Atheism is a faith

[Rolling_Stone]

There is some obviously heated debate in this thread, but it's reached the point where there is nothing left to say. You are right, though: atheists seem to think the idea that atheism is a faith is an attack on atheism. It's not, but it is funny to see them make a distinction between "hard" and "soft" atheism.

Bamboo is bamboo whether it's tall or short.

 

[Popeyesays]

Any argument presented starts with an assumption. The argument postulates proof for the assumption.

The classic syllogism provides the best method for proving all men are mortal--you wait for them to die.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... atheists seem to think the idea that atheism is a faith is an attack on atheism.

I don't. On the contary, I view it as a pitiful tu quoque ad hominem - a whimpering protest - as if to say: "Your atheism is just as empty, just as baseless, as is our appeal to the supernatural!" It's not a weapon used against atheism but a rationalization, a comfort blanket, used to assuage the theist.

 

[MoonWater]

I don't. On the contary, I view it as a pitiful tu quoque ad hominem - a whimpering protest - as if to say: "Your atheism is just as empty, just as baseless, as is our appeal to the supernatural!" It's not a weapon used against atheism but a rationalization, a comfort blanket, used to assuage the theist.

However it was not my intention to call Atheism "empty" or "baseless". Is something empty just because it needs faith? I have faith that my friends and family will always be there for me, is that faith "empty" or "baseless". You are statment also makes the assumption that those who believe in the supernatural find it just as empty and baseless as you do. But tell me, why would one believe in the supernatural if they felt that there belief was empty and baseless? I for one am perfectly comfortable in my Theism and have no need to be "assuaged".

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Any argument presented starts with an assumption. The argument postulates proof for the assumption.

The classic syllogism provides the best method for proving all men are mortal--you wait for them to die.

Regards,
Scott

That's all I'm saying. "Atheism is not a faith" is itself a statement of faith whether it's referring to "hard" or "soft" forms. To view the recognition of this as "a pitiful tu quoque ad hominem - a whimpering protest - as if to say: "Your atheism is just as empty, just as baseless, as is our appeal to the supernatural!" " is a defensive posture, as though it is an attack on atheism itself. (Not to mention full of assumptions.) :foot:

 

[meogi]

Though I say "to an extent" because I don't see much of a difference between "soft" Atheism and agnosticism.

You don't see a difference between "There is an overwhelming lack of evidence to suggest belief in God(s)," and "I'm not sure, because I don't think we can know."

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?

So just conceiving of anything causes faith to be assigned to it's existance or not? I introduce to you the shoozawhatzit. It's something that you don't understand or know, but I do. You can, however, conceive of it... as introducing it to you has postulated its existence. So, do you have faith that it exists or doesn't exist? If yes, why do you believe in a lie? If no, why do you not believe in a lie? Is the 'faith' of not believing a lie and believing a lie the same?

I just made the shoozawhatzit up, it takes no faith to not believe in it. But that's because I'm assuring you that I made it up (a.k.a. - the evidence suggests non-existance.) Do you still equate both belief and non-belief as equal faiths?

What happens if I wasn't lying?

There is some obviously heated debate in this thread, but it's reached the point where there is nothing left to say. You are right, though: atheists seem to think the idea that atheism is a faith is an attack on atheism. It's not, but it is funny to see them make a distinction between "hard" and "soft" atheism.

Bamboo is bamboo whether it's tall or short.

Fine, but in that statement you just suggested that all abrahamic religions are the same.

Any argument presented starts with an assumption. The argument postulates proof for the assumption.

The classic syllogism provides the best method for proving all men are mortal--you wait for them to die.

Regards,
Scott

We need to stop using this word proof. Again, proofs are only valid in math, logic, and liquor. (Thanks Jay )

What rationale do you have to believe that all men are NOT mortal? Is that faith, only because of the uncertainty (aka - the chance someone is not mortal)? Everything (asside from math, logic, and liquor) is faith then, and that makes the discussion of faith pointless.

What we're doing here is assigning a value to the rationality of a belief. Faith. Things seen as obvious take little faith to believe in, as the rationale behind it is certain. Things that take large amounts of faith have little rationale behind them.

That's all I'm saying. "Atheism is not a faith" is itself a statement of faith whether it's referring to "hard" or "soft" forms. To view the recognition of this as "a pitiful tu quoque ad hominem - a whimpering protest - as if to say: "Your atheism is just as empty, just as baseless, as is our appeal to the supernatural!" " is a defensive posture, as though it is an attack on atheism itself. (Not to mention full of assumptions.)

So what your argument becomes is "Atheism has little rationale behind its belief." What I've been saying is the rationale behind atheism is justified. There seems to be no argument against the idea that "Theism has little rationale behind its belief." (In this statement, would you see it as an attack on theism? )

Do you agree that more rationale = less faith? At what point does faith go away then, in this non-provable world we conceivably (does it exist?!) live in?

