Atheism is a faith

[9-10ths_Penguin]

OK, what would be an example of a non-existent claim?

Heh... it's hard to come up with something non-existent, but I think this is what is being referred to when theists demand that atheists have to reject not only all current god-concepts but any future ones that people might come up with before declaring themselves to be atheist.

Heh, I've got a whole thread devoted to that question somewhere around here.

As for explicit statements about God, my theology is quite developed (as I believe you are aware), but I never forget that I'm groping in the dark.

Right - but my point is that your theology is developed beyond the two criteria you gave, which by themselves are sorta vague (though still enough to be considered a god-concept, IMO).

No. My God-concept is the roth - what someone cleverer than I dubbed "the liveing Godiverse."

Right - so there's more to your god-concept than those two criteria, I take it?

I believe that there are other roth, if that's what you mean. I just use "God" to refer to ours.

If I put my mind to it, I could probably come up with something that was the source of a mystical experience (or at least an experience that I would consider mystical) that I couldn't "eff" that I probably wouldn't consider to be a god. If I were to be confronted with something and mentally compared it to the "checklist" you outlined, I probably wouldn't be able to say "yep, I perceived it through a mystical experience, and yep, it's ineffible. Therefore it must be a god." That's all I was getting at.

OK. I tend to think "evidence" is something stronger, but it's not really an important point, provided you acknowledge that both sides are euqal. Which, I take it, you do.

If I thought both sides were equal, I wouldn't be an atheist, would I?

I see "evidence" as any fact that can be used as an element of support for a position. Stories of the Catholic saints are evidence for one brand of theism, as the "milk miracle" is evidence for another. Unanswered prayers are evidence against some types of theism, as are evolution, the existence of suffering, and the fact that I've never seen a god first-hand. Each is a small bit of fact that can be combined with many others to inform one overall decision.

But that's the definition of strong atheism, as oposed to weak. I have yet to hear another that didn't render the distinction moot.

Depends on your point of view, I think. Personally, I don't consider strong atheism to be a single belief any more than I consider "strong theism" to be. There are many varieties of both.

 

[Storm]

Heh... it's hard to come up with something non-existent, but I think this is what is being referred to when theists demand that atheists have to reject not only all current god-concepts but any future ones that people might come up with before declaring themselves to be atheist.

Do people really do that?

Right - but my point is that your theology is developed beyond the two criteria you gave, which by themselves are sorta vague (though still enough to be considered a god-concept, IMO).

Right - so there's more to your god-concept than those two criteria, I take it?

Yes, but the two I gave, I consider proven. All the rest is guesswork.

If I put my mind to it, I could probably come up with something that was the source of a mystical experience (or at least an experience that I would consider mystical) that I couldn't "eff" that I probably wouldn't consider to be a god. If I were to be confronted with something and mentally compared it to the "checklist" you outlined, I probably wouldn't be able to say "yep, I perceived it through a mystical experience, and yep, it's ineffible. Therefore it must be a god." That's all I was getting at.

Gotcha.

If I thought both sides were equal, I wouldn't be an atheist, would I?

I see "evidence" as any fact that can be used as an element of support for a position. Stories of the Catholic saints are evidence for one brand of theism, as the "milk miracle" is evidence for another. Unanswered prayers are evidence against some types of theism, as are evolution, the existence of suffering, and the fact that I've never seen a god first-hand. Each is a small bit of fact that can be combined with many others to inform one overall decision.

OK, what evidence is there against God, that's not effortlessly debunked? EDIT: To be fair, I suggest we pick a God concept to argue against. I suggest deism.

Depends on your point of view, I think. Personally, I don't consider strong atheism to be a single belief any more than I consider "strong theism" to be. There are many varieties of both.

Eh, I would say "strong theism" is just redundant.

I don't deny that variation exists, but in my understanding, strong atheism has a unifying... well, tenet.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do people really do that?

They don't say it that way, but that's the implication when people make statements like "how can you say you're an atheist? Have you thought of every possible god? You can't prove a negative!"

OK, what evidence is there against God, that's not effortlessly debunked? EDIT: To be fair, I suggest we pick a God concept to argue against. I suggest deism.

Off the top of my head, the biggest problem I see with deism is that it isn't really a hypothesis of its own, but a paring down of theism in the face of the problem of the poor support for it.

Deism is the version of belief in God that claims that there's no evidence whatsoever for God. There's no reason to adopt deism unless you approach things with an a priori belief that God must exist in some form.

