Atheism is a faith

[gnomon]

And what gives you the authority to call a belief system bogus? Do you have any idea how insulting that is?

Because I think. Last I checked, all human beings are equal within the capacity of their cognitive functions. Since I accept the fact that my cognitive functions are pretty damn good, especially considering I'm a relapsed alcoholic currently on his 8th beer in the last couple of hours, my typing skills show tremendous functioning capacity.

Is someone offended, then let them present and defend their beliefs. Why must individuals pussyfoot and walk among eggshells within this absurd notion of respecting another human's belief.

The authority exists within me because I am human, cognizant and able to question. What is your authority?

 

[MoonWater]

Because I think. Last I checked, all human beings are equal within the capacity of their cognitive functions. Since I accept the fact that my cognitive functions are pretty damn good, especially considering I'm a relapsed alcoholic currently on his 8th beer in the last couple of hours, my typing skills show tremendous functioning capacity.

Is someone offended, then let them present and defend their beliefs. Why must individuals pussyfoot and walk among eggshells within this absurd notion of respecting another human's belief.

The authority exists within me because I am human, cognizant and able to question. What is your authority?

I was offended. Though I fail to see why I should defend my beliefs to you when you'll no doubt call them bogus no matter what I say. Look, I recognize that everyone has the right to their own opinion but you are in a dabate thread and as such simply calling belief systems "bogus" is flaming especially when you don't bother to back up your claim. Tell me how would you react if I called Atheism "bogus"? It's not a matter of walking on eggshells but rather a matter of being a little more thoughtful with your conversation.

 

[gnomon]

I was offended. Though I fail to see why I should defend my beliefs to you when you'll no doubt call them bogus no matter what I say. Look, I recognize that everyone has the right to their own opinion but you are in a dabate thread and as such simply calling belief systems "bogus" is flaming especially when you don't bother to back up your claim. Tell me how would you react if I called Atheism "bogus"? It's not a matter of walking on eggshells but rather a matter of being a little more thoughtful with your conversation.

I frankly could care less when Atheism is called bogus. I've already stated in this thread that I no longer consider myself an Atheist. The term has lost any true debatable function as no definition can be agreed upon.

Calling someone forth for a bogus statement in a debate thread is the point and ... despite my offensiveness, truly hold interest whenever I put forth such a claim upon the response of the person I directed the question towards. I've also been known to change my opinion's or attitude thank you very much. The world is not a place to treat you with respect just for what you wish and why you should expect me to do any different is amazing. When other people do challenge what I believe I debate them upon the point until common ground or some correction can be realized.

In response to your initial response, I stated what authority exists within me to pose the question I did. I already give the acceptance that you hold such authority yourself. I only hope you recognize that and continue to exercise such personal authority. I have not flamed this person. They put forth an incredulous statement and I will hold them to task for it.

That...is part of the debate.

edit: If you are offended the only thing I can state and be honest about is that I'm sorry but my statements still stand until otherwise shown wrong.

 

[s2a]

I was offended. Though I fail to see why I should defend my beliefs to you when you'll no doubt call them bogus no matter what I say. Look, I recognize that everyone has the right to their own opinion but you are in a dabate thread and as such simply calling belief systems "bogus" is flaming especially when you don't bother to back up your claim. Tell me how would you react if I called Atheism "bogus"? It's not a matter of walking on eggshells but rather a matter of being a little more thoughtful with your conversation.

Hello Moonwater,

I would care to offer some commentary/answers...

"I was offended."

What's your point? I'm "offended" that so many American citizens are both ignorant AND presumptively arrogant (at the very same time) about what (and how) their very own Constitution protects the (relatively unabridged) liberty to express one's own opinion most freely...but when that very same expression is taken by someone else as being "offensive", it's therefore deemed (or demonized as) "inappropriate"...or worse.

The US Constitution protects my right to proclaim your words, actions, or faith-based beliefs as being; "idiotic", "stupid", "ridiculous"; or just "silly superstition". The Constitution DOES NOT provide ANY protection (nor any guarantee against) your taking some personal offense in such stated opinion(s).

NONE.

I'll repeat that for especial emphasis.

NONE.

Welcome, citizen. That's the way it is in America.

"Though I fail to see why I should defend my beliefs to you when you'll no doubt call them bogus no matter what I say."

That depends upon the strength and merits of your provided defense. Most religious (or faith-based) beliefs make extraordinary claims of imperious (and "governing") "fact" or "truth", that even most believers readily acknowledge have NO evidential foundations as support--by either objective observation or experimental measures.

