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

[Segev Moran]

Yes... It is faith based, either by necessity, ie the 'non-position', /or the position without an asserted argument, the argument position that is presumed ''faith based'' per presented evidence./ In that usage, it's merely a default we use for subjective positions that obviously can't be 'proven', for whatever reason, in a debate format. 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. Often the belief in Deity is not so much ''faith based'', as rather considered truth/fact, what have you; that's subjective.

I AM NOT SAYING THERE IS NO GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I Am saying that No one really Know!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Then you must have evidence that there is no deity or deities, for your position to not be 'faith based'. My theism has evidence, therefore would be less ''faith based'', than a position with no evidence. That ''evidence'' of course subjective unless put into argument format.//ie merely informs our beliefs,,

Just re-read the post...

That concept is entirely subjective, I have no idea what ''sufficient evidence'' means to you,

The same level that is sufficient evidence for you to believe earth is a spheroid.

'Faith based', regarding atheism, means that the position is presumably not usually evidenced, ie evidence that there is no deity/deities. It's inherently far more ''faith based'', than theism.

One last time.. No atheist claim that there is no God!!!!
That is not the definition of atheism, It was never the claim of atheism and it can never be!
Atheism says "I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS A GOD, SO FAR, NOTHING IS CONVINCING ENOUGH"
I can't really find any other way of saying that

 

[Segev Moran]

There is evidence for no god.

I'm intrigued...

 

[Willamena]

I'm intrigued...

How so?

 

[Windwalker]

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.

And yet here you are on this site pressing your point. That seems pretty important to you. Otherwise, why aren't you off playing a video game if this is all nothing to you? How's the quote go? "The lady doth protest too much, methinks"?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

'faith based', is merely a general description. No ones Theism has to be described in that manner. The definition for 'faith', as an ''unknown '' or position without evidence, is actually quite rare, and in most or all cases probably wouldn't even work in the sentence. We call those things ''unknowns'', so forth, not 'faith'.
//so, ''faith based'', very general term, often used from an outside perspective.
''faith'' implies surety, in the religious usage, by the way.

It could be that you might simply have a lack of faith in your position. So, in that sense, you are correct; you could very well not have enough evidence for atheism to have faith in the position.

Religious "faith" does generally imply belief without evidence. In more general usage "faith" has the meaning of trust or confidence. In either context faith can be irrational.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

They have faith in doubt.

Perhaps the courage to accept uncertainty. But I think atheism is usually more like a rejection of faith-based religion.

 

[ArtieE]

One last time.. No atheist claim that there is no God!!!!
That is not the definition of atheism, It was never the claim of atheism and it can never be!
Atheism says "I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS A GOD, SO FAR, NOTHING IS CONVINCING ENOUGH"
I can't really find any other way of saying that

You are now confusing atheism with agnosticism.

Theist: Believes at least one god exists.
Atheist: Doesn't believe any gods exist.
Gnostic: Knows whether gods exist or not.
Agnostic: Doesn't know if any gods exist or not.

Theism: Belief in the existence of at least one god.
Atheism: Absence of this belief.

Weak atheist: Doesn't believe any gods exist AND doesn't believe gods don't exist either. Undecided.
Strong atheist: Doesn't believe any gods exist AND actively believes no gods exist. Decided.

Agnostic theist: Doesn't know if gods exist but believes one or more do.
Agnostic weak atheist: Doesn't know if gods exist and hasn't made up his mind what to believe about them
Agnostic strong atheist: Doesn't know 100% if gods don't exist but believes they don't.
Gnostic theist: Says he knows a god or gods exist. We just put "theist" behind to indicate what it is that the gnostic knows.
Gnostic atheist: Says he knows gods don't exist. We just put "atheist" behind to indicate what it is that the gnostic knows.

Hope this will clear up things a bit.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

He's just saying that that one belief, theism, is a big deal and really impacts how you see the world. So not holding it (i.e. being an atheist) vs holding it (i.e. being a theist) makes a substantial difference.

I think it makes more of a difference for theists, particularly when it is central to their religious beliefs and practice.

