Is Atheism faith?

[Geilinor]

A lack of evidence does not necessarily mean something does not exist. Thus, gnostic atheism relies on faith.

So, do you rely on faith to tell you faeries don't exist; or would you be willing to accept the possibilities of winged sprites flying through the forests when no one is watching?

This^. You don't need faith to tell you that something doesn't exist.

[Solocon]

You ignore the difference between hard and soft atheism.

Hard atheists could be argued to be relying on faith although the argument would be wrong. With no evidence favouring the existence of deities the only rational conclusion is the lack of deities.
Soft atheists would exactly fit your 'Not Faith' description.

A lack of evidence does not necessarily mean something does not exist. Thus, gnostic atheism relies on faith.

No. It relies on logic and unnecessary assumptions. Allow me to articulate:

If a man is in the woods, because he cannot disprove the idea that every single cell in every tree is splitting itself apart causing the tree to fall, must he be wary of every single tree in the forest falling at once in order to not have faith? Would this mean that the idea that a tree will not spontaneously fall is a religion?

No.

We are talking not about faith, but about unnecessary attention. Because there are mounds of evidence to support the fact that the universe started in the Big Bang, it is therefore unnecessary to think that "there still might be a god". Now this depends on the person: one might see the current amount of evidence as enough to disprove god, and others may think it is not, thus separating Atheism from Agnostics, etc. We cannot disprove the idea that buildings turn into giant hopping bunnies when no one is looking, but we see that this idea is not necessary to our lives, reject it, and thus do not use faith.

[Maqo]

We could just talk about Russell's teapot rather than making up new analogies all over again.

I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.

It is not 'faith' to dismiss something which there is no reason to accept in the first place.

[Benuty]

Hmm that new thread smell.

[Katyuscha]

No, it's not.

[Tekania]

Ahh one of these threads, again.

While Atheism may be a theological noncognitivism, it is not a faith.

[Eliminativism Without Tears]

Ahh one of these threads, again.

While Atheism may be a theological noncognitivism, it is not a faith.

Atheism doesn't necessarily have anything to do with theological noncognitivism.

[Beiluxia]

I simply lack faith in the existence of God. Quite frankly, most days I don't even think about God, so I don't think atheism is based on faith. That's like saying it requires faith for non-believers of crypto-zoology to dismiss urban legends. Just because someone doesn't think about the (lack of) existence of Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster doesn't mean they are actively using faith in order to reach such conclusions; they just simply don't think about those monsters on a daily basis.

[Tekania]

Ahh one of these threads, again.

While Atheism may be a theological noncognitivism, it is not a faith.

Atheism doesn't necessarily have anything to do with theological noncognitivism.

I didn't say it was necessarily a theological noncognitivism.... I said that it may be a theological noncognitivism. I'm not sure why you found the need to merely repeat part of what I said in a slightly different wording.

[Eliminativism Without Tears]

Atheism doesn't necessarily have anything to do with theological noncognitivism.

I didn't say it was necessarily a theological noncognitivism.... I said that it may be a theological noncognitivism. I'm not sure why you found the need to merely repeat part of what I said in a slightly different wording.

I suppose I'm wondering why you mentioned theological noncognitivism.

[Seljuq Kyiv]

Option 'A' (to grossly simplify everything) is that it arose out of nothing, for no reason. It just happened and then developed into the form as we see it. Option 'B' (again, grossly simplifying) involves a deity bringing it into existence, and then developing it as we see it (either from scratch or in an abbreviated YEC-ish manner with the end result looking like it was from scratch). But option 'B' (in whatever form) begs the question "...but where did the deity come from?". To which the answer is (in this brief example, ) "...well, He just arose out of nothing, for no reason". Rinse and repeat with other versions (it/He always existed, and then at some point decided to Big Bang/Create, or the Universe (and thus the Creator, where applicable) is cyclic, or many other 'answers' to that particular part of the issue), as you see fit.

Well, technically, Time and Space would not have existed before it came into Being. Existence itself is flawed and limited, and is no place for a flawless being to Be, therefore the flawless God is not within the realms of limitation that are Time and Space.

To believe that God exists within the mortal realms of Time and Space is blasphemy, simply put.

Ergo, the Deity did not come from a Where, as it did not exist yet, and there was no When, for Time and Space did not exist yet. He simply Was.

[Tekania]

I didn't say it was necessarily a theological noncognitivism.... I said that it may be a theological noncognitivism. I'm not sure why you found the need to merely repeat part of what I said in a slightly different wording.

I suppose I'm wondering why you mentioned theological noncognitivism.

What an absurd question to ask in a threat that starts out with someone premising it as a faith.

