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

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

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.

You don't have faith that the sun isn't revolving around the Earth, you have further evidence that it isn't. If you didn't have further evidence and you believed it wasn't then you would have faith.

Faith is trusting in the correctness of a position despite the evidence pointing to the contrary position, or trusting in the beneficial actions of another despite the evidence suggesting that this will not come.

That is what faith is. If that doesn't describe your attitudes towards God then fair enough, faith is the wrong word for your state of belief, but there is little point changing the meaning of the word to fit your state of belief.

PDN wrote: »

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.

If you trust the "authorities" as you call them, without understanding their evidence or reasoning (which I imagine you do understand), then you have faith in them to be correct, despite all the evidence you perceive supporting a contradictory position.

But as you say that isn't what you did. The evidence for the revolution of the Earth around the sun over rides the evidence that the sun moves around the Earth, so accepting that position is not a matter of faith in the authorities.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

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'?

Probably because that is exactly what atheist means

atheism comes from the French athéisme which means one who denies the existence of god which itself probably came from the Greek atheos, a-theos meaning god-less.

Atheists do not deny the existence of any unknown or undefined alien intelligence that may or may not exist some where else in or outside the universe.

They deny the existence of your gods and goddesses.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Probably because that is exactly what atheist means

atheism comes from the French athéisme which means one who denies the existence of god which itself probably came from the Greek atheos, a-theos meaning god-less.

Atheists do not deny the existence of any unknown or undefined alien intelligence that may or may not exist some where else in or outside the universe.

They deny the existence of your gods and goddesses.

Thing is, you are the only one I've ever heard give that definition wicknight. According to steroroid you'd be a 'weak atheist' or an 'agnostic atheist'.

Doctor DooM

JimiTime wrote: »

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'?

Who said I do? I don't really care much for labels tbh.

pH

faith
n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

faith
Noun

1. strong belief in something, esp. without proof
2. a specific system of religious beliefs
3. complete confidence or trust, such as in a person or remedy
4. allegiance to a person or cause
5. bad faith dishonesty
6. good faith honesty [Latin fides trust, confidence]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith

Words just mean what we've all agreed they mean, they are tokens representing concepts. We all agree that Christianity, Islam and Judaism are faiths, I cannot see how atheism is a faith in the same sense of the word, it isn't a system of religious beliefs. Any definition of the word faith that included atheism would include everything.

An atheist is someone who answers the question "Do you believe in a personal God(s)?" with an answer other than "yes".

Technically atheists are "non-theists", theists being those who believe in a personal intervening rule-giving sin-forgiving kind of God. This means that all agnostics are atheists, as are all deists (those who believe in a woolly philosophical kind of prime move God).

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Thing is, you are the only one I've ever heard give that definition wicknight. According to steroroid you'd be a 'weak atheist' or an 'agnostic atheist'.

As opposed to what?

JimiTime

pH wrote: »

faith
faith
Noun
[*]strong belief in something, esp. without proof

thats what we're talking about in this context. Its usually the meaning that I as a christian am derided for.

JimiTime

SDooM wrote: »

Who said I do? I don't really care much for labels tbh.

Apologies, I assumed you were. I agree with you on the labels also. Obviously some feel strong enough to define themselves with such labels though.

pH

JimiTime wrote: »

thats what we're talking about in this context. Its usually the meaning that I as a christian am derided for.

Then the thread title is phrased in a confusing way, in this context the question is better phrased as "is atheism a faith based position" or "does it require faith" to be an atheist.

This had been hashed out lots of times before, and you get one of these 2 answers.

"No"

or

"Yes" for those you can argue that absolutely every possible thought or belief that a human has is "faith based". There is no truth, nothing is provable or knowable for certain, and in this paradigm then atheism is a faith position, but only in the same way as "Dogs exist" is a faith position.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

As opposed to what?

Read the post on the last page. Its got it all mapped out. I think its as opposed to a hard atheist. Of course, if we get into degree's of atheism, it really means that no-one can actually define 'atheist'. Thats kind of what my point was on the thread about 'belief system' though. Some folk take the basic tenet 'I don't believe in any gods or divine beings', and set up a system of belief from it. This can include either watering it down, like saying you only reject what religion says; or standing right by it and saying 'I firmly believe that there are no gods here or anywhere else'.

JimiTime

pH wrote: »

Then the thread title is phrased in a confusing way, in this context the question is better phrased as "is atheism a faith based position" or "does it require faith" to be an atheist.

