Isn’t Atheism a faith-based non-religion?

[Kartari]

Totally photoshopped

Yeah, those devils at NASA, using camera tricks to make us believe they actually orbited the Earth! It's all just a hoax to justify their budget. Just like those paleontologists making up stories about dinosaurs not living alongside humans 6,000 years ago. We know this is the truth because we can imagine it to be!

 

[Acim]

This makes it a dangerous game... What if 70% of people believed that it is ok to beat children who disobey their parents... Do you think it will be acceptable? Even if the children think it is also okay to be beaten?

Yes. It will be acceptable for them. I'm in the relative morality mindset. I certainly have my own views that go against the grain of what's acceptable, and really try to back my my views with what I consider reasoned positions. So, if 70% of people find something acceptable, then for them it is acceptable. I hope if I disagree with that I can help contribute to what is my desire (perhaps shared by others) to persuade them to consider alternative understandings. But realize the moment after my rhetoric has been expressed that it is quite likely there is still a number (around the same number) that currently find it acceptable, and that perhaps at most I'm currently planting seeds that may sprout later that day, or maybe later that millennium.

To me, the dangerous game is upholding the fundamental belief that separation (from God or among God's Creation exists or) is real. And thus far, I understand forgiveness as the only sane response to that game. The only true way out.

Isn't that exactly what Faith is? Believing something to be true NOT based on facts?

I don't see how this rhetorical question follows from what I said. I said, "but more that they rely on rationale that is very skeptical of evidence that says otherwise." The relying part could be understood as faith, but I'm fairly certain it is not how you'd frame it. What I said could apply to atheism, and I'm thinking you don't view atheism as utilizing faith, even while it is relying on rationale that is very skeptical of evidence that says otherwise.

What you are referencing as facts is either vague in what you are saying here, or I'm fairly certain would rest on faith.

How would you define reason?

Off the top of my head, I'd go with: ability/desire to understand information, where doubt, skepticism and/or inquiries are present, along with capability of discernment to express own ideas that contribute to overall set of available information.

Now for the dictionary definition (of reason, as in reasoning):
the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic

In a way, I can find anything to be reasonable and find justifications for it.
I Can find it reasonable to execute people who say I am not a God... Is it Ok? Is it based on Reason really?
Would you call someone that makes decisions in his life based on things that have no secular reality to be reasonable?

The first question, with a capital R on Reason, I would say it is not based on this, but that would be me using discernment. With a little r on reason, I would wish to see that elaborated upon, and I think there is plausible rationale to make for such an assertion. Given relative morality, I think it would be 'normal reasoning' or stuff I'm likely familiar with. I would probably find it not Reasonable, and wouldn't shy away from a discussion on that.

Regarding the second question, which used a little r for reasonable, I would say yes, but would want to explore things a bit to try and persuade things in another direction. Had you chosen a big R for Reasonable, I would say the secular, IMO, is lacking Reason, so a more emphatic yes.

The idea of the game is show that I can "reason" craziest claims without you having any way to contradict them...

I kinda got that, but I like how you expressed it here. The last part strikes me as intellectual challenge that I currently doubt as even being possible. For sure implausible.

Yey

Proof the earth is not flat - Round 1

First of all it is based on Einstein's explanation that one can never know whether the effects of gravity are caused due to being pulled down towards an Object (Earth for that matter) or that the Object is pushed against me.
It is also based on the fact that any event or phenomenon we experience in nature can be clearly explained with the fact the earth is flat.
The theory it self is very very vast, so I cannot even start explaining it as a whole, rather I will address each question or topic you have.

So, understanding what the game is really about, I'm currently not seeing how you think I / anyone would have no way to contradict such assertions. Just add in "not" statements within your assertions and there's your contradiction. Thus game over? Or is it upon me to carry the game on as if we really are discussing this, and I then have to challenge all of your rhetoric with further inquiries to see how you are backing you claims up, and then look for the window of opportunity whereby I challenge what is your truth with what is counter points / counter evidence?

There are none! The only thing that can evident the opposite, is observing earth from outside.. As no one really ever done that, you cannot use this as an evidence to contradict the fact the earth is actually flat!

