Atheism=Faith

[Andiferous]

Ha-ha-hum

As a disclaimer, the placement of my post isn't a cryptic message to anyone in particular, but just a random "a-ha" thing, as Aught3 experienced yesterday.

The delicate difference betwixt belief and faith is only evident, in my experience, by those who can also, delicately, observe the difference between truth and the randomness of reality. In other words, The semantic details between belief and faith hinge on understanding that there is no truth in reality. That rather changes the gameplay, I'd say.

It could be said beliefs are all we have, as we have no absolute knowledge. So belief is a completely justifiable adjective.

And I could get deeper still, but I tend to overspeak myself at times.

Petro away then

 

[ImprobableJoe]

It could be said beliefs are all we have, as we have no absolute knowledge. So belief is a completely justifiable adjective.

I think I anticipated that...

There's a difference between justified belief based in evidence, and unjustified belief based on faith... where "faith" means "made up bullshit".

 

[Andiferous]

It could be said beliefs are all we have, as we have no absolute knowledge. So belief is a completely justifiable adjective.

I think I anticipated that...

There's a difference between justified belief based in evidence, and unjustified belief based on faith... where "faith" means "made up bullshit".

Of course. But there, I was differenciating the terms belief and faith.
And as you suggest, they are indeed different things.

 

[YesIAMJames]

I can run 100m is 8.9 seconds but refuse to go in to the Olympics because I don't want the attention.

Do you believe me?
Is it possible you could be wrong?
Does admitting that there is a slim chance you're wrong mean that you are agnostic about my running ability?
No.

It's the same with rational atheist.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I can run 100m is 8.9 seconds but refuse to go in to the Olympics because I don't want the attention.

Do you believe me?
Is it possible you could be wrong?
Does admitting that there is a slim chance you're wrong mean that you are agnostic about my running ability?
No.

It's the same with rational atheist.

I can run a mile in 1 minute. Guaranteed.

 

[Lurking_Logic]

Putting aside the exact definition of Atheist

Idon't think it requires faith
and even if an Atheist were to say they were 100% sure god didn't exist it doesn't necessarily amount to an absolute truth statement which would require faith

 

[FaithlessThinker]

I would summarize agnosticism and atheism like this:

                │                DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE EXISTENCE OF GOD?
                ├────────────────────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────
                │ Yes                                │ No
──────────┬─────┼────────────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────
          │ Yes │ Gnostic Theist ─ Theists think     │ Gnostic Atheist ─ A contradiction
          │     │ that they are in this category by  │ because if you have knowledge
DO        │     │ professing knowledge when there is │ about the existence of God, you
YOU       │     │ virtually none.                    │ will believe in the existence too.
HAVE      ├─────┼────────────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────
KNOWLEDGE │ No  │ Agnostic Theist ─ Theists          │ Agnostic Atheist ─ All agnostics
ABOUT     │     │ belong to this category because    │ and atheists are under this
THE       │     │ the "knowledge" that they claim    │ category, except for agnostic
EXISTENCE │     │ to have for the existence of       │ theists.
OF        │     │ God is not valid, otherwise        │
GOD?      │     │ agnostics and atheists would       │
          │     │ have accepted it and became        │
          │     │ gnostic theists themselves.        │

 

[sigen8]

Nice summary, though to be complete, I think implementing the notions of strong / weak agnosticism would be clearer.

But what about creation ?

What would be the positions of agnostics over "creation" ?

I know this is maybe pushing the current debate but it's been bugging me :lol:

 

[Yfelsung]

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

There is the same amount of faith in atheism as there is in not believing in unicorns. It does not require faith to not believe in something or claim the nonexistence of something that has absolutely no evidence.

Agnosticism speaks of what one knows, not what one believes. One can be agnostic and atheist at the same time, which you'll find the vast majority of atheists are.

 

[kenandkids]

I do not believe in gods. I do go one step further and I actually believe that there isn't a god(s). Why? Because I've read numerous texts from numerous religions. All of them have large portions known to be untrue or written for the sheer purpose of exploitation of others (read: misogyny, racism, etc.).

If nearly every example of the arguments or texts FOR a god(s) existence are proven false, what need do I have to pretend it might be true. Sagan did not have a dragon in his garage, yet I should pretend he might have in order that some Dragonist doesn't get offended or equate my disbelief with religion?

Every test ever done on souls, gods, prayer, etc., has failed. I promote the idea that if some hyper-powerful creature created the big-bang and then bailed on creation, so freaking what. It matters not in the least and there is absolutely no evidence that any such creature is currently active anywhere.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

I understand kenandkids's position.
I too believe that there is no god, but I also understand that in a debate such a proposition is not defensible, so I just tack that on myself purely as a belief. What is defensible, however, is not believing there is a god, and while I dare say that the former is the most obvious position to take, the latter is the most honest position.