This had been hashed out lots of times before, and you get one of these 2 answers.

"No"

or

"Yes" for those you can argue that absolutely every possible thought or belief that a human has is "faith based". There is no truth, nothing is provable or knowable for certain, and in this paradigm then atheism is a faith position, but only in the same way as "Dogs exist" is a faith position.

I didn't set up the thread, it was moved from another one. My point is that atheism requires a leap of faith, not that it 'is' a faith. Maybe Ddes can work his magic on it so that its clearer?

iUseVi

JimiTime wrote: »

Thing is, you are the only one I've ever heard give that definition wicknight. According to steroroid you'd be a 'weak atheist' or an 'agnostic atheist'.

I think probably 99% of atheists would say this. It's not really black and white between agnostic and atheist. Invariably the words get used interchangeably, which doesn't help matters when it comes down to definitions.

Anyone who declares "there is no God" is either stupid, lying, or has information we are not privy to. As it has been said numerous times before, nothing is 100% certain. The very "strong" atheists tend to wheel out their philosophical arguments of there being no God, but IMO people are never going to be able to use words to prove OR disprove the existence of God.

I view the strong atheists in much the same way as I view religious people. The stance is arrogant because it's just not provable.

As an aside, arguments from personal experience such as talking voices in someone's head, only mean something to that person, and can't be expected to be taken seriously by anyone else.

Now where does the faith come in?!

pH

JimiTime wrote: »

I didn't set up the thread, it was moved from another one. My point is that atheism requires a leap of faith, not that it 'is' a faith. Maybe Ddes can work his magic on it so that its clearer?

What leap of faith does atheism require? As I said in the previous post atheism requires faith only when dealing the the philosophical view that everything unprovable and nothing is true.

In that world-view there are an infinite number of faith based positions.

Let's say I claim that "Hitler is alive and well and living on Mars". Now I presume that you disagree with my claim. However if you agree that your disbelief in that statement requires "a leap of faith", ie the proposition "that Hitler is not alive and well and living on Mars" is a faith based position then I agree with you, but I think the discussion is pointless. This is what iUseVi is saying in the post above. Personally I find it banal and tedious, but if it floats your boat in that mindset atheism requires faith, but then so does the statement "Dogs exist".

If however you think that atheism requires a leap of faith but disagree that rejecting the notion that Hitler is living on Mars also requires a leap of faith, then I'd be interested in understanding why you think one requires faith and the other doesn't.

Dades

JimiTime wrote: »

Thing is, you are the only one I've ever heard give that definition wicknight. According to steroroid you'd be a 'weak atheist' or an 'agnostic atheist'.

I have heard, and given, that type of definition many times here. The notion of what is an atheist becomes unusable when the definition of God is stretched to be anything from Thor, to a super-intelligent shade of the colour blue. I'm agnostic about something completely unknown to us, but the minute someone attempts to make a claim regarding a single trait of a deity I am 'atheist' to it - unless of course a shred of evidence is offered.

JimiTime wrote: »

strong belief in something, esp. without proof

thats what we're talking about in this context. Its usually the meaning that I as a christian am derided for.

We're back with the onus of proof. I just don't get why should anyone have to have 'faith' that something doesn't exist given a complete lack of evidence.

iUseVi

pH wrote: »

What leap of faith does atheism require? As I said in the previous post atheism requires faith only when dealing the the philosophical view that everything unprovable and nothing is true.

In that world-view there are an infinite number of faith based positions.

Let's say I claim that "Hitler is alive and well and living on Mars". Now I presume that you disagree with my claim. However if you agree that your disbelief in that statement requires "a leap of faith", ie the proposition "that Hitler is not alive and well and living on Mars" is a faith based position then I agree with you, but I think the discussion is pointless.

If however you think that atheism requires a leap of faith but disagree that rejecting the notion that Hitler is living on Mars also requires on then I'd be interested in understanding why you think one requires faith and the other doesn't.

excellently put.

Dades

JimiTime wrote: »

I didn't set up the thread, it was moved from another one. My point is that atheism requires a leap of faith, not that it 'is' a faith. Maybe Ddes can work his magic on it so that its clearer?

Done. All possibilities catered for now!

JimiTime

iUseVi wrote: »

I think probably 99% of atheists would say this. It's not really black and white between agnostic and atheist. Invariably the words get used interchangeably, which doesn't help matters when it comes down to definitions.



