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

[Willamena]

This is going nowhere. You seem to believe 'Atheism' is this significant package of beliefs and understandings and seem to be extrapolating all sorts of conclusions from that, but what results is a total straw man. No such package exists.

No, just one significant belief.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

No, just one significant belief.

Perhaps to you. The only time the invisible man question even passes my radar is when I log in here.

 

[Windwalker]

Yes but theism is just the belief in the EXISTENCE of one or more gods. It says nothing about which god, that this god is aware of everything one does, where the god is or if the god cares about anybody.

I think when someone says they are a theist it does bring certain beliefs with it, at the very least some general view of say something, or someone, that is Absolute in nature, at the very least higher than one's own self. The many and varied faces that may take still have that as a foundational view that I feel would have the same sort of impact, in whichever direction it make take into specific beliefs about that God.

If someone says they are pantheist, that too carries certain underlying assumptions about the nature of reality. If someone says they are a panentheist, that does as well. If someone says they are atheist, that carries certain assumptions about the nature of reality as well. What beliefs evolve from those underlying assumptions will bring that assumption into them, in all the many and varied forms they may take.

I just don't follow. If a person says he's a theist the only thing he tells me is that he believes one or more gods exist. That's it.

He believes there is a power higher than himself which has some form of awareness of them. That alone brings with it a whole raft of assumptions about how they may think, to some degree or another. Again, even if they are just mentally believing it and not expressing any sort of religious faith towards that, that belief colorizes everything else. God is not just something functioning at the level of a bunny rabbit in their backyard. God symbolizes Ultimate Reality. We need to be clear about that.

He could be a pedophile catholic priest, a member of the IS, a suicide bomber, a saint. Anything. If a person tells me he's an atheist what am I expected to deduce from that besides that the person is not a theist?

For an atheist, it would be the assumption that he does not believe there is some supernatural force at work (I am assuming here the modern atheist and not the pre-scientific, prerational atheism that rejects tribal deities in favor of magic or something like that). Assuming modernity here, this would entail a belief in the value of science and rationality over mythic belief systems. At the least, it would one which held that there's no guy in the sky whose going to do it for you, so you have to rely either on yourself or established human relationships.

Does that help explain better?

 

[ArtieE]

He's just saying that that one belief, theism, is a big deal and really impacts how you see the world.

Being a theist has absolutely no impact on the world. Being a theist and believing that your god tells you to live like a saint and spend your life helping people does have an impact on the world. Being a theist and believing that your gods demand that you cut out people's hearts does have an impact on the world. Being a theist and believing that if you kill yourself and take some infidels with you God will be pleased, that has an impact on the world. But just BEING A THEIST, believing that gods exist, has absolutely no impact.

 

[Windwalker]

This is going nowhere. You seem to believe 'Atheism' is this significant package of beliefs and understandings and seem to be extrapolating all sorts of conclusions from that, but what results is a total straw man. No such package exists.

Do the words I type not contain content? How does what you "assume" I believe have any support from any of my words I've spoken? I don't view atheism as a set of beliefs. I said Atheism colorizes everything just like theism does. It's not a set of beliefs. You don't seem to understand what filters are. Think of it as wearing polarized sunglasses? Does that help?

If someone doesn't believe a deity is real, to them the idea of that deity, or deity itself, simply isn't important.

And therefore, they live their lives in such a way that does not have that particular color of glasses colorizing everything for them the way it does for a theist. They wear blue glasses, you wear green ones.

It's a big world just full of ideas, and heck, sometimes people even have their own! No need for archaic beliefs about magical invisible beings, one way or the other, are required to hold a worldview.

And you see right there, the fact you say there is no need for mythic beliefs proves your green glasses make that a significant view for you.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Do the words I type not contain content? How does what you "assume" I believe have any support from any of my words I've spoken? I don't view atheism as a set of beliefs. I said Atheism colorizes everything just like theism does. It's not a set of beliefs. You don't seem to understand what filters are. Think of it as wearing polarized sunglasses? Does that help?

I sure do. I just think your assertion that this particular filter has to be significant to how someone sees the world to be false. Your assertion would only be true when contrasted with what others might believe, which would apply to literally any belief about anything.

