Atheism: a "faith", a "leap of faith", or neither?

JimiTime

Dades wrote: »

I can't believe the "not believing something = faith" has come up again...

Sorry dades, just to clear this up (or move to new thread if you want?). Atheists don't believe there is no god? You are saying they believe there may be one, its just they need more evidence? That seems agnostic no? Below is the dictionary definition:

Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings

That seems like a definitive stand to me.

aidan24326 wrote:

No atheist that I know of has ever said 'there is no god' and you are being deliberatelty disingenuous in suggesting that.

I certainly am not. I've heard many atheists declare such a thing. In fact I've heard some who've said they believe science will answer the questions in time. In fact it sparked a debate on them having 'faith' in science.

But no more responses to this here, please.

The OP has an interesting topic going on so lets stick to it.

Maybe you could shift these ramblings to a new thread? I'd do it myself, but ur the god of these parts:)

Dades

-- Above post moved from other thread --

Let's hammer this one out!

Zombrex

-- COPIED FROM OTHER THREAD ---

JimiTime wrote:

'Don't know' is not atheist. 'Atheist' says that you do know that there is defo no higher power.

No, that isn't what an atheist says.

An atheist says that the human invented concepts of a "higher power" (ie gods) are just that, human inventions, with no grounding in reality. If there is a higher power you guys don't know what it is. You made yours up. Your "higher power" is invented, by humans, modeled on humans, for very human purposes and needs. If there is an actual higher power or intelligence this is purely coincidental.

Am a die hard atheist and I have absolutely no trouble with the possibility that some intelligent entity created or caused the creation of the universe, or created or caused the formation of life throughout the universe. I see absolutely no evidence or this at all, so at the moment I do not consider it a likely explanation, but it is certainly possible and I would be fascinated by any evidence that did point to that. I find the idea of life creating other kinds life fascinating, particularly as humans are getting close to that point ourselves.

Atheism is not the rejection of limitless realm of what we do not know with regard to these higher powers, it is the reject of what you guys claim to already know about it

marco_polo

You could define theism as the lack of faith in there not being a God?

Framing it that way one could argue that theism the result of a a lack of faith.

Dades

Not sure how this sits, but I would see over 120,000 men, women, and children dead in 10 days from freak natural disasters as evidence a benevolent god does not exist.

Doesn't that mean that my disbelief is not just faith?

Doctor DooM

Dades wrote: »

Not sure how this sits, but I would see over 120,000 men, women, and children dead in 10 days from freak natural disasters as evidence a benevolent god does not exist.

Doesn't that mean that my disbelief is not just faith?

Thats evidence of god existing because the end times are coming... See how these things can be flipped.

Could Atheism be defined as the rejection of things which cannot be proven, then? In a very simple way?

PDN

I think there is a basic reason why atheists get offended when others refer to atheism as a 'faith'.

'Faith', as it used by myself and many other believers, means to accept a proposition on the basis of some evidence, but without conclusive proof. However, many atheists use the word 'faith' to mean accepting a proposition with no evidence. This second definition enables them to (falsely) deride believers as irrational. It also means that they reject the notion of faith as applying to themselves.

So, according to my definition of faith, atheists believe that there is no God. They reach this belief on the basis of some evidence, but lack conclusive proof. Therefore atheism is a faith position just as is my Christianity.

If, however, you define 'faith' as being a belief based on no evidence whatsoever, then atheism is not a faith, but neither is my Christianity.

PDN

SDooM wrote: »

Could Atheism be defined as the rejection of things which cannot be proven, then? In a very simple way?

The non-existence of God cannot be proven. So would that mean atheism can be defined as a rejection of the idea of God's non-existence.

daveharnett

Dades wrote: »

Not sure how this sits, but I would see over 120,000 men, women, and children dead in 10 days from freak natural disasters as evidence a benevolent god does not exist.

Doesn't that mean that my disbelief is not just faith?

Describing that as evidence is a little tenuous i'd say dades. It's shouldn't be necessary anyway: the person with the extrordinary claim should have the extrordinary evidence. It's not up to the rest of us to disprove the teapot.