Basically, I'd never be able to conclusively refute deism, but it seems to me that it's been manufactured expressly to be impossible to conclusively refute, which precludes the idea that it was arrived at on its own merits.

So... to me, the evidence against deism is that deism seems manufactured.

Eh, I would say "strong theism" is just redundant.

Yeah... I was just going for parallel structure.

I don't deny that variation exists, but in my understanding, strong atheism has a unifying... well, tenet.

I don't know. Like I said, I think it depends on your point of view.

 

[Storm]

They don't say it that way, but that's the implication when people make statements like "how can you say you're an atheist? Have you thought of every possible god? You can't prove a negative!"

How annoying. My sympathies.

Off the top of my head, the biggest problem I see with deism is that it isn't really a hypothesis of its own, but a paring down of theism in the face of the problem of the poor support for it.

Deism is the version of belief in God that claims that there's no evidence whatsoever for God. There's no reason to adopt deism unless you approach things with an a priori belief that God must exist in some form.

Basically, I'd never be able to conclusively refute deism, but it seems to me that it's been manufactured expressly to be impossible to conclusively refute, which precludes the idea that it was arrived at on its own merits.

So... to me, the evidence against deism is that deism seems manufactured.

Eh, I don't think I agree with your assessment of deism, but then I'm biased.

Anyway, deism was just a suggestion. Feel free to pick another.

Yeah... I was just going for parallel structure.

Fair enough.

I don't know. Like I said, I think it depends on your point of view.

I can't see another that doesn't render the distinction moot.

 

[Storm]

FTR, if anyone's wondering, I haven't voted in the poll because it doesn't distinguish between weak and strong atheism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Eh, I don't think I agree with your assessment of deism, but then I'm biased.

What's your assessment of it? Do you see a reason to be a deist other than an a priori decision that God exists? It's certainly not based on the evidence, because deism claims that no evidence exists.

Anyway, deism was just a suggestion. Feel free to pick another.

I can't see another that doesn't render the distinction moot.

I had a quick Google of "strong atheism", and it appears that there are definitions other than the one I was familiar with floating around. In any case, I think there are a few possible ranges of views that fall under the umbrella term "atheism":

- lack of belief in deities. I consider this to be weak atheism, and arguably, descriptive of lots of things have from rocks to babies, i.e. anything either incapable of believing in deities or not yet having learned of the concept.
- disbelief in deities. I consider this to be the first level that I would include in "strong atheism", though apparently Wikipedia disagrees.
- certainty of the truth of the statement "no gods exist"; this is the only level that Wiki considers to be "strong atheism". I'd agree that this one is a belief.

So... I think it's a matter of interpretation whether "disbelief" constitutes a "belief". I'm not sure it does, but other people probably feel differently. Also, if disbelief in a range of gods constitutes atheism, then most theists would be atheists as well, which I don't think makes a whole lot of sense.

 

[Storm]

What's your assessment of it? Do you see a reason to be a deist other than an a priori decision that God exists? It's certainly not based on the evidence, because deism claims that no evidence exists.

I see it as faith without dogma. As I said, I'm biased: my father, the single biggest influence on my spirituality, is a deist of the Watchmaker variety. I'm not saying you're wrong about the evidence, just that I don't agree with your assessment of the motives.

Anyway, deism was just a suggestion. Feel free to pick another.

Were you turning it around on me, or was this an editing error? Anyway, what about generic theism? A supernatural Creator outside of our reality, omnimax optional.

- lack of belief in deities. I consider this to be weak atheism, and arguably, descriptive of lots of things have from rocks to babies, i.e. anything either incapable of believing in deities or not yet having learned of the concept.

I agree with your assessment.

- disbelief in deities. I consider this to be the first level that I would include in "strong atheism", though apparently Wikipedia disagrees.

Hm. What's the functional difference between "lack of belief" and "disbelief," in your view?

- certainty of the truth of the statement "no gods exist"; this is the only level that Wiki considers to be "strong atheism". I'd agree that this one is a belief.

OK, we're on the same pae so far. Would you agree that the belief is unsupported by evidence?

So... I think it's a matter of interpretation whether "disbelief" constitutes a "belief". I'm not sure it does, but other people probably feel differently.

I think it could go either way. Depends on the person.

Also, if disbelief in a range of gods constitutes atheism, then most theists would be atheists as well, which I don't think makes a whole lot of sense.

Agreed. I think a person is an atheist if they don't believe in God at all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Were you turning it around on me, or was this an editing error? Anyway, what about generic theism? A supernatural Creator outside of our reality, omnimax optional.

