Atheism is a faith

[standing_alone]

One cannot disprove god to a person who believes by faith.

Actually, one cannot disprove the existence of deities as one cannot prove a negative.

However, one can put forth an argument as to why they feel the conclusion of non-existence is more sound than faith in such an existance.

 

[rojse]

Although science cannot disprove the existence of God (science has deliberately set itself outside of such a field), we are able to disprove much of the stories that surround the myth of God. We can use history, geology, archaeology, and many other diverse fields of science to disprove many of the myths.

 

[Storm]

Although science cannot disprove the existence of God (science has deliberately set itself outside of such a field), we are able to disprove much of the stories that surround the myth of God. We can use history, geology, archaeology, and many other diverse fields of science to disprove many of the myths.

A meaningless point, since myths aren't meant to be factual.

 

[rojse]

A meaningless point, since myths aren't meant to be factual.

Many people would say that the bible is a factual document, and we can disprove that assertation.

 

[Storm]

Many people would say that the bible is a factual document, and we can disprove that assertation.

Don't get me started on Literalism......

 

[UnTheist]

Don't get me started on Literalism......

Nobody wants to talk about literalism. It's too painful

 

[Smoke]

Nobody wants to talk about literalism. It's too painful

Isn't the belief in a personal god a case of literalism? I can appreciate myth, especially Norse myth, but I don't imagine that every god and giant in Norse myth is a factual being. Why do it with Yahweh?

 

[UnTheist]

Isn't the belief in a personal god a case of literalism? I can appreciate myth, especially Norse myth, but I don't imagine that every god and giant in Norse myth is a factual being. Why do it with Yahweh?

Biblical literalism.*

 

[Smoke]

Biblical literalism.*

But it's really just a question of degree.

 

[Jeremiah]

Here's something on the issue that I got from religioustolerance.org.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist.htm:


Atheism: Belief in no God, or no belief in God

Overview:

Atheism is not a religion in the sense that Christianity, Islam, and, Judaism are. Atheism is not generally perceived as offering a complete guideline for living as do most religions.

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Atheism is confined to one factor: the existence or non-existence of a deity. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica]Atheism can involve the positive assertion that there is no deity. This is sometimes referred to as "strong Atheism." It is the most common dictionary definition for the term "Atheist."[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Atheism can be the absence of a belief that there is a deity. This is the belief promoted by the American Atheists group and many individual Atheists.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Each atheist has a personal moral code. However, it is generally derived from secular considerations, and not from any "revealed" religious text.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]I[/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica]n one way, most people in North America are Atheists. Christians will generally deny the existence of the Mayan, Hindu, Ancient Roman, Ancient Greek, Ancient Egyptian, Ancient Sumerian, Sikh, and many hundreds of other Gods and Goddesses, even as they assert their belief in the Christian Trinity. Thus, the difference between a typical Christian and a typical Atheist is numerically small: The strong Atheist believes that none of the many thousands of Gods and Goddesses exist; the Christian believes that one God exists in a certain structure -- a Trinity -- whereas all of the other thousands of deities are nonexistent, artificial creations by humans. Although the numerical difference is much less that 0.1%, the philosophical difference is immense.[/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica]There exists massive discrimination against Atheists in the U.S. [/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Part of this may be based on the historical linkage between Communism and Atheism. Most Communists are Atheists. But many people do not realize that most Atheists in North America are not Communists.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Another reason for this discrimination is the common belief that a person cannot be motivated to lead a moral life unless they hope for the reward of heaven, and fear the punishment of Hell. In the past, this belief had been codified into law. Conscientious objectors opposed to participating in warfare were thrown in jail if their opposition to killing was not based on belief in God.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Still another cause of discrimination is a widespread linkage between theism -- the belief in the existence of God -- American citizenship, and Christianity.[/FONT]

 

[rojse]

Don't get me started on Literalism......