I assert that those that peel their apples have significantly different views about the world then those that just bite into them. It's a far reaching filter that colors their whole worldview.

That's what you sound like to me.

And you see right there, the fact you say there is no need for mythic beliefs proves your green glasses make that a significant view for you.

No, all I would need to prove my statement true would be one human that holds any worldview that does not include deities or a belief in mythology.

Here I am. Point proven. Your assertion that this is somehow important to me is both patently false and honestly, a little out of left field.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

In the beginning everybody were not theists.

How do you know?
Were you there?

 

[Acim]

I'll explain what I mean when I say I Might be convinced..
The fact that someone tells me the moon is orbiting earth, is not enough for me...
Even if this person will tell me that the moon is held by gravitational forces and explain to me all there is to know, I Still would like to see for myself...
I Will not trust someone's statement without studying the subject on my own.
How can I study it? I Go to museums, I Look at the evidence presented, I Read countless of books and dozens of idea that contradict the theory.
I Buy a telescope and look and the sky on my own.
I learn the mathematics behind the theory,
I try and find out as much as i can before i decided whether or not to believe something.

Still, someone could say to this that this is not sufficient evidence. Not until you get far enough away from the objects to observe it occurring, can you know it is a fact. Or another could say that you were told this fact already, thus you could've taken the word of the person that told you and understood it was fact.

Either way, at each step that if you've brought up in relation to this idea/fact, faith was utilized.

With theism, besides one's Word, you have no evidence what so ever..

Already addressed this before, but will do so again with different spin.
There's obviously plenty of material (text) to research the claims of spirituality. And while that does come down, a bit to words, there is also application of a whole lot of what the words are saying for anyone to see if it is true in their life, their experience. There are also congregations of a whole lot of people that have similar, if not same experience, ideas and understandings.

Then there is the philosophical / theological arguments. That's where I'd reside, where I'm most comfortable, where I won't be shy and where I'll place my Knowledge over mere faith, and then say let's have the discussion. Let's not play softball, and let's get at it. Having awareness of some of the many past doctrines, modern day doctrines, and what I take to be inherent connection to Spirit to back up my understandings/knowledge. So bring your A-game atheists, cause if thinking I'm only coming from orthodox, mythological perspective, I shall laugh.

There are no evidence to spirits or souls... at least not sufficient evidence.

Except for all that exists with consciousness, you're right there is no evidence. Again, the idea that there is not sufficient evidence is matter of faith. For even if there were sufficient evidence, atheism is still plausible to maintain, thus that is NOT the reason for atheism. Nor does there even need to be reason for atheism. Arguably it is devoid of Reason.

I Can tell you that I Have a new drug that does wonders to cancer...
Will you use it based on my word? or will you do a research before you consider using it?

Likely neither as I don't see healing of cancer as occurring outside of the mind/consciousness. Perhaps if I'm in a vulnerable/desperate state of mind, seeking to mitigate/treat symptoms I may be experiencing with cancer, I'll take your word on trying a drug that works wonders. Given my extensive research on other drugs, I imagine I already get how research will spin it, which essentially will convey there's a chance (say 80%) that it can address certain symptoms, and has x,y,z side effects. Thus not a cure, but a treatment. Not sufficient evidence (and likely never will be) for curing, but enough of a reason to consider trying it, if one is that vulnerable/desperate. In reality, it arguably can't make things worse.

If i tell you the earth is flat (There is a Hugh community that actually believes that!),

(Probably because it is observably flat?)

will you take my word for it? (And i assure you the number of evidence that supports this theory is quite big...unfortunately to those who believe it, it bad evidence )

Depends on what the claim is about. I understand the item you are bringing up as noting it can be both flat and round. Have the appearance of being flat, but from other data and from sufficient angle (i.e. far away from the planet) understanding that it is actually round. All of which won't really matter to my daily life. Perhaps a tinge, but why this would be of supreme importance to me, I'm still not clear on.

So when I say I might be convinced, its assuming that the "Quality" of the evidence will be such that there is no doubt that it is true.

Yeah, I know of nothing (strictly) in the physical that matches that standard.

That's in a nutshell is atheism.

Well, since at the heart of what you said (there's no evidence) is a faith assertion, then I'll concur, that's in a nut(shell) what atheism is. IMO, you are glossing over so much, I do hope you come to the plate and at least get better than a bunt single.