Whoops. That was an editing mistake. Sorry.

So... an active creator God, optionally omnimax? Well, I think there are a number of logical inconsistencies in the premise, as well as less evidence than one would expect if a God was wandering around the universe performing miracles, but I think it'd take quite a bit to outline all my opinions on the subject.

Also, I think the specifics matter in terms of what evidence is applicable. For instance, the failure of God to answer prayers wouldn't matter if we're talking about a non-intervening creator God.

Hm. What's the functional difference between "lack of belief" and "disbelief," in your view?

To me, a lack of belief can be simply lack of knowledge of a subject; i.e., I have no beliefs about things I've never heard of. For example, I have a lack of belief in flooorg, because I just made the word up and have no clue what "flooorg" means.

OTOH, disbelief is an explicit rejection of a belief; i.e. I've heard the claim (or at least formulate a claim in my own mind) and decide not to accept it. For example, I've heard claims that the moon landings were faked, but I disbelieve them.

OK, we're on the same pae so far. Would you agree that the belief is unsupported by evidence?

No; like I said, I think that there's evidence on both sides. I think that our beliefs are a matter of interpretation and judgement.

 

[Storm]

To me, a lack of belief can be simply lack of knowledge of a subject; i.e., I have no beliefs about things I've never heard of. For example, I have a lack of belief in flooorg, because I just made the word up and have no clue what "flooorg" means.

OTOH, disbelief is an explicit rejection of a belief; i.e. I've heard the claim (or at least formulate a claim in my own mind) and decide not to accept it. For example, I've heard claims that the moon landings were faked, but I disbelieve them.

OK, by those definitions, I think disbelief is strong atheism.

No; like I said, I think that there's evidence on both sides. I think that our beliefs are a matter of interpretation and judgement.

So, do Christians not have faith? After all, they do have evidence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

OK, by those definitions, I think disbelief is strong atheism.

So do I.

So, do Christians not have faith? After all, they do have evidence.

Sure, they have faith. Everyone has faith in some measure.

Edit: I should probably say at this point that I think there's a difference between "faith" and "a faith".

 

[Storm]

Sure, they have faith. Everyone has faith in some measure.

Now I'm really confused. What are we debating, then?

 

[Storm]

So do I.


Sure, they have faith. Everyone has faith in some measure.

Edit: I should probably say at this point that I think there's a difference between "faith" and "a faith".

"A faith" being shorthand for "religion"?

 

[fantome profane]

So, do Christians not have faith? After all, they do have evidence.

That would depend of the Christian, would it not? I have often heard Christians tell me that their beliefs are based on logical assessment of the evidence. And others claim it to be a matter of faith.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Now I'm really confused. What are we debating, then?

I'm not sure. You were the one who jumped from "belief unsupported by evidence" to "faith".

"A faith" being shorthand for "religion"?

"A faith" as in the question in the thread title.

 

[Storm]

I'm not sure. You were the one who jumped from "belief unsupported by evidence" to "faith".


"A faith" as in the question in the thread title.

faith-belief that is NOT based on PROOF.
many religious people claim that the phrase "there is a god." is fact while many Atheists claim that the phrase "there is NO god" is fact. The truth is however that neither phrase is fact or even fact based but they are both FAITH based. While there is no evidence to back up the claim that there is a God there is also no evidence to back up the claim that there is NO God. Your thoughts? Keep in mind I am not simply refering to the abrahamic god in this argument but however anyone would define God/ Goddess/ supreme being or force, whatever you call it/them and however you may define it/them.

I'm going by the definition in the OP, which is perfectly valid.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm going by the definition in the OP, which is perfectly valid.

By that definition, every belief is "faith", with the possible exception of some mathematical concepts.

 

[Storm]

Now you're just splitting hairs.

Either strong atheists have faith or they don't. Which is it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Now you're just splitting hairs.

Either strong atheists have faith or they don't. Which is it?

Some do, some don't... ignoring the "everybody has faith" point that I brought up before.

 

[Sunstone]

But baldness is a hair style. One could ask Bruce Willis or Telly Savalas, or Yul Brynner.

Regards,
Scott

Scott, you are confusing hair style with head style. Such a simple confusion seems only possible for someone blinded by their desire to advance an untenable perspective.

 

[fantome profane]

Scott, you are confusing hair style with head style. Such a simple confusion seems only possible for someone blinded by their desire to advance an untenable perspective.

Or someone with a comb-over.