Atheism is a faith

[doppelganger]

I find "the supernatural" to be a nonsensical concept, if that's what you're asking. That's why I don't believe in it.

Okay, cool.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

It is equally true to say, "The problem with Theism isn't belief in God, but wrong belief."

I suspect you knew that I would agree.

 

[doppelganger]

I suspect you knew that I would agree.

Of course.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Exactly doppleganger. wrong belief because it does not agree with yours? If there was testable evidence of a god yes i would believe, doubt me as much as you like. If a theist could give a decent argument for the existance of a god i probably would be open to it, but none has.

This brings up an interesting question: when does a small pile of sand become large by adding one one grain of sand at a time? Philosophically, belief in God is justifiable but not certain. Experientially (subjectively), God is certain, howbeit not in the sense you might learn about in a church.

As for "testable evidence," that has already been shown to be an irrational demand.

 

[Jeremiah]

Apparently not. By "supernatural" do you mean some old man with a white beard existing somewhere "out there," outside nature and the universe? Do you mean something observerd but not understood? Are consciousness and mind "supernatural"? After all, they can't be seen or measured, nor can they be explained in terms unconscious matter-energy. To say simply they emerged from matter-energy explains nothing. (Correlations in the brain describe processes, like what goes on in a television; they do not explain consciousness any more than knowing what goes on in a television explains the invisible signals that are the source of the picture and sounds). In fact, to say mind and consciousness emerged from something in which they are entirely absent is equivelent to saying something can come from nothing--a supernatural occurance. This is one of the hidden assumptions of atheism, an unspoken article of faith that is inherent in atheism.

I made no such boast about the supernatural. If you are having problems defining the word check Google or a dictionary.

I forget who said it, but it's true:

I was quoting from memory from an interview in a book….. The professor is talking about and quoting from Augustine and what he says.....

This according to Professor Lawrence M. Principe of JohnHopkinsUniversity, lecturer on science and religion.

Exactly what the professor said.

I suppose this means university professors don't either.

If I may quothe the good professor

Something else I noticed, you apparently have very little to say on this subject.

 

[MoonWater]

Something else I noticed, you apparently have very little to say on this subject.

Any english teacher will tell you that a good essay needs quotes to back it up. And an essay is very similar to a debate as in both someone is trying to set forth an idea or theory and present evidence to show why such an idea or theory is valid or should be considered. So I fail to see why using a few quotes should be considered negative(as your tone implies). We are here to debate not to flame others. Are you so insecure in this that you must resort to these juvenile tactics.

 

[Jeremiah]

Any english teacher will tell you that a good essay needs quotes to back it up. And an essay is very similar to a debate as in both someone is trying to set forth an idea or theory and present evidence to show why such an idea or theory is valid or should be considered. So I fail to see why using a few quotes should be considered negative(as your tone implies). We are here to debate not to flame others. Are you so insecure in this that you must resort to these juvenile tactics.

Well you can't please everyone all the time. I tried the lighter approach debating here at RF, people tore it apart. As Popeyesays once quoted to me "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." But I'll work on making my post more pleasing.



*Afterthought - Crying wolf is not a very good rebuttal neither is your teach approach. You and Rolling Stone have said nothing of practical use. To what end do you wish to define atheism as faith?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

If atheism is not a faith, support the assertion with something more than "because atheism is lack of belief" because that is demonstrably false. You can't simply throw away the baggage the come with "God does not exist." To say that faith implies unreasoned belief in something is also demonstrably false. Of course, "demonstrable" means looking a bit deeper into religion and theology than turning on TBN or reading the likes of Dawkins or Harris who are easily dismissed as a sloppy thinkers--critics who define God in a way that makes him easy to dismiss as imaginary.

How about addressing the consciousness problem posed earlier, Jeremiah? Tell us why it is not a leap of faith to believe unconscious matter is the sufficient cause of consciousness. It is, after all, an assumption of athiesm and perhaps even reasonable. But you should support that position.

When you to say atheism is non-belief in the supernatural, what you seem to mean is that you don't believe in anything that transcends the material space-time universe. (If you mean something else then you should have said so instead of going on like a third-grader.)