A lot of people are atheists for the reason they just don't find religion and spirituality convincing enough thus they find evolution and cosmology to be truth... these people can usually be easily manipulated and abused by confusing theological questions that without proper understanding of the scientific knowledge we have, they can quickly think that the bible really do provide answers that science can't and probably never will.

Again, I'm not of the orthodox variety. Keep the bible on the table, take it off, I'm okay either way. Bringing science into the picture doesn't lead me to thinking spiritual is now off the table somehow (magically), but will depend on what assertions are being made. Are we stuck dealing with the illusion (the physical) or having philosophical/theological argument to get to the heart of the matter? Not like this science thing is found in the physical, though is projected onto it via mass belief.

 

[gnostic]

It really depends on how one define each word - "faith", "religion", "theism" and "atheism".

Faith is acceptance of belief, without regards to evidences.

Theism is about believing in the existence of a deity or deities.

1. Monotheism is the belief in one god,
2. polytheism acccept the belief in many gods,
3. while henotheism believe in many gods but only focused his worship in one god.

Religion can either be either theistic or atheistic:

1. theistic religion believe in and worship their deities
2. while atheistic religion or non-theistic religions don't believe or worship any deity, like some sects of Buddhism, but can still be defined as religion because they do accept spirituality and accept afterlife in the form of reincarnation and the nirvana.

 

[Acim]

As long as we do not have a clear definition of what a spiritual thing is, any alleged empirical evidence of them is meaningless.

That would also be a faith assertion.

If you mean by "we" all of everyone, well such clear definitions don't exist. Doesn't exist for "science." Sure, I can provide for you definition of science, and for spiritual as well. You (and everyone in this thread) may agree on those definitions. Only 7 billion more people to check with to see if there is any discrepancies in that understanding. I've been on science forums where the obvious question (like here with God) is asked (repeatedly): "what is science?" And I've seen that go on for dozens of pages as it is abundantly clear that the way the term is defined is not clear. It perhaps has basic understandings that many agree on, but clear definition? Nope. Same with "reality" or "truth" or "objective" or "life" or "love" or need I go on?

Btw. i have found solid evidence that 0.999999... is 1. If you still believe it is not.

I know it's not. Is your solid evidence physical or something only consciousness can relate to via abstract correlations?

 

[Acim]

It really depends on how one define each word - "faith", "religion", "theism" and "atheism".

Faith is acceptance of belief, without regards to evidences.

This is not how I would define faith. Or how I would define it is from what my dictionary and many others say which is:

complete trust or confidence in someone or something

Yet, I'm willing to set aside that one and go with the first one to show how atheism is fundamentally based on faith.

"Without regard to evidences" does not apply to atheism. Atheists may have individual concerns with that and their own variation of atheism, but I either have never seen atheism defined with the word evidence or rarely seen it.

"Faith is acceptance of belief" is the one I would tie to atheism in that it is accepting of the idea there are no gods (in existence). Because that is without regard to evidences, then that would make atheism a matter of faith. Again, individual atheists may have the idea that it is with regard to evidence, or lack thereof, but atheism does not.

 

[Valjean]

I'll acknowledge that Strong Atheism does have a belief, but I'd include that qualifier when making general statements about "atheism." Strong atheism is a particular, minority subset of atheists. Without the qualifier I'd read 'atheism' to indicate solely a lack of belief, weather from logic, indifference or ignorance.

 

[McBell]

Yes... It is faith based, either by necessity, ie the 'non-position', or the position without an asserted argument, and as well, one may claim that their atheism isn't faith based, and of course that's subjective what have you. If you aren't claiming to absolutely know that there is no deity/deities, then the position itself is faith based, by necessity. In this sense, atheism is much more ''faith based'', subjectively, then theism usually is, since Theism often has a /personal subjective, non-'faith' component to it. Atheism is far more ''faith based'', than theism, basically. Often the belief in Deity is not so much ''faith based'', as rather considered truth/fact, what have you; that's subjective.

Sorry.
This does not make any sense as written.

 

[ArtieE]

How do you know?
Were you there?

I stand corrected. In the beginning there was only God and he was a theist... I presume...

 

[Valjean]

That would make Him the ultimate narcissist.

