It most certainly is.

And just because everyone who is an atheists insists that they don't have faith is no reason to doubt that.

I've encountered many people in my life and none of them insist that their ideology or the tenets of their ideology are false. I have met many atheists who quote Dawkins and other prominent atheists like a Southern Texas Grandma quotes the bible. Both insist beyond reasonable doubt that they are right and every one who disagrees with them is wrong. I'm not an atheist nor would I wish to be one. I am so devout in my belief of God because the evidence of God satisfies me. The way that so many atheists push their views tells me that they are rather confident that there is no God. Yet there is no evidence for there belief. Atheists insist that there is no evidence but the fact is that there IS evidence, they just aren't willing to accept it. If you want to be an atheist I don't have a problem with it as long as you don't insult me for my religious beliefs (though so often you do but that's another discussion for another time). I find the debate between religion and atheism to be much like a discussion between two cavemen about whether the Earth is round or flat. Only one is right but neither can provide the evidence to prove it. The logic of atheism is that there is no God because there is no evidence of God, though I find that logic to be flawed as one cannot say there is no evidence of God when one does not know what God is.

Allow me to demonstrate. If I said "I do not believe in Fundaloons because there is no evidence for Fundaloons" but did not know what the properties of Fundaloons were, it would be rather illogical for me to say that there was no evidence for the existence of Fundaloons. The same is true for God. We do not know the properties of God because we do not have a set criteria for what God is. Yes yes we have the "omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent" criteria, but when trying to find proof for something, that is really nothing to go on. We can say that for good measure that the Ancient Greek Gods do not exist as they are said to live at the top of Mount Olympus. Since there is nothing at the top of Mount Olympus we can be assured that there is really no evidence for the existence of the Ancient Greek Gods living at the top of Mount Olympus. The problem with trying to disprove a god of the abrahamic religion is that there are no set properties. We do not know where this God lives, we do not know where this God controls the world, we do not know this God's properties at all. He or She or It could be being or pure energy or who knows what. To say "there is no evidence of God" when not even knowing the properties of God and then coming to the conclusion that there is no God IS a leap of faith. You are assuming that there is no evidence for a being that you do not even know the properties of without any evidence to support it. We have the burden of proof, by stating a positive I must provide evidence of God's existence. Though will you believe me? No, you won't believe me because no matter how much evidence I find and present you will deny it and claim it to be circumstance. You are relying completely on faith, the faith that anything and everything ever presented in support of religion is false.

Let's go beyond human religions however. Everyone seems to focus on the abrahamic or other major religions on Earth, but has the thought ever struck you that we might all be wrong? That there is in fact a deity out there but it doesn't concern itself with humans. A deity that has had zero contact and zero influence on civilization. This is entirely a possibility. It would explain why we humans lack the "compelling evidence" to convince everyone on Earth of the existence of God. A far more logical position would be "I do not know if there is a God or if there is not a God as I am not in possession of all the facts and evidence and can never be in possession of all the facts and evidence." Though instead of assuming the position of neutrality, atheists assume that - granted this is only in my experience - after reading the Bible and maybe looking into Hinduism that there is no God. So yes, Atheism is faith because atheists do not assume the logically neutral position. They make a decision that there is no God because they alone have not seen the facts and the evidence. It is not the faith in some kind of higher power, it is a faith in not only one's self ability to be in possession of all the necessary facts and evidence to make such a decision. No matter what you say, you are relying on faith.

[Grave_n_idle]

Some agnostics are theists. They believe in a god (or gods) but accept it is impossible to know for sure.

Agnosticism is still not a 'third way' between belief and disbelief.

sure it is, it just depends on the type.

No, there is no type of agnosticism that is a 'third way' between belief and disbelief. There is no space for a 'third way' - if you don't believe, you lack belief.

Agnosticism doesn't even answer the same question. It's like arguing that the halfway stage between breakfast and no-breakfast is balloons.

[Grave_n_idle]

I've encountered many people in my life and none of them insist that their ideology or the tenets of their ideology are false. I have met many atheists who quote Dawkins and other prominent atheists like a Southern Texas Grandma quotes the bible.