But here's the kicker: the material space-time universe you think of as "real" is less real than what you call the "supernatural." At the most fundamental level of known reality, space and time can't be said to even exist. It is therefore more accurate to call the "supernatural" the natural and the space-time universe the less-than-natural.

 

[Jeremiah]

If atheism is not a faith, support the assertion with something more than "because atheism is lack of belief" because that is demonstrably false. To say that faith implies blind belief in something is also demonstrably false. Of course, this means looking a bit deeper into religion and theology than turning on you TV or reading the likes of Dawkins or Harris who are easily dismissed as a sloppy thinkers--critics who define God in a way that makes him easy to dismiss as imaginary.

I don't own a T.V. nor am I familiar with Dawkins or Harris.

 

[Jeremiah]

How about addressing the consciousness problem posed earlier, Jeremiah? Tell us why it is not a leap of faith to believe unconscious matter is the sufficient cause of consciousness. It is, after all, an assumption of athiesm and perhaps even reasonable. But you should support that position.

When you to say atheism is non-belief in the supernatural, what you seem to mean is that you don't believe in anything that transcends the material space-time universe. (If you mean something else then you should have said so instead of going on like a third-grader.)

But here's the kicker: the material space-time universe you think of as "real" is less real than what you call the "supernatural." At the most fundamental level of known reality, space and time can't be said to even exist. It is therefore more accurate to call the "supernatural" the natural and the space-time universe the less-than-natural.

The rest of this is off topic. Listen dude you don't really want to debate, I see that now. So here's a smiley :rainbow1:

 

[blackout]

Wat i meant was i believe what science proves and am open to logical scientific theory. But believing in god has no basis in scientific evidence. If it was proven or even logical, then i would believe, but i still would not worship.

Funny how I sort of hold an "inverse" view of all of this.
I am not someone who "trusts" blindly what "men" say....
just because they have 5 letters after their name....
or a white lab coat... or a black cloak of ordination.

I know only what I see.

Simple, physical sciences I see for myself daily
with my own two eyes.
The electrician comes....
plays around with the wires...
and the light works again.

I see that clearly.
It is not a matter of faith.

But believing in "theories" I do not understand...
cannot see for myself...
that is a leap of faith I will not take.
I do not have "faith" in "science"...
and I do not have blind faith in men...
no matter what titles they hold.

For me...
the theoretical scientist may as well be a temple priest...
telling me why this and that is so.
Neither would I 'believe" the doctrine of the priest or the "scientist".
That does not make their claims either true or false.
It only means I myself hold no "belief" in them...
because I do not know for myself.

I believe only what I personally experience...
what I have a direct knowledge and sight into.

Now I HAVE experienced the supernatural...
(ie... things that out-odd the odds...
naturally "impossible" occurances according to the science of usual nature).

Would I EXPECT you to believe me?
Have faith... that what I say is true...
just because I testify it it true?

no.

And so it is for me regarding "experts" of theory.

Surely I am OPEN
to hearing what they are trying to communicate...
but,
Why does the "religion" of scientific theory
DEMAND that everyone bow down to it in blind faith?

I guess I am a scientific theory athiest.

The only "evidence" I KNOW/believe...
is the "evidence" that is seeable and knowable by ME.

I trust the God I know for myself,
far more than I trust the "mankind" I know anyway.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Funny how I sort of hold an "inverse" view of all of this.
I am not someone who "trusts" blindly what "men" say....
just because they have 5 letters after their name....
or a white lab coat... or a black cloak of ordination.

I know only what I see.

Simple, physical sciences I see for myself daily
with my own two eyes.
The electrician comes....
plays around with the wires...
and the light works again.

I see that clearly.
It is not a matter of faith.

But believing in "theories" I do not understand...
cannot see for myself...
that is a leap of faith I will not take.
I do not have "faith" in "science"...
and I do not have blind faith in men...
no matter what titles they hold.

For me...
the theoretical scientist may as well be a temple priest...
telling me why this and that is so.
Neither would I 'believe" the doctrine of the priest or the "scientist".
That does not make their claims either true or false.
It only means I myself hold no "belief" in them...
because I do not know for myself.

