Thread: Athiesm is a faith

Let's not forget now that you can have an agnostic atheist and an agnostic theist.

I love charts, they make everything feel so official!

Originally Posted by Alric

End of story.

Gosh I hope not. This whole baby thing is somewhat distracting for me.


For what it's worth, I would be inclined to say that any kind of strong assertion, both is so/not so, requires some level of faith to accept without question...but that is because I have trouble asserting anything with complete confidence. /points to name.

I don't want to start another riot of words here either. Truly.

All I wanted to say was that: yes, all kinds of claims that god exists, and most [if not all] forms of practiced religion rely more heavily on faith than any comparable form of philosophical or practiced atheism.

But again, that doesn't mean accepting any sort of claim without question does not involve at least some level of faith...which is what both theists and atheists alike seem to be doing. [Because agnostics and babies seem to be the only ones capable of riding the fence in this tough crowd. Yikers.]


Also, I can't help but notice that at the outset the whole crux of the thing seemed to hinge upon whether or not a negative claim [god doesn't exist-atheism, etc.] uses the at least some of the same principles as a positive claim [god does/can exist-theism, etc.]...in this case, the principle of faith.

And somehow that evolved into the question of whether or not agnosticism [seemingly neutral claim?] is the same as either theism or atheism.

In which case, I'd humbly be voting yes, and no at this point...respectively. If this were a poll, and not ED.

So…that's an overall sortof to the title question. But I would lean towards changing the "is a" to a "has some".

I dunno.

Originally Posted by kookyinc

X says, "I do not believe that aliens exist". This means that X has a lack of a belief that aliens exist. X concedes that aliens could exist, but X finds no reason to believe that they do exist.

This is not a lack of belief.

X finds no reason to believe that aliens exist. <--- This is rejection.

It's rejection because the person has acted upon a decision to not believe based off reason. We only act upon things we believe in we do not act upon things we do not believe in.

Originally Posted by kookyinc

Y says, "I believe that aliens do not exist". This means that Y has a positive belief that aliens do not exist. Y concedes that he does not even think aliens even could exist.

This is also rejection the two statements are literally isomorphic toward one another.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Why does it not make sense to say: "A person who has never heard of God does not believe in God?"

Because that statement means a person who has never heard of God, believes God does not exist. Which automatically ties them into the realm of belief.

If you would quit raising you wouldn't see this problem.

Originally Posted by Replicon

The two are orthogonal. They're different attributes that can co-exist. Man, this is like if I said "I have a small blue car" and then you said, "small and blue are two independent concepts so why tack them together?" If you fail to understand this much, then our discussion is over.

That analogy you gave was pretty poor. Lacking knowledge in something is meaningless on it's own and it's of limited use. "He lacks knowledge in God" -So? What about it? Now when you tack on a descriptive belief-base label to it and make a claim that it's the default position, the knowledge-base label then becomes absent and it presents a problem of confusion.

Originally Posted by Replicon

Yes, on a scale from -10 to 10, where "-10" means "I believe there is no god" and "10" means "I believe there is a god", atheism is a "0" ("I don't have a belief in god") - like you said, that is where babies lie. They're atheists, by definition.

This doesn't make sense if there is a belief that X does not exist is true then that's 10
If there is a belief that X exist is true then that's equally 10 because they are both positive beliefs.

In actuality the scale would go from 0 to 10 with 0 holding no belief/no disbelief and 10 holding belief/holding disbelief. Babies would be at 0 and atheist at 10 because atheist hold a positive belief that something is not true or a disbelief and babies do not hold a positive belief or disbelief about anything.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

But you're still raising, why? Let me show you something.

BLUELINE does not believe in God -means- BLUELINE believes God does not exist,

-it does not mean that BLUELINE doesn't have any beliefs about God. This is why Atheism, rather you want to admit it or not lies in the realm of beliefs.