Sorry. I know that there are many people here that believe in the bible, but view it as a set of allegories or such.

But people that want to take the view that the Bible is word perfect, the Universe was created six thousand years ago, and so forth make statements that are all too easy to disprove both scientifically and historically. These scientific proofs do not refute the existence of God, they only refute the idea that the earth was created six thousand years ago and so forth.

 

[Jeremiah]

I am afraid Stom is right Logician; science is somewhat dubious.

---------------------


While I was seeking an answer to the question that created me into an atheist. I remember at one point saying to myself. That in all fairness I had to give God a chance. So with omnipotence looming over my head I thought to myself. "What if I was just created this moment? With false memories and knowledge put there by an omnipotent being. Surely it is a mad to think so, but yet possible." So in order to counter omnipotence I had to eliminate all prior knowledge and memories in case they be fallacious.

Now I could type out the process of elimination as it occurred for me. But I am not as bright as some of the individuals here and I am sure my fumbling fingers would cause error of thought. I would like people to know that I gave God despite my doubt every fair chance. But I can not deny what my mind whispers. I know that atheism is a tough subject to deal with we all have doubts and to see those doubts personified; well it must be hard. I apologize for be an atheist and for voicing my opinions. But I find this desecration of faith disturbing. Faith is that which will allow humans to shift the stars themselves. And I know that this can not be atheism because atheism tells me not to indulge in such whimsical thoughts.


--------------------------

Because it's obviously more significant to believe that Jeremiah is the Cookie Monster .

Sorry I tried to resist but if you’ll allow me. I told ya so!

I think the problem is faith.

Maybe. Can you elaborate?

Thread: Organized religion = evil.

I think I can successfully put it into words now. I think the problem is some people seem to have blind faith in faith.

Now! Give me a cookie!!!!

 

[s2a]

Heya Fluffy,

You said:

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.

I was primarily putting forward the point that virtually anyone can "take offense" from something said, worn, tattooed, espoused (as "truth"), or "chosen" as a "lifestyle". Some folks "offend" other people merely by being who they are, or acting upon their motivations. Since this propensity for "offensiveness" is held by almost everyone/anyone, it only makes sense that NO ONE should ever expect absolute protection from emotional injury...especially if/when no lasting/influential hurt/persecution/prejudice is exacted unfairly, or by governmental consent.

I'm incessantly "offended" by selfish wanton greed at the expense of the poor, the ignorant, and the defenseless. I have every "right" to be offended...just as every self-interested person has the "right" to be utterly unconcerned and dispassionate in the plight of their neighbors and fellow humans.

"Doing the right thing" isn't mandated as a part of any Constitutional law, nor some expectant protection from insensitive and selfish idiots. Morality and conscience come from within...and that's the way I like it.

Of course you might be right and causing offence is okay but your argument for that conclusion is invalid.

I think my point serves well enough...and yes, I think being "offensive" is not only OK...but sometimes even necessary to effect any meaningful change in improving the general human condition.

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.

I hear you, but I've had some notable success doing things my way...thankyouverymuch. ;-)

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

Ya see? It's working...;-)

 

[s2a]

Hello Moonwater,

You said:

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

Funny that. I've met well too many religious fundies in my days, and nearly all would qualify themselves as resolutely and unwaveringly "delivered"...and proud of it too...

The kind that thinks that unless your an atheist as well your delusional and/or unrational.

I'm not one of "those kind" of atheists. Faith-based (religious) beliefs appeal to emotion, not reason. Because I love my wife, I hope she lives to be 100 in the fullness of years and free of debilitation or harm. Is my wish a "delusion", or irrational? I think not. However, if I believe that my wishing alone will make it so (or that pious worship of some claimed deity will make my wish "come true"), then perhaps, my rationale could be deemed as a "delusion" (noun--an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument).

But come to think of it they would more likely be amused then insulted if their beliefs were called bogus.

