atheism and theism both based on faith?

[MindHack]

Believing something that is in line with the evidence is not faith, ergo atheism is not faith.

That's exactly what I'm confused about. In Dutch it is faith when it is in line with the evidence. I don't belief. I am not a theist. No evidence has been provided whatsoever to whatever god-like creature, thus I can have faith (read: can trust the notion) no gods exist. In English however this doesn't seem to work.

There is no equivalent in Dutch for the English word faith. A person has faith (is confident) based on evidence, or he just beliefs something without proper foundation.

Televator also indicated that in English trust is used in the definition of faith and is often used interchangably. Yet only in correlation with religion. Isn't faith in English also used purely as another word to express confidence in something or someone, apart from religious matters?

Maybe a new word for religious belief (english faith, trust/belief without proof) isn't a bad idea. Or if that's not possible, disconnect the "trust"factor from belief in general.

 

[Noth]

[
That's exactly what I'm confused about. In Dutch it is faith when it is in line with the evidence. I don't belief. I am not a theist. No evidence has been provided whatsoever to whatever god-like creature, thus I can have faith (read: can trust the notion) no gods exist. In English however this doesn't seem to work.

There is no equivalent in Dutch for the English word faith. A person has faith (is confident) based on evidence, or he just beliefs something without proper foundation.

Televator also indicated that in English trust is used in the definition of faith and is often used interchangably. Yet only in correlation with religion. Isn't faith in English also used purely as another word to express confidence in something or someone, apart from religious matters?

Maybe a new word for religious belief (english faith, trust/belief without proof) isn't a bad idea. Or if that's not possible, disconnect the "trust"factor from belief in general.

Having faith that you will be paid back by your friend: "vertrouwen hebben in"

Having faith in god: "Geloven in god"

Believing in god: "Geloven dat god bestaat"

something like that.

In English the line is finer I suppose. Having two sometimes interchangeable words that can both have multiple definitions can be confusing. I guess you'll have to err... 'have faith' that 'having faith god does not exist' is just not the proper way to say it. You'd use 'not believing that god exist' instead and you might 'trust that there is no such thing as a god' based on the evidence (lack thereof) presented to you.

English... is a lovely language

 

[MindHack]

Ah, thank you for clearing that up Noth :lol:

so the question is: (As theism is widely accepted as faith based) Is not being theistic faith based, because there is no proof that god(s) don't exist?

Now, that's really an absurd question. How to provide proof for something that doesn't exist. Classic science philosophy, course 1 (black swan). Now I understand the whole agnostic part in this thread. But seriously, what an absurd question to ask if it was meant seriously. :shock:

I think my confusion was justified. Only a little bit different then I initially imagined.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

Say, isn't it about time we start calling this forum "De Coalitie voor Redevoering" or something?

Anyway, Mindhack, you don't take the sun rising every day on faith. You believe it. Perhaps putting that in Dutch will clear it up:
Je gelooft dat de zon op komt. Je stelt geen geloof in het opkomen van de zon.
Note the difference: "geloven" - believe. "geloof stellen in" - having faith. There's the (subtle) difference.

 

[Detective O'Shea]

To clear up the ambiguity of faith, let us provide a working definition of faith. Faith is no more than to believe in something as an act of will. Will is no more than to desire something and make it happen. Faith is the will to believe. Many of our beliefs are founded in our will to believe. If I'm going to believe in chimaera's and all their history, I can desire such beliefs as an act of will or faith. I could also choose to believe that chimeras simply do not exist because the evidence used in making our belief is decidedly inadequate,­. We still choose what we believe. I have little will or desire to make this leap of faith happen--I just will not believe. I demand evidence to believe in chimeras. Our believer in chimeras, has little desire for any facts. He is just willing to believe based solely on his choice which is not founded on, or his will does not require evidence. It makes them happy.

Atheists can be said to have faith as well as theists. The atheist may argue that his beliefs, his willful beliefs, are founded on sound scientific theory and data. He will show you the evidence. The theist will argue that his faith is founded on the holy spirit. He will show you this through his bliss, the joy that caries his faith. They both, atheist and theist, chose. Each satisfies his will.

Faith is to believe in something as an act of will. Will is to desire something and make it happen. Therefore, faith is founded on the will to believe. Will has created massive structures like the Hoover Dam, initiated world wars, forged technology where telescopes view the universe back to the first moments of creation, and created philosophical works that fostered revolutions in scientific, practical and speculative thought. All we experience, all of existence is the effect of natural forces and the will and its subsequent actions from conscious beings. Action is the vehicle of the will.