Anyone who declares "there is no God" is either stupid, lying, or has information we are not privy to. As it has been said numerous times before, nothing is 100% certain. The very "strong" atheists tend to wheel out their philosophical arguments of there being no God, but IMO people are never going to be able to use words to prove OR disprove the existence of God

So atheists do not believe 'there is no God'.

I view the strong atheists in much the same way as I view religious people. The stance is arrogant because it's just not provable.

As an aside, arguments from personal experience such as talking voices in someone's head, only mean something to that person, and can't be expected to be taken seriously by anyone else.

Now where does the faith come in?!

Well, if an atheist in fact believes that there 'may' be a divine being, intelligent designer etc, then the leap of faith is out the window. However, the dictionary definition is at odds with this, so maybe what you're describing is not actually atheism, but your view on things? Maybe you are mis-describing yourself if you call yourself atheist.

iUseVi

JimiTime wrote: »

Well, if an atheist in fact believes that there 'may' be a divine being, intelligent designer etc, then the leap of faith is out the window. However, the dictionary definition is at odds with this, so maybe what you're describing is not actually atheism, but your view on things? Maybe you are mis-describing yourself if you call yourself atheist.

Probably so, but in that case so are most of the atheists out there. I don't know any that would entirely exclude the possibility and deserves the title of "strong atheism", although it takes all sorts...so I'm sure there is some. And those people probably deserve the word more than I do.

The word "atheist" is just so much more convenient than anything else. When someone asks me about my religious beliefs and I simply reply "atheist", they know exactly what I'm talking about; there's never really any confusion. (although sometimes it makes them angry and they shout and swear at me, but that's an entirely separate subject..:))

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Well, if an atheist in fact believes that there 'may' be a divine being, intelligent designer etc, then the leap of faith is out the window. However, the dictionary definition is at odds with this

You are using the term "god" and any form of intelligent alien agent interchangeable, which is getting quite annoying.

"gods" is a human concept, invented by humans. I can with quite a high degree of confidence, say that gods do not exist.

On the other hand I have no idea if alien intelligence exists, in this universe or outside of it, intelligence that may or may not have created things such as the universe or life on Earth.

What ever may or may not be out there it certainly isn't what we think it is. The concept of a god is a throw back to a time when we believed human like agents controlled things like the weather and the sun.

As someone else said, I don't know what is out there but I know it isn't that.

JimiTime

pH wrote: »

What leap of faith does atheism require? As I said in the previous post atheism requires faith only when dealing the the philosophical view that everything unprovable and nothing is true.

If a definitive view is taken, such as 'I don't believe any gods or divine beings exist' while not knowing the origins of life or the universe, then that is a leap of faith.

In that world-view there are an infinite number of faith based positions.

Let's say I claim that "Hitler is alive and well and living on Mars".

Before we move any further. Give me the evidence of this claim.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

You are using the term "god" and any form of intelligent alien agent interchangeable, which is getting quite annoying.

"gods" is a human concept, invented by humans. I can with quite a high degree of confidence, say that gods do not exist.

On the other hand I have no idea if alien intelligence exists, in this universe or outside of it, intelligence that may or may not have created things such as the universe or life on Earth.

What ever may or may not be out there it certainly isn't what we think it is. The concept of a god is a throw back to a time when we believed human like agents controlled things like the weather and the sun.

As someone else said, I don't know what is out there but I know it isn't that.

Annoying? Delighted to annoy you Wicknight. Call it whatever you want, gods, divine beings, creator entity etc.

It comes down to this though. Judging by what is being said, you guys are mis-defined. You are saying that there could be some force/entity/intelligent designer. That does not seem to be the definition of atheist. I take on board what you believe though. Maybe you guys need to get yourselves organised, and work out what you actually are:D

Dades

JimiTime wrote: »

Maybe you guys need to get yourselves organised, and work out what you actually are:D

Right?

seamus

Seeing as you're going on dictionary definitions, then the dicitonary definiion of "God" is

"the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe."

Atheists don't believe such a being exists and rules the universe.

Perhaps you should define what "God" is before you try to tell atheists that they may or may not believe in him.

Tim Robbins

JimiTime wrote: »

Well, if an atheist in fact believes that there 'may' be a divine being, intelligent designer etc, then the leap of faith is out the window. However, the dictionary definition is at odds with this, so maybe what you're describing is not actually atheism, but your view on things? Maybe you are mis-describing yourself if you call yourself atheist.

Atheism doesn't require a leap of faith. It's a priori. If God is defined as all loving, all knowing, all powerful why do have cyclones in Burma and children getting cancer.