Fair enough..
I'll give you some pin points and we will go from there...
Before going along with this, I Just want to make sure you understand that I am NOT really thinking the earth is flat.. It is absurd to me and I can make many arguments against it.. but the idea of the game is to show how easily it is to dismiss any valid fact or claim when the only thing leading you is your own (or others) reason and not actual facts.
Back to the game...
Lets start with Einsteins claim that one cannot distinguish between a force pulling you down to a force pushing against you. So the entire concept of gravity is not certain.
Second, If you'll check the original maps (Including NASA, Airlines, Ships etc) you'll see that they use a flat earth map. This matches exactly the structure of earth as we know it. An important thing to note is that there are no straight line flights across the globe. they are all in a circular path.
The sun and the moon are actually rotating above the earth. this movement is what causes the seasons.
You can see a short movie explaining it in more depth:

There is no place on earth that suggests the earth is spherical in shape. when you look at the horizon, it is flat. It is merely optical illusion at times that makes it seem round.
If you'll examine photos taken from above with high quality cams, you'll notice the earth appears flat:

Let's start with that and continue after.

Regarding your last assertion, I'm in mindset right now of "let's not." Cause your bolded assertion along with earlier reasoning for the game is what I see as the heart of the debate in this thread. I definitely understood that you are NOT really thinking the earth is flat. But what I don't think you accept, and what I already stated, is that it can be both flat and round. And with that claim on the table, then further understanding, learning can be had. With this idea of it can't ever be expressed as flat, even while that is observable (though limited in scope of reasoning), is what I see as at heart of ongoing debate on this topic. And to the degree that the debate goes on beyond that, I'd have other ways of dealing with it, that stem from ability to discern.

So, the portion where you say: the idea of the game is to show how easily it is to dismiss any valid fact or claim when the only thing leading you is your own (or others) reason and not actual facts.

....is what I just assume we come back to since IMO, the idea of dismissal is not really in dispute. The idea of "unable to be contradicted in any way" is perhaps still on the table, but I'm thinking you don't really stand by that assertion, and if you do, then let's play that game. Kinda feeling I already won it in this post, with the game, but I dunno, if you think otherwise, I'm up for that game.

For me, with theism, Gnostic Christianity and countering extended claims of atheism (beyond the I lack belief rhetoric), there is an intellectual discussion to be had. And so if 'evidence' is being introduced as part of the debate that supports atheism, I'm gonna want to go back to the fundamentals of what makes for evidence. Please provide your non-faith based rationale that the physical world even exists. Cause I really (really really) have not seen this presented (by anyone, ever). So, that's my starting point. If you are of the philosophical bent that says this is 'objectively known/understood' I'm gonna need that elaborated upon.

And seeing that this thread is about "Isn't Atheism a faith-based religion" I really think that's the game (or debate) to have the discussion on.

Your move.

 

[Acim]

This is BTW, in a more serious note.. is not how earth really looks.. Earth is Lumpy

Did you just represent my planet with this character?

 

[Segev Moran]

Yeah, those devils at NASA, using camera tricks to make us believe they actually orbited the Earth! It's all just a hoax to justify their budget. Just like those paleontologists making up stories about dinosaurs not living alongside humans 6,000 years ago. We know this is the truth because we can imagine it to be!

Not to talk about the thousands of scientists all conspiring that there was an event called the Big bang! HA!!! What will they come up with next? that earth orbits(ish) around the sun? HAHAHAH

 

[Segev Moran]

Did you just represent my planet with this character?

Lol.. I Guess if thats earth, this means we are all nothing but lice on earth's head Lol

 

[Segev Moran]

Yes. It will be acceptable for them.

Obviously it will be acceptable by them.. But will it be acceptable by you?
Will you just accept that as "This is what we have"?
Democracy is a mechanism that is supposed to fight this exact thing. Democracy was invented to guard minorities from harm even if the majority thinks differently. (When it comes to human rights)

I'm in the relative morality mindset.

Everyone is.. as there is no real Objective morality.
There is no Morality other than what we learn to treat as moral.

Another important thing is that belief can make one go against his acceptable ideas.
For example, a person can find murder unacceptable, but if he thinks God demands murdering "Sinners", he might find it acceptable as a religious idea and not as a way of life.
(I hope i managed to pass the idea)

What I said could apply to atheism, and I'm thinking you don't view atheism as utilizing faith, even while it is relying on rationale that is very skeptical of evidence that says otherwise.

Can you give me an example of an Evidence? BTW, Atheist never say there is no evidence to a God.. they say there is no compelling nor Good enough evidence to such claims!
If you were basing your religion on Jesus, Excluding all the fairy tales like resurrection and such, the needed evidence was much more ordinary.
Just the same, I can tell you that yesterday I talked with my Grandfather..
This might be enough as an evidence because there is nothing out of the ordinary about it.
But what if I told you He died 5 years ago? Would you still settle my word for it? and what if 10 more people will tell you they heard me speaking with him? will that be enough of an evidence for you to believe it is true?

