Atheism is a faith

[rojse]

I would call those "fundie atheists," and while they do exist, they're not who I was referring to.

Strong atheists actively believe there is no God. How is this not faith?

That was whom I was referring to.

However, most of the atheists on here (from my experiences) are willing to examine theistic ideas and arguments that others put forward, and I do not think that this is faith-based.

 

[rojse]

Invalid comparisons. There is evidence that such things do not exist. The same cannot be said of God.

Besides, you're the one who implied that strong atheism isn't atheism. I still want to know what you think it is.

I don't know... how else do those eggs or the presents get out each year?

 

[rojse]

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.

Most gods are not like that either, Williamena.

 

[fantome profane]

Invalid comparisons. There is evidence that such things do not exist. The same cannot be said of God.

Nonsense. If you think you can provide actual evidence for the non-existence of pixies I would love to see it. And I would love to see you show that such evidence for the non-existence of pixies exceeds the evidence for the non-existence of “God”.

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.

They are if I say they are. If I claim that pixies are the creators and sustainers of all existence how is that different from similar claims some make about “God”?

That's the difference. Weak atheism is a simple lack of belief. Strong atheism is the active belief that God does not exist.

I think you are defining weak and strong atheist in such a way as it serves no useful purpose that I can see. I don’t believe in “God” because of the lack of evidence for such a thing. I believe that in this case the lack of evidence is sufficient. That would make me a “weak atheist” (although I hate that term). Others believe that there is evidence for the non-existence of “God” (just like you claim there is evidence for the non-existence of pixies). That makes them strong atheists. But I don’t see how my belief that there is no “God” can be said to be any less active then theirs.

 

[Storm]

Nonsense. If you think you can provide actual evidence for the non-existence of pixies I would love to see it. And I would love to see you show that such evidence for the non-existence of pixies exceeds the evidence for the non-existence of “God”.

OK, that one I'll grant you. I can, however, provide evidence that Santa and the Easter Bunny don't, as I think you are aware.

I think you are defining weak and strong atheist in such a way as it serves no useful purpose that I can see.

Bwuh? I'm defining them as I understand the terms. If you understand them differently, I'd be interested to hear it.

I don’t believe in “God” because of the lack of evidence for such a thing. I believe that in this case the lack of evidence is sufficient. That would make me a “weak atheist” (although I hate that term). Others believe that there is evidence for the non-existence of “God” (just like you claim there is evidence for the non-existence of pixies). That makes them strong atheists.

And there are those who believe there is objective evidence for the existence of God. Both sides are in the same boat in that all their purported evidence is easily shot down by the other side. In my book, that means none of it actually qualifies.

But I don’t see how my belief that there is no “God” can be said to be any less active then theirs.

If you actively believe that there is no God, as opposed to merely lacking active belief, then it is no different. (You have faith, too.)

 

[Storm]

That was whom I was referring to.

However, most of the atheists on here (from my experiences) are willing to examine theistic ideas and arguments that others put forward, and I do not think that this is faith-based.

Attitudes are not determined by beliefs, but by personality.

Can we agree that a belief held without the support of objective evidence is faith?

 

[fantome profane]

OK, that one I'll grant you. I can, however, provide evidence that Santa and the Easter Bunny don't, as I think you are aware.

I am not aware. Please, if you can, provide me with evidence that Santa does not exist, or the Easter Bunny, or if you feel ambitious, both. If you can I will be very impressed.

Bwuh? I'm defining them as I understand the terms. If you understand them differently, I'd be interested to hear it.

I did. Weak atheism is the belief that there is no “God” based on the perceived lack of evidence that there is a “God”. Strong atheism is the belief that there is no “God” based on the perceived evidence that there is no “God”. In other words It is the difference between lack of evidence (weak atheism) and evidence of lack (strong atheism).

At least this definition I find useful. I don’t even understand yours.

If you actively believe that there is no God, as opposed to merely lacking active belief, then it is no different. (You have faith, too.)

I honestly have no idea what you mean by “actively believe”. I believe that there is no “God”. How can I determine whether or not this belief of mine is active or not? Can you give me an example of something you actively believe and an example of something you believe, but not actively.

 

[Storm]

I am not aware. Please, if you can, provide me with evidence that Santa does not exist, or the Easter Bunny, or if you feel ambitious, both. If you can I will be very impressed.

I'm pressed for time, so I'll just give one piece for Santa: We've been to the North Pole, no toy shop in sight. I may do more later.

I did. Weak atheism is the belief that there is no “God” based on the perceived lack of evidence that there is a “God”. Strong atheism is the belief that there is no “God” based on the perceived evidence that there is no “God”. In other words It is the difference between lack of evidence (weak atheism) and evidence of lack (strong atheism).

But that's the same thing. What use is the distinction, then? How is it useful?

At least this definition I find useful. I don’t even understand yours.

I'll try again. Weak atheism is a lack of active belief. It's a passive thing, simply being unconvinced. Strong atheism, otoh, is an active belief that God does not exist.

I honestly have no idea what you mean by “actively believe”. I believe that there is no “God”. How can I determine whether or not this belief of mine is active or not? Can you give me an example of something you actively believe and an example of something you believe, but not actively.

Hopefully, the above will clear this up. All beliefs are active, as opposed to a passive lack of belief.

 

[UnTheist]

But you've said before that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[Storm]

But you've said before that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I'm not talking about absence of evidence, though. We literally, physically went to the North Pole and he wasn't there. That's evidence.

More evidence against Santa, since my time crunch went away:
We can trace the origins of the story, we know where it came from.
We know that reindeer don't fly.
We know that the presents "from Santa" actually come from parents or other adults.

