Is Atheism faith?

[Seriong]

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?

It doesn't matter what he believes, these people are pig ignorant of what he believes, they just have this idea of what he 'means' and parrot that about.

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.

I think what he's talking about is when you have groups that try to derive meaning from atheism. Such as a while back there was a group of people arguing that being an atheist begets being a feminist, and a humanitarian, and a host of other views. In that way, they would have been a religion, as they derive rhetoric from their beliefs on the existence of a god.

[Geilinor]

I don't personally know if anyone has disproven gods, but if not then this position does require faith.

God doesn't have to be disproven, the absence of any evidence whatsoever is enough for hard atheists.

[Dyakovo]

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.

I did support my claim. You even agreed that you made up the example for the sole purpose of claiming that good cannot exist without evil.
But, you know what? This has reminded me why I don't usually respond to your inane bullshit. kthanxbai.

[Cannot think of a name]

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.

Because it was part of a continuing conversation that again, plays a stupid game. I don't care what you call it, it's stupid. I don't have to entertain an idea because someone somewhere said it, didn't prove it but then smugly went, "But you can't disprove it." It's not my job, it's not a position I feel I have to respect even if the person saying it is calling themselves an atheist.

[Menassa]

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.

I did support my claim.

Not with what I had said.

You even agreed that you made up the example for the sole purpose of claiming that good cannot exist without evil.

As generally all examples go?

But, you know what? This has reminded me why I don't usually respond to your inane bullshit. kthanxbai.

Glad I could remind you.

[Dyakovo]

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

Because it was part of a continuing conversation that again, plays a stupid game. I don't care what you call it, it's stupid. I don't have to entertain an idea because someone somewhere said it, didn't prove it but then smugly went, "But you can't disprove it." It's not my job, it's not a position I feel I have to respect even if the person saying it is calling themselves an atheist.

Meh. The statement that you cannot disprove it is true. If it wasn't, more people would be gnostic atheists instead of agnostic ones.

[Cannot think of a name]

Because it was part of a continuing conversation that again, plays a stupid game. I don't care what you call it, it's stupid. I don't have to entertain an idea because someone somewhere said it, didn't prove it but then smugly went, "But you can't disprove it." It's not my job, it's not a position I feel I have to respect even if the person saying it is calling themselves an atheist.

Meh. The statement that you cannot disprove it is true. If it wasn't, more people would be gnostic atheists instead of agnostic ones.

It's true just like "My shoe is not an aircraft" is true. It tells us nothing about the airworthiness of specific aircraft and is ultimately an empty statement and by acknowledging it as one of any merit it allows the conversation to circle the drain.

[Breadknife]

(Superscripts refer originally to some long-winded footnotes in my previous message, of course... Snipped for brevity.)

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'?

In short (because otherwise, it's in looooooonng, knowing me)...
1: Occam's Razor. Their existence is an unnecessary complication when it comes to understanding the universe.
2: I never said it would. I said that I couldn't prove its existence. Even to myself.
3: That's beyond my pay-grade. Let's just say that I'm refuting Pascal's Wager⁴ and leave it at that.

⁴ Although to fully refute it, I would also have to address the possibility (indeed, near certainty!) that an omniscient deity would know when Pascal (or whoever) is "shamming their faith" to cover all their bases, and punish them for it. It'd depend upon the deity concerned, of course. And, besides, as Aslan says: "...if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he had truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted." So who knows? Oh dear, I did try to keep this reply short...

[Norstal]

Atheism is not organized so I don't see your point.

An organized set of beliefs doesnt necessitate heirarchy. I said that. Would you suggest that an atheist is.possessed of convoluted contradictory beliefs more often than not? No? Then they might just have an organized set of beliefs.

Do you seriously think that the opposite of an organized set of beliefs are "convoluted contradictory beliefs"?

Well then, I do declare, monarchism is a religion. It is after all a set of beliefs that is not contradictory (???).

[Soviet Haaregrad]

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.

Had no intention of disputing your premise, just providing proper nomenclature.

That said, there is no issue with the hard atheist position; I have no evidence of fae either but no one would claim I need faith to disbelieve the existence of faeries.

[Twilight Imperium]

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

Had no intention of disputing your premise, just providing proper nomenclature.

That said, there is no issue with the hard atheist position; I have no evidence of fae either but no one would claim I need faith to disbelieve the existence of faeries.

We still haven't really had a strong argument for "yes" on the "is atheism a religion" question. The ones who have tried usually go with "since you believe there is no god, you have belief, so that's a faith", which is silly, of course, but we have yet to really move past it. The others usually end up with very entertaining crazy, i.e. "bald eagles exist so atheism is faith" and "everything is everything maaaan so atheism is like 0% faith". It's gems like these that keep me coming back

[Soviet Haaregrad]

Had no intention of disputing your premise, just providing proper nomenclature.

That said, there is no issue with the hard atheist position; I have no evidence of fae either but no one would claim I need faith to disbelieve the existence of faeries.