What you are referencing as facts is either vague in what you are saying here, or I'm fairly certain would rest on faith.

How would you define Fact?
I define fact as something that is predictable and common, and most importantly, can be demonstrated.
I Can tell you each day the moon becomes green for 10 minutes.
I Can tell you this is a fact!!! but unless I can demonstrate this, it will not be considered a fact.
Faith has got nothing to do with it.
Would you say the rotation of earth is A fact or faith?
Would you say Gravity is a fact of faith?

Off the top of my head, I'd go with: ability/desire to understand information, where doubt, skepticism and/or inquiries are present, along with capability of discernment to express own ideas that contribute to overall set of available information.

Based on your understandings... Would you consider the following as reasonable?
Please also write why you find it reasonable...

1. Brushing your teeth in the morning
2. Avoiding going naked in the streets
3. Fending off a person who attacks you
4. Attacking a person for not doing as you asked
5. Killing a person for calling you names
6. Hitting a child hand when he tries to reach for an exposed electricity
7. Punching a child on the head with a stick when he tries to reach for exposed electricity
8. Promising people they will suffer if they don't believe the beliefs as you
9. Killing someone for not believing the same beliefs as you
10. Preventing a woman from being educated because God forbids it

And the list can go on and on...
But after answering those questions and explaining why you find a thing reasonable or not, Do you recognize any patterns here?

Now for the dictionary definition (of reason, as in reasoning):
the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic

And login: "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity."

The first question, with a capital R on Reason, I would say it is not based on this, but that would be me using discernment. With a little r on reason, I would wish to see that elaborated upon, and I think there is plausible rationale to make for such an assertion. Given relative morality, I think it would be 'normal reasoning' or stuff I'm likely familiar with. I would probably find it not Reasonable, and wouldn't shy away from a discussion on that.

The reason I use here is very simple:

I've had endless conversations with God. He showed me the true way of the universe.
It also told me that people will ridicule me because they will be blinded by things like science and misunderstandings of other dimensions.
I Was really afraid at first, But I noticed that the more I do as God's voice bids me, My life got much better.
There are dozens of people now following my word and all of them say the same. My word of God makes their life better. I Also noticed, that those I speak with and don't believe me cause those who believe me sorrow as they know they will be doomed.
I Asked God for help about this, and there is no question about it... He promised me that all those who follow me will be saved and those who don't must be punished and damned forever and their materialistic life will be nothing but misery and pain.
On that moment I realized! Its my calling to help those poor souls! It is better for them to die rather than having to spend all their lives here on earth in pain and misery!

FOR THOSE WHO SKIPPED THE OTHER TEXTS IN THE POST: I'M AM ONLY KIDDING!!! (Lol)

So, understanding what the game is really about, I'm currently not seeing how you think I / anyone would have no way to contradict such assertions. Just add in "not" statements within your assertions and there's your contradiction. Thus game over? Or is it upon me to carry the game on as if we really are discussing this, and I then have to challenge all of your rhetoric with further inquiries to see how you are backing you claims up, and then look for the window of opportunity whereby I challenge what is your truth with what is counter points / counter evidence?

One can claim whatever he wants and always he will find people believing it.
But for the sake of the game... Can you show me one undeniable evidence that the earth is not flat? (Hint... there is one that cannot be disputed)

it can be both flat and round.

This is plainly wrong!
I Can be both for someone who lacks the knowledge to know that it is not flat.
That my point exactly! You can eliminate false assumptions only by following what you can validate and demonstrate! Otherwise, everything is true and nothing is true!
I Think your mixing things up with applying Quantum physics concepts on the entire universe...

Kinda feeling I already won it in this post, with the game, but I dunno, if you think otherwise, I'm up for that game.

So as I stated before.. There is an actual fact that can prove the earth is of a spherical nature.
And more, I Can't see why you think you've won the game by adding NOT..
The answer "The earth is NOT flat" to the claims of "The earth IS flat", is not really a win.
Please, take it seriously.. try and find me the proof that the earth is spheroid other than flat.

Please provide your non-faith based rationale that the physical world even exists.

The simplest answer is.. I Don't know!
No one knows!

NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THE UNIVERSE REALLY IS!!!!
That's the whole point!
There are some things we do know however.
We know that what we call exists, is something we can experience with our human senses or tools that expand those senses.
When one say, the table in the room exists, we know (by our universal reality) he means "I can see, touch, feel" the table.
When one say, There is oxygen in water, we know it is true because we have tools that allow us to see those molecules of oxygen. We know how to extract them, we know what happens when you heat them and we can repeat and examine it as much as we please!