I believe only what I personally experience...
what I have a direct knowledge and sight into.

Now I HAVE experienced the supernatural...
(ie... things that out-odd the odds...
naturally "impossible" occurances according to the science of usual nature).

Would I EXPECT you to believe me?
Have faith... that what I say is true...
just because I testify it it true?

no.

And so it is for me regarding "experts" of theory.

Surely I am OPEN
to hearing what they are trying to communicate...
but,
Why does the "religion" of scientific theory
DEMAND that everyone bow down to it in blind faith?

I guess I am a scientific theory athiest.

The only "evidence" I KNOW/believe...
is the "evidence" that is seeable and knowable by ME.

I trust the God I know for myself,
far more than I trust the "mankind" I know anyway.

I agree; the scientists of today hold the same position as the priests of yesterday.

While we can believe in blind faith what is taught to us, be it science or religion, there are some things we must investigate for ourselves and decide whether we want to assimilate it into our reality, or chuck it as heresy.

 

[gnomon]

Funny how I sort of hold an "inverse" view of all of this.
I am not someone who "trusts" blindly what "men" say....
just because they have 5 letters after their name....
or a white lab coat... or a black cloak of ordination.

I know only what I see.

Simple, physical sciences I see for myself daily
with my own two eyes.
The electrician comes....
plays around with the wires...
and the light works again.

I see that clearly.
It is not a matter of faith.

But believing in "theories" I do not understand...
cannot see for myself...
that is a leap of faith I will not take.
I do not have "faith" in "science"...
and I do not have blind faith in men...
no matter what titles they hold.

For me...
the theoretical scientist may as well be a temple priest...
telling me why this and that is so.
Neither would I 'believe" the doctrine of the priest or the "scientist".
That does not make their claims either true or false.
It only means I myself hold no "belief" in them...
because I do not know for myself.

I believe only what I personally experience...
what I have a direct knowledge and sight into.

Now I HAVE experienced the supernatural...
(ie... things that out-odd the odds...
naturally "impossible" occurances according to the science of usual nature).

Would I EXPECT you to believe me?
Have faith... that what I say is true...
just because I testify it it true?

no.

And so it is for me regarding "experts" of theory.

Surely I am OPEN
to hearing what they are trying to communicate...
but,
Why does the "religion" of scientific theory
DEMAND that everyone bow down to it in blind faith?

I guess I am a scientific theory athiest.

The only "evidence" I KNOW/believe...
is the "evidence" that is seeable and knowable by ME.

I trust the God I know for myself,
far more than I trust the "mankind" I know anyway.

This only shows you do not understand the meaning of the word science.

 

[MoonWater]

This only shows you do not understand the meaning of the word science.

How does it show that? What's wrong with doubting something unless you can see it for yourself? Should we believe everything a scientist says simply because they are a scientist? After all the experiment may have been flawed. maybe the one conducting the experiment was biased or manipulated the experiment and/or it's results. Can you prove that science is "infallible"? If not then he has every right to question it.

 

[gnomon]

How does it show that? What's wrong with doubting something unless you can see it for yourself? Should we believe everything a scientist says simply because they are a scientist? After all the experiment may have been flawed. maybe the one conducting the experiment was biased or manipulated the experiment and/or it's results. Can you prove that science is "infallible"? If not then he has every right to question it.

I didn't challenge anyone's right to doubt science. If you knew the meaning of science you would understand the skepticism and reason are a part of it. Neither did I state that we should believe everything a scientist claims. Actually you never believe what a scientist claims on face value.

edit: to myself, be nice.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

The rest of this is off topic. Listen dude you don't really want to debate, I see that now. So here's a smiley :rainbow1:

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. The topic is atheism and faith. You brought up the supernatural without defining what you mean, and you are the one who isn't addressing the question of whether atheism is a faith.

No prob. Atheists tend to avoid the hard questions about their faith.

 

[MoonWater]

I didn't challenge anyone's right to doubt science. If you knew the meaning of science you would understand the skepticism and reason are a part of it. Neither did I state that we should believe everything a scientist claims. Actually you never believe what a scientist claims on face value.

edit: to myself, be nice.

