Atheism=Faith

[OunknownO]

As for me, no party can provide 100% accurate answer. When an atheist says there is no god you just got to believe him, the same as the one person who says that God exists ... It all boils down again to faith. And that's why I don't like the view of atheists. they say "God does not exists" and that's it. Same as Church dogma. I'm agnostic, and this subspecies agnostics:

Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism")
The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day when there is evidence we can find something out."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

I think that for now this is the most accurate answer if you look at it from a rational point of view.


What do you think?


PS. Sorry for grammar error's english is not my first language

 

[Aught3]

Re: Atheism=religion

I think atheism describes an absence of god beliefs.

 

[OunknownO]

Re: Atheism=religion

I think atheism describes an absence of god beliefs.

Yeah but you still belive that there is no god(not you personally)

 

[lrkun]

As for me, no party can provide 100% accurate answer. When an atheist says there is no god you just got to believe him, the same as the one person who says that God exists ... It all boils down again to faith. And that's why I don't like the view of atheists. they say "God does not exists" and that's it. Same as Church dogma. I'm agnostic, and this subspecies agnostics:

Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism")
The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day when there is evidence we can find something out."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

I think that for now this is the most accurate answer if you look at it from a rational point of view.


What do you think?


PS. Sorry for grammar error's english is not my first language

NO. Faith is not involved in atheism, because an atheist does not claim there is no god. An atheist lacks the BELIEF in a god. The keyword is belief and not the existence of a god.

However, agnosticism is okay. It's not a bad choice. If you are an agnostic, I can respect that.

 

[Knight Templar]

Re: Atheism=religion

I think atheism describes an absence of god beliefs.

Yeah but you still belive that there is no god(not you personally)

He might but atheism denotes a lack of belief in god/gods. So while a person who believes no god/s exist is atheist, so is a person who simply lacks the belief, does not care or is waiting for more evidence before coming to a decision.
I think Buddhists are technicality atheist despite being a religion.

 

[monitoradiation]

If you answer "No" to the following question, you are an atheist.

"Do you believe that a god exists?"

How do you have "faith" for a lack of a belief?

 

[Daealis]

The most defensible position would be an agnostic atheist, one lacking the beliefs(not denying) of deities but willing to submit to the fact that there might be some information that might prove the existence of some definition of god.

It is not however unreasonable to go one step further and claim that every given god that entales a supernatural element in it can never be proven(given that evidence can be recorded/verified somehow, which anything supernatural can't by definition be), therefore getting rid of the agnostic part and go full on strong atheist.

But the notion of atheism being faith, that's just poor trolling of a lame and old argument.

 

[Time Lord]

I am not a atheist but some of my friends are and we always have an argument about the existance of God, but what i have come to realise is that most atheist belive in answers from science rather than religion.
But science and religion are completly different because science is based on fact and evidence while religion is based on belief and faith which athiest don't have that because they need evidence.

 

[Squawk]

I am not a atheist but some of my friends are and we always have an argument about the existance of God, but what i have come to realise is that most atheist belive in answers from science rather than religion.
But science and religion are completly different because science is based on fact and evidence while religion is based on belief and faith which athiest don't have that because they need evidence.

Quite, so what possible reason could you have for accepting any faith based postulate?

 

[lrkun]

I am not a atheist but some of my friends are and we always have an argument about the existance of God, but what i have come to realise is that most atheist belive in answers from science rather than religion.
But science and religion are completly different because science is based on fact and evidence while religion is based on belief and faith which athiest don't have that because they need evidence.

This is a hasty generalization. Atheists have belief and faith too. Atheists believe and have faith on the scientific method. Some believe and have faith in their family, friends, and humanity. Others believe and have faith in the law. What these atheists have in common is that they lack the belief or faith in a god.

 

[Squawk]

I'd argue for a different form of faith lrkun.

Faith in family is related to the abilities, attitudes, opinions and actions of a known entity (family member).
Faith in a deity is faith in an existence postulate.