But tell me, why would one believe in the supernatural if they felt that there belief was empty and baseless? I for one am perfectly comfortable in my Theism and have no need to be "assuaged".

You used one word that Jay didn't. Felt. Emotion and personal experience don't work well as a rationale, as it can be disingenuous, misinterpreted, or just deranged. Personal experience trumps all when it comes to belief, usually. Which is fine, I have no problem with personal experience and it's justifiablity to that person. It doesn't work when trying to convince someone else of something, however, because it has little rationale behind it. (Even though it is convincing to most.)

What Jay was pointing out is that there is no credible evidence for the supernatural, making the belief itself empty and baseless. Belief in the supernatural would then require faith (aka - it has little rationale in its belief [being based upon personal experience/emotion]). That this feels less like 'faith' if the non-belief in it is also seen as 'faith' is what Jay is trying to get at. (assuage)

If not assuage, for what other reason are you attempting to show that non-belief in the supernatural has the same merit as belief in it? Why does it matter (to you, personally) if atheism is a 'faith' or not? It would appear that it's either a justification for your own faith or an outright attack on atheism. (Hence people's thinking that we're 'defending' atheism from attack.)

 

[Jeremiah]

an attack on atheism itself.

The skeptic has always received allot of social pressure. People don't like to fess up to the facts, they rather do away with the word all together.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Does it require faith to know that special revelation does not exist?

(special revelation is the idea that knowledge can come from supernatural means, as opposed to general revelation, which is the idea that knowledge came from natural means)

 

[Storm]

Does it require faith to know that special revelation does not exist?

(special revelation is the idea that knowledge can come from supernatural means, as opposed to general revelation, which is the idea that knowledge came from natural means)

You can't prove it, so yeah.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

What I've been saying is the rationale behind atheism is justified. There seems to be no argument against the idea that What I've been saying is the rationale behind atheism is justified. There seems to be no argument against the idea that "Theism has little rationale behind its belief." (In this statement, would you see it as an attack on theism?(In this statement, would you see it as an attack on theism?)

One of the founders of modern physics in the 1920's said, "The mechanism demands a mysticism." (Actually, many of the founders were "mystics" of one kind or another.) And the answer to the question is "no" because as I said in earlier posts, modern science allows for (justifies), but does not prove, a theistic interpretation. I'd just pass it off as ignorance on their part.

 

[s2a]

Hello Moonwater,

You said:

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".

I've yet to read of any provided distinction/definition between the two;-)

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.

Indeed.

In this, I conclude that "faith" is an immutable aspect of piety and adherent belief regarding religious claims of "fact" and "truth".

So from Theism to Agnosticism to Atheism there seem to be numerous different levels for each and everything inbetween.

Poor conclusion, if you'll excuse my saying so.

Atheism is an espoused philosophical position that retains no reasoned doubts regarding the merits or legitimacy of religious/faith-based claims of "fact". Atheism is a position of qualified "unbelief" (of faith-based claims of "fact").

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.

Really? C'mon...

Children accept what their parents tell them is "fact", or "truth". How does one instruct nascent minds to "faithfully" accept any/all unburdened claims of faith-based testimonial fact...as subject to even facile doubts, or reasoned skepticism?

You, as a parent, may insist (to your child) that a quarter under the pillow at an awakening sunrise "proves" that the Tooth Fairy rewards children of lost baby teeth with some monetary compensation...but if the child doubts/questions the existence of such a "fairy", you might insist that "faith" is the tool and validation of "belief" (as being "true"). Faith only validates faith itself...not any claim of "fact".

And therein lies the rub...

...there is no "truth" in some claimed "Tooth Fairy", yet adult parents of young children might wish to propagate such a faithful belief as some "assumptive fact".

The parents "know better", but they perpetuate the myth...why?

But then again that's assuming that babies have no concept of God which is also unprovable(here we go again eh? ^_^).

If it can be fairly observed that there is no compelling evidences to suggest that babies inherently (biologically) retain a "concept of God"...then how much effort should be placed in "disproving" the concept?

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?

Is there ANY compelling evidence of ANY kind that suggests that children are BORN with a religious/god concept? ANY?

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.

I understand many presented concepts of claimed deities. That's a far cry from any rote acceptance of such claims.

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?

It could be said that way....wrongly...

Why or why not?

Simple anecdotal and empirical sociological evidences.

There are *gasp* parts (and cultures) of the world that have actually NEVER heard of your particular/specified faith-based claims. NEVER. EVER. There is no "concept" of your claimed deity to even ponder or consider. NONE. No Darth Vader. No Ra. No Thor. No "God of Abraham". No "wind spirit". Nothing.

