Thread: Athiesm is a faith

Originally Posted by kookyinc

Edit: I believe it could, but I haven't found any yet, and I have no reason to believe that it will.

If you believe that it could how exactly are you lacking belief?

It's always hilarious when theists start talking about scientific evidence for God.

By definition God is supernatural - existing outside the realm of the physical universe. How could such a being produce any physical evidence of his existence?

In all the time Man has existed, such evidence has never been found and never will. And as I already said by definition it's impossible. Anyone who has a sufficient grasp of the nature of God and of science understands that. Faith in God is exactly that - faith, and cannot be founded on any science.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

By definition God is supernatural - existing outside the realm of the physical universe. How could such a being produce any physical evidence of his existence?

I believe the Universe is an extension of God and most Christians would believe that God has the ability to influence the physical Universe. We believe God has brought the Universe into physical existence, surely this being the case He could very well influence the physical Universe at a time of His choosing.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

If you believe that it could how exactly are you lacking belief?

I believe that there is a possibility that there is evidence for a god. I believe that there is a possibility that a god exists. However, I lack believe in a god.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

By definition God is supernatural - existing outside the realm of the physical universe. How could such a being produce any physical evidence of his existence?

Divine intervention. Just because one is outside does not mean one can't stick his hand in and cause plagues of locusts and whatnot.

But I agree, a non-interventionist god by definition can leave no evidence, and its existence must be taken completely on faith. However, most of the more popular gods of our age have (allegedly) interacted with the natural universe in some way.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Well, let's take a look at some reputable dictionary definitions.

Merriam-Webster OnLine

atheist: one who believes that there is no deity

atheism:
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

disbelief: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

disbelieve:
transitive senses : to hold not worthy of belief : not believe
intransitive senses : to withhold or reject belief

Cambridge Dictionary of American English

atheist: someone who believes that God does not exist

atheism: the belief that God does not exist

The Oxford English Dictionary 2nd Ed. 1989

Atheist:
1. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. 2000.

atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

atheism:
1a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.

ETYMOLOGY: French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a–1 + theos, god; see dhs- in Appendix I.

disbelief: Refusal or reluctance to believe.

denial:
1. A refusal to comply with or satisfy a request.
2a. A refusal to grant the truth of a statement or allegation; a contradiction. b. Law The opposing by a defendant of an allegation of the plaintiff.
3a. A refusal to accept or believe something, such as a doctrine or belief. b. Psychology An unconscious defense mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings.
4. The act of disowning or disavowing; repudiation.
5. Abstinence; self-denial.
2. One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him; a godless man.
B. attrib. as adj. Atheistic, impious.

Atheism:
Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).

1913 Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

atheist:
1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
2. A godless person. [Obs.] Syn. -- Infidel; unbeliever. See Infidel.

atheism:
1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
2. Godlessness.

disbelief:
The act of disbelieving;; a state of the mind in which one is fully persuaded that an opinion, assertion, or doctrine is not true; refusal of assent, credit, or credence; denial of belief.
Syn. -- Distrust; unbelief; incredulity; doubt; skepticism. -- Disbelief, Unbelief. Unbelief is a mere failure to admit; disbelief is a positive rejection. One may be an unbeliever in Christianity from ignorance or want of inquiry; a unbeliever has the proofs before him, and incurs the guilt of setting them aside. Unbelief is usually open to conviction; disbelief is already convinced as to the falsity of that which it rejects. Men often tell a story in such a manner that we regard everything they say with unbelief. Familiarity with the worst parts of human nature often leads us into a disbelief in many good qualities which really exist among men.

MSN Encarta Dictionary

atheism: disbelief in the existence of God or deities
atheist: somebody who does not believe in God or deities

disbelief: the feeling of not believing or of not being able to believe somebody or something.

What words appears to be missing within all of these dictionaries?

The word faith does not appear in any of those dictionaries in regards to atheism. Now since you, yourself looked up multiple words in 6 different dictionaries you have no excuse to call atheism a faith.

The second part you seem confused on is that they also give two options for the definition. Denial and disbelief. You accept that if someone denies the existence of god, they are an atheist. However you seem to have trouble with the disbelief part. Disbelief isn't a belief, it is a lack of belief.

If you look back up the words disbelief you will see where it says reluctance or 'withholding' belief. If you are not sure, because you don't have enough data yet, that would be reluctance. One of them even says, the feeling of not believing. So if you don't believe in god, then you are not believing.

