Is Atheism faith?

[Grave_n_idle]

Okay then, I surrender, you are right. Thank you for making me to see it in a different perspective.

Gnostic atheism (i.e. the active disbelief in any deity or deities) requires faith, but most atheists aren't gnostic.

To be honest, I don't know that I've ever actually met even one.

[Great Kleomentia]

How can lack of faith be a faith?

[Grave_n_idle]

How can lack of faith be a faith?

It's a desperate attempt at false equivalency. If the biggest weakness of religion is that it's completely unsupported by any kind of evidence, that weakness can be deflected if you can suggest that no one else has any support for anything, either.

It's silly.

[Orham]

Accepting the null hypothesis in light of a lack of evidence supporting the stated hypothesis is not an act of faith. It's an act of logic.

[Brickistan]

Given the lack of evidence that there is no god, it makes sense that it requires faith in order to firmly believe that there is no god. I have a couple of atheist friends who say that they consider atheism to be a religion. The only belief system that doesn't require faith is agnosticism.

There's no evidence that there isn't a teacup orbiting Pluto. Does it require faith then, to reject that claim?

[Dyakovo]

Given the lack of evidence that there is no god, it makes sense that it requires faith in order to firmly believe that there is no god. I have a couple of atheist friends who say that they consider atheism to be a religion. The only belief system that doesn't require faith is agnosticism.

Agnosticism is not a third option.

[Dyakovo]

Gnostic atheism (i.e. the active disbelief in any deity or deities) requires faith, but most atheists aren't gnostic.

To be honest, I don't know that I've ever actually met even one.

I've only ever encountered them on the internet.

[Greater Beggnig]

Given the lack of evidence that there is no god, it makes sense that it requires faith in order to firmly believe that there is no god. I have a couple of atheist friends who say that they consider atheism to be a religion. The only belief system that doesn't require faith is agnosticism.

There's no evidence that there isn't a teacup orbiting Pluto. Does it require faith then, to reject that claim?

Or a teapot in orbit between the Earth and Mars?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

[Greater Beggnig]

Given the lack of evidence that there is no god, it makes sense that it requires faith in order to firmly believe that there is no god. I have a couple of atheist friends who say that they consider atheism to be a religion. The only belief system that doesn't require faith is agnosticism.

Agnosticism is not a third option.

Agnosticism or it's inverse equivalent Gnosticism, refers to how certain it is that God or Gods either exist or not.

[Orham]

There's no evidence that there isn't a teacup orbiting Pluto. Does it require faith then, to reject that claim?

Actually, that would be mine. I got rather upset one evening and hurled my cup skyward. A pity, too, since it was an heirloom passed down for three generations. I was wondering where it had gotten to. Thank you for finding it for me.

[Phoenixfox]

I'd say it is just as much faith as any religion because you believe steadfastly in an idea that can not be proven nor disproven.

[Zychonia]

On this issue I do believe that athiesm is a religion. Due to the fact that all athiests belive there is no God that is a common belief among athiests, common belief in Jesus being the son of God is a common Christian belief. Therefore in my view, athiesm is a religion in a sense due to common belief.

[Dyakovo]

I'd say it is just as much faith as any religion because you believe steadfastly in an idea that can not be proven nor disproven.

On this issue I do believe that athiesm is a religion. Due to the fact that all athiests belive there is no God that is a common belief among athiests, common belief in Jesus being the son of God is a common Christian belief. Therefore in my view, athiesm is a religion in a sense due to common belief.

Neither one of you has any idea what atheism is, do you?

[Luveria]

On this issue I do believe that athiesm is a religion. Due to the fact that all athiests belive there is no God that is a common belief among athiests, common belief in Jesus being the son of God is a common Christian belief. Therefore in my view, athiesm is a religion in a sense due to common belief.

I don't have a religion. I don't want one. Do I seem like I'm religious? Then what is my religion? A lack of one?

[Orham]

On this issue I do believe that athiesm is a religion. Due to the fact that all athiests belive there is no God that is a common belief among athiests, common belief in Jesus being the son of God is a common Christian belief. Therefore in my view, athiesm is a religion in a sense due to common belief.

Common belief doesn't really come into the equation. Rather, it's about whether one accepts a claim for which they've no supporting evidence.

I'd say it is just as much faith as any religion because you believe steadfastly in an idea that can not be proven nor disproven.

