Atheism is a faith

[rojse]

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--He is the opposite--infinite existence and absolute potential.

Perhaps we evolved to conform to those particular parameters. If the parameters had been different, so would life.

 

[Jeremiah]

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)

It does not require any faith not to care one lick about special revelation.

Just like it does not require any faith not to care not to care one lick about a factual non existence God.

Nor does it any require faith not to care one lick about faith.

Nor does it require faith not to care one lick about facts.

I don't have to get out of bed in the morning and I don't have to eat. I don't need to accomplish anything with my life. In fact I could test this death theory if I wanted to. I don't need to believe the world is real nor do I need to have faith that I am real. I can change my mind at any time and redefine my environment at anytime. To be honest I don't care what a fact is and what a fact is not. I find science dry and boring. I also don't care what is real and what is not real. I find reality bright and loud. All I care about is finding the most cost effective way to spend my life.

So go for it define atheism as a faith, I'll move over to faithless.

 

[meogi]

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

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

That was me. Let's look at the quote:

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.

What you were saying was atheism is atheism whether it's 'hard' or 'soft,' correct? Well, abrahamic religions share the same basic premise, 'the one true God.' (which happens to actually BE the same God.) If you're going to lump all atheists together, you better well lump all abrahamics together too. Or am I wrong here? It helps to address the point instead of just trying to belittle the person you think made the statement.

If you wern't being condecending, I appologize for stating you were trying to belittle someone. [Sheesh.] seems a tad condecending though.

Also, what assumptions am I making and what 'faith' (remember, lack of rationale) do I have for them?

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

By 'little rationale' I was referring to the evidence of the supernatural in the first place. There is none. There is no rationale for it's belief. It requires faith.

Also, I don't care what people believe about the universe. I explained why in my previous post. I do care about the actual evidence that people come up with for their ideas about the universe.

Once you posit the supernatural, anything is justified. It's the positing the supernatural that I don't accept as justified. Certainty (degree of proof) flies out the window with the supernatural behind it. Any outcome could be changed for any reason by anything. Why do you trust that gravity works in this supernatural world? Some supernatural entity could surely intervine. (My car stops and goes because an invisible man pushes against it, he just happens to do so only when I tell him to. [By pushing the accelerator/brakes.] Science may allow for it, but it sure as hell doesn't suggest it. In fact, I'd say it suggests the opposite... that no invisible man is pushing my car, and it's simply friction between the tires and the road.)

But what causes friction!?@?@! Gravity!? What causes gravity!? Gasp. Since we don't know, the only thing that fits is the supernatural, of course. [Sheesh.]

(That's a joke, btw.)

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)

Yes it does. But I never assumed special revelation doesn't exist, in fact, I know that it does 'exist.' (In the form of emotion/personal experience.) What it isn't useful for, however, is convincing others of what was revealed. The belief that the specially revealed person is telling the truth is 'faith.' It's possible he's just lying, misinterpreted, or is crazy. If what he said could be demonstrated, it would require less faith (because it has rationale behind it). How often are specially revealed truths able to be demonstrated?

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.

Umm, the 2nd law of thermodynamics disagrees with you. All things are fundamentally chaotic. It's the subsystems within that chaotic supersystem that are orderly and need further exploration. I don't exclude the supernatural as a possible explanation. (It does work well as an 'explanitory' tool for things we're unsure of.) I exclude the idea of the supernatural, simply because there is simply NO evidence for it. If someone provided some (that couldn't actually be explained by science), that would be a different story. Again, the overwhelming lack of evidence is evidence of absence.

Throughout time, supernatural explanations have always turned into natural ones. Never the other way around. Why is this?

It has a particular configuration of matter and energy and particular laws of physics. Why those particulars?

String theory actually addresses this. It's this particular configuration simply because we're observing it as such. If we observed it as different, it would be different. We are actually observing it differently, just in a different universe/timeline. And if we weren't observing it, and nothing else was observing it, it wouldn't actually exist. I hate quantum physics sometimes, it's such a brain strain.

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.

So you believe that God is simply existance? Why call it God? Why not call it existance? [sic - I wish I could learn me some gud spellin. ]

****
Also, as a side note, would people please start addressing entire posts, rather than just cherry picking something, making a statement, and ignoring the rest of the post? It's not useful for debate. I've asked a lot of questions and am trying to understand positions here, but unanswered questions don't help.

I mainly just want this one answered by a few of you:

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.)

 

[Rolling_Stone]

What you were saying was atheism is atheism whether it's 'hard' or 'soft,' correct? Well, abrahamic religions share the same basic premise, 'the one true God.' (which happens to actually BE the same God.) If you're going to lump all atheists together, you better well lump all abrahamics together too. Or am I wrong here? It helps to address the point instead of just trying to belittle the person you think made the statement.

If you wern't being condecending, I appologize for stating you were trying to belittle someone. [Sheesh.] seems a tad condecending though.

Also, what assumptions am I making and what 'faith' (remember, lack of rationale) do I have for them?

Sheesh. (Especially the last since it been done so many times.)

 

[meogi]

Rolling_Stone, do you intend to debate anything? Putting forth arguments, defending them, addressing opposing ones... something?

Maybe:

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]

Rolling_Stone, do you intend to debate anything? Putting forth arguments, defending them, addressing opposing ones... something?

Maybe:

Rolling Stone seems to has a dislike for atheism and therefore a slighted option but beyond that he seems alright.

Btw Hello from Montana!

 

[Jeremiah]

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.

We been over this one. Did you read the thread in its entirety?

Atheism does not provide nor intend to provide and explanation as to the origin of existence.

The atheist is not required in any way to provide for themselves or others a theory of creation. They may do so if they wish but that would be the individual’s choice.