 

[Desert Snake]

Religious "faith" does generally imply belief without evidence. In more general usage "faith" has the meaning of trust or confidence. In either context faith can be irrational.

If you really want to get technical, neither theism or atheism, or religion/s/,
can be arbitrarily generalized as ''faith based''.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Science deals with what (and how), not why. In much of life, why is a very important consideration. I would definitely enter into debate which argues that it is far more important consideration than what/how.

Metaphysics also claims to answer what and how questions, but it does so based on philosophy rather than on evidence.

 

[ArtieE]

If you really want to get technical, neither theism or atheism, or religion/s/,
can be arbitrarily generalized as ''faith based''.

Belief is when you have weighed the evidence and found the evidence compelling enough to believe. Faith doesn't require evidence. You can have faith in what an old book says or what your cult leader says without a shred of evidence that it is true.

 

[Kirran]

I think it makes more of a difference for theists, particularly when it is central to their religious beliefs and practice.

I see your point, but I think that atheism and theism are by definition two sides of the coin. I've been both in my time, and I'd say that looking back both have a big effect on a person. Speaking from my personal experience and of people I know, so this is anecdotal.

 

[ArtieE]

I see your point, but I think that atheism and theism are by definition two sides of the coin. I've been both in my time, and I'd say that looking back both have a big effect on a person. Speaking from my personal experience and of people I know, so this is anecdotal.

Theism is when the coin lies on one side, weak atheism is when the coin stands on its edge, strong atheism is when the coin lies on the other side.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I see your point, but I think that atheism and theism are by definition two sides of the coin. I've been both in my time, and I'd say that looking back both have a big effect on a person. Speaking from my personal experience and of people I know, so this is anecdotal.

I would agree that theism embraces a belief in God while atheism rejects it, beyond that it is quite difficult to generalise. Most of the people I have met over the years are what I would call "apatheist", it really isn't an issue for them either way, and it isn't something they really think about. Also quite a lot of people who have some residual theist belief from childhood upbringing, but not to the extent that it effects the way they live their lives.

 

[ArtieE]

I would agree that theism embraces a belief in God while atheism rejects it

Atheism is "not accepting" not "rejecting".

beyond that it is quite difficult to generalise. Most of the people I have met over the years are what I would call "apatheist", it really isn't an issue for them either way, and it isn't something they really think about. Also quite a lot of people who have some residual theist belief from childhood upbringing, but not to the extent that it effects the way they live their lives.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Atheism is "not accepting" not "rejecting".

I don't see a practical difference myself.

 

[ArtieE]

I don't see a practical difference myself.

There's a huge practical difference. An atheist is a person who doesn't accept the idea that gods exist. He may not accept the idea that gods don't exist either. These we call weak atheists. A person who doesn't accept the idea that gods exist but DOES accept the idea that gods DON'T exist is a strong atheist. You really should make an effort to not confuse them, there are many people in each camp to whom this difference is very important.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

There's a huge practical difference. An atheist is a person who doesn't accept the idea that gods exist. He may not accept the idea that gods don't exist either. These we call weak atheists. A person who doesn't accept the idea that gods exist but DOES accept the idea that gods DON'T exist is a strong atheist. You really should make an effort to not confuse them, there are many people in each camp to whom this difference is very important.

I find it more useful to view theism/atheism as a spectrum, rather like Richard Dawkins suggested in "The God Delusion".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability

Atheist just means "not theist", so it is a broad church, encompassing a wide range of views.

 

[ArtieE]

I find it more useful to view theism/atheism as a spectrum, rather like Richard Dawkins suggested in "The God Delusion".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability

Atheist just means "not theist", so it is a broad church, encompassing a wide range of views.

Did you understand the point I was making? Yes or no?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Did you understand the point I was making? Yes or no?

I understood it but I don't agree with it. I find categories like "weak" and "strong" atheist too subjective, rather arbitrary really. The same with categories like "weak" and "strong" theist of course. And then "agnostic" adds another level of complication. So I feel a spectrum of belief makes much more sense.