That would be gnostic atheism (if I read you correctly), and even then I'm not sure it properly qualifies in light of the fact that there is no burden of proof placed upon a negative claim.

EDIT: Added a parenthetical to response two.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

On this issue I do believe that athiesm is a religion. Due to the fact that all athiests belive there is no God that is a common belief among athiests, common belief in Jesus being the son of God is a common Christian belief. Therefore in my view, athiesm is a religion in a sense due to common belief.

No....I am not Religious, I was...but I realized it was all bullshit when I was 6 and said fuck it fully some time after that.

[Phoenixfox]

I'd say it is just as much faith as any religion because you believe steadfastly in an idea that can not be proven nor disproven.

On this issue I do believe that athiesm is a religion. Due to the fact that all athiests belive there is no God that is a common belief among athiests, common belief in Jesus being the son of God is a common Christian belief. Therefore in my view, athiesm is a religion in a sense due to common belief.

Neither one of you has any idea what atheism is, do you?

belief that gods do not exist

[Dyakovo]

Neither one of you has any idea what atheism is, do you?

belief that gods do not exist

Wrong.

[Orham]

belief that gods do not exist

I think the distinction between gnostic atheism and agnostic atheism eludes you.

Gnostic Atheism ---> God doesn't exist.
Agnostic Atheism ---> I don't know for certain, but I'm deferring to the null hypothesis that god doesn't exist.

Does that help?

[Phoenixfox]

belief that gods do not exist

I think the distinction between gnostic atheism and agnostic atheism eludes you.

Gnostic Atheism ---> God doesn't exist.
Agnostic Atheism ---> I don't know for certain, but I'm deferring to the null hypothesis that god doesn't exist.

Does that help?

So Gnostic Atheism is faith, then.

[Luveria]

I think the distinction between gnostic atheism and agnostic atheism eludes you.

Gnostic Atheism ---> God doesn't exist.
Agnostic Atheism ---> I don't know for certain, but I'm deferring to the null hypothesis that god doesn't exist.

Does that help?

So Gnostic Atheism is faith, then.

How?

[Orham]

So Gnostic Atheism is faith, then.

Eh...not really. See, it's a negative claim, so there's no burden of proof induced by its statement. Let's have a non-religious example to show you what I mean:

Positive Claim: "There's a snake in my boots!"
Negative Claim: "There's not a snake in my boots."

The positive one requires evidence, the snake must be produced. In the negative one's case, there is no burden of proof created since negative claims can never be decisively proven. They're the default, and a confirmed positive claim which contradicts a negative one must be produced in order to defeat the negative one.

EDIT: Added the word "confirmed", highlighted in blue. This was an edit for clarity.

[Luveria]

So Gnostic Atheism is faith, then.

Eh...not really. See, it's a negative claim, so there's no burden of proof induced by its statement. Let's have a non-religious example to show you what I mean:

Positive Claim: "There's a snake in my boots!"
Negative Claim: "There's not a snake in my boots."

The positive one requires evidence, the snake must be produced. In the negative one's case, there is no burden of proof created since negative claims can never be decisively proven. They're the default, and a positive claim which contradicts a negative one must be produced in order to defeat the negative one.

I will use your explanation as a defence for my gnostic atheism.

[Dyakovo]

I think the distinction between gnostic atheism and agnostic atheism eludes you.

Gnostic Atheism ---> God doesn't exist.
Agnostic Atheism ---> I don't know for certain, but I'm deferring to the null hypothesis that god doesn't exist.

Does that help?

So Gnostic Atheism is faith, then.

Yeah, it is.

[Norstal]

So Gnostic Atheism is faith, then.

Eh...not really. See, it's a negative claim, so there's no burden of proof induced by its statement. Let's have a non-religious example to show you what I mean:

Positive Claim: "There's a snake in my boots!"
Negative Claim: "There's not a snake in my boots."

The positive one requires evidence, the snake must be produced. In the negative one's case, there is no burden of proof created since negative claims can never be decisively proven. They're the default, and a confirmed positive claim which contradicts a negative one must be produced in order to defeat the negative one.

EDIT: Added the word "confirmed", highlighted in blue. This was an edit for clarity.

He's right though. A gnostic atheist would have faith a god doesn't exist. An agnostic atheist wouldn't. You're describing an agnostic one.