Is Atheism faith?

[Jamjai]

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

[Furious Grandmothers]

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?

[Dyakovo]

Sure, if you felt like lying you could say that.

Would you care to explain your logic behind that statement?

The statement is false, and yet you can still make them claim, thus, if you wished to lie you could say it.

[Furious Grandmothers]

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

Well then we are all atheist, because we all don't believe in at least one of the Great Juju up the mountain, or Thor, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[Josh Beaty]

(I take a break for three or four hours, and I now still have another 16 pages to read. Still, my ego is really enlarged, as it appears nobody wanted to argue with any of the points I previously made. It's nice to be right. )

Yes, Atheism is a "Religion" of sorts. It requires faith to believe that there is certainly no god, which is why most people who identify as atheists are usually just agnostics who consider the existence of a god to be unlikely.

This is very "No true scotsman"-like. You're saying that Atheism (by your definition) is the faith-requiring type. Except that most people who say that they are atheists are the kind for whom faith isn't required, so you're classing them as something else for your own convenience.

Noting that I identify as atheist¹, agnostic² and apatheist³. All at the same time. (And other things, but those are the more relevent aspects.)


¹ Have no belief or faith in dieties of any kind. Definitely lack the same. Do not believe in His or Their absence, in any way, merely do not consider their (singular or plural) presence as probable.

² There is no way to know the situation, either way. Much apart from being unable to prove the negative, if tomorrow I look up into the sky and see the clouds part and a giant hand point at me and declare that I am to be the prophet of the next religion... well, that could be aliens, a really complicated Candid Camera-type stunt or my brain having suffered internal trauma causing me to hallucinate. With a Sufficiently Advanced Technology behind them, enough of a production budget or a particularly bad mental episode the subsequent scenario could be continued (by whatever cause it actually was) for the rest of my life, and yet there's no way I could prove it was God (or gods) playing with me like a mortal chew-toy. Although I wouldn't put it past me going along with it if it's that convincing. (After all, you don't want to mess with Sufficiently Advanced Aliens, TV Production Companies or one's own mental state without some thought behind it.)

³ I just don't care whether there's a God or not. It ought not to have any bearing on anything, and that's how I'm living my life, barring the odd forum discussion like this. I quite imagine that, regardless of the Truth of the matter (there being a deity or not), not doing bad things to your fellow man is as good a moral basis as any, and if there's a supreme being with various miscelaneous commandments He wants to be obeyed I'm sure that I'm already covering that ground. To this end, I do not feel that there's any reason to specifically go, weekly, to any building built in His honour and also recite some words that (frankly) I could recite even if I were not a good person. Let my earthly legacy be my earthly (and secular) actions. Should there ever be a judgement in afterlife then I'm going by the axiom that being generally good will give me enough positive points for the favourable judgement over and above the negative points. I mean should I have eaten fish on Fridays, as I'm sure I have done? Some deities might have an opinion, others not. Should I have said some specific words (often while facing some specific direction, if at all possible) so many times a day, once a week or every other leap year? And if so which specific words. Assuming one ought to, it appears there's an awful lot of people who would turn out to be wrong. Better for me not to bother at all with that detail. And if the deity doesn't like that then the chances are that pretty much no-one reaches His high standards at all, in a very much Nugganistic manner, and I wasn't in with a chance anyway. So there's no point. But that's just my opinion. Please don't let me spoil your own ideas on the subject. Maybe you'll get credit for effort that I don't, even though you also came up with the wrong answer.

¹What makes you think that a deity or deities is improbable?
²Why would said deity have to prove its own existence? Must I prove my existence and the existence of all of these other people for you to think that you are communicating with people?
³Would you really need to conform to every religion? I am not certain anything you could "do" would ever reconcile yourself as good enough to reach some sort of heaven. What is 'good enough'?

[Dyakovo]

Pardon? I'm simply saying that we have no actual proof that a god doesn't exist. It's unlikely, very unlikely, that a god exists.

Why do I need proof that something doesn't exist? What kind of crazy ass bullshit standard is that? Why do I have to entertain the idea that anyone farts out of their food hole just because they said it? Why is "you can't prove me wrong!" any kind of standard at all? Why bother with this game?

Did you not notice that TSS is an atheist?

[The USOT]

One could be an atheist through faith, but it tends to be a rare position.

[Dyakovo]

...

It is just that most atheists are behalving like talibans and are so annoying that they want that normal people share their view because they think it is true. In other words atheism is a religion without theism.

Ireligious people dont.molest other people.

1: What's "behalving"?
2: How are "mpst atheists like talibans"? Be specific.
3: The atheist position (i.e. that they do not believe in a deity or deities) is true.
4: Atheism is in no way a religion.

[Mavorpen]

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

Um... what? How is associating yourself with a group make it a religion?

See guys, this is why I never played football in high school. Apparently, I would have been joining a religious cult.