'Tis true enough...but let's allow that there is a very real distinction between a "belief" that is defined as: "an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists"; and a "belief" that is defined as: "a religious conviction; trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something".

You might say that I "believe" that the sun (as a star) "exists", because I can point to it (while squinting) in the sky at high noon. It would be erroneous to infer that I retain a faith-based, or religiously-convivted "belief" that the sun was either a deity unto itself, or was a "creation" of some claimed deity's efforts.

I reasonably chose to "disbelieve" a faith-based claim that our one star (out of trillions of others) is "a god" (or "put there" by a god)...but my disbelief of such a claim does not deny my "believing" observation that the sun (as a star) exists.

Does that make sense?

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.

Well, that's just not so. It really only depends upon what your acceptable burdens of evidence, proof, and reasonable doubts encompass and entail. Some DNA comparisons are only 99.99999% likely to find an equal match. It's not (ever) presented as 100% certainty. But is 0.00001% of prospective uncertainty in a DNA comparison a reasonable (or acceptable) standard of sustaining doubt?

There's plenty of "science" available to more than reasonably assert and "prove" (beyond highly burdened and reasonable doubts) that claimed deities are non-existent; or at very least, utterly unnecessary in explanations of natural phenomena.

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.

Hmmm...a "belief system" may entail a great many differing perspectives, not the least of which would embrace a religious or faith-based view. I do not lend any credence of viability/veracity to the claims of the Raeliens . It's their claim to substantiate beyond a reasonable doubt; not mine to debunk or "disprove".

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.

Again, to be fair...it would be important to delineate the different meanings and attendant definitions of the word "faith". Religious faith connotes an entirely different meaning (and "understanding") than does a colloquial application of the word, like: "I have faith that our hometown team will be victorious this weekend".

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?

No.

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?

No.

Why or why not?

Because "faith" is not requisite to employing reason.

If you claim to be seven feet tall, and you believe your claim to be "true", I need not employ any "faith" to doubt your claim as being false, or unlikely to be verified/validated by any established measure. In a sense, I could "disprove" your claim of exceptional height with a ruler or tape measure, but that's hardly necessary if I stand 6" taller than you in my bare feet at 5'9". My conclusion that your claim is bunk is NOT based upon any faith-based "belief" that I retain as some "hardened faith ".

Now, if you are really bent on discrediting my estimable conclusion regarding your claimed height (as being bunk), you are certainly welcome to "prove" your faith-based claim of gigantism as being "true" beyond a reasonable doubt.

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.

It all depends on what you wish or want to be true...like tarot readings, ESP, astrology, etc. In order to categorically dismiss a "faked" picture of a "ghost" (or "Nessie"), it would be helpful to have at least one "authenticated" picture to use as comparison.

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.)

Unidentified Flying Objects are observed (and photographed, and videotaped) with regular consistency the world over. The only consistent aspect of these sightings is that the objects in question remain unidentified. Could they be alien spacecraft? Sure. Is that the most likely explanation available? What does the available evidence present as compelling validation of that prospective explanation? True that "absence of evidence" is not necessarily an "evidence of absence"...but in the complete absence of any measurable, testable, independently verifiable or reproducible experimentation of any physical evidence of any kind of either alien biology/morphology, or spacecraft technology...is it really the best available (or even most likely) "answer" to what "unexplained" UFO sightings may be?

[PS. Considering the pervasive nature of life on this one planet...orbiting this one star, of 100 billion other stars in our own galaxy, amidst perhaps 100 billion other galaxies in the cosmos...I concur that "life as we know it" (or in some form that we have yet to even fathom) seems much more likely (or probable) than unlikely, or impossible. Scientists have found examples in Martian samples of what appear not unlike what living bacteria might present once fossilized over time, but it should be noted that very few "scientists" at this point are persuaded that these "fossil-like" specimens are, in fact, the remnants of once living bacterium. But hey, Mars is a big place, and we've only but scratched the surface (quite literally) so far. ;-)]

Whether or not there is any physical evidence for God or the supernatural is also up for debate.