A - Belief with X is true - theos - theist <---This is [acceptance]
B - Belief without X is true - a-theos - atheist <---This is [rejection]
C - Unsure -pending A or B <---this is the true lack of belief. -[A]gnostic

Atheisim is a belief -its a belief that a concept is false bottom line.

A lack of belief is atheism. It doesn't matter how much you say otherwise, that is the dictionary definition of a atheist. If you lack belief in a god, you are atheist. Arguing against the definition of the word doesn't get you any where.

Originally Posted by Alric

A lack of belief is atheism. It doesn't matter how much you say otherwise, that is the dictionary definition of a atheist. If you lack belief in a god, you are atheist. Arguing against the definition of the word doesn't get you any where.

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?

Um... are atheists here SERIOUSLY trying to use the dictionaries on their favor? Remember, they were built/written when the Judeo-Christian religion was the strongest (And still is) notice all the "God" there to make the Christian deity look more interesting, of course it will say denial.

I for one, don't really bother with such a creature, who cares if it exist or not? I don't need to reject it nor worry about something that useless, just need to worry about the people doing silly stuff because of the book, but thats a different story.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

This is not a lack of belief.

X finds no reason to believe that aliens exist. <--- This is rejection.

It's rejection because the person has acted upon a decision to not believe based off reason. We only act upon things we believe in we do not act upon things we do not believe in.

This is also rejection the two statements are literally isomorphic toward one another.

I give up. I simply can not comprehend how you are unable to grasp the difference between strong and weak atheism given all the descriptions (not to mention Omnis Dei's chart, although it uses slightly different terminology).

And while dictionary definitions are nice, words change over time and have different meanings to different people. Here is, among others, a strong/weak atheism description. Here is an implicit/explicit atheism description. Not to bash the dictionary people (I'm sure they did their best), but many of the more specific aspects of atheism are too deep to be covered in a single predicate-missing clause.

> Religious people trying to make the opposition look bad by claiming their beliefs are based on faith.

Originally Posted by Xei

> Religious people trying to make the opposition look bad by claiming their beliefs are based on faith.

The constant refusal to acknowledge the definition of words, and the leaps of 'logic' in desperately trying to avoid them really irritate me.

Like, last time we had this discussion I brought up the concept of implicit atheism, as well as mentioning various kinds of atheism. But that's too inconvenient for some (and some of them are just too fucking stupid anyway), so they have to strawman it into "atheism is a faith".

Originally Posted by kookyinc

I give up. I simply can not comprehend how you are unable to grasp the difference between strong and weak atheism given all the descriptions (not to mention Omnis Dei's chart, although it uses slightly different terminology).

Because rejection is rejection and I don't see how you cannot comprehend that. You can't say "I'm a weak atheist so I'm going to softly reject or softly deny God" and think it's any different when a so-called strong atheist rejection. That's what I see when people throw out the hundred or so version of atheist. Rejection is rejection there is no way to soften that term.

To answer to the OP, the atheism you refer to is a faith, yes. Because it is a world-view disbelieving in God, it is also significant enough to earn that title. On the other hand, the atheism of all those people "who haven't heard of God" does not stand as a faith. Wow "atheists", did that hurt?

Originally Posted by Replicon

"Not believing in god" is not the same thing as "concluding that there is no god."

Therefore Atheism is an unjustified belief? Sounds unreasonable.

Originally Posted by Alric

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

Since so much meaning is derived from atheism as disbelieving in God, it would seem meaningless to call all people who haven't "heard of" God atheists as well.

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

There is no such thing as a "default position", since a position is the result of what something means to the person. The "default position" is lack of a position; i.e. neither yes or no, nor any grey area. The fact that there is no position means that it is neither atheist nor theist, nor any grey area. However given their outlying relevance in this world, there is nothing practical in speaking of somebody without a position or belief of God, nor somebody without any opinion of God, as atheist.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

Why are people arguing about this? I thought the definitions were clear by now.

A theist is someone who believes in a god or gods.
An atheist is someone who is not a theist.

