Atheism is a faith

[rojse]

Attitudes are not determined by beliefs, but by personality.

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

I agree with that statement, but I disagree that most atheists cling to their beliefs and are unwilling to examine objective evidence. Some are, granted, but only a minority.

 

[Storm]

I agree with that statement,

OK, can we further agree that the belief there is no God lacks supporting evidence?

but I disagree that most atheists cling to their beliefs and are unwilling to examine objective evidence. Some are, granted, but only a minority.

But I'm not saying that, sweetie.

 

[rojse]

There is no Santa.

Yeah, right. Who puts out the presents for all of the girls and boys each year then? And how do you explain all of the food left out for Santa and his reindeers being eaten the next morning? I suppose I am supposed to believe some other theory you advance. Advance a theory as credible as Santa to explain all of this phenomena.

 

[rojse]

OK, can we further agree that the belief there is no God lacks supporting evidence?

Only in the same way that belief that the the hair loss fairy does not exist lacks supporting belief.

But I'm not saying that, sweetie.

Storm called me sweetie!

<Blushes>

 

[Storm]

Only in the same way that belief that the the hair loss fairy does not exist lacks supporting belief.

OK. What evidence points to God's non-existence?

Storm called me sweetie!

<Blushes>

 

[rojse]

OK. What evidence points to God's non-existence?

I am saying that although there is no evidence to disprove God's existence, there is no evidence to disprove the Hair-Loss fairy, either. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for that matter.

 

[Storm]

I am saying that although there is no evidence to disprove God's existence, there is no evidence to disprove the Hair-Loss fairy, either. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for that matter.

I'm sorry, I just don't accept such things as equivalent.

 

[rojse]

I'm sorry, I just don't accept such things as equivalent.

Why not? The two things I have mentioned do not have any evidence for existing.

 

[Storm]

Why not? The two things I have mentioned do not have any evidence for existing.

Well, for one thing, they're made up. We KNOW they're made up (which is, admittedly, what makes them effective). We don't know that about God. You can make up all the unfalsifiable counter-examples you want, none of them will ever be adequate, because none of them are writ into human nature.

Real or not, God is a part of what it means to be human. There has never been an atheist civilization. The more we learn about neurology, the more it seems we're hard-wired for God-belief. It's part of what we are. It takes something powerful to reject that, as atheists do.

FTR, I'm not saying that atheists are less human, or any of that retarded nonsense. Indeed, I admire the vast majority of atheists for having the courage of their convictions.

 

[Storm]

Also, I've said that there is no objective evidence for God, but that's not the same as there being no evidence at all. Accounts of personal encounters with the divine abound. God changes people's lives. The Hair Loss Fairy and the FSM never got drunks out of ditches.

 

[rojse]

Also, I've said that there is no objective evidence for God, but that's not the same as there being no evidence at all. Accounts of personal encounters with the divine abound. God changes people's lives. The Hair Loss Fairy and the FSM never got drunks out of ditches.

There are stories with people meeting ghosts, fairies, aliens, and Elvis Presley. Should these all be considered on an equal basis?

As for God getting drunks out of ditches, is it God as a being or God as an concept that has done this?

 

[Storm]

There are stories with people meeting ghosts, fairies, aliens, and Elvis Presley. Should these all be considered on an equal basis?

Yes. That does not, of course, mean that such accounts should be swallowed whole, and careful consideration usually leads to dismissing such accounts. As it sometimes does for accounts of God.

As for God getting drunks out of ditches, is it God as a being or God as an concept that has done this?

Does it matter? I'm not being flippant, I really don't know. You saw the Dancing with the Gods article.

Even as a God-believer, I am not convinced that it is God's doing. That is, I am not convinced that God is doing anything to help anyone. Far from it, in fact. I lean towards one's awareness of God causing positive internal results.

Did that make any sense at all? It's early and I haven't had my coffee yet....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Real or not, God is a part of what it means to be human. There has never been an atheist civilization. The more we learn about neurology, the more it seems we're hard-wired for God-belief. It's part of what we are. It takes something powerful to reject that, as atheists do.

I've heard you say this before, but I really don't see how it is an argument for God.

In fact, if anything, I'd say this works against it: if experiences of the seemingly divine can be explained by the "wiring" of our brains, it makes the alternate explanation, i.e. god(s), less necessary for them.