[Dyakovo]

It is just that most atheists are behalving like talibans and are so annoying that they want that normal people share their view because they think it is true. In other words atheism is a religion without theism.

Ireligious people dont.molest other people.

Yeah you know I don't recall strapping bombs to children and committing acts of terrorism, mind backing that up?

What were you doing last Thursday? That sure looked like a bomb, though it might have been a midget, not a child...

[Soviet Haaregrad]

Atheism is a faith; bald is a hair style.

[Breadknife]

But thinking on it... comas are really frigging scary.

Semmi-colons even more so.</outofcontext>

[Dyakovo]

Atheism is a faith; bald is a hair style.

Technically "bald" could be a hairstyle...

[Dyakovo]

An example that demonstrated nothing more than your ability to construct an example where you arbitrarily declare that what you're trying to demonstrate is true.
In other words, a baseless assertion which demonstrates nothing.

Then if it's not to much trouble, show how my example didn't explain my assertion.

Reread what you responded to. That explains why your "example" doesn't explain anything.

[Hallistar]

Atheism is a faith; bald is a hair style.

I believe the phrase is supposed to be 'bald is a hair color', since it can be construed as a style, but is an absence of hair color.

[Cannot think of a name]

Why do I need proof that something doesn't exist? What kind of crazy ass bullshit standard is that? Why do I have to entertain the idea that anyone farts out of their food hole just because they said it? Why is "you can't prove me wrong!" any kind of standard at all? Why bother with this game?

Did you not notice that TSS is an atheist?

Does it matter if he comes from the atheist side or the theist side if he's still playing that 'for or against' game?

[Menassa]

Then if it's not to much trouble, show how my example didn't explain my assertion.

Reread what you responded to. That explains why your "example" doesn't explain anything.

Alternatively you could quote exactly where you see the friction... because I don't see any.

[Nysland]

There are two main forms of atheism: agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism.

Agnostic atheism is when a person lacks belief in a god. Most atheists are just that. It requires no faith to not believe in something, ergo this position requires no faith.

Gnostic atheism is when a person believes that there is no god. This is a minority within the atheistic community. It is a belief, not a lack of one, therefore it either requires faith or proof. I don't personally know if anyone has disproven gods, but if not then this position does require faith.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

Atheism is a faith; bald is a hair style.

Technically "bald" could be a hairstyle...

Arguably. Since the question wasn't the more common 'is atheism a religion'/'atheism is a religion like bald is a hair colour' I had to slightly alter the wording to maintain accuracy.

Atheism requires some degree of faith that your observations are accurate. Atheism is the logical conclusion after examining the available evidence for deities but the element of faith has to do with your confidence over how the evidence was examined.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

There are two main forms of atheism: agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism.

Agnostic atheism is when a person lacks belief in a god. Most atheists are just that. It requires no faith to not believe in something, ergo this position requires no faith.

Gnostic atheism is when a person believes that there is no god. This is a minority within the atheistic community. It is a belief, not a lack of one, therefore it either requires faith or proof. I don't personally know if anyone has disproven gods, but if not then this position does require faith.

Gnostic atheism doesn't exist.
What you're calling 'gnostic atheism' would properly be called 'hard atheism'.

[Eliminativism Without Tears]

Atheism is a faith; bald is a hair style.

Technically "bald" could be a hairstyle...

For some reason I'm reminded of the Sorites paradox.

[Dyakovo]

Did you not notice that TSS is an atheist?

Does it matter if he comes from the atheist side or the theist side if he's still playing that 'for or against' game?

All his post was saying was that he is an agnostic atheist... Really not sure why that would be a problem.

---

Reread what you responded to. That explains why your "example" doesn't explain anything.

Alternatively you could quote exactly where you see the friction... because I don't see any.

Your inability to critically examine your own statement and/or have the intellectual honesty to admit that asserting something is not the same thing as demonstrating it is not my problem, it is yours.

[Nysland]

There are two main forms of atheism: agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism.

Agnostic atheism is when a person lacks belief in a god. Most atheists are just that. It requires no faith to not believe in something, ergo this position requires no faith.

Gnostic atheism is when a person believes that there is no god. This is a minority within the atheistic community. It is a belief, not a lack of one, therefore it either requires faith or proof. I don't personally know if anyone has disproven gods, but if not then this position does require faith.

Gnostic atheism doesn't exist.
What you're calling 'gnostic atheism' would properly be called 'hard atheism'.

Well, thank you for the terminology. Still, my argument remains.

[Geilinor]

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

Atheists as a group aren't trying to fight against anyone or anything, except ignorance and theocracy.

[Menassa]

Alternatively you could quote exactly where you see the friction... because I don't see any.

Your inability to critically examine your own statement and/or have the intellectual honesty to admit that asserting something is not the same thing as demonstrating it is not my problem, it is yours.

Your inability to provide textual evidence (even though it would be incredibly easy) to support your claim is not my problem.
If you believe something's wrong with my claim but cannot present it that's not my issue, it is yours.