Atheism is a faith

[Don Penguinoini]

That is the definition of faith and it is the definition I have been using throughout this thread. How am I using the word "loosely" when I'm simply using it's definition?(I've asked this question many times before and have yet to get an answer)



I know, but for this thread I don't mean faith as another word for religion, in fact I've said many times that it is NOT the purpose or intent of this thread to call Atheism a religion.

No-one seriously thinks of atheism as a faith in the way you have put it on a religious forum. Come on!
Your using it loosly. On RF faith means religion. Faith is another word here. A word. But faith means religion here. "Atheism is a faith" is saying, atheism is a religion which it is not.

 

[blackout]

If you live and move with faith,
in your understanding of a-thiesm,
if that under"pinning" is present in
all you see and do and believe...
than it is indeed the faith you live by.

 

[rojse]

If you live and move with faith,
in your understanding of a-thiesm,
if that under"pinning" is present in
all you see and do and believe...
than it is indeed the faith you live by.

Atheism is not a belief. It is like saying not believing in Santa Claus is a belief, except that many people actually do believe Santa Claus exists, but have absolutely no agreement as to what he looks like, or how many of him exists.

Atheism quite varies to all other faiths. Sure, atheists have one thing in common - thinking that God does not exist. But, apart from that, we are all different. We have different moral values, believe in different things scientifically, have different positions on social issues such as abortion and war and so forth. Some atheists may believe in different spiritual ideas, such as a soul, and so forth. There is no book for atheists to believe in, nor are there any scientific theories that we are forced to accept as part of our belief, either.

 

[MoonWater]

No-one seriously thinks of atheism as a faith in the way you have put it on a religious forum. Come on!
Your using it loosly. On RF faith means religion. Faith is another word here. A word. But faith means religion here. "Atheism is a faith" is saying, atheism is a religion which it is not.

How many times do I have to say it? I am not making the claim that Atheism is a religion. True faith and religion are often used interchangeably but I am not using the word "faith" in that context. Faith also means belief in something that can't as yet be proven. When I say Atheism is a faith I am merely stating the proposition that the claims of Atheism require faith just as like the claims of theism. This does not make Atheism a religion nor have I ever made such a claim anywhere in this thread.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

When I say Atheism is a faith I am merely stating the proposition that the claims of Atheism require faith just as like the claims of theism.

I partially agree with you on this MoonWater. Most intellectual atheists do not dismiss God in a vacuum and have some kind of world-view that is intrinsically tied to atheism. Any asserted world-view requires belief/faith, and many people have a world-view whether or not they have defined it for themselves. However, it is possible, I suppose, for someone to not believe in God for no reason at all, which of course, would not require faith.

This is based on the idea that we start off not knowing and not believing in God. In Christian theology, God is the one who leads us to Him.

 

[gnomon]

To only include faith as synonymous with belief, which itself is defined by accepting a statement as true without any immediate proof, reduces the thread to nothing more than a semantical trick.

How any theist can equate their faith in God with the mere definition of belief, reducing it to a redundancy and then equating to a "lack of" belief only shows, nay proves, to me that the individual is lacking the subject of discussion.

Faith.

To assert that atheists hold some beliefs is extraordinarily unremarkable.

 

[rojse]

I partially agree with you on this MoonWater. Most intellectual atheists do not dismiss God in a vacuum and have some kind of world-view that is intrinsically tied to atheism. Any asserted world-view requires belief/faith, and many people have a world-view whether or not they have defined it for themselves. However, it is possible, I suppose, for someone to not believe in God for no reason at all, which of course, would not require faith.

This is based on the idea that we start off not knowing and not believing in God. In Christian theology, God is the one who leads us to Him.

I came to a decision about the existence of God way after I came to a decision about my views and ideas of the world.

I grew up in an environment where I did not have to consider the existence of God in any form.

 

[mcteethinator]

I think militant strong atheism is a faith (A faith in something not existing), but not weak atheism. it is however, *not* a religion.

 

[blackout]

If you live and move with faith,
in your understanding of a-thiesm,
if that under"pinning" is present in
all you see and do and believe...
than it is indeed the faith you live by.

Ok. Well I think I was just a bit punchy this morning while posting,
too much caffine, not enough sleep.