Belief in a supernatural "god" is a testament of faith...not a presentation of any burdened proof that satisfactorily meets/exceeds all reasonable doubts.

"Look, I recognize that everyone has the right to their own opinion but you are in a dabate thread and as such simply calling belief systems "bogus" is flaming especially when you don't bother to back up your claim."

No, it's not a "flame".

"God did it"...is a claim.
If you can't provide compelling evidential proofs beyond established/measurable reasonable doubts that your claim is (most likely/probably) "true", then it's neither unreasonable nor unfair for skeptics to consider your claim as "bogus" (or deceptive, spurious, fictitious, etc.).

If I claim that the planet Neptune is comprised of 99.9% Argon gas...would you consider my claim as "bogus"?
Would you care?
Would you at least expect me to provide (some) compelling evidence to support my claim? Should I take PERSONAL OFFENSE if you merely doubt my claim, or characterize it as being "bogus"?

"Tell me how would you react if I called Atheism "bogus"?"

I hear it all the time. Hasn't hurt my feeling one whit...not even after nearly thirty-five years of an adult and mature perspective. I still have reason on my side...

"It's not a matter of walking on eggshells but rather a matter of being a little more thoughtful with your conversation."

Nope. Wrong. Bzzzzt.

If you're interested in debating concepts, ideas, and claims of fact/truth...then you had better leave your ego and fragile "feelings" on some safe shelf of sanctimony and security far removed from the harsher examinations and blunt commentaries that accompany any "discussions" demanding a tad more than claims predicated upon personal faith alone. "God did it", just don't cut it amongst unbelievers (or even Mother Teresa).

Thomas Edison (the man of 1,093 individual patents) once quipped, "Religion is bunk."

Does that one particular intellectual's opinion offend you?

Why, or why not?

I agree with Edison's observation wholeheartedly. Does that opinionated position again somehow offend you?

Do your hurt feelings have ANY bearing whatsoever upon the reality of the electrical light that allows you to read these words, as transmitted by telegraphic means?

Pssst. The correct answer is...no. ;-)

 

[almifkhar]

intersting, i have never heard an atheist claim to have faith in the fact that god does not exist?
i voted no, atheisim is not a faith

 

[Fluffy]

Heya s2a,
I don't think Moonwater was arguing that it was in the Constitution. If its not in the Constitution then its okay? Just because something is legal doesn't mean that it is okay. Of course you might be right and causing offence is okay but your argument for that conclusion is invalid.

To an extent I agree with you but it seems that taking on two issues at a time is harder and entirely unnecessary. If you know that arguing a point can be done so that it will be taken as offensive and differently so that it will non-offensive then it seems more rational to take the second option because this makes the argument more convincing.

On the other hand, maybe your goal is attained regardless of whether any offense is percieved.

On yet another hand,
Heya Moonwater,
I don't think many atheists would be offended if atheism were claimed to be bogus especially if it were done in debate. Afterall, if atheism is bogus then an atheist would want to come to that conclusion and not continue to hold a belief that was false. Hopefully, the same can be said of theists but I honestly wouldn't know.

 

[MoonWater]

I don't know I've come across some pretty closed minded atheists in my time. The kind that thinks that unless your an atheist as well your delusional and/or unrational. But come to think of it they would more likely be amused then insulted if their beliefs were called bogus. And please don't think that I make the mistake of assuming all atheists are like that, I know the majority are not. I do apologize for my initial reaction however I do want to say on the subject of backing up claims: "there is no God" or "God did NOT do it" is no more provable and has no more evidence to support than "God does exist" or "God DID do it" as a result until some conclusive evidence IS presented both sides are equally likely to be true. Also calling a belief system "bogus" is also a claim. As a result it should also be supported just as you claim, s2a, that the claim God did it should be supported.

One question I would like to bring up. A compromise if you will....... While I can concede that if the thought of God's existence never really crosses your mind and you don't really spend time dwelling on the idea then I would agree that it would be hard to call such atheism a "faith" seeing as how there isn't even much thought involved. However what about those i think therm is "hard ahteists" who fully believe there is no God and think that anyone who does believe in God is delusional? Do you think that their Atheism is a faith? In such do you think that saying "soft" atheism is not a faith or does not require faith while "hard" atheism does require faith or IS a faith, would be an accurate conclusion/assumption? Why or why not?