 

[McBell]

I stand corrected. In the beginning there was only God and he was a theist... I presume...

What god would god believe in?
Or does the definition of god change for god?

 

[ArtieE]

This is not how I would define faith. Or how I would define it is from what my dictionary and many others say which is:

complete trust or confidence in someone or something

Regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

"Faith is acceptance of belief" is the one I would tie to atheism in that it is accepting of the idea there are no gods (in existence).

No it doesn't. Atheism is not accepting the idea that there are gods in existence. Weak atheists are not accepting the idea that there are no gods in existence either. They're on the fence. Strong atheists do accept the idea that there are no gods in existence.

 

[Segev Moran]

They certainly can declare these things. The question / debate is how accurate is it.

If someone says they don't know something, how do they know/understand that? I have been down this road before. Feel free to start a thread on it, or let's hash it out here. I'm game either way, but it is built in assumption when someone claims they do not know whatever. From atheist perspective, I could say I lack a belief in their unknowing. Would be interesting to see how they get around that.

Thats not what I said..
You can say "I don't know anything".. this can either be true or not...
You can't say "I Know that I don't know" because this contradict it self...

So you can say: I Believe nothing..
You can't say: I Believe that I don't Believe anything...

You can say: I Find nothing funny...
You can't say : I Find it funny that I find nothing funny...

Hope you get the difference.

"I lack a belief in their unknowing"... Feel free to say it...
I Don't need to get around that as it is your own personal view...
If you said: "I Know they Know".. than it was a wrong statement as clearly you don't know what I know

 

[Segev Moran]

This would be the part where the faith is upheld. It might be correct (then again it might not be) to not have physical evidence for things that are spiritual, but to say there is no evidence is a matter of faith.

Yet again you misunderstand what Atheist say..
We are not saying there is no evidence and there will never be.. We are saying that so far there is no evidence...Its not a question of right or wrong.. its a question of is there evidence for anything that is spiritual? If there is evidence that we can't yet see or understand, this means there is no evidence yet!
If tomorrow, humans will be able to measure or observe something spiritual, obviously the statement of there is no evidence for spirits for example will change!

It's a rather dogmatic assertion.

No its not.. Its a wrong assertion.

Not too challenging for philosophical person to turn that crap around right back on physical claims, and do a dance all over those claims that (in my experience) will inevitably lead to 'agree to disagree' type assertions, cause apparently the rabbit hole on the physical side of things is not something people really want to get into. Got more important things to do.

Its like saying we need to agree on the fact that 2+2=4...
yes.. in a philosophical POV you can say, how do we know that 2 is actually two and all that b.s.... But the fact is, we all (I hope) that 2+2 elements, will give you 4 of them!
saying that lacking is evidence is a question of philosophy, is something outside the realm of reason! in science, you either have evidence or your not!
If you have an evidence and it is later being contradicted with a more accurate one, then the evidence changes the theory and your knowledge.

So, I'll come back to other things in this post / response, but wishing to be clear that I'm not going to be shy if the genuine philosophical discussion is the one that is really being called forth. Until that point, your claims on the physical stuff, and research, is observably circular logic at work. It ultimately rests on faith (in physical) and literally nothing else.

I Have Faith that you'll understand that you are wrong

 

[Willamena]

Yet again you misunderstand what Atheist say..
We are not saying there is no evidence and there will never be.. We are saying that so far there is no evidence...Its not a question of right or wrong.. its a question of is there evidence for anything that is spiritual? If there is evidence that we can't yet see or understand, this means there is no evidence yet!
If tomorrow, humans will be able to measure or observe something spiritual, obviously the statement of there is no evidence for spirits for example will change!

No its not.. Its a wrong assertion.

Its like saying we need to agree on the fact that 2+2=4...
yes.. in a philosophical POV you can say, how do we know that 2 is actually two and all that b.s.... But the fact is, we all (I hope) that 2+2 elements, will give you 4 of them!
saying that lacking is evidence is a question of philosophy, is something outside the realm of reason! in science, you either have evidence or your not!
If you have an evidence and it is later being contradicted with a more accurate one, then the evidence changes the theory and your knowledge.


I Have Faith that you'll understand that you are wrong

There is evidence for no god.