As far as atheists are concerned...not really, no.

There are numerous stories and documentaries around that dictate events that seem to have no other explanation.

You can get that result quite often enough if you deem any "unexplained event" as "having no other explanation...but [proof of] god". Ignorance, and/or a lack of compelling evidence (or simply knowing how or where to look for it)...

I'm reminded of the "cargo cults" that have arisen in isolation from technology and science, that presumed that the shiny winged beasts roaring in the skies above--that "magically" dropped food/water, et al...without any available explanation whatsoever--assumed that airplanes were deities to be worshipped, idolized, and perhaps loved, or feared, or both. After all, if they defied all other available explanations...they must have been gods...

 

[s2a]

There are many who believe that the fact that we exist at all is physical evidence enough.

Right. These are "the many" that don't devote much of any kinds of inherently available intellectual inquiry, or skepticism, or applied reason.

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.

Explain how anything that is perceived to be "imperceptible" is therefore a legitimately understood (or taught/evangelized/preached) by the adherent faithful as both existent and "real". How does this fundamentally differ from a child's claim of an "invisible friend" that only she can "see", or an adult's claim that an invisible deity plans and controls the manifest ("planned") destiny of the cosmos? How are these identical claims understood to be divergently distinct amongst the piously faithful believers?

There are many occurences both documented and heresay that can not be fully explained by scientific means.

True. But let's not abandon science and reason like so much unwanted baby in soiled bathwater either...

"Science" is a methodology...not a doxology, nor a dogma. "Science" offers no "truths" that serve to ameliorate any and all (emotional) doubts attendant to a mortal existence. NONE. There is no "scientific theory" or explanation offered as answer to the basic question of "why do bad things happen to good people"? The only observation that "science" can offer is that...sometimes..."sh*t happens"; for no "reason" (neither good nor bad) whatsoever. Religion presumes to offer answer to that question--quite unscientifically.

While no doubt many such stories are fake I find it hard to believe that every single one of them is.

Why not?

Are they all the product of hallucinations? perhaps. or perhaps they all are evidence that there is something more out there.

...or, not?

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 probabl

y never will be proven or provable at least not in our limited capacity.

1) Your summary is limited by whatever you are willing to accept as a compelling "proof" of reasonably ascertained fact. If you seek 100% "confirmation" beyond any and all reasoned doubts...only religious/faith=based claims will be bold enough to assert confirming and unassailable "truths" that defy any and all human intellectual inquiries and challenges.

I do not "assume" the effects of gravity are "true"; I can test, measure, document, predict, and repeatedly demonstrate (with consistency) it's presence and impact upon anything with mass. Funny thing is...I can "prove" that "existent" gravity (while being "invisible and not totally "comprehensible" or "understood") "exists" in that it's presence and effects are both observable and predictable. Claimed deities seek some special exemption from such detectable means, and somehow "exist" despite the lack of any empirical evidences (or fingerprints") of their alleged presence or consequential deeds/outcomes.

How does the absence of "something" ever "prove" that an "unsomething" (as an "either/or" supposition) must therefore be some other "thing" (or by default summary conclusion, a god)?

prove there is no supernatural.

Prove that parallel universes don't exist. That's the current challenge presented by contemporary theoretical astrophysics. Either they (parallel universes) do exist, or some adherently "truthful", "god theory" proves that they don't. What does your god say about the existence of parallel universes?

If you can't then by definition what you have is a faith.

Nope. What you have...is a definitive example of a perspective that does not depend upon faith-based claims/beliefs.

