Fourth edition
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheism is a faith
- Thread starter MoonWater
- Start date
Fourth edition
Smoke
Done here.
That's a pretty old edition. Sure you didn't cherry-pick that definition?
Jeremiah
Well-Known Member
How so? I felt that you since you found value in what Einstein said you would enjoy Fear and Trembling which is a study of the story of Abraham and Isaac. Now I have been putting in quite a bit of effort on my part to understand both. But you and MoonWater seem to display very little insight as to what atheism is. As far as I am concerned faith and atheism are two separate entities.
Without reason to do what? Not believe in God?
My reasons are valid, whether you agree with it or not.
Here's something on the issue that I got from religioustolerance.org.
religioustolerance.org said:Most adults in North America are Theists: they have a definite belief in one or more deities. Jews and Muslims generally believe in a male God who is viewed as a unity. Most Christians believe in a Trinity which is composed of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit -- three personalities who are simultaneously viewed as a single entity. Others believe in a Goddess, a pantheon of male Gods, a group of female Goddesses or an array of Gods and Goddesses.
But there are other possible beliefs concerning deity among some non-believers:
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]A definite belief that no deity exists. The individual is solidly convinced that no supreme being exists in any form.[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]No belief in a specific deity. Faced with a wide variety of conflicting beliefs about deities, the individual has not accepted any of them as true.[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]A belief that the existence of a deity is unlikely, but not impossible. No certainty exists. However, if the person had to make a decision based on the existence or non-existence of a deity, they would probably assume that no deity existed.[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]The inability to reach a conclusion about deity. The person may have investigated proofs about the existence and non-existence of a deity and has not accepted any of them. They remain undecided, at least for the present, because of insufficient data.[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]A belief that we cannot know anything about a deity, including whether one exists or not. The person may have concluded that there is no possibility that we can ever know whether a deity exists.[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]A person may never have ever considered whether one or more supreme intelligences exist. [/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]
There is a general consensus that:
[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]A person who believes in a specific God, Goddess or combination of deities is a Theist.[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]A person who actively denies the existence of any and all deities is at least one form of Atheist.[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]A person who feels that we have no method by which we can conclude whether a deity exists is an Agnostic.[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]
But there is no consensus on how to classify the other possible belief systems about deity/deities listed above. Some have suggested the use of modifiers, like:
[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]"Strong Atheist," or "Positive Atheist," or "Hard Atheist" to refer to a person who asserts that no deity exists.[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]"Weak Atheist," "Negative Atheist," "Soft Atheist," "Skeptical Atheist" to refer to a person who simply has no belief in a deity because there are no rational grounds that support his/her/their existence.[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Peter Berger suggested that the term "methodological atheism" be used to describe theologians and historians who study religion as a human creation without declaring whether individual religious beliefs are actually true.[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]The terms "Noncoherent Atheist" or "Noncoherentism" have been suggested to cover the belief that one cannot have any meaningful discussions about deities, because there exist no coherent definitions of "god."[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]"Apathetic Atheism," or "Apatheism" have been suggested to cover the individual who doesn't really care whether Gods or Goddesses exist. They probably live with the assumption that no deity exists. [/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]
"Atheist" according to most modern dictionaries:
Most dictionaries define an "Atheist" as a person who either passively believes that no God exists, and/or who actively asserts this belief. For example:
[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Webster's New World Dictionary®, Third College Edition defines an Atheist as "a person who believes that there is no God." 1 This definition implies that Atheists have investigated proofs and for the existence and non-existence of God, and have decided that no God exists or that the probability of one existing is phenomenally small. It seems to include a "closet" Atheist: one who believes that there is no God but does not assert this belief to others. This definition would seem to imply that a person who believes in the existence of a Goddess, but not a God, is also an Atheist. This definition will probably not satisfy many Goddess worshipers. Webster Dictionary, 1913 had a more inclusive definition that includes non-male deities: "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being." 2 So did Webster's 1828 Dictionary:"One who disbelieves the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being." 2[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Websters Collegiate® Dictionary defines an Atheist as "one who denies the existence of God." This is a particularly vague definition, because it does not define which God is being referred to. If Websters means the Christian God, then it would seem to imply that anyone who does not believe in the Trinity is an Atheist -- including Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, Sikhs, and Atheists. The word "denies" would seem to imply that the individual actively promotes their belief.[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Other definitions: 2[/FONT] [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition: "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." [/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]The Cambridge International dictionary of English: "someone who believes that god or gods do not exist."[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition: "Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god."[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]The Masonic Dictionary: "One who does not believe in God."[/FONT]
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
If I may weigh in, both sides of this debate are making mistakes.