 

[UnTheist]

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?

We can't get all the answers you want. Is that too hard for you to handle?

So you're assuming that if you don't know everything abut the Universe, including how it got here and how it works, you're just going to put God into the equation? How pathetic

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.

In other words, God explains nothing

 

[meogi]

How pathetic

It's a wonder at all why people misunderstand atheism...

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Rolling_Stone, do you intend to debate anything? Putting forth arguments, defending them, addressing opposing ones... something?

Maybe:

What is there to debate? You've already defined things in a way that make debate impossible.

 

[meogi]

What is there to debate? You've already defined things in a way that make debate impossible.

Perhaps debate that my definitions are wrong, why you believe them to be so, and what evidence you have that they are? That's generally how it works. (Statements like "It's been done already" and "sheesh." are used too often and are ambiguous [perhaps they've never heard such an argument?], stop being lazy! At least provide a link to them! Please!? )

I'm still awaiting any answer, any answer at all, as to why it matters to you or anyone else here if atheism is a faith or not? I don't care if it's because you guys hate us, at least that would be an answer!

Btw Hello from Montana!

*Waves* Are you also one in a million(ish)?

 

[UnTheist]

It's a wonder at all why people misunderstand atheism...

Just like they misunderstand non-alchemy or non-astrology.

Oh wait, they don't...

 

[UnTheist]

What is there to debate? You've already defined things in a way that make debate impossible.

I think you're talking about yourself :sorry1:

 

[doppelganger]

In other words, God explains nothing

Precisely.

 

[doppelganger]

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 "pops" into existence because you are self-conscious and it is the object of your subject.

It has a particular configuration of matter and energy and particular laws of physics. Why those particulars?

This is because language and thought organizes the universe of experiences into things and gives them useful attributes modeled in thought. The order and complexity you see is the order in your own thoughts. The simple proof for this is that both "order" and "complexity" are personal judgments or assessments.


Everything you've said you need "God" for, can by explained by understanding the function of language and thought and being aware of the human tendency for confusing the signs for the things signified.

 

[Jeremiah]

I'm still awaiting any answer, any answer at all, as to why it matters to you or anyone else here if atheism is a faith or not?

I ask that one towards the beginning of the thread. Still waiting an answer myself.

*Waves* Are you also one in a million(ish)?

I was starting to think I was the only atheist in the state.

 

[MoonWater]

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.)

I have no need to "justify" my own faith nor is the purpose of this thread to attack Atheism. I've answered this question earlier but maybe you missed it so I'll say it again. The purpose of this debate is for fun. Though many of us(including myself I'll admit) have forgotten that in one or more places in this thread, hence the intense emotion that has come about. If I convince you that Atheism IS a faith fine, if I don't that's fine too. It doesn't really matter to me what you wish to believe, it just means we'll have to agree to disagree. So in answer to your question it really doesn't matter. What I'd like to know is why so many seem to think that calling Atheism a faith is an attack on Atheism.

 

[MoonWater]

Just like it does not require any faith not to care not to care one lick about a factual non existence God.

True it does not require faith to "Not care one lick" but it does require faith to believe that the nonexistence of God is "Factual".

I don't have to get out of bed in the morning and I don't have to eat. I don't need to accomplish anything with my life. In fact I could test this death theory if I wanted to. I don't need to believe the world is real nor do I need to have faith that I am real. I can change my mind at any time and redefine my environment at anytime. To be honest I don't care what a fact is and what a fact is not. I find science dry and boring. I also don't care what is real and what is not real. I find reality bright and loud. All I care about is finding the most cost effective way to spend my life.

Yes you can and we never said that there was anything wrong with that

So go for it define atheism as a faith, I'll move over to faithless.

So your saying you have no faith in absolutely anything whatsoever? That's your purgative. But it wouldn't hurt to relax a little. Why are you taking this thread so personally? As I've said before it is not my intent to attack or undermine Atheism. And I still can't figure out how calling Atheism a faith could BE an attack on Atheism.

 

[Jeremiah]

But it wouldn't hurt to relax a little. Why are you taking this thread so personally?

This song and dance is not going to work with me. If I wanted to read mudslinging, I'd be reading fox news.

 

[meogi]

I've answered this question earlier but maybe you missed it so I'll say it again. The purpose of this debate is for fun.

Sorry, it's partly my fault for not reading through the previous 10 pages. I'm glad you think that making blanket statements like non-belief in 'something' is faith, is fun. I don't, hence it appearing to be an attack. (The same way me calling a creator 'deceptive' could be seen as an attack on theism.)

What I'd like to know is why so many seem to think that calling Atheism a faith is an attack on Atheism.

Because non-belief takes no faith when the evidence isn't there. Statements like "Theism is a faith" is not an attack on the person's worldview, because faith is a fundamental part of their belief. Statements like "Atheism is a faith" is an attack on the person's worldview, because faith isn't a fundamental part of their belief. Shoozawhatzit anyone?

True it does not require faith to "Not care one lick" but it does require faith to believe that the nonexistence of God is "Factual".

Not if the nonexistence of God is the result of the same reasoning as the nonexistance of unicorns, leprichauns, Zues, shoozawhatzits, or anything else 'conceived.' I believe it's 'factual' as much as I believe it's 'factual' that unicorns don't actually live anywhere on earth. (Which isn't 100%, it's possible.)

Throughout time, supernatural explanations have always turned into natural ones. Never the other way around. Why is this?
Things that never seem to have any explanation, generally will have an explanation in human emotion/perception. People don't like to think their perception/emotions can trick them, so generally ignore that idea. Why is this?

These are two main reasons, along with the overwhelming lack of evidence, that I non-believe in the supernatural. Faith? I call it reason.