Anyway, I whink you'll find that any religion worth it's salt has a way of explaining such events (he works in mysterious ways/he hates queers/the rapture is coming etc).

Doctor DooM

PDN wrote: »

I think there is a basic reason why atheists get offended when others refer to atheism as a 'faith'.

'Faith', as it used by myself and many other believers, means to accept a proposition on the basis of some evidence, but without conclusive proof. However, many atheists use the word 'faith' to mean accepting a proposition with no evidence. This second definition enables them to (falsely) deride believers as irrational. It also means that they reject the notion of faith as applying to themselves.

So, according to my definition of faith, atheists believe that there is no God. They reach this belief on the basis of some evidence, but lack conclusive proof. Therefore atheism is a faith position just as is my Christianity.

If, however, you define 'faith' as being a belief based on no evidence whatsoever, then atheism is not a faith, but neither is my Christianity.

It was pointed out on the thread this sprang from that most Atheists are happy to accept there may be a god- just that evidence for them suggests against one which seems to be constucted to exactly suits a society at a given times purpose. Most atheists do not reject the idea of "God" in general per se.

Doctor DooM

PDN wrote: »

The non-existence of God cannot be proven. So would that mean atheism can be defined as a rejection of the idea of God's non-existence.

Yes but we're getting into orbiting teapot territory here. (I am so glad I lurked for ages in here and Christianity before I started posting, proving the non existence of an extra dimensional deity, this place could melt your brain if not careful )

marco_polo

PDN wrote: »

I think there is a basic reason why atheists get offended when others refer to atheism as a 'faith'.

'Faith', as it used by myself and many other believers, means to accept a proposition on the basis of some evidence, but without conclusive proof. However, many atheists use the word 'faith' to mean accepting a proposition with no evidence. This second definition enables them to (falsely) deride believers as irrational. It also means that they reject the notion of faith as applying to themselves.

So, according to my definition of faith, atheists believe that there is no God. They reach this belief on the basis of some evidence, but lack conclusive proof. Therefore atheism is a faith position just as is my Christianity.

If, however, you define 'faith' as being a belief based on no evidence whatsoever, then atheism is not a faith, but neither is my Christianity.

An atheist would base their stance more commonly on a lack of evidence for Gods existance, not on looking for evidence of his non existance.

SDooM wrote: »

Yes but we're getting into orbiting teapot territory here. (I am so glad I lurked for ages in here and Christianity before I started posting, proving the non existence of an extra dimensional deity, this place could melt your brain if not careful )

This is hard. I might go back to lurking myself.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

So, according to my definition of faith, atheists believe that there is no God. They reach this belief on the basis of some evidence, but lack conclusive proof.

PDN wrote: »

The non-existence of God cannot be proven.

Can you see what the problem is here?

PDN

SDooM wrote: »

It was pointed out on the thread this sprang from that most Atheists are happy to accept there may be a god- just that evidence for them suggests against one which seems to be constucted to exactly suits a society at a given times purpose. Most atheists do not reject the idea of "God" in general per se.

If someone is an evangelical Christian in Saudi Arabia, or indeed a Scientologist in Ireland, then it would seem that they meet your definition of an atheist. Any countercultural expression of religion rejects a concept of God that appears constructed to suit a society at a given time's purpose.

In the old days an atheist was someone who didn't believe in the existence of God. Life is much more complicated nowadays.

iUseVi

Sure atheism cannot be proved logically with material evidence. So you could (weakly) argue that is it a faith position.

However, as SDooM mentioned, we are perilously close to talking about teapots again....
The fact is that atheism doesn't require the belief in specific dogmas. This is where it differs from religions. In Christianity you have to believe a whole rake of things, none of which have any evidence. (unless of course you count holy texts.)

So perhaps the amount of faith required is proportional to both the absurdity and amount of things that you are required to believe in.

faith = absurdity multiplied by number of dogmas.

Since atheism has no dogmas, none of which are absurd, little or no faith is required.

daveharnett

SDooM wrote: »

Could Atheism be defined as the rejection of things which cannot be proven, then? In a very simple way?

