Atheism is a faith

[Smoke]

When did i say faith and absence of faith are the same thing? you've completely, perhaps deliberately, misinterpreted what I've said.

No, I haven't. You've said, over and over, in one way or another, that it takes faith not to believe something. That's patently absurd. You have even said repeatedly that atheism is a faith, as though all atheists shared the same beliefs. Your errors have been repeatedly pointed out to you in a number of different ways, but this thread has gone to 400 posts and it seems that your faith in the nonsense you're espousing is unassailable. That doesn't make it any less nonsensical. I do wish you'd made your poll public, though, because I'd love to know who the other fourteen people were who voted for this nonsense.

 

[MoonWater]

No, I haven't. You've said, over and over, in one way or another, that it takes faith not to believe something. That's patently absurd. You have even said repeatedly that atheism is a faith, as though all atheists shared the same beliefs. Your errors have been repeatedly pointed out to you in a number of different ways, but this thread has gone to 400 posts and it seems that your faith in the nonsense you're espousing is unassailable. That doesn't make it any less nonsensical. I do wish you'd made your poll public, though, because I'd love to know who the other fourteen people were who voted for this nonsense.

I have not said nor do I even dare to assume that all atheists share the same beliefs. We call Christianity "a faith" at times but never once think that all Christians hold the same beliefs. True there are certain defining beliefs in both Atheism and Christianity, it makes them what they are, but beyond that there numerous different views and interpretations. How is it nonsense when again I AM USING THE WORDS GIVEN DEFINITION? Prove to me that the phrase "there is no God" is a fact and I will concede that atheism is not a faith. Why? Because this phrase is one I have heard spouted by many an atheist and it is the belief that this phrase is true that makes an atheist an atheist. Thus if the statement is proved true then there would no longer be any basis to call atheism a faith. I'm also curious to know WHY would you want to know who those 14 people were? Why does it matter? Look I'm not trying to change your mind or anyone elses for that matter I'm just trying to get you to take a look at my side of the argument. It is not a challenge to your beliefs nor does putting faith into atheism make any less atheistic. Oh and by the way... one person's nonsense is another person's gospel. Just something to keep in mind.

 

[Smoke]

Oh and by the way... one person's nonsense is another person's gospel.

Truer words were never spoken.

Seriously, is this thread some kind of experiment you're doing for a psych class or something?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As I noted earlier:

... 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.

Note that MoonWater has chosen to ignore this ...

Sadly, MoonWater's entire discourse is nothing but ad hominem tu quoque; what she is actually saying, or, more correctly, bemoaning, is:

"You! You with your science and reason and logic: you're position is just as vacuous - just as baseless - as mine! Go ahead - I dare you: prove that the supernatural doesn't exist. So there!"​

It is a stance expressive of a real sense of inferiority and frustration.

 

[MoonWater]

As I noted earlier:Note that MoonWater has chosen to ignore this ...

Sadly, MoonWater's entire discourse is nothing but ad hominem tu quoque; what she is actually saying, or, more correctly, bemoaning, is:

"You! You with your science and reason and logic: you're position is just as vacuous - just as baseless - as mine! Go ahead - I dare you: prove that the supernatural doesn't exist. So there!"​

It is a stance expressive of a real sense of inferiority and frustration.

I am not saying any such thing how dare you put words in my mouth like that. I did not ignore your post I don't even remember seeing it here. Perhaps I missed it but I noticed there is no link to take me to the quote as there is with the others so perhaps you could tell me what post number it is or what page it's on. Honestly I fail to see why so many people in this thread are getting so rude and defensive. I have a great deal of respect and regocnize the nesecity for science and reason and logic and use them all daily(though clearly you think otherwise). Saying that atheism is a faith does not make it "baseless" but clearly you can't get past the negative conotation faith has obtained over the last few years to see that. I find that throughout this thread I have been personally attacked just as much if not more so than the argument itself. If you don't agree with me that's your purogotive but there is no need to be rude and condecending about it.

And in response to the earlier comment that I missed: the idea that an assumption could be wrong does not make it worthless

 

[Smoke]

Honestly I fail to see why so many people in this thread are getting so rude and defensive. ... If you don't agree with me that's your purogotive but there is no need to be rude and condecending about it.

No one has been more rude, defensive, and condescending on this thread than you have. You have steadfastly refused to consider any of the points that have been made -- that you asked for. You have consistently presumed to tell people what and how they do or do not believe. You have consistently been rude, condescending, and insulting, despite the fact that you have not made a single rational or intelligent contribution to your own thread. Did you ever think of responding to the people who disagree with you in any way other than reiterating your initial, absurd assertion?

 

[MoonWater]

No one has been more rude, defensive, and condescending on this thread than you have. You have steadfastly refused to consider any of the points that have been made -- that you asked for. You have consistently presumed to tell people what and how they do or do not believe. You have consistently been rude, condescending, and insulting, despite the fact that you have not made a single rational or intelligent contribution to your own thread. Did you ever think of responding to the people who disagree with you in any way other than reiterating your initial, absurd assertion?

The only time I have been defensive is when I have been personally attacked. And if you will look through the posts of this thread you will see that I have used more than simply the definition of faith to support my view. Tell me if Atheism is not a faith then what is it?

 

[MoonWater]

No, I haven't. You've said, over and over, in one way or another, that it takes faith not to believe something.

No I've said over and over that it takes faith to believe something is not when there is no proof for it.

 

[Smoke]

Tell me if Atheism is not a faith then what is it?

