Atheism is a faith

[meogi]

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

No, for the reason I've been stating all along. I don't believe in the supernatural for the same reasons I don't believe in the unicorn or leprichauns. A consistent lack of convincible and credible evidence.

 

[MoonWater]

No, for the reason I've been stating all along. I don't believe in the supernatural for the same reasons I don't believe in the unicorn or leprichauns. A consistent lack of convincible and credible evidence.

prove there is no supernatural. If you can't then by definition what you have is a faith. There is also a "consistent lack of convincible and credible evidence" to DISprove the supernatural. You may believe that lack of evidence means lack of existence but there are many who believe that the fact that WE exist is proof enough of the supernatural. So while you may see a consistent lack of evidence others see nothing but. The reason both views on the supernatural are equally valid is that we have as of yet no way to objectively prove whether or not the supernatural exists.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

prove there is no supernatural.

Gee, what a retort!

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Gee, what a retort!

Yes, and she's right.

 

[~Amin~]

Jeremiah said it earlier... who cares?

Why do origins matter? We're here; that's what matters.

If you dont know just say so, theres a lot of things we dont
know, if you dont care that also fair enough, but other people
do care why limit other peoples views?

 

[Smoke]

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.

No life that we know of. But the Keepers of the Lodge Keys of Jupiter, if they exist, must have very different requirements for sustaining life than we have. Dhyani Ywahoo says she communicates with them, and you can't prove she doesn't. You just have faith (according to your definition of faith) that they don't exist, and your faith is no more likely to be true than hers (according to your own view of probability).

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.

You have faith (your definition of faith again) that the Wizard of Oz is a work of fiction. Maybe I have faith that it's the inerrant Word of God. One faith is as likely as the other to be true, according to your argument.

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?

The burden of proof is on the one who makes the positive claim. Dhyani Ywahoo claims to communicate with the Keepers of the Lodge Keys on Jupiter; I claim (facetiously) that you are the reincarnation of a flying monkey; Muslims claim that the Qur'an is eternal and inerrant; some Christians claim that the Bible is inerrant; you claim that there is a god. According to your argument, all of these are equally likely to be true. In my view, all of them are unlikely to be true, since there's no evidence for any of them. The opinion that a statement for which there is absolutely no evidence is unlikely to be true is not a "side" that needs substantiation and evidence. It's the reasonable position on any unevidenced statement of fact.

If someone claims (and many do) that Abraham Lincoln was the son of Abraham Enloe, I tend to doubt it, but I acknowledge that it might be true, because "non-paternity events" occur very frequently, and can be demonstrated objectively through blood tests and DNA tests. I'd still like to see some more convincing evidence before I accept the Enloe claim.

In the case of divinity, people frequently claim to experience the divine, but they never provide any objective evidence. We have no objective means of verifying or falsifying their often fantastic and contradictory claims. In those circumstances, it's as reasonable to disbelieve their claims as to disbelieve Dhyani Ywahoo's claims or the "flying monkey theory" of your past life.

 

[Smoke]

prove there is no supernatural. If you can't then by definition what you have is a faith.

Then by definition you have faith that you are not the reincarnation of a flying monkey.

"Faith" doesn't seem to mean much to you.

 

[MoonWater]

Then by definition you have faith that you are not the reincarnation of a flying monkey.

"Faith" doesn't seem to mean much to you.

On the contrary. Faith means a great deal to me. How does the idea that both positive and negative assumptions require faith lessen its meaning? I never said faith was not required for me to believe I'm not the reincarnation of a flying monkey. By definition it does but that does not mean faith means nothing to me. That is an awful big assumption to make especially when you know very little about me.

 

[Smoke]

On the contrary. Faith means a great deal to me. How does the idea that both positive and negative assumptions require faith lessen its meaning? I never said faith was not required for me to believe I'm not the reincarnation of a flying monkey. By definition it does but that does not mean faith means nothing to me. That is an awful big assumption to make especially when you know very little about me.

I don't have to know anything at all about you to see by the way you toss the word "faith" around that your definition of it is so elastic as to be practically meaningless.

 

[MoonWater]

I don't have to know anything at all about you to see by the way you toss the word "faith" around that your definition of it is so elastic as to be practically meaningless.

