Thread: Athiesm is a faith

Originally Posted by Dianeva

Yes you are.

And there's nothing really more to discuss, since the disagreement is purely over a definition. Unless we want to throw sources.

Oxford Dictionaries: "a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods"

Wikipedia: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."

Iron-Chariots wiki (atheist site): "An atheist, in the general sense, is a person who does not believe in the existence of any gods."

Exactly, the dictionary definition of atheism just argued my point perfectly. Atheism is a faith. Scatterbrain's analogy is completely irrelevant, also. Atheism is hardly silence. It requires as much faith to posit no as yes.

How is that definition arguing in your favour?

"An atheist, in the general sense, is a person who does not believe in the existence of any gods."

'does not believe' == lack of belief, not "faith"

I'm curious as to what this lack of belief is based on. I know every Atheist is different but whichever Atheist responds to this, I'm curious as to what you're basing your lack of belief off of.

I'm not trying to say to not believe in god, you are forced to believe there is no god. I'm saying that if you're atheist, you believe there is no god. Otherwise you're an agnostic.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I'm not trying to say to not believe in god, you are forced to believe there is no god. I'm saying that if you're atheist, you believe there is no god. Otherwise you're an agnostic.

No - it just means you don't believe there is a God. Big difference. To not believe in a God is to accept the overwhelming evidence all around us. To believe in one is to believe against the evidence. Since theists are making an extraordinary claim, it's on them to produce extraordinary evidence if they want others to accept their beliefs.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

No - it just means you don't believe there is a God. Big difference. To not believe in a God is to accept the overwhelming evidence all around us. To believe in one is to believe against the evidence. Since theists are making an extraordinary claim, it's on them to produce extraordinary evidence if they want others to accept their beliefs.

I would call that empiricism. Atheist posits the opposite claim which is also an extraordinary claim. There is no reason to believe the universe is not conscious, there is also no reason to be convinced it is. Evidence does not lean either direction, inertly.

SOME atheists posit no God exists - I guess those are the Strong Atheists. But not all atheism is so extreme.

The universe being conscious is not enough for it to be considered God - that would require it to be omnipotent and omniscient and to have always existed (the causeless cause). At least if it's to be considered a God like the Biblical one.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

SOME atheists posit no God exists - I guess those are the Strong Atheists. But not all atheism is so extreme.

The universe being conscious is not enough for it to be considered God - that would require it to be omnipotent and omniscient and to have always existed (the causeless cause). At least if it's to be considered a God like the Biblical one.

Yeah I'm not even interested in talking about the Gods related to circular logic.

I guess it comes down to a simple matter of deciding where to draw the line. I'm just going to keep the drawing the hard lines in reaction to atheists claiming I'm an atheist before acting like total douchebags.

I totally fail at understanding your last sentence Lol!!

I guess I"d call myself an agnostic atheist. If God simply means an intelligent universe, well that's different from the Christian God and I could accept it a lot easier. On matters like that I'm open minded.

What I'm saying is if atheists want to act like douchebags then they need to stop defining atheism is such broad terms that encompasses all the none douchebags. If someone identifies as an atheist by itself, I suppose it means what you want it to, like any other form of identification. However, when that person posits God does not exist and uses circular logic to support this claim, it makes me NOT want to identify as atheist. if atheism is truly meant only to ascribe to thinkers free of theistic faith, then it's been corrupted by all the DBs who push the claim further.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Scatterbrain's analogy is completely irrelevant, also.

Great rebuttal Sir. I yield.

There is an easy solution, you just define athiest as not believing in any established religion. This isn't faith because we can trace back all established religions to their orgins and see how they were created by people at the time, and for what reasons, which shows how they are all made up by man, and thus do not involve real gods. In most instances when a person says god or talks about faith they are speaking about some specific god, so this term for athiest works well since the person doesn't believe in any specific god.

Now if you are talking about a god is a philosophical sense of being the universe, you are no longer talking about religion and so this term of athiest doesn't work. Which is a good thing, since athiests is usually used in terms of religions, and not in a philosophical sense, and athiests have greatly differing opinions on issues of the universe.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

What I'm saying is if atheists want to act like douchebags then they need to stop defining atheism is such broad terms that encompasses all the none douchebags. If someone identifies as an atheist by itself, I suppose it means what you want it to, like any other form of identification. However, when that person posits God does not exist and uses circular logic to support this claim, it makes me NOT want to identify as atheist. if atheism is truly meant only to ascribe to thinkers free of theistic faith, then it's been corrupted by all the DBs who push the claim further.