No. A number of people have addressed this over and over, and you haven't paid the slightest bit of attention, so why start over now? You could always review the thread if you really wanted to know.

 

[robtex]

MOD POST: I realize this is becoming a rather sensative topic. I would like to ask all of you to please work on addressing the posts made and not the posters character, integrity or moral aptitude. If you feel you are getting hot under the collar it may be helpful for you to visit other threads that are not as stressful for you and if you do decide to stay in this thread at present work on posting when you are not angry.

 

[MoonWater]

No. A number of people have addressed this over and over, and you haven't paid the slightest bit of attention, so why start over now? You could always review the thread if you really wanted to know.

fine ignore the question. I'm done wasting my time trying to debate with those whose only defense for there position is to call my position absurd or nonsense.

 

[meogi]

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.

First, I'm not trying to 'prove' anything (proofs only matter in math, logic, and liquor). I've 'proved' there is no supernatural as much as I've 'proved' unicorns or leprichauns don't exist. What we're dealing with is certainty.

Second, I'm not the one making the claim, you are. You provide the evidence. (Even if there were, it would be physical, not supernatural; just not understood.) Also, the claim that the evidence is there for both sides is worthless. Much of the 'evidence' is faulty, fake, or misunderstood and perpetuated through ignorance. (We never landed on the moon!)

So, please, tell me why believing in the supernatural, and NOT believing in the supernatural have equal weight? And please address the overwhelming lack of credible evidence and why exactly it doesn't warrant non-belief over belief? (Note that credible refers to non-personal experience. Personal experience trumps all when belief is concerned; and it's valid to believe so, but it's not useful for convincing others of things. Especially because personal experience can be misinterpreted, misrepresented, or delusional.)

Do you honestly think someone who believes vehemently in unicorns and leprichauns has the same faith as someone who doesn't? Why is the overwhelming lack of evidence NOT evidence that they don't exist?

 

[UnTheist]

No I've said over and over that it takes faith to believe something is not when there is no proof for it.

Right. And Atheism does not claim that God does not exist. Therefore Atheism requires no faith.

End of story. Close this thread.

 

[MoonWater]

Right. And Atheism does not claim that God does not exist. Therefore Atheism requires no faith.

You've basically just said atheism is not atheism. Whether you word it as "I don't believe in God" or "I believe God doesn't exist" the end result is the same. When it comes to matters of existence either it exists or it does not exist. Since there are only two options there are only three sides. 1. it exists(theism), 2. it doesn't exist(atheism), 3. you don't make a decision either way(agnosticism). Thus like I said, however you word it the end result is the same so by definition atheism is a faith.

End of story. Close this thread.

I'll keep this thread going as long as people want to debate the topic. If your sick of it and don't want to debate anymore then don't post in this thread. It's that simple. Why should I close the thread simply because we disagree?

 

[robtex]

It might smooth things out to work on definitions. Could the debaters each, with sources posted to offer up definitions on "atheist" and or "atheism" and work on agreeing or agreeing to disagree on what those words mean? I think that is what is stagnating this debate.

 

[MoonWater]

Here's the definitions I found.

Atheism- the doctrine that there is no God(webster's dictionary)
Atheist- one who denies the existence of god(webster's dictionary)

 

[UnTheist]

You've basically just said atheism is not atheism. Whether you word it as "I don't believe in God" or "I believe God doesn't exist" the end result is the same.

No, I'm sorry it is not the same. At first I was annoyed by you repeating this same assertion over and over, but now it's actually amusing.

Atheism is "The non-belief in God." I don't believe in God, and the non-belief in something is valid because the burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim that either:

A. "God exists."

or

B. "God doesn't exist."

Atheism makes NEITHER claim.

Atheism makes the claim, if any at all, that there is no sufficient evidence for God, which is true. Therefore we remain in the default position: non-belief. If any sufficient evidence, however, that should arise in the future, most Atheists will probably start believing in God.

When it comes to matters of existence either it exists or it does not exist.

This is true. But nothing can be proven true or false without verifying it (with evidence or otherwise). I can't believe in something (God) in which there is no evidence. And what's the opposite of belief...?

By the way, the biggest reason I am unable to disprove God is because you are unable to prove a negative (99% of the time). You're wanting me to disprove something that I am incapable of doing, even if I wanted to. God is unfalsifiable.

Since there are only two options there are only three sides. 1. it exists(theism), 2. it doesn't exist(atheism), 3. you don't make a decision either way(agnosticism). Thus like I said, however you word it the end result is the same so by definition atheism is a faith.

Yes, Atheism is the opposite of Theism, which is "The BELIEF in God," not the opposite of "God Exists."

STRONG Atheism says "God doesn't exist."

I'll keep this thread going as long as people want to debate the topic. If your sick of it and don't want to debate anymore then don't post in this thread. It's that simple. Why should I close the thread simply because we disagree?

Because this has nothing to do with a disagreement. This is your confusion on Atheism vs Strong Atheism and your inability to differentiate between them.

And has MidnightBlue has said before, you're just making everything a matter of faith, belief and non-belief, which makes your argument useless.

 

[Smoke]

Atheism- the doctrine that there is no God(webster's dictionary)
Atheist- one who denies the existence of god(webster's dictionary)

What edition of Webster's?

 

[UnTheist]

Here's the definitions I found.

And once again, you're using the incorrect definition of Atheism.

 

[MoonWater]

And once again, you're using the incorrect definition of Atheism.

So your saying that the dictionary is incorrect? If so you should take that up with webster not me.