How is it elastic when I'm simply using it's definition? Faith has a great deal of meaning to me. And you didn't answer my question(or maybe you can't). How does including both positive and negative assumptions under the umbrella of faith make the word meaningless? It certainly hasn't done that for me. So again I reiterate there is no way for you to know just how much faith means to me or how important my faith is in my life unless you know me. And clearly you know very little.

 

[Jeremiah]

I don't know I've come across some pretty closed minded atheists in my time.

It's probably your lack of poise.

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?

The title says atheism not atheists.

 

[Smoke]

And you didn't answer my question(or maybe you can't). How does including both positive and negative assumptions under the umbrella of faith make the word meaningless?

Because it's obviously more significant to believe that Jeremiah is the Cookie Monster than to disbelieve it. You are, in effect, saying that faith and the absence of faith are the same thing, that the absence of faith is faith. I can't think of any way you could make it more meaningless.

 

[Jeremiah]

no philosopher today challenges their conclusion.

Maybe no philosopher today.

You should read Fear and Trembling by Søren Kierkegaard

Most people live dejectedly in worldly sorrow and joy; they are the ones who sit along the wall and do not join in the dance. The knights of infinity are dancers and possess elevation. They make the movements upward, and fall down again; and this too is no mean pastime, nor ungraceful to behold. But whenever they fall down they are not able at once to assume the posture, they vacillate an instant, and this vacillation shows that after all they are strangers in the world. This is more or less strikingly evident in proportion to the art they possess, but even the most artistic knights cannot altogether conceal this vacillation. One need not look at them when they are up in the air, but only the instant they touch or have touched the ground–then one recognizes them. But to be able to fall down in such a way that the same second it looks as if one were standing and walking, to transform the leap of life into a walk, absolutely to express the sublime in the pedestrian–that only the knight of faith can do–and this is the one and only prodigy.

– Johannes de Silentio, Fear and Trembling, 1843​

Johannes believes that only two people were knights of faith; The Virgin Mary and Abraham.

 

[UnTheist]

Yes, and she's right.

I don't think so

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I don't think so

You’re prerogative, but to do so without reason is blind faith.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Maybe no philosopher today.

You should read Fear and Trembling by Søren Kierkegaard



Johannes believes that only two people were knights of faith; The Virgin Mary and Abraham.

Kinda taking things out of context, aren't you?

 

[MoonWater]

Because it's obviously more significant to believe that Jeremiah is the Cookie Monster than to disbelieve it. You are, in effect, saying that faith and the absence of faith are the same thing, that the absence of faith is faith. I can't think of any way you could make it more meaningless.

When did i say faith and absence of faith are the same thing? you've completely, perhaps deliberately, misinterpreted what I've said. I said that belief that something is there and that belief that something is not there both require faith by definition when neither side can be proven. This is not taking it out of context nor is it stretching the word as I am using it's given definition. If using a words given definition makes a word meaningless then all language is gibberish and we may as well have no language at all.

 

[Diogenes]

I kind of just stumbled in here...and have not read the whole discussion. I just wanted to add something that I have mulled over from time to time. Jesus uses the allegory "If you had faith as this mustard seed" and it is very troubling. First off, mustard seeds do not use words, and hence concepts also by proxy. So what, then, is faith without words and concepts? This is not just a paradox, but it is primordial. Does anyone else have an idea on this? I think this may be an open door to the puzzle of faith for atheists...

 

[MoonWater]

It's probably your lack of poise.




The title says atheism not atheists.

Your avoiding the question. But very well: Edit: Could "hard" AtheiSM be considered a faith? Happy now?

 

[MoonWater]

I kind of just stumbled in here...and have not read the whole discussion. I just wanted to add something that I have mulled over from time to time. Jesus uses the allegory "If you had faith as this mustard seed" and it is very troubling. First off, mustard seeds do not use words, and hence concepts also by proxy. So what, then, is faith without words and concepts? This is not just a paradox, but it is primordial. Does anyone else have an idea on this? I think this may be an open door to the puzzle of faith for atheists...

I'm afraid I don't quite understand what your getting at here? Could you elaborate a bit please?