That is a problem. But, given the "lack of belief in god" definition is already accepted by so many large atheist groups, it's a bit too late to change the definition. The solution is for more nice and reasonable people to identify as atheists so those negative judgments go away. Refusing to is kind of like a homosexual man refusing to identify as gay because he doesn't like fashion or talk like a teenage girl.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

That is a problem. But, given the "lack of belief in god" definition is already accepted by so many large atheist groups, it's a bit too late to change the definition. The solution is for more nice and reasonable people to identify as atheists so those negative judgments go away. Refusing to is kind of like a homosexual man refusing to identify as gay because he doesn't like fashion or talk like a teenage girl.

This is a valid point. In fact, it's kind of sad how someone who identifies as an atheist is automatically granted the worst social stigma in the US. It reminds me of liberals identifying as progressives because the conservatives managed to turn the word liberal into a rebuttal all by itself.

I do need to say though that identifying yourself as an atheist creates the same kind of exclusion as religion. I still wouldn't identify as an atheist because I believe empiricism is part of human evolution and just because someone hasn't gotten there yet doesn't mean they won't, or their kids won't. I don't think the epitome of an advanced society will be one without religion. I like to use Ken Wilbur's spiral dynamics to explain this. To a traditional person, the bible makes sense because its infallible duh. To an empirical person, the bible makes no sense because it has no evidence to support its claims. To an inclusive person, the bible makes sense again because they can read between the lines and see the commonalities with other religions.

Originally Posted by omnis dei

to an empirical person, the bible makes no sense because it has no evidence to support its claims. to an inclusive person, the bible makes sense again because they can read between the lines and see the commonalities with other religions.

dingdingding!

"commonalities with other religions" doesn't mean it makes sense to believe there is a god. I think all religions are equally deluded, just some are more prominently infecting the political system.

I can't believe this "debate" (if you want to call it that) is still something that people bring up. A-theist --> "not theist" - that is ALL. You can qualify it with words like "strong" and stuff, but just the word just means "no belief in a god."

The question Ne-yo posed earlier about "why do you lack belief in god" - I can sort of answer it, but the truth is, "why do you believe in god?" is much more relevant than "why do you NOT harbour a belief in a god?"

Consider someone who has NEVER heard of the concept of "god" and has never invented it. That person is an atheist. He has not said, "hmm, this god thing doesn't make sense, due to lack of evidence" - he has just NEVER heard of the concept. By the way, I know this pisses some christians off, but ALL new born babies are therefore atheist. Sorry, there is no such thing as a christian baby... Well, except maybe this guy haha. I think theists that are constantly harping on the word "atheist" do so because they don't like the fact that all babies are atheists, since that's the default starting position no matter what.

Now for me, I HAVE heard of the concept of god, but I have not encountered any reason to leave the "default state" known as "atheism" (and only known as such because theism exists - otherwise, the word atheist also wouldn't exist).

Actually that's not true. I used to be catholic (at least, that was the label handed down to me as a child), but then I started thinking about it, and realized that my "belief" was just going through the motions, and in reality, there really ISN'T any reason for me to move away from the default.

Some people seem to have a problem with differentiating between "lack of belief" and what lead one to a "lack of belief." That's why atheism is often split up into categories. Atheism as a whole is a lack of belief. Whether a person has a reason is irrelevant if you're discussing atheism as a whole, because you have yet to identify whether their lack of faith is implicit or explicit.

I understand why people have such a problem with this. Theism and atheism are [erroneously] usually thought of in terms of pure, polar opposites: if a theist is a person who says god exists, then an atheist is a person who says god does not exist. It leaves no room for other possibilities on the negative side. The negative side needs wiggle room because primarily, it isn't a positive position like theism is (though it can be, but that depends on the person). In simpler terms, there are more reasons to be categorized as an atheist than there are a theist.

Originally Posted by Replicon

Consider someone who has NEVER heard of the concept of "god" and has never invented it. That person is an atheist.

For someone who has NEVER heard of a concept (in this case God). This is considered being in a state of complete unawareness with regards to God because this person has never been exposed to anything that defines God.

If Atheism = Lack of belief that a concept is true, then I'm confused as to how exactly can someone have an absence/lack of belief that something is true if they are completely oblivious to that something in the first place? If you lack belief that a concept is true you'll equally advocate the opposite position in which in this case would be A belief that a concept is false, which is an intellectual categorized assertion that YOU'VE made simply because you were aware of that concept in the first place.

Originally Posted by Replicon

I know this pisses some christians off, but ALL new born babies are therefore atheist. Sorry, there is no such thing as a christian baby..

I'll agree with this, there is no such thing as a Christian baby, there is equally no such thing as an Atheist baby, primarily because of that information I posted in the previous paragraph up.