The philosopher, William James, in his work "The Will to Believe" suggests that we believe based on certain criteria, criteria not necessarily based on evidence. We are apt to believe based from our will to believe based solely on the outcome of the belief. He cites the case of "Pascal's Bet with God". It is not a proof of god so much, but a wager on God's existence. Accordingly, set the odds at fifty/fifty, God exists or he does not. But what are you willing to wager knowing that believers go to heaven with all the perks and benefits of everlasting life. If you are wrong and God does not exist, oblivion abounds.

On the other side, if you chose to wager that God does not exist, and he does, there is hell and damnation in the wake. If you are correct and God does not exist, you face the same fate as the believer who is wrong -- oblivion. Pascal suggests believing in God is your best bet based solely on the expected outcome. The truth and veracity of the results are still in question, but we are still likely to believe solely on the anticipated positive outcome associated with the belief. There is no benefit if God exists in this wager against God view. The benefits are great only if you believe that God exists, if you wager correctly and a large wager is likely made accordingly.

This discussion is expanded in my soon to be published book, Proof of God: An Ontological Advantage. There is physical and scientific support for atheism. Atheism is supported by facts found in experience of the natural world. Metaphysical naturalism, a belief that many atheist hold, explains existence through science and the natural world. This is a belief not based on a desirable outcome but a belief based on cold and hard scientific facts. The outcome is cold and indifferent. What does one look forward to with this belief? If all you can look forward to at death is non-existence, a negative expression of Descartes' "cogito ergo sum", or in English "I think therefore I am", with thinking being proof of one's existence, may be called the "anti-cogito" as it is described and stated as such, "I do not think therefore I am not." This anti-cogito is inconceivable to most, because most cannot imagine themselves as a non-existent and this is not a favorable outcome for the believer, so not accepted, or even comprehended by most. I am not sure non-existence is a possible state to comprehend, because you still can only imagine yourself -- see yourself -- in a non-existing place or space which is still somewhere and, if you are imagining yourself somewhere, you still exist in that place even if the place is oblivion or a void of some kind. Furthermore, as we are always thinking, we cannot imagine not thinking, because if we did we still would be thinking of not thinking. The permanence associated with our own existence gives way to the desire to believe in an after life, a favorable concept and outcome, the desire to exist even beyond death which is comprehensible and desirable to most.

In the same view of rational thought, proof of God may be supported by the logical proofs constructed by many philosophers throughout the ages. Philosophy offers logical proofs of God's existence -- the ontological proof and "The Five Ways" are examples -- proofs based on reason both a priori (from pure reason) and a posteriori (from only our experience). In contrast, many, if not most, believers prefer proving God's existence through revelation of the word and the invocation of the holy spirit --nothing to do with reason. Our will to believe is often founded on some basis,our outcome based will to believe, our faith in what is a desirable outcome --no matter how weak or strong the evidence is to support another view.

It takes allot of faith to be an atheist. Because what if your wrong. What' is the benefit if the atheist is right or wrong?

All faith is the will to believe and is a major factor in how we form beliefs in general.


An atheist's only requiremen,­t is the denial of a deity.

This is based on an excerpt from the novel, Proof of God: The Metaphysical Detective by A. J. Grady.

 

[australopithecus]

IOn the other side, if you chose to wager that God does not exist, and he does, there is hell and damnation in the wake. If you are correct and God does not exist, you face the same fate as the believer who is wrong -- oblivion. Pascal suggests believing in God is your best bet based solely on the expected outcome. The truth and veracity of the results are still in question, but we are still likely to believe solely on the anticipated positive outcome associated with the belief. There is no benefit if God exists in this wager against God view. The benefits are great only if you believe that God exists, if you wager correctly and a large wager is likely made accordingly.

Pascal's wager instafail.

 

[kenandkids]

You base your entire argument on two of the weakest arguments ever devised?

 

[Prolescum]

You base your entire argument on two of the weakest arguments ever devised?

Speaking of weak arguments...

 

[australopithecus]

On topic please.

 

[Detective O'Shea]

You base your entire argument on two of the weakest arguments ever devised?