MoonWater, you're conflating strong atheism with all atheism. The atheists engaged are conflating weak atheism with all atheism. From where I sit, you're all being disingenuous.
Strong atheism does indeed make positive claim that there is no God - a claim which it cannot support - and I would say that it does so qualify as a faith. Weak atheism makes no such claim, and is not a faith.
MoonWater, you're conflating strong atheism with all atheism. The atheists engaged are conflating weak atheism with all atheism. From where I sit, you're all being disingenuous.
Strong atheism does indeed make positive claim that there is no God - a claim which it cannot support - and I would say that it does so qualify as a faith. Weak atheism makes no such claim, and is not a faith.
meogi
Well-Known Member
So what you're arguing is that atheism has multiple meanings? Are you associating all types of atheism as faith, or just certain ones? If so, why do you consider lack of belief through rationalization ("weak, negative, soft, skeptical atheism") faith? (a.k.a. - Please address my previous postMoonWater said:
)
Smoke
Done here.
The distinction is meaningless to me. I am prepared to concede that in theory, there could be a god, and that I don't have all possible evidence before me, just as I am prepared to concede the same about Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. However, I have inferred from the evidence before me that there is no god, no Santa Claus, and no Easter Bunny. The inference is so strong that I feel quite certain there is no god, no Santa Claus, and no Easter Bunny. In the extremely unlikely that convincing evidence were produced in favor of any of them, I am prepared to change my opinions. That is, I don't have "faith" in the non-existence of any of those beings; I have no dogma; I am not prepared to cling to my opinions if the evidence contradicts them.
The distinction between strong and weak atheism is, to me, an artificial one, without any significance at all. I don't believe it's possible to prove that there is a god, but I concede I may possibly be wrong. I will concede that about anything. I may possibly be wrong about the fact that I'm sitting in my den and typing on my laptop right now. But I feel quite certain that I'm not wrong -- that I am, in fact, sitting in my den and typing on my laptop.
Frankly, I think you've fallen into the same trap as Moonwater -- that of presuming to tell other people what and how they believe and what and how they don't believe. Nobody is required to fit their point of view into categories that seem convenient to someone else, and the refusal to do so is not disingenuous.
DeepShadow
White Crow
I would agree that both sides are failing to define terms, but a failure to define terms is not the same as being disingenuous. These terms have always been badly defined IMHO. Case in point, I've never heard a proper distinction between weak atheism and agnosticism.
That being said, I refuse to participate in the poll as it does constitute an either-or fallacy. There are multiple kinds of atheists, even if the lines are blurry.
Smoke
Done here.
Of course there are, and I've pointed that out before. But we are not being asked to consider the different kinds of atheists. We are asked what we think about the proposition that "Atheism is a faith." Just "atheism," as a blanket term for all kinds of atheism. If the proposition is false for any kind of atheism, then the proposition is false. It's only true if it's true for all kinds of atheism.
I don't think any of the definitions here is particularily complete or sufficient. The ones I've underlined above would seem to include as atheists either theists who do not believe in the Abrahamic God (for disbelieving in "God"), or non-universalist theists (for disbelieving in one or more gods who are not of his own religion).
I don't think it'd be correct to call a Hindu an "atheist" because she doesn't believe in the God the Christians worship, or a Christian an "atheist" because he denies the existence of the Hindu pantheon of gods. These definitions allow for one or both of these possibilities.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Well, it's pretty important to this debate.
It seems I've offended you, Midnight, and for that I apologize.
If you'll to back and reread my post, I wasn't saying that you or any other atheist engaged in this debate has faith, merely that some do.
Smoke
Done here.
You haven't offended me at all; I just disagree with you.
But if there are any atheists whose atheism is not a faith, the OP is false.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
OK, good.
I think the argument is flawed in that it does not distinguish between different types of atheists. It's false in some cases, but true in others. That's why I didn't vote in the poll.
Smoke
Done here.
Because it doesn't make that distinction, it's necessarily false. Even if it did make the distinction, it would be false because of the article. If some forms of atheism require faith, that still doesn't mean those forms of atheism are a faith, just as theism is not a faith.
Saying "atheism is a faith" is very much like saying "carpentry is a labor union."
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Name me a science that disproves God. I dare you.
logician
Well-Known Member
One cannot disprove god to a person who believes by faith.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
I don't believe by faith. You can't disprove GOd at all, simply because it cant' be done. If you had any intellectual honesty at all you'd admit that rather than hiding behind faulty assumptions.