You might very well claim that "unicorns exist". I have yet to encounter a unicorn personally, myself. I have never ridden a unicorn, nor fed one, nor have I ever chosen to summarily dismiss the possibility of a living. breathing horse evincing a prominent "horn" upon it's long face. Bear in mind that skeptics (and some self-professed atheists) do not assert that "unicorns do not exist".... They only demand that your particular claim be subject t the same methods of scientific methodology/scrutiny/review as any other fantastic or extraordinary claim (like parallel universes).

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.

And that's but one of the many failings of such a rationale...

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.

If we choose to abandon all capacities of human logic...sure.

I plan to invite introspective commentary/debate regarding this concept in a new thread for any religious adherents to answer...what IS nothing (being the complete absence of something/anything)?

If a god(s) can/may "exist", can [a] "nothing" exist? Can a god(s) make or manifest a "nothing" (being the utter absence of an anything/everything)? If a "nothing" can exist, does that "nothing" include any existent god(s)?

 

[s2a]

How is it elastic when I'm simply using it's definition? Faith has a great deal of meaning to me.

Special pleading and strawman argumentation. The "definition" you provide as some immutable scarecrow is easily supplanted by another, more readily accessible scary figure. "Prove my invisible friend doesn't exist!".

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.

You have yet to "define" (as yet) the implications and attendant requisites of faith yourself. Define "faith" in it's universal application--once and for all--so that skeptics may challenge it's credulity/veracity in substantiation/invalidation of any "defined" faith-based belief/religion.

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.

And that's but one flaw in your "applied" logic...

This is not taking it out of context nor is it stretching the word as I am using it's given definition.

Which is what...most definitively?

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.

False pretense against argument as presented,

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

No. Again. Provide your definitive definition of what "faith" IS (or is not).

Is atheism a chestnut? No? Then, how is it not a chestnut? I can define what a chestnut IS, exactly (and just as exactly, what it is NOT). What is "faith", specifically?

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.

It would be a difficult claim to substantiate. How many differing sects of attributed "Christian" affiliation endure within the US alone {Pssst. I know the answer; do you?)]?

True there are certain defining beliefs in both Atheism and Christianity,

Cool. I'm a self-avowed atheist.

Please detail, with all available specificity...what "certain defining beliefs" (as being an atheist) mirror/share within ANY other faith-based belief. ANY.

ANY.

Please...be specific and considered in your tendered comparisons.

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?

What is your "WORDS GIVEN DEFINITION" of faith? Perhaps I missed it beforehand. I promise I won't miss it again, if you provide it here within this particular thread.

Prove to me that the phrase "there is no God" is a fact and I will concede that atheism is not a faith.

Hello, scarecrow. Does "atheism" truly proclaim "there is no God" as an undeniable fact? Do pious Christians deny the existence of Godzilla as a veritable fact? Is it their lack of faith in a giant reptilian and radioactive fire-breather that discounts the sincere claim of His existence? Why don't you have faith that Godzilla exists? Should your doubt serve as dispassionate disproof of my claim that Godzilla enjoys late-night pancakes at IHOP?

Define "faith" as you wish it to be applied and understood by all as the foundation of understanding "truth" as revealed by any god.

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.

Unbelief, is not by default rationale, a belief. If my grandfather claims to be younger than me, no amount of inherent faith placed within my grandfather's veracity and sincerity is likely to persuade my skeptical perspective that his claim is "true", or even likely probable as being proven "true".

Thus if the statement is proved true then there would no longer be any basis to call atheism a faith.

Does reasonable doubt regarding a particular faith-based claim constitute an established independent faith/religion...or just a reasoned doubt?

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.

I see it. I simply don't "believe" it. My unbelief does not create another "belief" as byproduct.

It is not a challenge to your beliefs nor does putting faith into atheism make any less atheistic.

You really don't understand, and "I'm just trying to get you to take a look at my side of the argument". Atheism is not another kind of faith...atheism "defines" the absence of faith in any claims of existent supernaturalistic deities. That's all.

Oh and by the way... one person's nonsense is another person's gospel. Just something to keep in mind.