We still haven't really had a strong argument for "yes" on the "is atheism a religion" question. The ones who have tried usually go with "since you believe there is no god, you have belief, so that's a faith", which is silly, of course, but we have yet to really move past it. The others usually end up with very entertaining crazy, i.e. "bald eagles exist so atheism is faith" and "everything is everything maaaan so atheism is like 0% faith". It's gems like these that keep me coming back

Since no one's seriously made the argument it only took a sentence to dismiss it as rubbish.

[Othelos]

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.

Only gnostic atheism.

[Twilight Imperium]

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

[Josh Beaty]

(Superscripts refer originally to some long-winded footnotes in my previous message, of course... Snipped for brevity.)

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'?

In short (because otherwise, it's in looooooonng, knowing me)...
1: Occam's Razor. Their existence is an unnecessary complication when it comes to understanding the universe.
2: I never said it would. I said that I couldn't prove its existence. Even to myself.
3: That's beyond my pay-grade. Let's just say that I'm refuting Pascal's Wager⁴ and leave it at that.

⁴ Although to fully refute it, I would also have to address the possibility (indeed, near certainty!) that an omniscient deity would know when Pascal (or whoever) is "shamming their faith" to cover all their bases, and punish them for it. It'd depend upon the deity concerned, of course. And, besides, as Aslan says: "...if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he had truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted." So who knows? Oh dear, I did try to keep this reply short...

I understand the whole deal with superscripts but I am still new enough that I still occasionally throw in random stuff just to mess with it.

1. I understand Occam's razor slightly. Pardon the questions, but I am just trying to actually learn varying beliefs without flaming. Why is the existence of a deity unnecessary for understanding the universe?
2. Okay. I understand now.
3. Pay-grade? Okay...

I don't mind a long answer if it gives a thorough explanation instead of rambling.

[Geilinor]

(Superscripts refer originally to some long-winded footnotes in my previous message, of course... Snipped for brevity.)


In short (because otherwise, it's in looooooonng, knowing me)...
1: Occam's Razor. Their existence is an unnecessary complication when it comes to understanding the universe.
2: I never said it would. I said that I couldn't prove its existence. Even to myself.
3: That's beyond my pay-grade. Let's just say that I'm refuting Pascal's Wager⁴ and leave it at that.

⁴ Although to fully refute it, I would also have to address the possibility (indeed, near certainty!) that an omniscient deity would know when Pascal (or whoever) is "shamming their faith" to cover all their bases, and punish them for it. It'd depend upon the deity concerned, of course. And, besides, as Aslan says: "...if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he had truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted." So who knows? Oh dear, I did try to keep this reply short...

I understand the whole deal with superscripts but I am still new enough that I still occasionally throw in random stuff just to mess with it.

1. I understand Occam's razor slightly. Pardon the questions, but I am just trying to actually learn varying beliefs without flaming. Why is the existence of a deity unnecessary for understanding the universe?

The scientific method has taught us far more than belief in a deity has. That computer you're using? A deity didn't develop it.

[Seriong]

(Superscripts refer originally to some long-winded footnotes in my previous message, of course... Snipped for brevity.)


In short (because otherwise, it's in looooooonng, knowing me)...
1: Occam's Razor. Their existence is an unnecessary complication when it comes to understanding the universe.
2: I never said it would. I said that I couldn't prove its existence. Even to myself.
3: That's beyond my pay-grade. Let's just say that I'm refuting Pascal's Wager⁴ and leave it at that.

⁴ Although to fully refute it, I would also have to address the possibility (indeed, near certainty!) that an omniscient deity would know when Pascal (or whoever) is "shamming their faith" to cover all their bases, and punish them for it. It'd depend upon the deity concerned, of course. And, besides, as Aslan says: "...if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he had truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted." So who knows? Oh dear, I did try to keep this reply short...

I understand the whole deal with superscripts but I am still new enough that I still occasionally throw in random stuff just to mess with it.

1. I understand Occam's razor slightly. Pardon the questions, but I am just trying to actually learn varying beliefs without flaming. Why is the existence of a deity unnecessary for understanding the universe?
2. Okay. I understand now.
3. Pay-grade? Okay...

I don't mind a long answer if it gives a thorough explanation instead of rambling.

If you want an understanding of the common criticisms of Pascal's Wager, I would send you here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/
Two ones I'll splice in here are
"The matrix should have more rows." Which essentially looks at the fact that the God proposed may weigh things differently, he may look at believing in him based on evidence to be worth more, and in the same way disbelieving based on evidence to not be as bad.
My personal favorite
" The matrix should have more columns: the many Gods objection." Essentially this looks at the fact that there are multiple gods proposed, each of which says that you must believe in them, and thus the argument fails.

[Luveria]

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.

[Vicious Debaters]

Atheism is faith. Being Agnostic isn't.

Faith: Believing in something that's not scientifically proven

Faith: There is no god, there can't be a god! A god cannot exist!

Not Faith: I don't necessarily think there's a god, but there could be one. Because I don't have any evidence there's a god I'm not going to worship one. But I will keep my eyes open.

[Menassa]

I understand the whole deal with superscripts but I am still new enough that I still occasionally throw in random stuff just to mess with it.