I read somewhere in the forum,
that the idea that "athiesm" is kind of a lame title,
because it says nothing of what you ARE...
but just stands as a strong label confirmation
that you're NOT something else.
(or some idea like that)

I agree with that. It is a WEAK label.
It tells us what you do NOT "believe in",
but never addresses what you DO believe in.

We all live in active faith of something.
Even if you say you live in faith of NOTHING,
that "nothing" then becomes the very thing you "believe in".
It creates the entire "sense" of your whole reality.

Still I would say that the person who has put all of his "faith eggs",
in the "nothing" basket, is RARE indeed.
(and probably lives a NOTABLY interesting existence)

So what then do you believe in?
When you step out of bed in the morning....
do you have faith that the floor will catch you?
When you get behind the wheel of a car...
do you have faith you will reach your destination?
When you see/hear something on the nightly news....
do you have faith that you have witnessed an "unspun" truth?

I hardly see how having "faith" in "God" totally defines a person either.

The actual EXPERIENCE of God is so totally different,
for so many people.

I actually hesitate to use the word God very often these days,
even though God as I understand "Him" is the WHOLE of my life,
because people think of "the church God" as presented by religion,
and THAT is not the God experience of which I am communicating.

Still when I say UNIverse, that does not express my experience of God either.

I believe we are all really misunderstood by our labels.
No two people experience life quite the same way.

Hope my earlier comments did not offend.

 

[s2a]

I partially agree with you on this MoonWater. Most intellectual atheists do not dismiss God in a vacuum and have some kind of world-view that is intrinsically tied to atheism. Any asserted world-view requires belief/faith, and many people have a world-view whether or not they have defined it for themselves. However, it is possible, I suppose, for someone to not believe in God for no reason at all, which of course, would not require faith.

This is based on the idea that we start off not knowing and not believing in God. In Christian theology, God is the one who leads us to Him.

Ding!

We are all born as "atheists".

"God-beliefs (of any kind)" are taught, not some sort of inherently or genetically transferable trait replicated within human DNA.

If "faith" was a trait/quality that all humans possessed from birth, then every human would "instinctively believe" in some sort of claim in a theistic oversight/purview of an objectively observable and experienced cosmos.

If our species is preternaturally determined to "believe" in a theistic perspective, then what point or purpose is served by religious missionaries...other that to promote their own specific theistic "beliefs" as "truth"?

"Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today"
--John Lennon

Can you imagine that expressed sentiment as "truth"?

If so, you might be an atheist.

If not, you're probably a theist..."searching" for a "truth" that thousands of sectarian and theistic religions claim to offer as some (or the ONE) definitive "truth".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When I say Atheism is a faith I am merely stating the proposition that the claims of Atheism require faith just as like the claims of theism.

I have a feeling that the disagreement in this thread may be coming from a difference in definition. Maybe if you state what you consider the claims of atheism to be, we could clear up some confusion.

My definition of atheism does not require faith; you contend that your definition does. If we're working with different definitions, though, we're comparing apples and oranges.

 

[MoonWater]

I have a feeling that the disagreement in this thread may be coming from a difference in definition. Maybe if you state what you consider the claims of atheism to be, we could clear up some confusion.

My definition of atheism does not require faith; you contend that your definition does. If we're working with different definitions, though, we're comparing apples and oranges.

Well there seem to be two different definitions for Atheism. One saying its the nonbelief in God and the other saying that its the belief that there is NO God. The first is called Soft Atheism and the second Hard Atheism. When I first started this thread I thought Atheism was only hard atheism and thus thought it was the positive belief that there is no god. But I do concede that a non-belief is not a belief as that would be a contradiction and as a result, by the definition I've been using, the non-belief in God would constitute a or require faith. However in terms of HARD Atheism it would seem to require faith as, even though the result is negative(no God) the belief is positive(there is). So I would like to alter the debate if this thread some if that's alright with everyone. I'd like to argue only on hard Atheism. Does Hard Atheism, by it's definition, need faith? Why or why not? I say it does for reasons already stated in this post, what about the rest of you?