So for me, And i assume for most secular and skeptics, Existence is something you can demonstrate its presence, you can measure it, you can predict the way it works and will work.
Anything beyond that, is only probability and speculations. Some are better, some are worse!

Now here lies the hard questions.. Wait! what about Love??? Love doesn't exist? you cant measure love! you can't touch or see it!
Apparently, you can! but we don't know much about it yet.
We know that love is a product of survival! we know Love is a chemical reaction followed by electric behavior in our brain! we even know how to fake it and make the brain think you love!
yet in the end.. we don't really know much about it... YET!!!
And yes.. thoughts do exists! we all have them, we experience them and we know the brain acts in specific ways when we have specific thoughts.
The more we advance, the thought becomes less and less cryptic!
for now, the answer should be: I don't know what a thought really is! and not OH! a thought is the way God made us intelligent! or other nonsense of that kind.

What about A video game?
Does a character of a video game really exist? That's a very hard question!
In a way, there is no real thing on the video game. but there are eventually the ingredients of the character.
A video game is nothing more than an illusion and trickery we do to our brains because we know its faults and we take advantage of them.
An optical illusion does the exact same thing! it tricks the mind to "invent" something that is not there!

What about dream? We know that dreams are an output of the brain.. We assume about its function (for example some suggest its the way of the brain to process information about our day to day lives)... but no one really knows (Yet!)

There countless of ideas what our reality is... A Dream? A computer simulation? A video game? A part of a much bigger thing? A product of divine being? WE DON'T KNOW!!!

 

[Acim]

Obviously it will be acceptable by them.. But will it be acceptable by you?
Will you just accept that as "This is what we have"?
Democracy is a mechanism that is supposed to fight this exact thing. Democracy was invented to guard minorities from harm even if the majority thinks differently. (When it comes to human rights)

It would not be accepted by me that it is that exact percentage and I would resort to anecdotal information instead for how I process who believes this and how much of society do they, in my mind, represent. So, the "we" part would be filtered first through that, but not foremost. Cause how things are framed in such an understanding would likely tell me, along with personal discernment, that this is not vetted in such a way that I might. I would be skeptical of what it is "we" understand. I would be confident that if I had positions that went against the grain that I could in many cases persuade others to at least consider why the popular framing is unreasonable, or perhaps closer to being able to be understood through a different scope.

Everyone is.. as there is no real Objective morality.
There is no Morality other than what we learn to treat as moral.

We agree on this, but I find some people (even on RF) are very certain there is Objective morality. Just like I find some who think, earnestly think, there is an Objective reality that humanity is tuned into via science. I do not, and have inquired about that, directly or indirectly, more times than I care to count and thus far have not encountered a convincing argument. If I go to Gnostic Christian understandings, I stand better chance of encountering objectivity, yet that is a bit esoteric.

Another important thing is that belief can make one go against his acceptable ideas.
For example, a person can find murder unacceptable, but if he thinks God demands murdering "Sinners", he might find it acceptable as a religious idea and not as a way of life.
(I hope i managed to pass the idea)

You have passed the idea. I was actually thinking of similar idea when you were speaking to democracy and minorities. Or how when in last 3 years I was immersed in science and politics of smoking/vaping issue and seeing how minority there was being railroaded by pseudo-science that passes off as mainstream science, where scientific fans were finding acceptance/allegiance to the pseudo-scientific ideas. Like, "because we don't have the data on eCigs, and won't for 30 years, then these things should be banned." While minority had very good reason, and a lot of science, to contest such claims and political foresight to show how foolish it is to utilize this pseudo-scientific approach to policy decisions. While still claiming to be on the side of pro-science.

Can you give me an example of an Evidence? BTW, Atheist never say there is no evidence to a God.. they say there is no compelling nor Good enough evidence to such claims!

What you as an atheist may say about evidence isn't in my experience accurate with what I hear from atheists. I hear "there is no evidence for God." And I heard what you say. Both of them are filtered by me as statements that really ought to have "for me" added to them, and usually don't. Even if they did, I'd find that debatable, which with question you are asking is you wanting to get into it, with me, for what I observe is not the first time we've been down this road. So "compelling" and "not good enough" evidence truly strike me as faith based type rhetoric. And it really does back up what I was saying. "'I'm thinking you don't view atheism as utilizing faith, even while it is relying on rationale that is very skeptical of evidence that says otherwise." That's the reasoned approach, whereby it asserts that atheists are skeptical of the evidence. The claim you are saying is faith-based, as I understand it, but is masked by appearance of reason. Yet, one can apply "no compelling" and "not good enough" to I think anything, and maintain that position, and simply disagree then that any such evidence exists. Again, I see all that as faith-based, fundamentally.