I find this unusual - since I've never met an atheist who quoted Dawkins as though they were quoting scripture.

Both insist beyond reasonable doubt that they are right and every one who disagrees with them is wrong.

Again, this doesn't come close to matching my own experience. Most of the atheists I've ever met have conceded that there COULD be a god, but that they just didn't believe in it.

I'm not an atheist nor would I wish to be one. I am so devout in my belief of God because the evidence of God satisfies me.

I wish I could believe what I wanted to believe, because it would make me feel comfortable. Unfortunately, I just can't make myself believe something without any kind of evidence.

The way that so many atheists push their views tells me that they are rather confident that there is no God. Yet there is no evidence for there belief.

On the contrary, the lack of evidence IS, itself, evidence of absence.

Atheists insist that there is no evidence but the fact is that there IS evidence, they just aren't willing to accept it.

Again, on the contrary - I would be more than willing to accept evidence - I've just never seen any that is both compelling and the ONLY possible explanation. Indeed, I've yet to see a single instance where 'god did it' is even the BEST explanation.

If you want to be an atheist...

I don't want to, as it happens. But it's what you are when you're not a theist. I'm an atheist by default, not choice.

...I don't have a problem with it as long as you don't insult me for my religious beliefs (though so often you do but that's another discussion for another time). I find the debate between religion and atheism to be much like a discussion between two cavemen about whether the Earth is round or flat. Only one is right but neither can provide the evidence to prove it. The logic of atheism is that there is no God because there is no evidence of God, though I find that logic to be flawed as one cannot say there is no evidence of God when one does not know what God is.

Allow me to demonstrate. If I said "I do not believe in Fundaloons because there is no evidence for Fundaloons" but did not know what the properties of Fundaloons were, it would be rather illogical for me to say that there was no evidence for the existence of Fundaloons.

In your example, the only logical position would be to be fundaloon-skeptical. Arguing that you can't not believe in something because you can't accurately describe it isn't even logical, and the default is doubt, not belief in the undefined.

[Furious Grandmothers]

And just because everyone who is an atheists insists that they don't have faith is no reason to doubt that.

I've encountered many people in my life and none of them insist that their ideology or the tenets of their ideology are false. I have met many atheists who quote Dawkins and other prominent atheists like a Southern Texas Grandma quotes the bible. Both insist beyond reasonable doubt that they are right and every one who disagrees with them is wrong. I'm not an atheist nor would I wish to be one. I am so devout in my belief of God because the evidence of God satisfies me. The way that so many atheists push their views tells me that they are rather confident that there is no God. Yet there is no evidence for there belief. Atheists insist that there is no evidence but the fact is that there IS evidence, they just aren't willing to accept it. If you want to be an atheist I don't have a problem with it as long as you don't insult me for my religious beliefs (though so often you do but that's another discussion for another time). I find the debate between religion and atheism to be much like a discussion between two cavemen about whether the Earth is round or flat. Only one is right but neither can provide the evidence to prove it. The logic of atheism is that there is no God because there is no evidence of God, though I find that logic to be flawed as one cannot say there is no evidence of God when one does not know what God is.

Allow me to demonstrate. If I said "I do not believe in Fundaloons because there is no evidence for Fundaloons" but did not know what the properties of Fundaloons were, it would be rather illogical for me to say that there was no evidence for the existence of Fundaloons. The same is true for God. We do not know the properties of God because we do not have a set criteria for what God is. Yes yes we have the "omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent" criteria, but when trying to find proof for something, that is really nothing to go on. We can say that for good measure that the Ancient Greek Gods do not exist as they are said to live at the top of Mount Olympus. Since there is nothing at the top of Mount Olympus we can be assured that there is really no evidence for the existence of the Ancient Greek Gods living at the top of Mount Olympus. The problem with trying to disprove a god of the abrahamic religion is that there are no set properties. We do not know where this God lives, we do not know where this God controls the world, we do not know this God's properties at all. He or She or It could be being or pure energy or who knows what. To say "there is no evidence of God" when not even knowing the properties of God and then coming to the conclusion that there is no God IS a leap of faith. You are assuming that there is no evidence for a being that you do not even know the properties of without any evidence to support it. We have the burden of proof, by stating a positive I must provide evidence of God's existence. Though will you believe me? No, you won't believe me because no matter how much evidence I find and present you will deny it and claim it to be circumstance. You are relying completely on faith, the faith that anything and everything ever presented in support of religion is false.