Originally Posted by Replicon

Now for me, I HAVE heard of the concept of god, but I have not encountered any reason to leave the "default state" known as "atheism" (and only known as such because theism exists - otherwise, the word atheist also wouldn't exist).
Actually that's not true. I used to be catholic (at least, that was the label handed down to me as a child), but then I started thinking about it, and realized that my "belief" was just going through the motions, and in reality, there really ISN'T any reason for me to move away from the default.

There is no default position and no one is born Atheist. After all of these threads created on such topics within the past few years here, how can you still think this? Even O'nus eventually downplayed this mode of thinking after debating it. To have a lack of belief that a concept is true is a conscious choice.

You stated that Lack of belief is complete ignorance of a concept which makes a person Atheist in this sense per your statement.

Consider someone who has NEVER heard of the concept of "god" and has never invented it. That person is an atheist. He has not said, "hmm, this god thing doesn't make sense, due to lack of evidence" - he has just NEVER heard of the concept.

If being in a state of complete mental ignorance is what you describe as Atheism then how can it be possible for you to go back to a state of complete mental ignorance of a God if you were raised or labeled as a Catholic sortofspeak? If you're raised within a catholic environment then you were exposed to the concept of a God, how exactly can you go back to having complete and total mental unawareness about a God?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

For someone who has NEVER heard of a concept (in this case God). This is considered being in a state of complete unawareness with regards to God because this person has never been exposed to anything that defines God.

If Atheism = Lack of belief that a concept is true, then I'm confused as to how exactly can someone have an absence/lack of belief that something is true if they are completely oblivious to that something in the first place? If you lack belief that a concept is true you'll equally advocate the opposite position in which in this case would be A belief that a concept is false, which is an intellectual categorized assertion that YOU'VE made simply because you were aware of that concept in the first place.

It's called implicit atheism. Say, for example, I've never heard of the concept of God. It cannot be said that I believe God exists, and it cannot be said that I believe God does not exist. In addition, it cannot be said that I believe in God. But it can be said that I do not believe in God. Even something as simple as wording is important here.

There is no default position and no one is born Atheist. After all of these threads created on such topics within the past few years here, how can you still think this? Even O'nus eventually downplayed this mode of thinking after debating it. To have a lack of belief that a concept is true is a conscious choice.

Simply because a topic has been discussed on numerous occasions does not necessarily mean that a person will shift to one side or another based on the frequency of discussion. And what O'nus has to do with this, I have no idea. As far as I know, Replicon and O'nus aren't the same person.

You stated that Lack of belief is complete ignorance of a concept which makes a person Atheist in this sense per your statement.

If being in a state of complete mental ignorance is what you describe as Atheism then how can it be possible for you to go back to a state of complete mental ignorance of a God if you were raised or labeled as a Catholic sortofspeak? If you're raised within a catholic environment then you were exposed to the concept of a God, how exactly can you go back to having complete and total mental unawareness about a God?

You can't, unless you suffer from some sort of chronic amnesia or other disabilities affecting memory. I don't know why you're bringing this up as it has nothing to do with what Replicon said. He isn't saying atheism is TOTALLY a complete mental ignorance of the concept of God. He said those with a complete mental ignorance of the concept of God are atheists simply by the fact that it cannot be said that they believe in God. There is a significant difference in what you're ascribing to him and what he actually said.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

You stated that Lack of belief is complete ignorance of a concept which makes a person Atheist in this sense per your statement.

No. I stated that "atheist" == "lack of belief, and nothing more is required" - I gave the example of complete ignorance to show you the extent to which the term "atheist" is inclusive, NOT that that's how it's defined.

Everyone who hasn't heard of god are atheists, but not all atheists have never heard of god.

Which is similar to the statement.

All pine trees are trees, but not all trees are pine trees.

Being an atheist is in fact the default neutral position for anyone who has never considered the issue, or has not heard of god.

Originally Posted by Solarflare

Bitch Please:

faith definition



how the hell is atheism a trust in something

Do you trust that you disbelieve in god? Of course or else you wouldn't be a atheist. Therefore atheism is a faith and therefore it lacks "truth". Therefore theism is the only way.

Do trust that you believe in gravity? Of course or else you wouldn't be sane. Therefore being sane is a faith and therefore it lacks "truth". Therefore being insane is the only way.

If you changes the words a little you see your argument sucks.

Originally Posted by Alric

Do trust that you believe in gravity? Of course or else you wouldn't be sane. Therefore being sane is a faith and therefore it lacks "truth". Therefore being insane is the only way.

If you changes the words a little you see your argument sucks.

I disagree Insanity is the repetition of doing something over and over again.