Atheism is a faith

[Jayhawker Soule]

CARM? You lost me there. Perhaps it is best if you restate the definition, or predicate your response on that definition.

I'm sorry. See post #93.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Maybe they are refugees from the 60's and 70's, when peace activists violently protested violence.

You obviously were not there, my friend. The violence was perpetrated on us and not the other way around. Our demonstrations were peaceful, though they could get quite angry and loud. But the only violence I ever saw was done to us like at Kent State. Heck, I still bear the scar of being knifed in the back and I was a kid.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Because it comes with assumptions that demand faith.

For example?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Faith - Acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason. [source]​

Interestingly enough, they also suggest:

Deduction - A system of logic, inference and conclusion drawn from examination of facts. Conclusions drawn from the general down to the specific.​

If one accepts these definitions as reasonable, then we see 'faith' defined as an acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily deducible.

Of course one could, in the spirit of Humpty Dumpty, define 'faith' and 'deduction' in a way that supports one's presuppositions, but that's more comforting than constructive.

Sure, and I would like to point out that faith does not rule out what IS deducible as being a part of faith. Most of what I believe is based on deduction and I would consider it to be faith.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sure, and I would like to point out that faith does not rule out what IS deducible as being a part of faith. Most of what I believe is based on deduction and I would consider it to be faith.

What is the difference between faith and belief, and what 'faith' do you ascribe to me?

 

[MoonWater]

The only difference is that you call it faith and I would call it something like a belief based on probability. But, again, this is semantics.

This whole debate is an argument of semantics.

 

[Papersock]

This whole debate is an argument of semantics.

I said that way earlier in the thread too.

 

[MoonWater]

I said that way earlier in the thread too.

:slap: Well I guess I can't expect myself to remember every single thread posted huh?

 

[ChristineES]

I know this is a little late: I don't expect everyone to get my humor, it is plain strange, even to me. I laugh at things that no one else does. I don't feel guilty, people laugh at Christians, too. It was more sarcastic than humorous, to be honest. The argument had gotten so absurd to me. The whole debate, even my own contributions, was a bit silly. I never took it seriously.

In my view, everyone has faith in something- whether it is God (or gods), in their parents, their families, science, religion, and even themselves (some people trust nothing more than themselves, but I won't get into that. )That is my opinion and no one has to agree with me. I respect all of your opinions.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I would hope one does not simply take information completely by faith without challenging the information to make sure it is true, or nearest to truth as is possible.

I share that hope for theists and atheists alike. Unfortunately, we see in this thread the failure of many atheists to acknowledge assumptions underlying their disbelief. For example, atheism assumes matter-energy is the bottom line. But in a universe that contains conscious beings, it is a faith-assertion, a belief without evidence. They might argue that it has been proven that order can emerge from chaos, but this is true only if there are underlying rules. Until they can show that such rules exist necessarily, they must admit (assuming they are intellectually honest) that they are ignorant of the Ultimate Cause and take it on faith that the universe is explained in the absence of Consciousness.

"I don't understand why things are the way they are but it's not because there is a God," is a dogmatic statement of faith--and it's amusing to see it denied.

 

[Inky]

Maybe this will help--belief generally takes, not exactly a special effort, but some sort of decision; lack of belief does not. Belief is a mental activity, and non-belief is the absence of that activity. Someone who had never heard of the idea of a God and never thought of it would be an atheist, that is, someone who does not carry out the mental process of believing in a God. If the idea was presented to her she could decide whether or not to start such a process and, if not, would still be an atheist. Not believing in God isn't an active mental state any more than not believing in pixies, as someone brought up earlier-- it is passive. In summary: the neutral, default state in relation to something that might theoretically exist is a lack of belief, and atheism is this in relation to the existence of a God or Gods. And I'm a theist and have never been atheist, if it makes a difference as to how my stance is taken.

Also, saying a mental state or stance requires assumptions doesn't really say anything about it, since they all do. We couldn't produce the simplest thought without pulling from our store of assumptions, most of which aren't acknowledged day to day; that doesn't mean every thought is a matter of belief. Belief is a type or subset of thought.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

You obviously were not there, my friend. The violence was perpetrated on us and not the other way around. Our demonstrations were peaceful, though they could get quite angry and loud. But the only violence I ever saw was done to us like at Kent State. Heck, I still bear the scar of being knifed in the back and I was a kid.

Really? Then why was spit on when I came home from Nam? And you mean being "angry and loud" to the point of throwing things isn't violence?