Let's go beyond human religions however. Everyone seems to focus on the abrahamic or other major religions on Earth, but has the thought ever struck you that we might all be wrong? That there is in fact a deity out there but it doesn't concern itself with humans. A deity that has had zero contact and zero influence on civilization. This is entirely a possibility. It would explain why we humans lack the "compelling evidence" to convince everyone on Earth of the existence of God. A far more logical position would be "I do not know if there is a God or if there is not a God as I am not in possession of all the facts and evidence and can never be in possession of all the facts and evidence." Though instead of assuming the position of neutrality, atheists assume that - granted this is only in my experience - after reading the Bible and maybe looking into Hinduism that there is no God. So yes, Atheism is faith because atheists do not assume the logically neutral position. They make a decision that there is no God because they alone have not seen the facts and the evidence. It is not the faith in some kind of higher power, it is a faith in not only one's self ability to be in possession of all the necessary facts and evidence to make such a decision. No matter what you say, you are relying on faith.

You're misrepresenting atheists. "I do not know if there is a God or if there is not a God as I am not in possession of all the facts and evidence and can never be in possession of all the facts and evidence." indeed reflects my position, and I believe, the position of many agnostic atheists and nontheists (where applicable). I believe the null hypothesis has been brought to your attention multiple times over the years? That explains the lack of faith in deities - NOT, as seems to be a common misinterpretation, the faith in the lack of deities. Also, there is evidence for the Earth being flat - the horizon is flat. There is evidence for the Sun orbiting the Earth - it looks just like that to anyone who couldn't have known better. However, what separates evidence for the rejection of the null hypothesis in the case of one particular claim, and the rejection of the null hypothesis in the case of another competing claim, would be how accurate a prediction can be made from each claim. It is not to my knowledge that any theistic religion even meets the requirement of coming up with any falsifiable predictions, or any that have yet to be proven wrong yet not for lack of trying or technological capability.

E: Actually, "I do not know if there is a God or if there is not a God as I am not in possession of all the facts and evidence and can never be in possession of all the facts and evidence." is just what the agnostic position is. It would be the very position that agnostics would take, including agnostic theists.

[Sun Wukong]

And just because everyone who is an atheists insists that they don't have faith is no reason to doubt that.

I've encountered many people in my life and none of them insist that their ideology or the tenets of their ideology are false. I have met many atheists who quote Dawkins and other prominent atheists like a Southern Texas Grandma quotes the bible. Both insist beyond reasonable doubt that they are right and every one who disagrees with them is wrong. I'm not an atheist nor would I wish to be one. I am so devout in my belief of God because the evidence of God satisfies me. The way that so many atheists push their views tells me that they are rather confident that there is no God. Yet there is no evidence for there belief. Atheists insist that there is no evidence but the fact is that there IS evidence, they just aren't willing to accept it. If you want to be an atheist I don't have a problem with it as long as you don't insult me for my religious beliefs (though so often you do but that's another discussion for another time). I find the debate between religion and atheism to be much like a discussion between two cavemen about whether the Earth is round or flat. Only one is right but neither can provide the evidence to prove it. The logic of atheism is that there is no God because there is no evidence of God, though I find that logic to be flawed as one cannot say there is no evidence of God when one does not know what God is.