 

[Smoke]

I do want to say on the subject of backing up claims: "there is no God" or "God did NOT do it" is no more provable and has no more evidence to support than "God does exist" or "God DID do it" as a result until some conclusive evidence IS presented both sides are equally likely to be true.

Nobody can prove conclusively that Dhyani Ywahoo communicates with the Keepers of the Lodge Keys on the planet Jupiter, and nobody can prove conclusively that she doesn't. Therefore until some conclusive evidence is presented both opinions are equally likely to be true.

Nobody can prove conclusively that you are the reincarnation of one of the Witch of the West's flying monkeys, and nobody can prove conclusively that you aren't. Therefore, both are equally likely to be true.

Do you see the problem with this kind of reasoning?

 

[MoonWater]

Nobody can prove conclusively that Dhyani Ywahoo communicates with the Keepers of the Lodge Keys on the planet Jupiter, and nobody can prove conclusively that she doesn't. Therefore until some conclusive evidence is presented both opinions are equally likely to be true.

Nobody can prove conclusively that you are the reincarnation of the one Witch of the West's flying monkeys, and nobody can prove conclusively that you aren't. Therefore, both are equally likely to be true.

Do you see the problem with this kind of reasoning?

The trouble with your examples given is that Jupiter is a gas giant and we do have evidence to proof that no life, that we know of, could survive there and thus there IS some evidence to support that claim is not true. And the wicked witch of the west and her flying monkeys are a work of fiction as a result there is evidence to support that I am NOT one of those flying monkeys. If neither side can be proven and both have equal amounts of evidence then both are equally likely. If this is not so then how do you figure which answer IS more likely? By discarding that which seems most absurd? How do you determine what is "absurd" and what is not? Is there another way you decide which is more likely?

 

[~Amin~]

No, they don't. Once again, the only thing that all atheists have in common is the disbelief in any and all gods. What we don't all have is one way of looking at something, like, say, the earth's origins.

What do they believe the origin is from then?
Im asking because you disagree with my statement.

 

[meogi]

Following that it could easily be said that my THEISM is not a faith either and also enters the realm of being proved. You "justification" is based on personal experience and your interpretation of said experience. These two things have led you to believe there is no God. However my personal experience and my interpretation of said experience tells me that there IS a God. If personal experience were the only deciding factor than neither theism nor atheism could truly be faith-based. Hence it takes more than personal experience to prove something.

My justification is most certainly not based on only my experience, but the experience of everyone else. No one has captured, photographed conclusively, or provided any physical evidence whatsoever of leprichauns, ghosts, goblins, angels, God, unicorns, Zeus, afterlife, aliens, or Nessy. Does this prove their non-existance? No, of course not. But it does suggest that they don't exist. It's much more likely that a few are out to decieve, profit, and proliferate; the honest folk that believe and search for more evidence are victims of this deciet, imo.

So, the evidence for disbelief in the supernatural is justified in the realm of proof, through the overwhelming lack of evidence justifying belief in the supernatural; belief otherwise is based on 'faith.'

 

[meogi]

What do they believe the origin is from then?

Jeremiah said it earlier... who cares?

Why do origins matter? We're here; that's what matters. I'm here to make the best of my experience and hopefully allow future generations to as well.

 

[MoonWater]

My justification is most certainly not based on only my experience, but the experience of everyone else. No one has captured, photographed conclusively, or provided any physical evidence whatsoever of leprichauns, ghosts, goblins, angels, God, unicorns, Zeus, afterlife, aliens, or Nessy. Does this prove their non-existance? No, of course not. But it does suggest that they don't exist. It's much more likely that a few are out to decieve, profit, and proliferate; the honest folk that believe and search for more evidence are victims of this deciet, imo.

So, the evidence for disbelief in the supernatural is justified in the realm of proof, through the overwhelming lack of evidence justifying belief in the supernatural; belief otherwise is based on 'faith.'