I wouldn't put it that way. Many scientific theories cannot be proven *yet*. We accept them on the basis that they offer the most probable available explaination of observable phenomena. The key is that theories are revised or thrown away entirely if the evidence points to a more probable model.

My athiesm would reject the usefulness of a model (eg religion) which is circular in nature and as such can never be disproved by observable evidence.

Doctor DooM

PDN wrote: »

If someone is an evangelical Christian in Saudi Arabia, or indeed a Scientologist in Ireland, then it would seem that they meet your definition of an atheist. Any countercultural expression of religion rejects a concept of God that appears constructed to suit a society at a given time's purpose.

In the old days an atheist was someone who didn't believe in the existence of God. Life is much more complicated nowadays.

Still picking me up a little wrong I think...

I am saying, if asked if a god exists, I say "suppose so".

However, if asked if the Christian God or Xenu exists, (which I regard as human constructs from the available evidence) I would reply "all evidence indicates computer says no."

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

'Faith', as it used by myself and many other believers, means to accept a proposition on the basis of some evidence, but without conclusive proof. However, many atheists use the word 'faith' to mean accepting a proposition with no evidence.

Not exactly.

Wikipedia defines "faith" as a belief unsupported or contradicted by evidence. I would see it more as a trust that something or someone will make things better for the person or people in general, despite evidence to the contrary.

"Faith" is nearly always used in this context, particularly in religious circles, for example "having faith that God knows what he is doing" or "have faith that God has a plan for everyone". These phrases are used when it looks like the outcome will not actually be good.

It is basically saying "I know things look bad, but trust that it will work out in the end"

If things looked like they would work out well in the end this trust wouldn't be necessary, and as such "faith" wouldn't be necessary.

In the context of religion and faith that God exists in the first place, it is basically saying "I know it may sometimes look like God doesn't exist, I know you may have doubts or question, but trust that he does. Have faith"

PDN

Dades wrote: »

Can you see what the problem is here?

The problem is that the existence or non-existence of God cannot be proven. There is evidence both for God's existence and against God's existence. You and I assess that evidence differently and reach differing conclusions. Each of those conclusions requires faith - faith that is based on evidence.

Doctor DooM

iUseVi wrote: »

faith = absurdity multiplied by number of dogmas.

Going in my sig.

EDIT: but not if it means I wouldn't be allowed to post in Christianity... a ruling PDN?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Not exactly.

Wikipedia defines "faith" as a belief unsupported or contradicted by evidence. I would see it more as a trust that something or someone will make things better for the person or people in general, despite evidence to the contrary.

"Faith" is nearly always used in this context, particularly in religious circles, for example "having faith that God knows what he is doing" or "have faith that God has a plan for everyone". These phrases are used when it looks like the outcome will not actually be good.

It is basically saying "I know things look bad, but trust that it will work out in the end"

If things looked like they would work out well in the end this trust wouldn't be necessary, and as such "faith" wouldn't be necessary.

In the context of religion and faith that God exists in the first place, it is basically saying "I know it may sometimes look like God doesn't exist, I know you may have doubts or question, but trust that he does. Have faith"

I know it looks as if the sun is revolving around the earth, but I have faith that, contrary to appearances, the earth actually revolves around the sun.

My reason for such faith is that I have weighed the evidence presented to me, and I trust the authorities (my Dad, teachers at school, books etc) that tell me that the earth revolves around the sun.

seamus

The key I think is that atheism doesn't offer any absolutes. It basically states that on the balance of probabilities based on our current model of the universe, God does not exist.

Atheism doesn't say that this is an absolute - in fact it challenges itself to continually test the "correctness"* of the statement.

All other faith-based system require a static belief based on a fixed body of "evidence", which is not challenged or questioned.

To have faith, you have to have 100% assuredness and certainty that something is correct, ignoring all evidence presented. Having faith means not questioning your assertion - after all, if you're going to question it, then clearly you're not sure. Since atheism by its nature continually questions itself and looks for more answers, it can't be considered "faith" IMO.