You got to read the whole thing. There are cases where disbelieving can be an active state, but there is also cases where disbelieving is simply not believing and the definitions of the words clearly show this.

Originally Posted by kookyinc

Divine intervention. Just because one is outside does not mean one can't stick his hand in and cause plagues of locusts and whatnot.

But I agree, a non-interventionist god by definition can leave no evidence, and its existence must be taken completely on faith. However, most of the more popular gods of our age have (allegedly) interacted with the natural universe in some way.

Well, even if God causes miracles and communicates with people via visions, how does that leave any evidence of his existence? How can there possibly be any scientific evidence for the existence of a being who does not operate according to physical laws?

National Academy of Sciences:
Science is a way of knowing about the natural
world. It is limited to explaining the natural
world through natural causes. Science can say
nothing about the supernatural. Whether God
exists or not is a question about which science
is neutral.

Originally Posted by kookyinc

I believe that there is a possibility that there is evidence for a god. I believe that there is a possibility that a god exists. However, I lack believe in a god.

You've asserted belief by saying "I believe there is a possibility that there is evidence for a God". You believe(this is not a deficiency) This is something 'with' not something 'without'.

Originally Posted by Alric

The word faith does not appear in any of those dictionaries in regards to atheism. Now since you, yourself looked up multiple words in 6 different dictionaries you have no excuse to call atheism a faith.

The second part you seem confused on is that they also give two options for the definition. Denial and disbelief. You accept that if someone denies the existence of god, they are an atheist. However you seem to have trouble with the disbelief part. Disbelief isn't a belief, it is a lack of belief.

If you look back up the words disbelief you will see where it says reluctance or 'withholding' belief. If you are not sure, because you don't have enough data yet, that would be reluctance. One of them even says, the feeling of not believing. So if you don't believe in god, then you are not believing.

You got to read the whole thing. There are cases where disbelieving can be an active state, but there is also cases where disbelieving is simply not believing and the definitions of the words clearly show this.

What you do not seem to understand is this. For anyone to believe there is no God (atheism by definition) is to hold that belief by faith, considering there is no evidence that positively supports atheism and there are no logical proofs that God does not exist. It is, after all, virtually impossible to prove a negative. I hate to break it to you dude but atheism is a faith, you might as well own up to it now, as to get comfortable with this new found information you've been exposed to.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

How can there possibly be any scientific evidence for the existence of a being who does not operate according to physical laws?

There will not be in relation to science because science only deals with natural phenomenon and God is supernatural phenomena.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

There will not be in relation to science because science only deals with natural phenomenon and God is supernatural phenomena.

Exactly. So let's have no more of this talk about "evidence" for the existence of God. It is something which can only be taken entirely on faith.

Furthermore, faith and science have no overlap anywhere. To accept one is to utterly deny the other. If you're a person who's willing to take things on faith, despite any evidence to the contrary, then you reject science. If you accept that the universe runs on natural laws that are quantifiable and can be studied to make sense of them, then you reject magic and the supernatural.

This explains why theists constantly fail to understand the actual definitions of words and are able to keep hammering away at conversations like this one even after people have clearly pointed out what those words mean.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Exactly. So let's have no more of this talk about "evidence" for the existence of God. It is something which can only be taken entirely on faith.

That being the case you've just validated this statement even more.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

For anyone to believe there is no God (atheism by definition) is to hold that belief by faith, considering there is no evidence that positively supports atheism and there are no logical proofs that God does not exist.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

You've asserted belief by saying "I believe there is a possibility that there is evidence for a God". You believe(this is not a deficiency) This is something 'with' not something 'without'.

While you're technically correct, believing in the possibility for evidence of X to exist for something does not constitute a faith, it constitutes an open mind. To stay intellectually honest with myself, I have to believe that there could be evidence for unicorns. One can't disprove unicorns or give evidence of their non-existance. So even though I lack a belief in unicorns, and gods, that does not mean I' taking anything on faith.

And we go back to the beginning: I still lack a belief in god, but I do not believe that god does not exist.

Originally Posted by kookyinc

While you're technically correct, believing in the possibility for evidence of X to exist for something does not constitute a faith, it constitutes an open mind.

I wasn't talking about faith, we were discussing your so-called lack of belief, which you've confirmed that you actually have none, confirming in the same instance that you actually have belief.

Circular logic can go on forever

Are you serious? Are you really going to say atheism is faith, after you just proved it wasn't faith by quoting 6 dictionaries? Faith was never mentioned in any of the dictionaries, because it doesn't require any faith at all.