If we use your definition there, we may run into the above problems

hi newbie poking in. it has been discussed in another forum. there's no point of arguing things that cannot be proved or disproved. and dont try to say that you are religion A, but keep saying about the teaching of religion B. so.. a simple reality check, tell yourself if someone ask you a question...
"do you believe in God?"

if you think you'll answer "no": you are atheist
if you think you'll answer "not sure": you are agnostics
if you think you'll say "yes": you are a theist. a person with religion.

there will be no answer such as "No, God doesnt exist, but i'm not sure" or "Yes God does exist, but i'm not sure either" or even "yes and no", its just nonsense imho. and dont argue about provability, nobody can do that. dont mixed up provability with belief (or faith). this thread is all about faith and belief. its like arguing that you like red but i like blue. we can argue about this until the world ends. my 2cnts.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Because rejection is rejection and I don't see how you cannot comprehend that. You can't say "I'm a weak atheist so I'm going to softly reject or softly deny God" and think it's any different when a so-called strong atheist rejection. That's what I see when people throw out the hundred or so version of atheist. Rejection is rejection there is no way to soften that term.

While you can't say, "I'm a weak atheist so I'm going to softly reject or softly deny God", you can say, "I don't think a god exists, but it could."

If you say, "My dog can do a backflip," I may say, "I do not believe that a dog can backflip." Ergo, it's a lack of a belief. My belief that the dog can do backflips is missing. Perhaps dogs can do backflips, but I find it unlikely. It's possible, but improbable.

If you say, "My dog can do a backflip," I may say, "I do believe that a dog can not backflip." Ergo, it's a belief. A belief that the dog can do backflips is not only missing, but added to it is the belief that dogs can not do backflips. Rather than say that it is possible but improbable for dogs to do backflips, I am asserting that it is impossible for dogs to do backflips.

You're claiming that a lack of a belief is a belief of lack. It isn't.

"I do not believe dogs can backflip, but it's possible that they could"
is not
"I believe that dogs do not backflip, for that is impossible".

That's the difference.

Kookyinc, do you lack belief in the existence of a God?

If so can you give a brief explanation as to why?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Kookyinc, do you lack belief in the existence of a God?

If so can you give a brief explanation as to why?

Yes, I do not believe in any gods because there is no testable, objective evidence to indicate that any gods exists. A god may exist, it's entirely possible and I'm open to that idea if it can be backed up, but insofar I find no reason to believe in a god.

So you're stating that you do not believe in any Gods because of evidence. Would you conclude that you have not seen all evidence available and there may very well be sufficient evidence which demonstrate the existence of a God?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

So you're stating that you do not believe in any Gods because of evidence. Would you conclude that you have not seen all evidence available and there may very well be sufficient evidence which demonstrate the existence of a God?

I would admit that.

Do you believe that?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Do you believe that?

I believe that I have not seen any evidence that would suggest that a god exists, but I will admit that there is the possibility that there is evidence somewhere that has yet to be discovered and/or presented.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Because that statement means a person who has never heard of God, believes God does not exist. Which automatically ties them into the realm of belief.

If you would quit raising you wouldn't see this problem.

Ugh do you know what the word implicit means? They're not believing God does not exist. They're not believing anything. They can't set a belief on the concept of God, because they have never heard of it. But they can NOT believe in the sense that they implicitly, inherently, naturally, do not believe. In the case of ignorance, saying "I don't believe in God" does not mean "I believe God exists." Keyword here is implicit.

I don't know how to explain it any simpler so if you're still having trouble understanding this then I'm gonna go outside and play in traffic. It'd be far more productive.

Originally Posted by kookyinc

I believe that I have not seen any evidence that would suggest that a god exists, but I will admit that there is the possibility that there is evidence somewhere that has yet to be discovered and/or presented.

So you're saying that you believe in the possibility that sufficient evidence could very well surface demonstrating the existence of a God?

Ummm... it's not called evidence until it does surface. Evidence that has not been discovered yet simply isn't evidence. It's called the unknown.