If a God is shown to exist one could then have faith in that beings abilities in the same way that one has faith in a family member. As it stands, the two concepts are not equivalent.

 

[lrkun]

I'd argue for a different form of faith lrkun.

Faith in family is related to the abilities, attitudes, opinions and actions of a known entity (family member).
Faith in a deity is faith in an existence postulate.

If a God is shown to exist one could then have faith in that beings abilities in the same way that one has faith in a family member. As it stands, the two concepts are not equivalent.

I disagree with your argument, but I can respect that. I see faith in a god the same way as faith in humans. The difference is humans/technology deliver, where god does not, however where it does, it's purely random.

In sum, it answer the question. Can I rely on you?

 

[DeusExNihilum]

I actually wrote a blog post on this, under the title "Atheism Myths"

Here is a small section of the post

In terms of faith, Atheism cannot be described as being a position of "Having faith in the claim that there is no God" because that asserts that atheism is, falsely, making a positive claim rather than rejecting/not accepting a positive claim. Atheism, therefore, could be more accurately described as lacking faith in the claim that there is a God. From this we can deduce that anyone claiming that Atheism requires faith is essentially claiming that you need faith to lack faith; A notion that truly is a stupid as it sounds.

I also address, in the comments, the difference between types of "Faith".

 

[Squawk]

I'd argue for a different form of faith lrkun.

Faith in family is related to the abilities, attitudes, opinions and actions of a known entity (family member).
Faith in a deity is faith in an existence postulate.

If a God is shown to exist one could then have faith in that beings abilities in the same way that one has faith in a family member. As it stands, the two concepts are not equivalent.

I disagree with your argument, but I can respect that. I see faith in a god the same way as faith in humans. The difference is humans/technology deliver, where god does not, however where it does, it's purely random.

In sum, it answer the question. Can I rely on you?

What are your grounds for disagreement?
In one we are discussing an existence postulate, in the other we are discussing an attitude, opinion or action.

are you saying that faith in my ability to drive is the same as faith that god exists?

 

[lrkun]

What are your grounds for disagreement?
In one we are discussing an existence postulate, in the other we are discussing an attitude, opinion or action.

are you saying that faith in my ability to drive is the same as faith that god exists?

We disagree where I don't rely on the Faith in existence postulate, where you see faith in god as such.

Where you see it as your faith in your ability to drive is not the same as faith that god exists.

I see it as your faith in your ability to drive is the same as faith where god will assure your safety.

In sum, it answers the question, can i rely on you?

Your view is valid. I'm not saying it's invalid. I'm saying, we see it differently.

 

[Squawk]

Not quite.

My argument is that my faith in my ability to drive is identical to faith that God would keep me safe. They are equivalent (though of differing magnitudes), with a precondition.

The precondition is that God exists, and of course this too must be held on faith. Thats the problem here, the equivalence can only occur after god is shown to exist.

 

[lrkun]

Not quite.

My argument is that my faith in my ability to drive is identical to faith that God would keep me safe. They are equivalent (though of differing magnitudes), with a precondition.

The precondition is that God exists, and of course this too must be held on faith. Thats the problem here, the equivalence can only occur after god is shown to exist.

I see. I forgo the part where there is a need to prove that god exists. That's the difference between our positions. Whether or not their god exists is not included in my equation, but their belief in it is.

 

[Squawk]

Bit of a major oversight init? By that logic faith that the flying spag monster will eat me for breakfast tomorrow morning is equivalent to my faith that I can walk into the kitchen if I choose. That opens up a real can of worms.

 

[lrkun]

Bit of a major oversight init? By that logic faith that the flying spag monster will eat me for breakfast tomorrow morning is equivalent to my faith that I can walk into the kitchen if I choose. That opens up a real can of worms.

I have no clue what you just said there.

In my position, it's simple, can they rely on their god. If applied can they rely on the spagetti monster, because they believe in it?

 

[Squawk]

I was attempting humour to note that granting the existence of God in order to equate two positions its a bit of a liberty (and I mean "bit" with a huge ammount of sarcasm)