Allow me to demonstrate. If I said "I do not believe in Fundaloons because there is no evidence for Fundaloons" but did not know what the properties of Fundaloons were, it would be rather illogical for me to say that there was no evidence for the existence of Fundaloons. The same is true for God. We do not know the properties of God because we do not have a set criteria for what God is. Yes yes we have the "omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent" criteria, but when trying to find proof for something, that is really nothing to go on. We can say that for good measure that the Ancient Greek Gods do not exist as they are said to live at the top of Mount Olympus. Since there is nothing at the top of Mount Olympus we can be assured that there is really no evidence for the existence of the Ancient Greek Gods living at the top of Mount Olympus. The problem with trying to disprove a god of the abrahamic religion is that there are no set properties. We do not know where this God lives, we do not know where this God controls the world, we do not know this God's properties at all. He or She or It could be being or pure energy or who knows what. To say "there is no evidence of God" when not even knowing the properties of God and then coming to the conclusion that there is no God IS a leap of faith. You are assuming that there is no evidence for a being that you do not even know the properties of without any evidence to support it. We have the burden of proof, by stating a positive I must provide evidence of God's existence. Though will you believe me? No, you won't believe me because no matter how much evidence I find and present you will deny it and claim it to be circumstance. You are relying completely on faith, the faith that anything and everything ever presented in support of religion is false.

Let's go beyond human religions however. Everyone seems to focus on the abrahamic or other major religions on Earth, but has the thought ever struck you that we might all be wrong? That there is in fact a deity out there but it doesn't concern itself with humans. A deity that has had zero contact and zero influence on civilization. This is entirely a possibility. It would explain why we humans lack the "compelling evidence" to convince everyone on Earth of the existence of God. A far more logical position would be "I do not know if there is a God or if there is not a God as I am not in possession of all the facts and evidence and can never be in possession of all the facts and evidence." Though instead of assuming the position of neutrality, atheists assume that - granted this is only in my experience - after reading the Bible and maybe looking into Hinduism that there is no God. So yes, Atheism is faith because atheists do not assume the logically neutral position. They make a decision that there is no God because they alone have not seen the facts and the evidence. It is not the faith in some kind of higher power, it is a faith in not only one's self ability to be in possession of all the necessary facts and evidence to make such a decision. No matter what you say, you are relying on faith.

Literally nothing you just said is at all interesting or novel, you took a great deal of time to say it, and you're still wrong.

[Dyakovo]

Any decision on the theism question requires some measure of faith, the only position not requiring faith is that of an agnostic.

Agnostic is not a third position.

[Blackhammer]

People saying that Atheism is faith because Atheists can't disprove God.

There's never been visible or documented evidence (besides the bible) that would prove God's existence.

That's like if I said I had an invisible alien that could pass through walls in my basement.

You can't disprove me, right?

So assuming I'm wrong means you have faith even though my claim has no solid evidence?

I think if there is no solid evidence for faith, the opposition can't be called faith if it doesn't require faith.

Atheists (for the most part) take to science to explain everything. Science is based on observation and visible proof.

Not once has Science ever hinted towards the existence of a God. The absence of evidence is evidence in itself.

Evidence that God isn't real. That being said, Science (for Atheists) provides more proof than holy books (for religions).

---

So in summary, the majority of Atheists follow science rather than scripture.

Scripture is just text that you are expected to believe with no visible proof of anything that is said.

Science is based on observation and is proven quite easily.

You don't need faith if proof or hint of proof is provided.

The absence of proof of God's existence is evidence that there is no God.

[Neragua]

No. Atheism is the express rejection of belief in gods and religion. Therefore it isn't a faith.

[Dyakovo]

No. Atheism is the express rejection of belief in gods and religion. Therefore it isn't a faith.

While the red is true, the blue is false.

[Neragua]

No. Atheism is the express rejection of belief in gods and religion. Therefore it isn't a faith.

While the red is true, the blue is false.

My mistake. Insert the word "militant" in there somewhere.

But my point remains: atheism isn't a faith. You can't "believe in" atheism.

[The United Brony Armies]

I don't consider Atheism a faith simply because my personal definition of Atheism is not believing in faith. At all. So no, its not a faith.

[Vitaphone Racing]

I have common sense and can read a dictionary, therefore I don't consider atheism to be a faith. That's about the least abrasive way I can put it.

[Czechanada]

Atheism is faith in that atheists have faith in that Hitler wasn't an atheist as that disparages atheism.

[Dyakovo]

Atheism is faith in that atheists have faith in that Hitler wasn't an atheist as that disparages atheism.

This is easily one of the stupidest things you've posted.

[Blackhammer]

Atheism is faith in that atheists have faith in that Hitler wasn't an atheist as that disparages atheism.

#derailthethread
#hopeyouareatroll