*It is impossible to say that a theory is 100% correct. All you can do is test your theory against the current scientific model. As more knowledge is gained and the theory continues to hold up or be supported by new evidence, the "correctness" of the theory tends towards 100%

RealEstateKing

is, neccessarily, what you might call "Practical Agnosticism"

As with any other thing, a scientist will always say, "Well according to the evidence we have now and the hundreds of experiments we've done up to now, x appears to be true". Its is of course possible that a further discovery will overturn this completely, but we only go on the evidence we now have."

This doesnt take faith. It is actually a certain stubborn unwillingness to take anything on faith. If you dont take things on faith, you're left with things for which there is evidence. God is not one of those things.

Furthermore it is not simply a question of saying "Well there's no evidence, so I dont beleive it." It is also to do with the fact that the God of the Abrahamic religions is logically incompatible with himself, even if we disregard the evidence - You cant have an infinitely powerful all loving God , that casts people into eternal suffering for having a ****, to put it crudely.

PDN

SDooM wrote: »

Going in my sig.

EDIT: but not if it means I wouldn't be allowed to post in Christianity... a ruling PDN?

Hey, we allow Wicknight's bull**** about his posts improving mankind - so any old tosh is obviously allowed in sigs.

iUseVi

SDooM wrote: »

Going in my sig.

EDIT: but not if it means I wouldn't be allowed to post in Christianity... a ruling PDN?

<blush>

Dades

PDN wrote: »

The problem is that the existence or non-existence of God cannot be proven. There is evidence both for God's existence and against God's existence. You and I assess that evidence differently and reach differing conclusions. Each of those conclusions requires faith - faith that is based on evidence.

But I don't require anything - it's just what I believe. I can sit here now and say I just don't (can't) believe in human gods. It's not a faith thing at all. It doesn't affect my life, there are no direct outcomes of my belief - nothing that hinges on the question.

You require faith to believe in your God, as Christianity is so much more than does something exist or not - it's a whole way of life - it's the word of God - and so much of what is claimed cannot be evidenced.

Associating atheism with you word "faith" is just a ploy to somehow put non-belief on a par with actual "Faiths".

stereoroid

PDN wrote: »

So, according to my definition of faith, atheists believe that there is no God. They reach this belief on the basis of some evidence, but lack conclusive proof. Therefore atheism is a faith position just as is my Christianity.

Can you spot the difference between the following two statements?
i) I believe there are no gods
ii) I do not believe there are gods.

If you're going to insist on telling atheists (or anybody) what they believe, or not, in contradiction to what the atheists themselves have said (myself included), then this is not a discussion.

JimiTime

Here is the definition I find in most dictionaries I've looked at.

An ATHEIST is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings

Now we've had a few ellaborations on that below:

Seamus wrote:

The key I think is that atheism doesn't offer any absolutes. It basically states that on the balance of probabilities based on our current model of the universe, God does not exist.

Atheism doesn't say that this is an absolute - in fact it challenges itself to continually test the "correctness"* of the statement.

So there is an atheistic system? Which challenges itself to test its correctness? Care to elaborate?

Real estate king wrote:

is, neccessarily, what you might call "Practical Agnosticism"

As with any other thing, a scientist will always say, "Well according to the evidence we have now and the hundreds of experiments we've done up to now, x appears to be true". Its is of course possible that a further discovery will overturn this completely, but we only go on the evidence we now have."

This doesnt take faith. It is actually a certain stubborn unwillingness to take anything on faith. If you dont take things on faith, you're left with things for which there is evidence. God is not one of those things.

Furthermore it is not simply a question of saying "Well there's no evidence, so I dont beleive it." It is also to do with the fact that the God of the Abrahamic religions is logically incompatible with himself, even if we disregard the evidence - You cant have an infinitely powerful all loving God , that casts people into eternal suffering for having a ****, to put it crudely.

Atheism is not about specific religions though is it? The fact that rather than saying you don't know, you make the stand and say 'I don't believe in a higher power'. Thats a leap of faith in itself. the fact is, you don't 'know', but you 'believe'. You may have reasons for this belief, but its certainly not based on anything scientific. Science has nothing to do with this discussion really.