 

[fantome profane]

I'm pressed for time, so I'll just give one piece for Santa: We've been to the North Pole, no toy shop in sight. I may do more later.

That is the kind of thing I was expecting. You claimed you had evidence and all you can provide is lack of evidence. Perhaps Santa does not live a the north pole anymore. But that does not prove he doesn’t exist.

Please, take your time. If you can do what you claimed it will be worth waiting for.

I'll try again. Weak atheism is a lack of active belief. It's a passive thing, simply being unconvinced. Strong atheism, otoh, is an active belief that God does not exist.


Hopefully, the above will clear this up. All beliefs are active, as opposed to a passive lack of belief.

Sorry, doesn’t clear it up for me at all. Saying “I don’t believe in God” and “I believe that God does not exist” are synonymous statements. The difference is purely grammatical. But the is no difference in meaning.

 

[Storm]

That is the kind of thing I was expecting. You claimed you had evidence and all you can provide is lack of evidence. Perhaps Santa does not live a the north pole anymore. But that does not prove he doesn’t exist.

Please, take your time. If you can do what you claimed it will be worth waiting for.

It's not a lack of evidence. The myth is quite detailed and easily debunked. You can't defend it without changing it, and that's cheating.

Sorry, doesn’t clear it up for me at all. Saying “I don’t believe in God” and “I believe that God does not exist” are synonymous statements. The difference is purely grammatical. But the is no difference in meaning.

Well, put it this way. Weak atheism is just agnosticism with an attitude. Strong atheism is the genuine article.

Personally, I agree with Copernicus (in another thread), that the concept of weak atheism dilutes the meaning of the word.

However, many times on this very forum, atheists have defended the distinction. I'm just following their lead.

 

[fantome profane]

It's not a lack of evidence. The myth is quite detailed and easily debunked. You can't defend it without changing it, and that's cheating.

So you are saying that disproving any part of the myth disproves it in it’s entirety? That makes not sense, and shows a distinct lack of imagination. You claimed you could disprove Santa, not that you could disprove his workshop. I think you are the one who is cheating.

Well, put it this way. Weak atheism is just agnosticism with an attitude. Strong atheism is the genuine article.

I think things are going from bad to worse. Do you think it is possible for someone to be both an atheist and an agnostic or do you think they are mutually exclusive?

 

[Storm]

So you are saying that disproving any part of the myth disproves it in it’s entirety? That makes not sense, and shows a distinct lack of imagination. You claimed you could disprove Santa, not that you could disprove his workshop. I think you are the one who is cheating.

Now you're just being petty.

I think things are going from bad to worse. Do you think it is possible for someone to be both an atheist and an agnostic or do you think they are mutually exclusive?

No they're not mutually exclusive. Some people are both, but agnosticism can also be its own stance, without a/theism.

 

[Storm]

I'm not talking about absence of evidence, though. We literally, physically went to the North Pole and he wasn't there. That's evidence.

More evidence against Santa, since my time crunch went away:
We can trace the origins of the story, we know where it came from.
We know that reindeer don't fly.
We know that the presents "from Santa" actually come from parents or other adults.

Reposting for fp, since he seems to have missed it

 

[fantome profane]

Yes I did miss it. Thank you.

More evidence against Santa, since my time crunch went away:
We can trace the origins of the story, we know where it came from.

This one I give you, it is a good point. But if an alternative theory for where the story of Santa came from is evidence that Santa does not exist, then an alternative theory for where the story of “God” came from would also be evidence that “God” does not exist.

We know that reindeer don't fly.

No, you can’t prove that no reindeer can fly. You can only say that you have never seen a reindeer fly. You are still providing a “lack of evidence” that reindeer can fly. And again, we are talking about Santa, not about flying reindeer. Disproving part of the myth does not disprove all of it.

We know that the presents "from Santa" actually come from parents or other adults.

It makes no difference how many “fake Santas” there are, that is not evidence that there isn’t a real one. You can’t show where presents received by all children all over the world came from.

Now for my final point on the Santa theory I give you this:

Eight year-old Virginia O'Hanlon wrote a letter to the editor of New York's Sun, and the quick response was printed as an unsigned editorial Sept. 21, 1897. The work of veteran newsman Francis Pharcellus Church has since become history's most reprinted newspaper editorial, appearing in part or whole in dozens of languages in books, movies, and other editorials, and on posters and stamps.

"DEAR EDITOR: I am 8 years old.
"Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus.
"Papa says, 'If you see it in THE SUN it's so.'
"Please tell me the truth; is there a Santa Claus?

"VIRGINIA O'HANLON.
"115 WEST NINETY-FIFTH STREET."

VIRGINIA, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except [what] they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

Yes, VIRGINIA, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus. It would be as dreary as if there were no VIRGINIAS. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas Eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if they did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

You may tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, VIRGINIA, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.

No Santa Claus! Thank God! he lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.

Now tell me there is no Santa.

 

[Storm]

Yes I did miss it. Thank you.

You're welcome.

This one I give you, it is a good point. But if an alternative theory for where the story of Santa came from is evidence that Santa does not exist, then an alternative theory for where the story of “God” came from would also be evidence that “God” does not exist.

It's not "an alternative theory" it's history.

Now tell me there is no Santa.

There is no Santa. (Yes, I know, I have a heart of stone.)

 

[Theocan]

Atheism is a faith... even though it sounds contradicting.

 

[UnTheist]

Well, that's because it isn't a faith, but you can keep thinking that

 

[Theocan]

Well, that's because it isn't a faith, but you can keep thinking that

It's a faith - and you can keep staying in the darkness.