If I got the correct meaning from his words that's just what thenewreality was saying. He doesn't take science or religion at face value and doubts everything unless he can see and understand it for himself. And yes you should be nice or at least nicER. We are here to have a friendly debate not bash other people simply because we disagree with them. You also didn't answer the question of how thenewreality's post shows he has "no understanding of the word science." She questions science and from what I gathered by your response you beleive that her questioning means she knows nothing of science. If you feel it is a valid statement to say she doesn't understand science you should be able to back it up with evidence and an explanation as to how you cam to that conclusion otherwise it is simply flaming.

 

[rojse]

Funny how I sort of hold an "inverse" view of all of this.
I am not someone who "trusts" blindly what "men" say....
just because they have 5 letters after their name....
or a white lab coat... or a black cloak of ordination.

I know only what I see.

Simple, physical sciences I see for myself daily
with my own two eyes.
The electrician comes....
plays around with the wires...
and the light works again.

I see that clearly.
It is not a matter of faith.

But believing in "theories" I do not understand...
cannot see for myself...
that is a leap of faith I will not take.
I do not have "faith" in "science"...
and I do not have blind faith in men...
no matter what titles they hold.

For me...
the theoretical scientist may as well be a temple priest...
telling me why this and that is so.
Neither would I 'believe" the doctrine of the priest or the "scientist".
That does not make their claims either true or false.
It only means I myself hold no "belief" in them...
because I do not know for myself.

I believe only what I personally experience...
what I have a direct knowledge and sight into.

Now I HAVE experienced the supernatural...
(ie... things that out-odd the odds...
naturally "impossible" occurances according to the science of usual nature).

Would I EXPECT you to believe me?
Have faith... that what I say is true...
just because I testify it it true?

no.

And so it is for me regarding "experts" of theory.

Surely I am OPEN
to hearing what they are trying to communicate...
but,
Why does the "religion" of scientific theory
DEMAND that everyone bow down to it in blind faith?

I guess I am a scientific theory athiest.

The only "evidence" I KNOW/believe...
is the "evidence" that is seeable and knowable by ME.

I trust the God I know for myself,
far more than I trust the "mankind" I know anyway.

You may not trust scientists because you cannot understand their field of expertise, but couldn't this logic apply elsewhere?

How do you know the pills your doctor prescribed for you actually cured your illness, for example? He could have chanted to make it all go away, and the pills were just a way for him and the pharmacy to make some more money out of you.

The electrician may have had your wiring fixed in five minutes, but he could have fiddled for two hours to charge you more money, so he could inflate his weekly pay packet.

The car mechanic says that to get your car working again, you will need to pay eight hundred dollars for parts and maintenance. How do you know that he spent eight hours working on your car, and that you needed new cylinders, spark plugs and a radiator for the car to work again?

If you are willing to accept what these experts are telling you, and pay good money for their advice, why are you not willing to listen to scientists? You may be dismissive of their achievements, but look at all of the progress they have brought us.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

You may not trust scientists because you cannot understand their field of expertise, but couldn't this logic apply elsewhere?

How do you know the pills your doctor prescribed for you actually cured your illness, for example? He could have chanted to make it all go away, and the pills were just a way for him and the pharmacy to make some more money out of you.

The electrician may have had your wiring fixed in five minutes, but he could have fiddled for two hours to charge you more money, so he could inflate his weekly pay packet.

The car mechanic says that to get your car working again, you will need to pay eight hundred dollars for parts and maintenance. How do you know that he spent eight hours working on your car, and that you needed new cylinders, spark plugs and a radiator for the car to work again?

If you are willing to accept what these experts are telling you, and pay good money for their advice, why are you not willing to listen to scientists?

These experts are more like corrupt clergy than honest scientists. There's a difference between putting faith in a person whose job it is to help you, and accepting the reality of a system of symbols.

You may be dismissive of their achievements, but look at all of the progress they have brought us.

For scientists and religious leaders alike.

 

[Fluffy]

Saying that atheism and theism are both faith based is equivilant to saying that firemen and arsonists both work with fire.