Faithfully retained...as so often reinforced by "believers" that anything counter to their proclaimed gospel is..."bunk".

The main difference between the atheistic skeptic and the "true believer" is plainly put.

The atheist says: "There are no compelling evidences. nor provided anecdotal testimonials (of personalized conversion/deliverance/redemption) that serve as any validations (of asserted "truth") worthy of acceptable conclusions that satisfy burdened many/most/all reasonable doubts".

The "believer" says: "God said it. I believe it, That settles it". The often unsaid, but implied notion that follows that sentiment is..."or else...".

 

[Rolling_Stone]

There's plenty of "science" available to more than reasonably assert and "prove" (beyond highly burdened and reasonable doubts) that claimed deities are non-existent; or at very least, utterly unnecessary in explanations of natural phenomena.

Not at all true. You should know better. Science is open-ended on the matter.

It's their claim to substantiate beyond a reasonable doubt; not mine to debunk or "disprove".

How convenient of you to ignore that with atheism comes assumptions that also requires substantiation.

The "believer" says: "God said it. I believe it, That settles it". The often unsaid, but implied notion that follows that sentiment is..."or else...".

I suppose this means, then, that Augustine wasn't a "true believer."

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How convenient of you to ignore that with atheism comes assumptions that also requires substantiation.

What assumptions do I have requiring substantiation, and what, in your opinion, qualifies as substantiation?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

What assumptions do I have requiring substantiation, and what, in your opinion, qualifies as substantiation?

Been done. No answer. Says a lot.

 

[MoonWater]

I have to say when I first started this thread I did not know a distinction was made between what is called "hard atheism" and "soft atheism". When I realized such a distinction was made I thought I'd bring it into the debate which was done in an earlier post. I do agree with what Storm said to an extent. That both sides have made the mistake of assuming there is only one type of Atheism. Though I say "to an extent" because I don't see much of a difference between "soft" Atheism and agnosticism. The only difference I can see comes into play with those who consider themselves both theistic and agnostic in that they follow a deity or deities but are open to the possibility that they could be wrong and realize that despite their faith there is no way to know for certain. But then one must wonder if that could even be considered agnosticism. So from Theism to Agnosticism to Atheism there seem to be numerous different levels for each and everything inbetween. And it would seem that whether or not any faith is involved and just how much faith is needed seems to depend on what level you fall on. I will concede that even I personally do not see how a newborn babe could have "faith" that there is no God when he/she has no concept of such a thing. But then again that's assuming that babies have no concept of God which is also unprovable(here we go again eh? ^_^). I believe it has been said that some Muslims believe all babies are born Muslim and it wouldn't surprise me to find that members of other religions believe that all babies are born *insert religion of choice here*. My point is that if you have no concept of God whatsoever then I agree that you do not "have faith" that God isn't there. But what about those who have do have a concept of God? And I think it would not be too much of a leap of faith to say that everyone on RF, regardless of religion(or lack there of) has some concept of God even if they don't follow one/any. So could it be said that once you have a concept of God you must have faith whether you accept it as true or dismiss it as false? Why or why not?


I've taken a look at some articles written on this matter by other Atheists on other websites and from what I've read it seems that the side that says Atheism is not a faith considers the idea that Atheism IS a faith an attack on Atheism, something that theists use to try and undermine the position of Atheism. I think that THAT is why this debate has become so heated at points. Well I believe I've said this before but that is not my intention with this thread. I have no desire to attack or undermine Atheism and if some of you think I have anyway I apologize for that. Both sides(and yes I'm including myself in this) have made mistakes in this debate. Though I think the biggest mistake we all have made isn't assuming that there is only one type of Atheism but forgetting that these debates are supposed to be for fun. I had to step away for a couple days because I was starting to realize just how heated I was getting and I do admit to having overreacted at times to some of the replies here. For that I again apologize. Hopefully we can all continue this thread in a friendly manner and not lose our heads again.^_^