Given that your post continues in this vein, I'll come back to "example of evidence." And because we are now getting very wordy in our responses, I'll pick up your next set of assertions in a new post.

 

[Acim]

How would you define Fact?

Something that is indisputably the case. The indisputable part would be key word for me.
There's the definition of fact(s) and then there's understanding. My understanding of fact(s) would draw upon my Gnostic understandings, which I recognize would be outside scope of paradigms that subscribe to physicalism as only plausible way to gain knowledge.

I define fact as something that is predictable and common, and most importantly, can be demonstrated.

Good to know that this is how you define fact, but interesting to me that it doesn't match up well with dictionary definition.

I Can tell you each day the moon becomes green for 10 minutes.
I Can tell you this is a fact!!! but unless I can demonstrate this, it will not be considered a fact.
Faith has got nothing to do with it.

Even if you somehow managed to demonstrate such a thing, I don't see how it would rise to the level of fact. I kinda don't even get how it would be up to you demonstrating it, but do understand how you are conveying it. Still, that you'd play role in demonstration would be part of what would have me being skeptical.

Would you say the rotation of earth is A fact or faith?
Would you say Gravity is a fact of faith?

So all this is us speaking past each other in our points. We have different understandings of what makes for fact. Different understandings of what makes for faith. And different understandings of what makes for belief, or lack thereof, in God that would lead to theistic position. Then when you ask questions like the one above, I'm supposed to answer that how? Based on how you interpret facts and faith? Based on my understandings of Gravity and earth? Then we go back to notion of God and that's just dealing with existence, and addressing plausible reason for existence. A whole lot of mixing in rationality and understandings occurring as I observe it. Me, I'd question existence of earth and Gravity based on same rationale that seeks to assert that God doesn't exist. And at that level, I do understand/know it is matter of faith, fundamentally speaking.

Based on your understandings... Would you consider the following as reasonable?
Please also write why you find it reasonable...

1. Brushing your teeth in the morning
2. Avoiding going naked in the streets
3. Fending off a person who attacks you
4. Attacking a person for not doing as you asked
5. Killing a person for calling you names
6. Hitting a child hand when he tries to reach for an exposed electricity
7. Punching a child on the head with a stick when he tries to reach for exposed electricity
8. Promising people they will suffer if they don't believe the beliefs as you
9. Killing someone for not believing the same beliefs as you
10. Preventing a woman from being educated because God forbids it

All of these are in larger category I identify as illusion. Therefore, how reason applies will be relative to what I as being see myself as within the context (within the illusion). But the illusion is in place via faith. Everything that follows is fundamentally based on that same faith. Yet, how it is justified as relatively important (to me or anyone) would be somewhat based on rationality/reason, thus not faith alone. Yet, what each rationality is concluding would be perpetuating the illusion, and ultimately trying to justify the basis of the fundamental faith. That overviews how I'd address these 10 points.

And the list can go on and on...
But after answering those questions and explaining why you find a thing reasonable or not, Do you recognize any patterns here?

Yes, none of these things actually exist, or are illusion of a self that I may project from my consciousness and deem it as my current existence/reality. That's the fundamental part. The other thing, that I think you are getting at, is all are about dealing with idea that unless I do something with regards to each situation, I or what I perceive as others may be threatened in some fashion. Perhaps not exactly how you'd word that, but I think is fair.

Will continue further points by you in another post. Though not sure if that'll be today.

 

[Augustus]

Democracy was invented to guard minorities from harm even if the majority thinks differently. (When it comes to human rights)

I'm not sure that a slave owning, xenophobic and extremely patriarchal society was too concerned with guarding "minorities" from harm.

It certainly had no concept of human rights which evolved from the post-enlightenment European Judaeo-Christian tradition.

 

[paarsurrey]

I'm not sure that a slave owning, xenophobic and extremely patriarchal society was too concerned with guarding "minorities" from harm.

It certainly had no concept of human rights which evolved from the post-enlightenment European Judaeo-Christian tradition.

Quran/Islam/Muhammad guarded the rights of minorities. One aspect of Muhammad's struggle was for this purpose.

Regards