Your answer is terse and unsupported by facts, counter arguments or data. William James was a great mind in the philosophy of psychology and biology and his concepts have withstood the the test of time. I f you can add to the value of his incites, please be more specific, more informative and less arrogant. It takes more than one statement to refute an argument.

 

[kenandkids]

Your answer is terse and unsupported by facts, counter arguments or data. William James was a great mind in the philosophy of psychology and biology and his concepts have withstood the the test of time. I f you can add to the value of his incites, please be more specific, more informative and less arrogant. It takes more than one statement to refute an argument.

Perhaps you could spend a few minutes perusing this or any other freethinker or rational site. One thing that you will notice is that the ontological and wager concepts are easily dismantled by nearly anyone who donates a spare ten minutes to their contemplation.

 

[kenandkids]

You base your entire argument on two of the weakest arguments ever devised?

Speaking of weak arguments...

Very funny. Do I really need to walk you through the various religions showing where each claims to be the correct one and to spread the word on behalf of the unenlightened and that each particular god's law is more important than man's law? Or are you just feeling snippy?

 

[Detective O'Shea]

Your answer is terse and unsupported by facts, counter arguments or data. William James was a great mind in the philosophy of psychology and biology and his concepts have withstood the the test of time. I f you can add to the value of his incites, please be more specific, more informative and less arrogant. It takes more than one statement to refute an argument.

Perhaps you could spend a few minutes perusing this or any other freethinker or rational site. One thing that you will notice is that the ontological and wager concepts are easily dismantled by nearly anyone who donates a spare ten minutes to their contemplation.

I am an avowed, rational atheist and scientist, a chemist by profession. My main purpose in writing that excerpt was not to support argue Pascale's wager or the ontological argument, or for that matter any proof of god. I agree with you they are all easily defeated.

My main point was in James' "Will to Believe". In that treatise he lists several criteria people use to formulate beliefs. The key point he makes is that much of what we believe is based on our will. James uses Pascal's Wager a an extreme example of the will's effect on our belief or faith (to use the F word loosely). I think his contention that we will our beliefs has merits in all belief systems, fact or religious based. Even the highest degree of certainty for a theory approaches 3 or 4 nines, i.e. the theory approaches certainty without limit. However, one instance of a failed theory voids it so that the theory must be rejected. It is that element of minuscule doubt that requires our will to believe. At some point, our will to believe carries us to certitude. We feel safe. We believe in our inductive principles that all our science is founded on. Induction is precarious ground for a purist or empiricist. There is the sun that comes up every morning. We know this by induction. Is this not much like the chicken who sees the sun every morning when fed, when one day the sun comes up and it gets its neck run instead? We must will ourselves to believe in that inductive certainty, because what is the alternative?--despair and Hume's skepticism. The foundation of our beliefs would be shaken to the core without the act of will--the will to believe. Its not just our beliefs. Its our trust in them.

 

[borrofburi]

To clear up the ambiguity of faith, let us provide a working definition of faith. Faith is no more than to believe in something as an act of will. Will is no more than to desire something and make it happen. Faith is the will to believe. Many of our beliefs are founded in our will to believe.

This is a TERRIBLE definition of faith. By that definition, I have "faith" that I'm not going to spontaneously fall through my chair (or the ground for that matter). Hell, I have "faith" in basically everything I believe, whether or not that something is based in evidence or not.

 

[Prolescum]

Very funny. Do I really need to walk you through the various religions showing where each claims to be the correct one and to spread the word on behalf of the unenlightened and that each particular god's law is more important than man's law? Or are you just feeling snippy?

No and no, but well done for confusing the bum-effluence above with the actual conversation that took place. That's quite an achievement given that you were involved and I even linked directly to it.

You said you could argue that all Muslims and all other religious people harbour a secret desire to oppress their fellow countrymen. I asked you to show me some evidence and to make your case.

You didn't.

Only you know why.

Of course, I'm pretty good at guessing and this one's easy.

 

[australopithecus]

I vaguely remember asking to keep this on topic. I find myself having to do it again. I really don't want to do it a third time.

 

[Prolescum]

Yes, it is rather annoying when you're ignored.

 

[Welshidiot]

@ Detective O'Shea

I don't know what you think you're playing at mate, but this is the thread for discussing the defining characteristics of true dragons, and chimeras do not fall into that category no matter how much fire they breathe.

Honestly, some people just haven't got a clue.