 

[UnTheist]

It's a faith.

But it isn't.

 

[Magic Man]

Well, for one thing, they're made up. We KNOW they're made up (which is, admittedly, what makes them effective). We don't know that about God. You can make up all the unfalsifiable counter-examples you want, none of them will ever be adequate, because none of them are writ into human nature.

How do you know Santa is made up?

Real or not, God is a part of what it means to be human. There has never been an atheist civilization. The more we learn about neurology, the more it seems we're hard-wired for God-belief. It's part of what we are. It takes something powerful to reject that, as atheists do.

I disagree that God is part of what it means to be human. I think it can be part of the human experience. How do you know there's never been an atheist civilization? I'm not sure about the neurology aspect, but I think it's more because it's been around so long that we seem "hard-wired" for it. I actually don't think it takes that much to be an atheist. I think a main ingredient is not needing to have all of the answers.

FTR, I'm not saying that atheists are less human, or any of that retarded nonsense. Indeed, I admire the vast majority of atheists for having the courage of their convictions.

I know. I don't see it as having courage in our convictions. I just see it as looking at things differently.

 

[Storm]

I've heard you say this before, but I really don't see how it is an argument for God.

It's not intended to be. It's just something I marvel at.

In fact, if anything, I'd say this works against it: if experiences of the seemingly divine can be explained by the "wiring" of our brains, it makes the alternate explanation, i.e. god(s), less necessary for them.

I could argue that, but I think it would be off-topic. Another time, perhaps.

 

[Storm]

How do you know Santa is made up?

Well, as previously mentioned, we can trace the origins of the story. He wasn't "made up" so much as embellished.

I disagree that God is part of what it means to be human. I think it can be part of the human experience.

We've touched on this before, you and I. I'm not talking in a personal sense, but the broader view of our race as a whole. I don't see how religion's prominence in that view can be denied.

How do you know there's never been an atheist civilization?

If there was, they left no record. If you can prove me wrong, I'd be delighted.

I'm not sure about the neurology aspect, but I think it's more because it's been around so long that we seem "hard-wired" for it.

What about the spandrel theory?

I actually don't think it takes that much to be an atheist. I think a main ingredient is not needing to have all of the answers.

I know. I don't see it as having courage in our convictions. I just see it as looking at things differently.

In my view, it takes a certain courage to deny what virtually everyone around you accepts. I respect that kind of gumption, even when I think you're wrong.

 

[Jeremiah]

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

A person could well be a faithful atheist with the incomplete notion that gods do not exist. However I think there is still room to argue that one could still be considered a strong atheist and faithless in their position. It does not take a whole lot of faith to believe that an idea completely lacking in substance and rational congruity is false. In fact despite the urgency that some elevate the question of god with. I still find it a pointless and altogether irrelevant question. It is quite clear that all proposed gods (as in ones I have evaluated; keep that in mind with further use of the word) are false or just an abuse of the word. Any real god that existed would be out of the realm of my knowledge at this point and therefore not subject to an actual application on belief; like believing in the sun. So for me to say that I do not believe that your God exist is not a faith in the same sense as having faith that God does exist. It is simply saying there is no reason to grant belief in your god. Now we can say that no single human can be sure of the non-existence of say the Christian God. But the idea is so improbable and absurd that to say such a God does not exist is not an act of faith in the same sense as to say that such a God exist. Then if one where to say that on this ground all purposed god notions could be dismissed without making the error of blind religious faith. But in persisting that no gods indeed exist. You might say that is in itself a theistic belief. I would disagree however as once we have dismissed all purposed gods then the word loses all meaning. Saying a word without meaning does not exist is hardly an act of faith but more or less admitting the truth of the word. I have no problem saying all purposed gods are false. To say it further as all proposed god entities are highly improbable would only be a pointless formality to the technical.

 

[Storm]

For one thing, not all faith is blind. For another, the belief that God does not exist is still a belief held without evidence. A perfectly valid definition of faith.

 

[Jeremiah]

For one thing, not all faith is blind. For another, the belief that God does not exist is still a belief held without evidence. A perfectly valid definition of faith.

Perhaps you should to tell us what God is. How can we tell you whether are not there is a faith belief about "God" if we don't even know what you are talking about?