Premise: Children get cancer
Conclusion: There is no all loving, all knowing, all powerful God.

There may be another type of God, but there is no all loving, all knowing, all powerful God, it's logically impossible.

iUseVi

JimiTime wrote: »

Annoying? Delighted to annoy you Wicknight. Call it whatever you want, gods, divine beings, creator entity etc.

It comes down to this though. Judging by what is being said, you guys are mis-defined. You are saying that there could be some force/entity/intelligent designer. That does not seem to be the definition of atheist. I take on board what you believe though. Maybe you guys need to get yourselves organised, and work out what you actually are:D

I think you are over-reacting to the admission that there could possibly be a creator. I still do not think that there is.

Take an example:
I (boldly)assume that you do not believe there is such a thing as Santa Claus. However, neither you nor I can prove, that there is no Santa Claus. That fact however does not mean it is likely that there is a Santa Claus, or that you should be called agnostic in regards to your belief about Santa Claus. It makes more sense to just say "I don't believe there is a Santa Claus."

For all intents and purposes, you don't believe there is a Santa Claus, and you deserve to be called an "atheist" with respect to him.

You are basically saying the same thing about a creator. Just because I and others may admit the small possibility of such a being, you think we should be called agnostic. Technically you may be correct, but the word atheist is better because it separates us from those who might give the existence of a God a higher probability.

EDIT: if in fact you do believe in Santa Claus, just ignore everything I said.; there is no help for you :)

JimiTime

^^ Tim and Seamus. I'm not defining 'God'. I'm saying 'gods, divine beings, whatever they may be'. I haven't got my Christian hat on for the sake of the discussion.

RealEstateKing

That does not seem to be the definition of atheist. I take on board what you believe though. Maybe you guys need to get yourselves organised, and work out what you actually are

My God (sorry), I cant beleive this has to be explained again.

To a scientist, no statement he makes on the basis of his experiments is ABSOLUTELY true. It is simply 'true according to what we now know"

In this sense, the earth going around the sun, is true. From all experiments we've done, and all the evidence we have, that's what we know. It is theoretically possible that some new eveidence will come to light that would overturn this.

In exactly the same way, when atheists say that God does not exist, they mean "There is no evidence now that God exists, and quite a bit of evidence that he does not exist (at least in any Abrahamic sense of him), thus we dont beleive in him."

However all of these atheists will tell you that if new evidence were to come to light, they'd be happy to change their view. This does not make them 'agnostics' - An agnostic doesnt know whether or not God exists - an atheist says "He doesnt exists as far as we know."

You see, unlike religious folk, we have to base our opinions on evidence. We're kind of stickers for it. If the evidence changes so will our point of view.

Tim Robbins

JimiTime wrote: »

^^ Tim and Seamus. I'm not defining 'God'. I'm saying 'gods, divine beings, whatever they may be'. I haven't got my Christian hat on for the sake of the discussion.

Fine. I fully accept there may be something out there that we are incapable of understanding.

Robert Winston in his book "Human" describes this as weak atheist. Bertrand Russell said to the Philosopher I am an agnostic, to the layman I am an atheist.

So that would describe my position.

iUseVi

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Robert Winston in his book "Human" describes this as weak atheist. Bertrand Russell said to the Philosopher I am an agnostic, to the layman I am an atheist.

So that would describe my position.

+1 to that.

JimiTime

iUseVi wrote: »

I think you are over-reacting to the admission that there could possibly be a creator. I still do not think that there is.

is that not an unnecessary leap though?

Take an example:
I (boldly)assume that you do not believe there is such a thing as Santa Claus. However, neither you nor I can prove, that there is no Santa Claus. That fact however does not mean it is likely that there is a Santa Claus, or that you should be called agnostic in regards to your belief about Santa Claus. It makes more sense to just say "I don't believe there is a Santa Claus."

For all intents and purposes, you don't believe there is a Santa Claus, and you deserve to be called an "atheist" with respect to him.

You are basically saying the same thing about a creator. Just because I and others may admit the small possibility of such a being, you think we should be called agnostic. Technically you may be correct, but the word atheist is better because it separates us from those who might give the existence of a God a higher probability.

But atheist or agnostic specifically deals with, gods, divine beings etc. it deals with the question of our origins. Once we bring things like santa etc into it, it just gets silly. We are talking about a serious question of the origins of the universe and of life. An atheist rules out an explaination(a divine being), without having anything to really base it on. i rule out Santa Claus' existence on the fact that we know from history he was a being made up for children.