Also there is evidence that there is no god. There is actual real, logical proof god doesn't exist. You are just saying stuff, and what your saying has no biases in facts. You can easily prove negatives, it isn't impossible.

For example. My hand is not green. Can I prove my hand isn't green? Yes! My computer is not red. Can I prove my computer is not red? Yes! Don't give me that regurgitated talking point about not being able to prove a negative, because frankly, it is bullshit. I don't need faith to believe my hand isn't green, and I don't need faith to know any specific god doesn't exist because I can easily prove it.

Well you're wrong there. The existence or non-existence of God cannot be proven because, once again, a supernatural being cannot be studied by science.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Well you're wrong there. The existence or non-existence of God cannot be proven because, once again, a supernatural being cannot be studied by science.

I know right? Where does this guy come up with this stuff?

Thank you Darkmatters, and facepalm me again and it's going to be me and you...lol

Anyway I'm done here, I believe my point has been made, you guys can take it for what it is. All I ask if you just be intellectually honest with yourselves.

~So it shall be written, that it shall be done.

That is why I said a specific god. It is very easy to prove specific gods don't exist, because in cases of specific gods they set down specific guidelines in which that god was interactive with the world. If you can disprove he interacted in the ways they said, you can disprove he exited.

But - how could science prove or disprove the supernatural?

If a bush burns and a man claims he heard a voice coming form it, can you either prove or disprove his claim?

Science deals only with phenomenae, not noumenae.

Please give an example of a divine intervention that science can study.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

But - how could science prove or disprove the supernatural?

If a bush burns and a man claims he heard a voice coming form it, can you either prove or disprove his claim?

Science deals only with phenomenae, not noumenae.

Please give an example of a divine intervention that science can study.

Specific supernatural claims can be debunked (which is why most theistic philosophies hide behind obscure and vague language). Consider the statement "God causes lightning when he is angry" this has been debunked because we know what lightning is (electrostatic discharge from the atmosphere) and have comprehensive naturalistic explanations for it as opposed to the epistemological bear-trap that is "god dun it". Of course we cannot disprove the existence of such a deity but we can debunk specific claims made by it.

As for the burning bush example, no we cannot share someones subjective experience (only through language). People with schizophrenia for example sometimes hear inanimate objects communicating with them. We collectively know that inanimate objects are not capable of speech or thought (although Omnis Dei would probably disagree with this assertion) so we can prove that an individuals subjective experience is a hallucination, a projection of their mind onto the physical world. Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to undermine the value of subjective experience (in fact it is the starting point) but we know that experience is fallible. We project our past experiences onto present ones and fall victim to conformation biases that prevent us from grasping the whole picture.

Ah, but in that case the theists run behind the "God works through natural phenomenae" banner. They'll just say he causes lightning by natural causes. Of course that significantly weakens the concept of God.

Ok, they can say "Can you prove that every lightning strike in history was always created by natural causes?"

Even when I was a theist I had to reconcile God's miracles as having causal manifestation. But if so, why believe in God?

For example if you look at some old religions you can see where a gods was created from two or more gods merged into one. If you make the claim that a specific god has always existed and was worshiped as a single god since the beginning of time, you could disprove it by going back and showing how he came to exist from the worshipers of the two religions merging into one. Obviously he hasn't always existed and wasn't always worshiped in that form, and thus the religion is wrong and he doesn't exist.

In the case of the bible, god was there at the creation of the world, up until it was widely practiced. However you can prove that the faith didn't exist at one point. And if not a single person on earth was worshiping that god, then the claim that he has always been there and was always worshiped is false.

And that is just a small example but there is hundreds of things you can pick apart about any religion. So when they make a specific claim you can often prove those specific claims false. Like how the bible says the earth is only 5000 years old, you can prove that is false.

To play devil's advocate for a moment - to prove that people didn't know about a God or had wrong impressions about that God is not to prove that it didn't exist.

That's pretty much my take on it. Any sort of God your mind builds, to me, is false. I love the book House of Leaves because of how it demonstrates [spoiler removed by mod or administrator]

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

To play devil's advocate for a moment - to prove that people didn't know about a God or had wrong impressions about that God is not to prove that it didn't exist.

Is an omnipotent being really so inept at communication that people cannot even understand what it is trying to say? Oh wait ya that's right our feeble human minds cannot conceive of a divine deities will, good argument for theism. Ill keep it in mind when theists assert god said this or that.

@Omnis Dei House of Leaves was a mindblowing book. I wish I could read it again for the first time.