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

[Acim]

No,
We have no Faith
There is a big difference and for some reason it seems theists (mostly) are finding it hard to understand.
For some odd reason It seems that saying "I don't believe in..." is interpreted by many as "I believe there is no..."
These are two different statements.
I Can say I Don't believe the skies are green... or I believe the skies are not Green...
The first is stating that I am not convinced that the skies are green yet if sufficient evidence will arise I might be convinced.
The second statement is stating that even if the skies are green, I don't believe they are.

The faith part would relate to the trust in the evidence being (currently) insufficient.
Odd that you say "I might be convinced." If sufficient evidence isn't the Reason, then what is, for the atheist to be convinced?

Same goes for Atheism.
We don't believe there is a God..
Its different than saying we believe there is no God..
From our POV, there is just not enough evidence to support the Idea of God.. It might be that there is A God..we just don't know it therefore we don't think it is true.
Hope that made some sense

I'm guessing (some) other atheists would disagree with how you worded this.

Again, it is the "not enough evidence" where the faith/trust is placed. How that is actually working with regards to Reason is the ongoing debate.

 

[viole]

G-d exists irrespective of if one believes in Him or not, irrespective of if one gives an evidence for His existence or not, that is the reason as to why some believers are called as faith based.

Atheism people, if they cannot provide positives evidence of "non-existence of G-d" of the same kind they want from the believers to provide, on the same standards they are also faith-based non-religion.

Right? Please

Regards

Atheism is faith as much as abstinence is a sexual position.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

None of it? Really?

No, none of it. Atheists can and often do believe all kinds of things about the world that go beyond the natural, and lacking a belief in a deity says nothing about how one should lead their life.

 

[Windwalker]

No, none of it. Atheists can and often do believe all kinds of things about the world that go beyond the natural, and lacking a belief in a deity says nothing about how one should lead their life.

But you said none of it was true. What I said is certainly true of a great many atheists. It was not my intention to define all beliefs all atheists hold, but what I said most definitely does reflect the view a large percentage of them.

And as far as holding an atheist perspective in general, how can that not impact the totality of one's life? A view of the world which does not have any deity figure is going to be different by nature than a view which holds one that God does exist. It will and does in many ways. You think there is no effect at all, no differences between how the atheist processes their reality versus the way a theist does? Can you explain that if you believe it's true? I'm quite curious how you could say that.

 

[paarsurrey]

Then why say you are an Atheist? Why not say nothing instead?

Just to remind one. There is a misquote ascribed to me above one's post #64 .I never said that "Atheism is a lack of conviction". Please
Else, please give the post number where I said that.

I also never said that I am an Atheist. I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim.
Please rectify.

Regards

 

[Valjean]

Then why say you are an Atheist? Why not say nothing instead?

Because it's a meaningful concept -- meaningful enough to generate endless threads on hundreds of talkboards.
How about colorless, weightless or empty. Are they meaningless words as well?

But it does have faith. It is a faith that the natural world is all there is, and all that comes with that. It is a conviction of the natural order of things and from that how one should live one's life. Sraddha is the Hindu term for faith which means to set one's heart upon something. That's what faith really is. Theism is an expression of faith. Atheism is an expression of faith. I have no problem with either.

OK, now you're nitpicking. Naturally I have faith the sun will come up tomorrow. So let it be understood that my statement referred specifically to all things God.

When I use the term "atheist" I never mean "lack of belief," because that is not how the term has been used historically and the implications of this newer definition render the word "atheist" into the realm of useless absurdity even more than it already is. You're right that I'm speaking of a subset of atheists, but not how you are thinking about it.

"Atheist," like many other English words, has meant various things at different times, places, situations, &c. I'm using it in its technical sense, as used by actual atheists, atheist organizations and apologists (note that apologist has more than one meaning, as well, depending on context). This is like a creationist insisting that evolution is only a "theory."

paarsurrey said:
If one cannot provide positive evidence for "non-existence of G-d", then of course one's ascribes to a "Faith of Atheism" or "Religion of Atheism".
If one can provided positive evidence for "non-existence of G-d", then one can belong to a reasonable "Atheism" non-faith and non-religion

You can't logically prove a negative, Paarsurrey, as other posters have pointed out. I can't prove Mars isn't inhabited by pink unicorns, but I still lack belief in them.
Don't you?

 

[paarsurrey]

''admission''? I'm not an 'atheist'.

Sorry. Should I delete that post? Please
Regards

 

[Windwalker]

Just to remind one. There is a misquote ascribed to me above one's post #64 .I never said that "Atheism is a lack of conviction". Please
Else, please give the post number where I said that.

I also never said that I am an Atheist. I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim.
Please rectify.

Regards

You didn't say it. I used the quote function wrong. I've fixed it who really said it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

If there were no atheism theism wouldn't exist as a term.

Dosent work that way.

 

[Windwalker]

Because it's a meaningful concept -- meaningful enough to generate endless threads on hundreds of talkboards.

But you said atheism is a lack of conviction. Now you are saying it's a meaningful concept. How does something that lacks any conviction have any meaning?

OK, now you're nitpicking. Naturally I have faith the sun will come up tomorrow.

