Is Atheism faith?

[Revitopia]

Dont be so quick to make a point that you sound like a fool.

You haven't addressed what was said. You've only told someone they look like a fool for what they are saying. That isn't how to debate.

Correct. It is demonstration of the GIGO principle, or an admonishment for starting the cycle- whichever you prefer.

[Seriong]

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.

The thing is, while some of them may believe in that (And not all of them do believe in scientific progress, I'll point out the anti-vaccine arguments around) those things aren't derived from atheism, and thus atheism in itself is not a faith.

[Breadknife]

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.

And how is this different from "Technically, Time and Space would not have existed before the Big Bang"?

I favour (with no expectation that it is the absolute truth... or necessarily Truth of any kind) the concept of "the place that the universe(s) formed" being outside our concept of time and space, with our universe (and possibly every other universe, should there be more than one... and why not?) sat in that space. Static, actually, as the pearl that is the universe. Actually its surface (multidimensional) is our own universe, with one of the metrics of the 'surface' being time itself.

Which is not far off (except lacking the deity element) of some ideas regarding Created universes (not even necessarily Abrahamic) within the exterior realm of some higher-being.

Saying the deity "simply was" is like saying the Big Bang "simply happened". Except now you've got a deity to feed and water and muck out after, where previously you just had a universe to keep polished and dusted.


Oh, and you can't just say "That's blasphemy", willy-nilly. Some 'blashphemies' such as "Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain" are written down in one holy book or another. Maybe you can assume that particular book to be True, and not in any way distorted from the originally intended meaning, but only within the context of belief in that book. And, so far as I'm aware, under no system of belief is there an 11th Commandment (or 614th Mitzvot) "Thou shalt not consider your Lord God to be wholy contained within those three dimensions of space and that one dimension of time that most people who art not High Energy Physicists and/or String Theorists would consider the main basis of the fabric of the universe."

[Diamond Tiara and Silver Spoon]

Well, the definition of faith,

''complete trust or confidence in someone or something.''
"this restores one's faith in politicians"

Atheism is complete trust in the fact there is no God.

''strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.''

There is no proof that there is no God, so it requires faith to believe that. Religion is belief in something, so Atheism is a religion.

What do you guys think?

If faith is ''complete trust or confidence in someone or something'', then SOME atheists have "faith". Other atheists don't have 100% confidence that the claim "there is no god" is true - so they don't have faith. Also, using this definition, lots of god-believers don't have "faith": they just think that there's a "god" (whatever definition of "god" you use), but they don't have 100% confidence of that. Even agnostics can have faith - an agnostic can believe with 100% of confidence that the claim "it's impossible to prove that there's or there's not a god" is true.

Anyway, it requires "faith" to believe that there's other minds, that the universe will not enter in collapse in 10 minutes, or even that god don't created the world 5 minutes ago with fake memories in our minds. (I'm a moderate philosophical skeptical - but let's just say I have "faith" that there's an organized universe beyond my mind and immediate experiences to avoid annoying solipsistical discussion, my pretty mindless atoms).

Note that some people define "faith" as something like "complete trust or confidence in someone or something without a 'proof' or 'evidence' ", but I'll follow your definition, for simplicity, since sometimes 'proofs' or 'evidences' can be elusive or subjective.

However, "religion" seems to be more than just "believing in something" - although I don't know how to exact define what this word means (there's no consensual definition). According to wikipedia, "Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence" - and sometimes it comes with lots of traditions and rituals. Maybe some kinds of atheism (or some atheistic philosophies, like marxism, secular humanism, or Comteam positivism) are "religions", but simple disbelief (or belief) in "god" isn't.

[Breadknife]

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.

Pardon me for still living, then...

(Again, we seem to be back to the idea of someone with Faith not being able to comprehend that anybody else might not have Faith, albeit of a different hue. Though I hope I'm just reading that wrong.)


edit: Probably not, though...

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

Bzzzt... I'm so sorry. Can you play again next week?

[Bombadil]

On the specific question of whether God exists, then it's faith though in the same sense that I have faith unicorns don't exist.

However, that's not necessarily how many become an atheist. A lot of religious people seem to think it's a specific rejection of God, which isn't really the case. For my part, I never encountered God, have never been given any reason to believe in God, and for the most part feel that the world can be explained through the scientific process.