Photos of ghosts and nessy have been taken as well as video footage. Some are obviously fakes but there are others that can't be dismissed so easily. There have been supposed UFO sittings with videos and pictures. Again some fake and some not so easily dismissed. (also considering the vastness of the universe I find it hard to believe that there is no life anywhere else but here and I also believe that scientists HAVE found bacteria on mars.) Whether or not there is any physical evidence for God or the supernatural is also up for debate. There are numerous stories and documentaries around that dictate events that seem to have no other explanation. There are many who believe that the fact that we exist at all is physical evidence enough. However also consider that the idea behind God and the supernatural is that both transcend the physical realm that we can percieve thus to think that all the evidence for these things is in the physical realm is absurd. There are many occurences both documented and heresay that can not be fully explained by scientific means. While no doubt many such stories are fake I find it hard to believe that every single one of them is. Are they all the product of hallucinations? perhaps. or perhaps they all are evidence that there is something more out there.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I thought some might be interested in this quote from Alberr Einstein:

Our objective is always to present the observed regularities as logical conclusions from our physical world model. Without the faith that it is possible to render reality understandable by means of our theoretical constructs, without the faith in an inner harmony of the world, there could be no science. This faith is and will always be the basic motivation behind every creative scientific idea. All our endeavors, all the dramatic conflicts between old and new ideas are supported by the eternal desire for knowledge, the unshakeable faith in cosmic harmony which becomes stronger the more difficulties loom before us.

In other words, without faith, one cannot function in the world. This was demonstrated by philosophers over a thousand years ago and no philosopher today challenges their conclusion. The atheist has faith that that they are sufficient unto themselves and they have faith that mechanism is sufficient to explain their existence.

I find it appalling that 75% of those who responded to the poll are so naive as to think their particular worldview is without faith. For without some preconceived frame in which to think, the mind could not form the first rational thought or come to any conclusions. Clearly, they did did not think the question through.

 

[MoonWater]

I thought some might be interested in this quote from Alberr Einstein:

In other words, without faith, one cannot function in the world. This was demonstrated by philosophers over a thousand years ago and no philosopher today challenges their conclusion. The atheist has faith that that they are sufficient unto themselves and they have faith that mechanism is sufficient to explain their existence.

I find it appalling that 75% of those who responded to the poll are so naive as to think their particular worldview is without faith. For without some preconceived frame in which to think, the mind could not form the first rational thought or come to any conclusions. Clearly, they did did not think the question through.

Indeed. In the end nothing is provable and everything we accept as "fact" or "truth" is, at it's core, based on assumptions that have not been and probably never will be proven or provable at least not in our limited capacity.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Indeed. In the end nothing is provable and everything we accept as "fact" or "truth" is, at it's core, based on assumptions that have not been and probably never will be proven or provable at least not in our limited capacity.

Would you claim that all assumptions are of equal warrant? If not, what criteria might one use to select one of a set of competing assumptions?

 

[MoonWater]

Would you claim that all assumptions are of equal warrant? If not, what criteria might one use to select one of a set of competing assumptions?

It seems to rely mostly on opinion and belief. While I may give certain assumptions more merit than others it would be different with another person. Though I do think that the longer an assumption lasts and the more widely accepted it is then, possibly, the more merit it has. But then again it is an assumption so it could just as easily be way off the mark.

 

[meogi]

or perhaps they all are evidence that there is something more out there

Or perhaps they are all evidence that there is something awkward happening with a physical phenomenon? But we may never know! Whooo weeee woooooooo... I see people in the corner of my eye that are just strange shadow arangements, and it spooks me, but I know it's just a shadow, not some sort of shadow-being. Of course, it might be a shadow being who is really good at hiding in the shadows... just trips and falls out sometimes. Luckily I'm usually around to see him when he does!

Still, there is an overwhelming lack of convincing evidence in the supernatural... how is my disbelief in the supernatural 'faith?'

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... it is an assumption so it could just as easily be way off the mark.

So: all belief is assumption, and all assumption "could just as easily be way off the mark". So you are perversely insistent on your belief that atheism is a faith while simultaneously asserting that your belief is as worthless as the most worthless of possible beliefs. I'm willing to leave it at that ... :yes:

 

[MoonWater]

Or perhaps they are all evidence that there is something awkward happening with a physical phenomenon? But we may never know! Whooo weeee woooooooo... I see people in the corner of my eye that are just strange shadow arangements, and it spooks me, but I know it's just a shadow, not some sort of shadow-being. Of course, it might be a shadow being who is really good at hiding in the shadows... just trips and falls out sometimes. Luckily I'm usually around to see him when he does!

Still, there is an overwhelming lack of convincing evidence in the supernatural... how is my disbelief in the supernatural 'faith?'

Before i answer that let me ask you a quick question. yes or no. In your opinion does the supernatural exist?

(your past responses do make your answer quit obvious but humor me for a sec why don't you?)