Atheism is a faith

[Storm]

But to many many people out there, there really is no real proof of God. There is no real proof for God's existence either.

I didn't claim that there was.

Atheists generally aren't going to believe in a God with out proper evidence. You don't assume something is with out proper reasoning that it's actually there. I could say I have a real purple leprechaun in my room. You wouldn't assume it's there unless it was shown to you would you?

There are plenty against religion who aren't atheists. You have your Humanists, Trans-humanists, and scientific groups, and others generally against religion. They don't necessarily have to be Atheists. If they happen to be Atheists so be it.

I don't see what any of this has to do with my point.

Remember, I am only addressing strong atheism, here - the active belief that there is no God. That's a faith.

 

[Storm]

But it doesn't work that way with a negative like that. It's a LACK of a belief... not a belief.

Again, I am addressing strong, not weak, atheism. That is a belief.

 

[Luminous]

i like my term. "Agodist" instead of 'strong atheist'; i am not weak just becuase i am unthiest agnostic. i am generally against religion.
BTW: i wouldn't believe you had a purple leprechaun even if you showed me it; it would take much more than that.

 

[UnTheist]

Please read posts more thoroughly, StripperClown

 

[StripperClown]

Again, I am addressing strong, not weak, atheism. That is a belief.

Read my other post.

 

[Storm]

I did.

 

[StripperClown]

I didn't claim that there was.


I don't see what any of this has to do with my point.

Remember, I am only addressing strong atheism, here - the active belief that there is no God. That's a faith.

You were implying there was evidence as to the existence of God.


And it's STILL a lack of a belief in God. You and I actively believe in the non-existence of things on a day to day basis. To believe something is non-existent is the same as lack of a belief.

 

[StripperClown]

Please read posts more thoroughly, StripperClown

Please don't make blank statements, UnTheist.

 

[UnTheist]

One is an active belief, one isn't.

 

[Willamena]

You probably believe there is no Santa, Easter Bunny, magical pixies, etc. How faith does it take you to not believe those things?

Simple answer: Santa, Easter Bunny, magical pixies, etc. are not supposed to be the creator of all things, known of all things, present in all things, and the power behind all things.

 

[Storm]

You were implying there was evidence as to the existence of God.

Uh, no, I wasn't. I was stating the fact that there is no evidence against God. If you read into it, that's not my fault.

And it's STILL a lack of a belief in God. You and I actively believe in the non-existence of things on a day to day basis. To believe something is non-existent is the same as lack of a belief.

There is a huge difference between an active belief with no supporting evidence, and a simple lack of belief due to no supporting evidence. That difference, in a word, is faith.

 

[StripperClown]

Simple answer: Santa, Easter Bunny, magical pixies, etc. are not supposed to be the creator of all things, known of all things, present in all things, and the power behind all things.

Then the creator of all things should either be undeniable by anyone, or way harder to find than Santa, pixies, or the Easter Bunny.

 

[StripperClown]

Uh, no, I wasn't. I was stating the fact that there is no evidence against God. If you read into it, that's not my fault.


There is a huge difference between an active belief with no supporting evidence, and a simple lack of belief due to no supporting evidence. That difference, in a word, is faith.

There doesn't have to be evidence AGAINST something that there hasn't been sufficient evidence FOR in the first place.

Lack of belief and active belief are the SAME when it's a negative. If I say "
I don't believe in Santa" and "I believe Santa doesn't exist." It's the same thing. There is no faith involved. Do explain how they are different. Either way they're reaching the same conclusion due to lack of supporting evidence... because they're the same thing. It's like "Buy one, get one free," or "2 for the price of one." Same thing.

 

[Willamena]

You and I actively believe in the non-existence of things on a day to day basis. To believe something is non-existent is the same as lack of a belief.

If it's any consolation, I don't believe in the non-existence of things. The first rule of philosophy I learned: things exist.

 

[Willamena]

Then the creator of all things should either be undeniable by anyone, or way harder to find than Santa, pixies, or the Easter Bunny.

Just so.

 

[UnTheist]

If it's any consolation, I don't believe in the non-existence of things. The first rule of philosophy I learned: things exist.

Things exist, therefore nothing doesn't exist?

 

[StripperClown]

If it's any consolation, I don't believe in the non-existence of things. The first rule of philosophy I learned: things exist.

So you believe anything and everything exists?

 

[Willamena]

If I say "
I don't believe in Santa" and "I believe Santa doesn't exist." It's the same thing.

Not to everyone. To some, to say that a thing "doesn't exist" is to say there was a thing, but there wasn't.

 

[StripperClown]

Not to everyone. To some, to say that a thing "doesn't exist" is to say there was a thing, but there wasn't.

It either exists or it doesn't. Simple belief in something existence does not make it so. ^_^

 

[Willamena]

Things exist, therefore nothing doesn't exist?

"Nothing" (no-thing) is non-existence. In order to "have nothing" we turn it (linguistically, if you like, or conceptually) into a thing, wherefore it exists.