This unpleasant fact might explain the ever-present compunction and drive to "witness" as "missionaries" to the heathen and unbelieving heretics of the "undeveloped" world today.

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.

Maybe it's because atheists keep effectively illustrating the logical failure of such comparisons...that eventually drives them to such heights (or lows).

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.

I concede no "mistakes" at this point.

I invite you to highlight and reiterate whatever "mistakes" you feel were misrepresentative of an atheistic view.

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.

That was a mistake on your part.

I'm deadly serious in my espoused perspective. If faith-based claims are not equally so...then they invite inevitable deconstruction and derision. Have a nice day...

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.

I accept your "apology", though I assure that I retained no expectation of any fair and due receipt therein.

I instead invite you to specifically address the salient inquiries put to you for pointed reply/rebuttal...and spare us the unnecessary and non sequitur "reflections" that temporarily serve to deflect provisions of either specific reply or rebuttal.

Let's dig deeper, and expose some bedrock...or not.

As you please...

s2a

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Atheism is an espoused philosophical position that retains no reasoned doubts regarding the merits or legitimacy of religious/faith-based claims of "fact". Atheism is a position of qualified "unbelief" (of faith-based claims of "fact").

Who owns the criteria for what makes something a "fact"?

 

[doppelganger]

Who owns the criteria for what makes something a "fact"?

You do, unless and until you pawn it to cover other debts. You can, of course, redeem it at any time.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

in that statement you just suggested that all abrahamic religions are the same.

Well, gee. How about that? [Sheesh.]

Poor s2a. So much said and not once addressing his faith is his assumptions.

 

[rojse]

One of the founders of modern physics in the 1920's said, "The mechanism demands a mysticism." (Actually, many of the founders were "mystics" of one kind or another.) And the answer to the question is "no" because as I said in earlier posts, modern science allows for (justifies), but does not prove, a theistic interpretation. I'd just pass it off as ignorance on their part.

Science does not require supernatural assistance to explain how things work. That's not scientific - God does not work in a predictable, modelable way. Whether God exists or not is deliberately outside the bounds of scientific testing.

Feel free to tack on any supernatural explanation to explain scientific occurences if you wish.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Science does not require supernatural assistance to explain how things work. That's not scientific - God does not work in a predictable, modelable way. Whether God exists or not is deliberately outside the bounds of scientific testing.

Feel free to tack on any supernatural explanation to explain scientific occurences if you wish.

2 scientific options: things fundamentally chaotic (which explains nothing) or they fundamentally orderly and needs further exploration. Exploration demands openness to all possibilities: excluding the "supernatural" would be unscientific--an act of faith.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Science does not require supernatural assistance to explain how things work. That's not scientific - God does not work in a predictable, modelable way. Whether God exists or not is deliberately outside the bounds of scientific testing.

Feel free to tack on any supernatural explanation to explain scientific occurences if you wish.

Perhaps you misunderstand the spirit behind the quote. I do not believe it says that hard science requires the consideration of the supernatural, but rather that it is philosophically unreasonable to say a mechanism (e.g. gravity) exists for no reason.

 

[rojse]

2 scientific options: things fundamentally chaotic (which explains nothing) or they fundamentally orderly and needs further exploration. Exploration demands openness to all possibilities: excluding the "supernatural" would be unscientific--an act of faith.

God doesn't explain anything either, in fact, it adds more questions to a complex problem.

Saying God did it does not explain how something came about, or when it did. It adds the question of how God came about, why he done it, who God is, all of which are unanswerable and untestable.

You should consider Occam's Razor in your statement - the simplest solution, with the least amount of assertations, is best.

 

[rojse]

Perhaps you misunderstand the spirit behind the quote. I do not believe it says that hard science requires the consideration of the supernatural, but rather that it is philosophically unreasonable to say a mechanism (e.g. gravity) exists for no reason.

I certainly agree that there must be an underlying reason behind gravity, indeed, all of the underlying physical forces, but I do not wish to move so quickly to the idea that God must exist because of this.

Are you referring to the Anthropic Principle, by any chance?

 

[Nick Soapdish]

God doesn't explain anything either, in fact, it adds more questions to a complex problem.

Saying God did it does not explain how something came about, or when it did. It adds the question of how God came about, why he done it, who God is, all of which are unanswerable and untestable.

You should consider Occam's Razor in your statement - the simplest solution, with the least amount of assertations, is best.

Materialism/naturalism is not a simpler solution to me. We have a massive Universe with incredible complexity and elegance just "pop" into existence with no reason or possible explanation. It has a particular configuration of matter and energy and particular laws of physics. Why those particulars?

On the other hand God is not a particular--He is universal...infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, immutable, etc. He is the best answer to why nothing at all exists because He is the opposite of nothing existing .... He is infinite existence and absolute potential.