Sorry, but I was there. But this is for another thread.

 

[Scuba Pete]

What is the difference between faith and belief,

I stated this earlier, but I don't mind reiterating:

A belief is a mental assent that something is true. This may be blind or evidenced.

Faith is putting that belief into action. Ergo, it may also be blind or evidenced.

After watching a tight rope walker push a wheelbarrow over Niagra Falls several times, a man was asked a simple question. "Do you believe that he can push that wheel barrow across like that?" His reply: "Well, I certainly believe he can do it, but I just don't have the faith to get in that wheel barrow!"

and what 'faith' do you ascribe to me?

Jay, you are arguably one of the most enigmatic and interesting people on this forum. We have clashed on several occasions (in the past) primarily because we did not understand each other's motivations. As much as I feel that I have come to know you, I do not feel comfortable with ascribing to you any particular belief or faith. You are far better suited to tell us that.

I do believe that faith gets a bad rap. It is almost always portrayed by atheists as being blind and even comical. Yet, I clearly see elements of faith portrayed in their beliefs and certainly in their defense of why atheism is right and theism is wrong. Couple this with the misguided use of the "faith-based" modifier when it comes to certain conservatives who feel they have a lock on the truth, and faith has been perjorated to a point where it is almost used as an epithet. Again, I point to aggressive denial of the use of faith by many who claim to be atheist and who seem to chafe at all things pertaining to theism.

 

[Papersock]

I share that hope for theists and atheists alike. Unfortunately, we see in this thread the failure of many atheists to acknowledge assumptions underlying their disbelief. For example, atheism assumes matter-energy is the bottom line. But in a universe that contains conscious beings, it is a faith-assertion, a belief without evidence.

We can only study what can be observed. Matter-energy is all that we can observe, and therefore that is all we can make assumptions on. As I tried to say earlier, to say that there is more than what can be observed is a larger assumption that cannot be proven. If it cannot be proven to exist (many people reason) it most likely does not exist.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Really? Then why was spit on when I came home from Nam? And you mean being "angry and loud" to the point of throwing things isn't violence?

Sorry, but I was there. But this is for another thread.

Sure, show me the scars from the spit! But you are right, this is best done in another thread. The treatment given to many of the soldiers by some peace activists and by the entire administration was reprehensible at best and I am glad that I was never a part of that scene. I am also glad that there is little of that happening during THIS unpopular war. Soldiers only do what they are ordered to do.

 

[Jeremiah]

I wish I could speak so simply and eloquently.:bow: But no I always have to go into these lengthy descriptions that could be more easily displayed and understood in a couple of sentences:cover:.

Maybe if you were more diligent with words, textual communication would be a lot easier.

Formulating mental processes into linguistic patterns is hard enough without this pin the tail on the donkey game. Faith is just a word nothing more. It is a word used to describe the mental acknowledgement of a presented or constructed unsubstantiated concept or ideology. To use "faith" out of its putative context is to deceptively change its referent. If we all don’t adhered to this language that we have all consented to. Than communication dissolves into gibberish making constructive debate difficult.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Maybe if you more diligent with words, textual communication would be a lot easier.

Please check your grammar. You shouldn't give such condescending advice and then miss putting "were" in your sentence. If you are going to slam someone, make sure you are guiltless first! No Frubals for you!

To use "faith" out of its putative context is to deceptively change its referent.

The gibberish is all yours. We have cited dictionaries and refuse to use the slanted assumption of what YOU want faith to be. When you are ready to embrace intellectual honesty rather than flaming others, we can have a cogent discussion.

 

[Jeremiah]

Please check your grammar. You shouldn't give such condescending advice and then miss putting "were" in your sentence. If you are going to slam someone, make sure you are guiltless first! No Frubals for you!

Sorry for the mistake I inserted the word "were". Although it was not needed the intent was still understandable.

I was not slamming someone. I was slamming a debate style though.

 

[Jeremiah]

We have cited dictionaries and refuse to use the slanted assumption of what YOU want faith to be. When you are ready to embrace intellectual honesty rather than flaming others, we can have a cogent discussion.

Yes, I have seen how people like to jump from one definition to another without regard to context. As far as my "slanted assumption" take it or leave it makes no dif to me. Really you’re making me out to be more hostile than I am.

 

[Jeremiah]

For example, atheism assumes matter-energy is the bottom line.

It obvious that you are misconceived about what atheism is. It is the absence of belief in the supernatural. Most sane people believe in the physical world regardless of philosophical stance. Not to mention your statement is false.