I'm not nitpicking at all. I think you did not follow what I posted. Let me repost it here so I can help show you what I meant. It has nothing to do with calling faith the same thing as "faith the sun will come up". It's considerably deeper than that:

But it does have faith. It is a faith that the natural world is all there is, and all that comes with that. It is a conviction of the natural order of things and from that how one should live one's life. Sraddha is the Hindu term for faith which means to set one's heart upon something. That's what faith really is. Theism is an expression of faith. Atheism is an expression of faith. I have no problem with either.​

I brought up the "natural world" because naturalism is a philosophy that is quite common to atheism. All there is is the natural world, no gods, no souls, no spirits, etc. I am saying that atheism is a faith because in holding out there is only the natural world that reflects Ultimate Reality for them, and how they live their lives will be directly affect through that faith. It a faith about reality that lacks God in it. It's a non-theistic faith, if you will. Faith is what you set your heart upon, what you embrace as Ultimate Truth.

Atheism is an expression of faith, faith in an ultimate reality which has no God in it. That's not a negative. It actually elevates the understanding of what Atheism is. I honestly don't know why it's so anathema to some atheists to always fight against that word "faith". It means a lot more than just belief in the supernatural.

 

[Windwalker]

Dosent work that way.

Why? Of course it does. If everyone believed in God, it wouldn't be called theism. It would just be what is. Back in the day one wouldn't ask "Do you believe in God", in a land where it was a given. It would be like asking do you breathe? Everyone living does. But today theism is a valid question because there are those that don't see things through that common filter. Therefore, atheism has to exist in order for theism to be an opposite.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

What must be understood about Atheism is that it is not at all an active stance. It is a default state. It takes no effort and no intent whatsoever.

The default stance would be agnostic.

What may or may not take some effort is resisting the often oppressive and disrespectful expectations of the theists around us.

If someone is oppressive, then they are not Theistic. By definition, God is good.

Remember, evil people have no obligation to be honest about what their inner beliefs actually are.
It seems that an evil person could pursue evil ends most extremely by pretending to be a believer.

 

[LuisDantas]

The default stance would be agnostic.

Hardly. Agnosticism can only exist after a concept of God is produced.

If someone is oppressive, then they are not Theistic.

That is not at all true in the real world.

By definition, God is good.

Remember, evil people have no obligation to be honest about what their inner beliefs actually are.
It seems that an evil person could pursue evil ends most extremely by pretending to be a believer.

In all honesty, you look deeply delusional here.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Hardly. Agnosticism can only exist after a concept of God is produced.

and yet atheism is a word derived from the word 'theism'??

In all honesty, you look deeply delusional here.

So you claim that lying is impossible?

 

[LuisDantas]

and yet atheism is a word derived from the word 'theism'??

So what?

So you claim that lying is impossible?

Of course it is possible.

 

[paarsurrey]

You didn't say it. I used the quote function wrong. I've fixed it who really said it.

I understand.
Thanks and regards

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

But you said none of it was true. What I said is certainly true of a great many atheists. It was not my intention to define all beliefs all atheists hold, but what I said most definitely does reflect the view a large percentage of them.

Oh come now. You didn't say 'same atheists believe ' you said 'Atheism believes'(which is actually an incoherent statement...) which is a blanket statement. Let's try not to be disingenuous with our goalposts shall we?

And as far as holding an atheist perspective in general, how can that not impact the totality of one's life? A view of the world which does not have any deity figure is going to be different by nature than a view which holds one that God does exist. It will and does in many ways. You think there is no effect at all, no differences between how the atheist processes their reality versus the way a theist does? Can you explain that if you believe it's true? I'm quite curious how you could say that.

There is no 'atheist perspective'. An atheist may believe literally anything about anything, just so long as they lack belief in that one insignificant corner of the realm of almost infinite possibilities of superstition known as 'deities'. Does a lack of belief in leprechauns influence how I live my life or conduct myself in any meaningful way?

Sure, being bogged down by any superstition will impede your ability to see reality clearly, but that says very little about how those that find such superstition insignificant and extraneous form their worldview.

An atheist can be anything from a Buddhist to a Satanist to one that thinks following the Bible is the best way to live, but see it as metaphorical. Atheists can believe in ghosts, karma, luck, Bigfoot and Hillary. Atheists can be fascists or pacifists, naturalists or supernaturalists, socialists or anarchists. For you to say lacking one very specific superstition meaningfully defines anything is nothing short of hubris.

 

[Kirran]

@Satans_Serrated_Edge As a lived experience, theism doesn't really function as 'one more superstition'. When I was an atheist I might well have seen it as such, but God, capitalised, tends to be rather more deep-set into one's world-view than that. While a theist might be blind to this, so is it likely for an atheist to be.

The atheist perspective, which is literally nothing but the perspective that the title/name God does not apply to anything real, is an influential one as such, even though any number of otherwise utterly contrasting views might be held among people who have that perspective.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Well of course a given superstition will be more meaningful or important to the one that believes in it, but that is really neither here nor there. There is nothing that really distinguishes capital g god belief from small g god belief to a belief in the fey folk.

I think it is an error of psychological projection. The believer(at least a very large fraction of them) sees their magical narrative as true, and as such seems to struggle with the idea that to most that are not believers their narrative plays no role at all in how they might form their own narratives.

Or in other words, your beliefs are simply not important enough to me to inform how I see the world, other than to conclude many people are very gullible

 

[Kirran]

Well of course a given superstition will be more meaningful or important to the one that believes in it, but that is really neither here nor there. There is nothing that really distinguishes capital g god belief from small g god belief to a belief in the fey folk.

From an external perspective, that may be so. But this is born out of a common new atheist tendency to understand theism only insofar as it applies to those who see God as an external creator entity who acts as one agent alongside us in the world, albeit one of much greater power. The 'maxed-out tribal chieftain' model.

If God is the Consciousness within which all temporary phenomena rise and fall, and by whose will it is that they do so, then this is something rather out of left field for people who think only of tribal-chief-God as one mythological entity alongside leprechauns and grey aliens with a penchant for cattle.