[Eliminativism Without Tears]

I suppose I'm wondering why you mentioned theological noncognitivism.

What an absurd question to ask in a threat that starts out with someone premising it as a faith.

Theological noncognitivism is the idea that statements about god are meaningless. Could you explain what this has to do with his assertion that atheism is a faith?

[Tekania]

What an absurd question to ask in a threat that starts out with someone premising it as a faith.

Theological noncognitivism is the idea that statements about god are meaningless. Could you explain what this has to do with his assertion that atheism is a faith?

That that is as close as "Atheism" may get to religion.

[Eliminativism Without Tears]

Theological noncognitivism is the idea that statements about god are meaningless. Could you explain what this has to do with his assertion that atheism is a faith?

That that is as close as "Atheism" may get to religion.

What does a very technical idea in the philosophy of language have to do with atheism being a religion?

[Tekania]

That that is as close as "Atheism" may get to religion.

What does a very technical idea in the philosophy of language have to do with atheism being a religion?

I didn't say it was a religion. I said that was as close to it as it could possibly get. nothing more.

[Eliminativism Without Tears]

What does a very technical idea in the philosophy of language have to do with atheism being a religion?

I didn't say it was a religion. I said that was as close to it as it could possibly get. nothing more.

I know you didn't say it was a religion. I'm just asking why you made any connection between atheism and theological noncognitivism. Atheists at least have beliefs about god, but noncognitivists are eliminativists about the word having any meaning, so in this sense they have no beliefs about god.

[Tekania]

I didn't say it was a religion. I said that was as close to it as it could possibly get. nothing more.

I know you didn't say it was a religion. I'm just asking why you made any connection between atheism and theological noncognitivism. Atheists at least have beliefs about god, but noncognitivists are eliminativists about the word having any meaning, so in this sense they have no beliefs about god.

Atheists do not necessarily have beliefs about God.

[Eliminativism Without Tears]

I know you didn't say it was a religion. I'm just asking why you made any connection between atheism and theological noncognitivism. Atheists at least have beliefs about god, but noncognitivists are eliminativists about the word having any meaning, so in this sense they have no beliefs about god.

Atheists do not necessarily have beliefs about God.

Atheists can believe that god certainly doesn't exist, that he probably doesn't exist, or that there is not sufficient evidence to determine anything about its existence or lack of existence, but all of these entail that there is an actual meaning to the word god, whereas noncognitivists assert that no such meaning exists.

[Tekania]

Atheists do not necessarily have beliefs about God.

Atheists can believe that god certainly doesn't exist, that he probably doesn't exist, or that there is not sufficient evidence to determine anything about its existence or lack of existence, but all of these entail that there is an actual meaning to the word god, whereas noncognitivists assert that no such meaning exists.

Lack of belief is not a belief.

[Greater Beggnig]

Of course it is. If it wasn't, atheists would kill themselves. Atheists believe in scientific progress, and the ability of mankind to overcome obstacles. That is their faith, without that, the world will never improve, there is no hope and you can figure out the rest.

[Eliminativism Without Tears]

Atheists can believe that god certainly doesn't exist, that he probably doesn't exist, or that there is not sufficient evidence to determine anything about its existence or lack of existence, but all of these entail that there is an actual meaning to the word god, whereas noncognitivists assert that no such meaning exists.

Lack of belief is not a belief.

An atheist who lacks belief in the existence of god still gives meaning to the word "god". So what would this type of atheism have to do with the position that there is no meaning to theological words?

[Greater Beggnig]

Atheists can believe that god certainly doesn't exist, that he probably doesn't exist, or that there is not sufficient evidence to determine anything about its existence or lack of existence, but all of these entail that there is an actual meaning to the word god, whereas noncognitivists assert that no such meaning exists.

Lack of belief is not a belief.

But you believe in something do you not? Logic, reason, science. You believe in those things. That is your solution to life's problems, and where there is a solution there is faith.

[Eliminativism Without Tears]

Of course it is. If it wasn't, atheists would kill themselves.

This sentence should win many awards in the "non-sequitur" category.

Atheists believe in scientific progress, and the ability of mankind to overcome obstacles.

Some atheists believe in these things. It does not, however, belong analytically to the fact that one is an atheist that they also believe in scientific progress and the ability of mankind to overcome obstacles.

[Greater Beggnig]

Of course it is. If it wasn't, atheists would kill themselves.

This sentence should win many awards in the "non-sequitur" category.

Atheists believe in scientific progress, and the ability of mankind to overcome obstacles.

Some atheists believe in these things. It does not, however, belong analytically to the fact that one is an atheist that they also believe in scientific progress and the ability of mankind to overcome obstacles.

Everyone believes in something. It's called having independent thought. We are all religious because of that.