Wicknight wrote:

An atheist says that the human invented concepts of a "higher power" (ie gods) are just that, human inventions, with no grounding in reality. If there is a higher power you guys don't know what it is. You made yours up. Your "higher power" is invented, by humans, modeled on humans, for very human purposes and needs. If there is an actual higher power or intelligence this is purely coincidental.

Am a die hard atheist and I have absolutely no trouble with the possibility that some intelligent entity created or caused the creation of the universe, or created or caused the formation of life throughout the universe. I see absolutely no evidence or this at all, so at the moment I do not consider it a likely explanation, but it is certainly possible and I would be fascinated by any evidence that did point to that. I find the idea of life creating other kinds life fascinating, particularly as humans are getting close to that point ourselves.

Atheism is not the rejection of limitless realm of what we do not know with regard to these higher powers, it is the reject of what you guys claim to already know about it

Ok so an atheist is is not someone who 'denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings'. They are people who deny the religious models they are aware of? This seems to go against the dictionary definition.

Is there a precise definition? or is it generally different strokes for different folks?

It seems that most are saying they are open to the concept of a divine being, which i never thought could be an atheist position

Doctor DooM

JimiTime wrote: »

Here is the definition I find in most dictionaries I've looked at.

An ATHEIST is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings

Now we've had a few ellaborations on that below:




So there is an atheistic system? Which challenges itself to test its correctness? Care to elaborate?



Atheism is not about specific religions though is it? The fact that rather than saying you don't know, you make the stand and say 'I don't believe in a higher power'. Thats a leap of faith in itself. the fact is, you don't 'know', but you 'believe'. You may have reasons for this belief, but its certainly not based on anything scientific. Science has nothing to do with this discussion really.




Ok so an atheist is is not someone who 'denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings'. They are people who deny the religious models they are aware of? This seems to go against the dictionary definition.

Is there a precise definition? or is it generally different strokes for different folks?

It seems that most are saying they are open to the concept of a divine being, which i never thought could be an atheist position

Here's the issue I think you are having... there is no atheist organisation which guides or commands or orders the atheist movement. There is no standard issue atheist with textbook beliefs or a textbook itself. Atheism is not analagous of religion, it's the lack of it.

For me, denying the possiblilty of a god would make me as "bad" as any religious type who assumes their god is the one true correct god and all other gods are faked.

JimiTime

stereoroid wrote: »

Can you spot the difference between the following two statements?
i) I believe there are no gods
ii) I do not believe there are gods.

If you're going to insist on telling atheists (or anybody) what they believe, or not, in contradiction to what the atheists themselves have said (myself included), then this is not a discussion.

I took this from the link you provided.

stereoroid wrote:

Well, I think it's because the dictionary definition of "atheist" is old, and too coarse. The OED definition assumes active denial of the existence of God, which is only one viewpoint. Let me illustrate by drawing up a table of who believes what, in my understanding that is:

Propositions:
1. I believe in a higher power, somewhere.
2. I believe in a personal God who watches over me.
3. I do not see any valid evidence for the existence of a god or gods.
4. I firmly believe that there are no gods here or anywhere else.
5. I believe that the question, of the existence of a god or gods, can never be answered either way.

Code:
Prop.: 1 2 3 4 5
Theist Y Y N N N
Pantheist Y N ? N ?
Agnostic ? ? Y N Y
Hard Atheist N N Y Y N
Weak Atheist* N N Y N N

So if you are saying, that this is definitive, then a hard atheist believes: 4. I firmly believe that there are no gods here or anywhere else.

So those that are saying that this is not the case are 'weak atheists' or 'agnostic atheists'.

As I said, point 4 is a leap of faith.

JimiTime

SDooM wrote: »

Here's the issue I think you are having... there is no atheist organisation which guides or commands or orders the atheist movement. There is no standard issue atheist with textbook beliefs or a textbook itself. Atheism is not analagous of religion, it's the lack of it.

For me, denying the possiblilty of a god would make me as "bad" as any religious type who assumes their god is the one true correct god and all other gods are faked.

Then maybe 'atheist' is the wrong description for you. Maybe just saying, 'i don't really know, but i don't believe any religious explainations I've heard'. Why do you feel the need to define yourself as 'atheist'?