That is, I don't reject eating amm, I don't know, Walker's Salt & Vinegar crisps from England, it's that I've never encountered them. The difference is that there is sufficient proof they do exist and, given the opportunity, I'd happily eat them. If there was sufficient proof God existed, I'm fine in believing..

..but there isn't, not at all.

Religious people seem to view the world as though we're all innately religious and take specific steps to reject god, in the same way they think homosexuals take specific steps to sleep with their own gender, rejecting their natural instinct to sleep with those of the opposite.

So back to my first point, sure it's faith in the same sense that I've faith unicorns don't exist either.. hardly faith and more a complete and utter absence of evidence.

[Terra Sector Union]

Darwin is a prophet.
Richard Dawkins is an incarnation of Darwin.
Atheist Organizations are churches.
"I have evidence in you."

Atheism is a faith and will always be.

Praise Science!

[Seljuq Kyiv]

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.

And how is this different from "Technically, Time and Space would not have existed before the Big Bang"?

I favour (with no expectation that it is the absolute truth... or necessarily Truth of any kind) the concept of "the place that the universe(s) formed" being outside our concept of time and space, with our universe (and possibly every other universe, should there be more than one... and why not?) sat in that space. Static, actually, as the pearl that is the universe. Actually its surface (multidimensional) is our own universe, with one of the metrics of the 'surface' being time itself.

Which is not far off (except lacking the deity element) of some ideas regarding Created universes (not even necessarily Abrahamic) within the exterior realm of some higher-being.

Saying the deity "simply was" is like saying the Big Bang "simply happened". Except now you've got a deity to feed and water and muck out after, where previously you just had a universe to keep polished and dusted.


Oh, and you can't just say "That's blasphemy", willy-nilly. Some 'blashphemies' such as "Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain" are written down in one holy book or another. Maybe you can assume that particular book to be True, and not in any way distorted from the originally intended meaning, but only within the context of belief in that book. And, so far as I'm aware, under no system of belief is there an 11th Commandment (or 614th Mitzvot) "Thou shalt not consider your Lord God to be wholy contained within those three dimensions of space and that one dimension of time that most people who art not High Energy Physicists and/or String Theorists would consider the main basis of the fabric of the universe."

It is exactly the same thing, assuming the Big Bang is the event that causes Nothing to be Something(s).

Space is limited. Time is limited. The universes within Space and Time are imperfect and flawed. Its very existence implies weakness (mortality) and limitation (measurement). A bird's life may be counted by the second, and at a point in Time its time is up. Such an event may be precipitated by, say, being engorged by a cat. Either way, the bird can be harmed, and it can die. The bird is imperfect, flawed, and its existence is limited and measurable.

Many religions, including the Big Three, subscribe to the notion of a Transcendent God; a Supreme Being outside Time and Space. For a Supreme Being would not exist in a realm of limitation, imperfection, and mortality. For a Supreme Being would not exist where He is not Eternal.

Therefore, there is no 'before the Big Bang' or 'waiting to start the Big Bang'.

Likewise, this also explains the doctrine of Divine Simplicity, where a Supreme Being is not described as having appendages; He does not occupy Space. There is no measurement of His height, width, length, weight, etc., for there is no dimension to speak of.

Going on with this theme of death and measurable, an Unlimited God needs no sustenance, in contrast to living beings that require such. An Unlimited God cannot die, nor can it cease to exist.

Excepting the physical Immanence of the Messiah in Christianity (which I do not subscribe to, but never mind), the belief in a Transcendent, Eternal, Unlimited God is central to at least the Abrahamic religions. Simply put, He is outside Mortal Existence.

Whether I subscribe to these notions or not is irrelevant, but all I am saying is that the religions that believe in such a Supreme Being could argue that the Being is Transcendent.

[Risottia]

No, but atheist forming their own groups against a particluar god acts like a religion

if atheist people don't associate themselves as a group

Yeah, because associating as a group implies being a faith.

Or because being atheist = being against one or more deities.

Hint: false on both accounts.

[Risottia]

In the case of the Dawkins asslick brigade, yes, it most certainly is.

How can it be when Dawkins himself isn't sure that there's no god?

But... but... Faux News told me Dawkins is the Atheist Pope! Sure Faux News wouldn't lie to me, would it?

[Nazi Flower Power]

I think theists need to get it through their heads that this is not a clever way to make a point or an original idea for a thread.