1. I understand Occam's razor slightly. Pardon the questions, but I am just trying to actually learn varying beliefs without flaming. Why is the existence of a deity unnecessary for understanding the universe?
2. Okay. I understand now.
3. Pay-grade? Okay...

I don't mind a long answer if it gives a thorough explanation instead of rambling.

If you want an understanding of the common criticisms of Pascal's Wager, I would send you here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/
Two ones I'll splice in here are
"The matrix should have more rows." Which essentially looks at the fact that the God proposed may weigh things differently, he may look at believing in him based on evidence to be worth more, and in the same way disbelieving based on evidence to not be as bad.
My personal favorite
" The matrix should have more columns: the many Gods objection." Essentially this looks at the fact that there are multiple gods proposed, each of which says that you must believe in them, and thus the argument fails.

Or if the God you're wagering asks you to do something you wouldn't really do.

Like not eat pig...

[Soviet Haaregrad]

Atheism is faith. Being Agnostic isn't.

Faith: Believing in something that's not scientifically proven

Faith: There is no god, there can't be a god! A god cannot exist!

Not Faith: I don't necessarily think there's a god, but there could be one. Because I don't have any evidence there's a god I'm not going to worship one. But I will keep my eyes open.

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.

[Othelos]

Atheism is faith. Being Agnostic isn't.

Faith: Believing in something that's not scientifically proven

Faith: There is no god, there can't be a god! A god cannot exist!

Not Faith: I don't necessarily think there's a god, but there could be one. Because I don't have any evidence there's a god I'm not going to worship one. But I will keep my eyes open.

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.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

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.

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?

[Lost heros]

Atheism is faith. Being Agnostic isn't.

Faith: Believing in something that's not scientifically proven

Faith: There is no god, there can't be a god! A god cannot exist!

Not Faith: I don't necessarily think there's a god, but there could be one. Because I don't have any evidence there's a god I'm not going to worship one. But I will keep my eyes open.

Congratulations on not knowing what atheism is.

[Breadknife]

1. I understand Occam's razor slightly. Pardon the questions, but I am just trying to actually learn varying beliefs without flaming. Why is the existence of a deity unnecessary for understanding the universe?
2. Okay. I understand now.
3. Pay-grade? Okay...

I don't mind a long answer if it gives a thorough explanation instead of rambling.

1: It's a fair question (although still assumes a "belief", when it's more like a "stance"). Let's go straight to the Big Question. "How did the universe start?" 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.

Anyway, given that 'B' is basically 'A' with an added unproven element to shift the 'blame' onto, I default to 'A'. This does not disprove the added element that makes 'B' correct! But so long as 'A' is not proven incorrect without said element, I'm defaulting to that. Less chance of being wrong, maybe. More chance (if 'A' is wrong) of migrating to option 'B' (or 'C', 'D' or 'E', whatever they are, which solve the faults of 'A' with something else) should that be shown to be (more!) correct. Of course, I already said what I thought about proof for 'B', but if anything can show 'A' to be wrong, I suppose it might show my opinion (2), above, to be wrong. We'd be entering a completely new territory. (And that's the nice thing about theory compared to doctrine... The moving on to a new version is more painless, once there's ample justification to do so.)

NB: I've heard seriously put-forward views that the option "God did it" is 'simpler' than the "God didn't do it" one. I disagree, but I can see how these particular people could (starting with different axiomatic assumptions) follow this line of logic. Either way, Occam doesn't actually say that the simpler solution is the actual one. Just that it's the more appropriate one to default to in the absence of information that invalidates it and promotes the more complex one. (Or requires altogether something else, even!)

2: Good. Although I may just have complicated the issue with (1).

3: Did you ever see South Park: The Movie (I think it was that, and The Movie, rather than an episode... it's a while ago now, and I can't be bothered navigating IMDB/etc for the actual quote) where the newly dead are informed by St. Peter, I think it was, which religion was the right one? And thus that all the other followers are, of course, damned to the eternal fires (or thereabouts). Well, if that sort of situation is true then I'd probably not make the cut. But then so would (at least) 99% of everyone, because they never used Latin (or Aramaic, or Arabic or whatever) when they prayed, or whatever it is that they 'should' have done. Or painted symbolic cat's whiskers on their cheeks with blood every third week. Or ate mushrooms. Or allowed their women(/men)-folk to vote. So it's not something I find worth worrying about. If there is a higher power with some ineffible list of rules (and most religions claim some, but you can't obey them all at the same time... some are mutually exclusive!) then it's beyond my ken which list there is. It might not even be accurately known by any extant religion. Maybe the only people who get to Heaven are those who have leapt over a charging bull at last once in their life? Then some matadors and picadors⁵ may end up there, by sheer chance, in amongst the more ancient Cretan souls, etc...


⁵ (Yes, I reckon I'm onto '5'! Should you wish to reference this, at all.) Reminds me of the Goon Show quote about bullfighting. Something like: "If the bull goes to the left, I head for the matador. If the bull goes to the right, I head for the picador. If the bull comes straight towards me, I head for the back-a-door! Yee-hee!"