 

[camanintx]

Well there seem to be two different definitions for Atheism. One saying its the nonbelief in God and the other saying that its the belief that there is NO God. The first is called Soft Atheism and the second Hard Atheism. When I first started this thread I thought Atheism was only hard atheism and thus thought it was the positive belief that there is no god. But I do concede that a non-belief is not a belief as that would be a contradiction and as a result, by the definition I've been using, the non-belief in God would constitute a or require faith. However in terms of HARD Atheism it would seem to require faith as, even though the result is negative(no God) the belief is positive(there is). So I would like to alter the debate if this thread some if that's alright with everyone. I'd like to argue only on hard Atheism. Does Hard Atheism, by it's definition, need faith? Why or why not? I say it does for reasons already stated in this post, what about the rest of you?

Now that you have defined Atheism, maybe you should define what you mean by God. Personally, I would define God as an intelligent agent responsible for creating the universe. Since there are logical arguments against God as creator of the universe, can't I positively say "there is no God" without relying on faith?

 

[UnTheist]

Now that you have defined Atheism, maybe you should define what you mean by God. Personally, I would define God as an intelligent agent responsible for creating the universe. Since there are logical arguments against God as creator of the universe, can't I positively say "there is no God" without relying on faith?

Unless they just say 'God is above logic' and stuff like that...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Now that you have defined Atheism, maybe you should define what you mean by God. Personally, I would define God as an intelligent agent responsible for creating the universe.

That's a rather monotheistic definition. Lots of religions have things they call gods that aren't credited with creating the universe.

In Greek mythology, Zeus didn't create the universe. Does Zeus not meet the definition of "god"?

 

[camanintx]

That's a rather monotheistic definition. Lots of religions have things they call gods that aren't credited with creating the universe.

In Greek mythology, Zeus didn't create the universe. Does Zeus not meet the definition of "god"?

While Zeus may have meet the definition of God for bronze age man, today he would be no different than many imaginary aliens from the science fiction genre. Did you ever see the movie Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, where Kirk asks God what he needs with a starship? If my definition is monotheistic, that is probably because of the culture I was raised in.

That is exactly why we need to agree on what God is before we can discuss whether belief in it or not requires any faith. God can always be defined in ways that support one position or another.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

While Zeus may have meet the definition of God for bronze age man, today he would be no different than many imaginary aliens from the science fiction genre. Did you ever see the movie Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, where Kirk asks God what he needs with a starship? If my definition is monotheistic, that is probably because of the culture I was raised in.

Yes, when different cultures and religions don't seem to use any overarching prerequisites for what constitutes a god, it makes things difficult. I think if you looked at what's common to everything that every religion ever decided was a god, you'd be left with "something that's more powerful than a human." Even a committee could satisfy this definition.

Still, though, make the definition of "god" more stringent and you'll exclude something that someone at one time or another considered to be a god.

That is exactly why we need to agree on what God is before we can discuss whether belief in it or not requires any faith. God can always be defined in ways that support one position or another.

Tell you what: if you want to stick with your definition of "god", then YOU can be the one to tell the Hindus, Sikhs, Pagans and all the other adherents of polytheistic religions that the things they're worshipping aren't gods. Let me know how it goes over.

 

[camanintx]

Tell you what: if you want to stick with your definition of "god", then YOU can be the one to tell the Hindus, Sikhs, Pagans and all the other adherents of polytheistic religions that the things they're worshipping aren't gods. Let me know how it goes over.

Probably as well as telling Yankee fans that A-Rod is not the God of Baseball.

 

[MoonWater]

Here's what I found in the American Heritage Dictionary in terms of a definition for God:

1. God
   1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
   2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.

It would seem that the first three are the ones most relevant to this debate.

 

[camanintx]

Here's what I found in the American Heritage Dictionary in terms of a definition for God:

Taking them one at a time then,

1. God

1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.

Since the concept of a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe is logically impossible, how does it require any faith to say it doesn't exist?

2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

This is basically what the Greeks and Romans believed and is simply an example of "god of the gaps". While we have no clue how gravity works, I haven't heard anyone suggest (except in jest) that there is a god holding us down. Why should it require any faith to believe that the rest of nature is any different?

3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.

Since these represent concepts and do not describe God, I don't think any of them apply to the topic at hand.