Most atheists are not completely certain there is no God. We just think the odds of God's existence are exceptionally low -- basically the existence of God is as likely as the existence of bigfoot, Nessie, Odin, Amaterasu, etc.

Two of those are deities....

Yes, but I don't think that's who the OP had in mind when they said "God." Especially since Amaterasu is female.

[Risottia]

Nevertheless, I feel we haven't mentioned the invisible pink unicorn enough. She's so pretty!

I wouldn't know. I've never seen her.

Keep the faith!

[Risottia]

... basically the existence of God is as likely as the existence of bigfoot, Nessie, Odin, Amaterasu, etc.

Two of those are deities....

Yes, and also Odin and Amaterasu are. At least to some people. Don't hate on them, bro.

[Reunited Illinois]

Yes, in a way atheism is a faith. It is the faith that nothing exists outside of this chemical process we call life. No supernatural, no god, no devil; just humans.

[Risottia]

Everyone believes in something.

We need some proof on that claim.

It's called having independent thought.

Independent thought = having a belief?
Source?

We are all religious because of that.

What a totally bullshitty unwarranted claim.

[Risottia]

Yes, in a way atheism is a faith. It is the faith that nothing exists outside of this chemical process we call life. No supernatural, no god, no devil; just humans.

Sure, if you twist the meaning of "faith" enough to suit your needs.

So please refrain from playing the poor man's sophist.

[Risottia]

An atheist who lacks belief in the existence of god still gives meaning to the word "god".

And a roleplayer who lacks belief in the existence of kobolds still gives meaning to the word "kobold". So what?

[Seriong]

Yes, in a way atheism is a faith. It is the faith that nothing exists outside of this chemical process we call life. No supernatural, no god, no devil; just humans.

Not necessarily. One can be an atheist and still believe in the supernatural. As well, it isn't a matter of faith to declare having no belief in something.

[Nazi Flower Power]

If Atheism is a religion, off is a TV channel.

It is. They run a lot of "Black Cat in a Coal Mine" reruns. It's a really old show, from before talkies came into fashion, and it is hard to read the subtitles because they are black on black.

[Seljuq Kyiv]

It is. They run a lot of "Black Cat in a Coal Mine" reruns. It's a really old show, from before talkies came into fashion, and it is hard to read the subtitles because they are black on black.

I hear they have really low budget special effects, but I can't tell.

[Big Brain City]

Well, the definition of faith,

''complete trust or confidence in someone or something.''
"this restores one's faith in politicians"

Atheism is complete trust in the fact there is no God.

''strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.''

There is no proof that there is no God, so it requires faith to believe that. Religion is belief in something, so Atheism is a religion.

What do you guys think?

Faith is an unjustified belief in something without proof. Atheists lack that, so no, the only thing they likely have faith in is their significant other.

[Kilobugya]

That's a disguised query. "Is X a Y" is not generally a meaningful question in itself - words don't have strict boundaries, by fuzzy and switching ones. Asking if a X which has some features of Y but not others is a Y or not is disguised query for something else - so better ask your real query instead.

A tree falls in an empty forest, does it make a sound ? If by "sound" you mean "air vibration" then yes it does. If by "sound" you mean "auditory experience in a human brain" then no it doesn't. Does it really make a sound ? That question is meaningless - disguised query for one or the other.

Atheism shares a few features of a faith (a set of belief about the nature of universe and (in)existence of God) but doesn't share many other features of a faith (no codified dogma, no belief in anything without evidence, ...). So what is your real question ?

[Big Brain City]

Darwin is a prophet.
Richard Dawkins is an incarnation of Darwin.
Atheist Organizations are churches.
"I have evidence in you."

Atheism is a faith and will always be.

Praise Science!

[Risottia]

Faith is an unjustified belief in something without proof. Atheists lack that,

Wrong. Atheists lack that belief IN DEITIES.

A person could still believe without any proof in, let's say, ancestors' spirits, pixies or whatnot - as long as they're not deities - and be still an atheist.

[Dei Gentem]

Yes, in a way atheism is a faith. It is the faith that nothing exists outside of this chemical process we call life. No supernatural, no god, no devil; just humans.

Sure, if you twist the meaning of "faith" enough to suit your needs.

So please refrain from playing the poor man's sophist.

According to Webster, Faith is a strong belief or trust in someone or something, so Reunited Illinois is correct. They didn't twist the definition of the word at all; so please refrain accusing people of twisting the meaning of words unless you know the definition of the word.