 

[FaithlessThinker]

Nice summary, though to be complete, I think implementing the notions of strong / weak agnosticism would be clearer.

My goal in creating that summary was to break down knowledge and belief into two simple independent Yes or No questions, and form matrix from them.

Some talk about strong and weak atheism. Strong atheism is "I believe there is no god." Weak atheism is "I do not believe there is a god." But think about it, when asked if they believe in the existence of a god, both their answers are No. What the strong atheists do is to borrow the tool of faith from the theists into their atheism, and I would say it's not a reasonable thing to do, because as atheists, we are supposedly rejecting faith and accepting knowledge only. If strong atheists are justified in using faith to have their position, then it would automatically justify theists in using faith to have theirs.

Similarly for strong agnosticism ("It's impossible to know whether there is a god.") and weak agnosticism ("We currently do not know if there is a god, but future generations may find out."), both the parties would answer No when asked if they have any knowledge about the existence of god. Once again, strong agnosticism utilizes faith because it asserts without conclusive evidence* that we cannot answer the question about the existence of god.** Strong agnosticism is also not reasonable because human knowledge is driven to new heights by ignorance. If you do not know something you try to find it out. That's how knowledge increases.

* It's very easy to confuse what the conclusive evidence of impossibility is. We tend to think that because something could not be done until now after a huge number of tries, it's impossible to do it. But history has proven us wrong many times. What is really impossible should be shown so by correct logical reasoning. For example, human beings can't fly because they don't have wings, not because they tried flapping their arms for millions of years and nothing happened. (Please don't talk about airplanes, I'm not talking about that kind of flying.)

** Interestingly, a number of theists also claim strong agnosticism, deliberately putting themselves under the category of agnostic theist. Have you heard of an argument that sounds like this? "It's beyond the scope of human knowledge to find out the ways of God and the heavens, hence I simply take it by a [huge] leap of faith."

But what about creation ? What would be the positions of agnostics over "creation" ?

That is beyond the scope of this summary because it concerns only with belief in and knowledge about the existence of god.

While theism and atheism are positions specifically about belief in god, agnosticism and gnosticism are positions that can be extended over anything, because the definition concerns with whether you have knowledge or don't. In my summary, I limit the terms to mean only knowledge about god, because:
- I'm trying to address belief in and knowledge about the existence of god. (As just mentioned)
- Most people understand agnosticism to be about god, and not one of all the other things one could be gnostic or agnostic about.

However, you can also be agnostic or gnostic about creation. In this case, I'm gnostic because of my knowledge about Darwinian evolution, which is the only reasonable conclusion that accounts for the evidence we find. Biblical creation (or any view that suggests universe or anything in it was created by a divine being) would fail to be a knowledge because there is no reasoning or evidence to support it, and it's taken merely by faith. Someone who believes in creationism would be a creationist.

I'm a gnostic acreationist, and an agnostic atheist.

 

[borrofburi]

I understand kenandkids's position.
I too believe that there is no god, but I also understand that in a debate such a proposition is not defensible, so I just tack that on myself purely as a belief. What is defensible, however, is not believing there is a god, and while I dare say that the former is the most obvious position to take, the latter is the most honest position.

I just compare god to leprechauns, zeus, unicorns, and thor: what you believe and think about those four likely approximates what I believe and think of "god".

 

[sigen8]

My goal in creating that summary was to break down knowledge and belief into two simple independent Yes or No questions, and form matrix from them.

Some talk about strong and weak atheism. Strong atheism is "I believe there is no god." Weak atheism is "I do not believe there is a god." But think about it, when asked if they believe in the existence of a god, both their answers are No. What the strong atheists do is to borrow the tool of faith from the theists into their atheism, and I would say it's not a reasonable thing to do, because as atheists, we are supposedly rejecting faith and accepting knowledge only. If strong atheists are justified in using faith to have their position, then it would automatically justify theists in using faith to have theirs.

Similarly for strong agnosticism ("It's impossible to know whether there is a god.") and weak agnosticism ("We currently do not know if there is a god, but future generations may find out."), both the parties would answer No when asked if they have any knowledge about the existence of god. Once again, strong agnosticism utilizes faith because it asserts without conclusive evidence* that we cannot answer the question about the existence of god.** Strong agnosticism is also not reasonable because human knowledge is driven to new heights by ignorance. If you do not know something you try to find it out. That's how knowledge increases.

* It's very easy to confuse what the conclusive evidence of impossibility is. We tend to think that because something could not be done until now after a huge number of tries, it's impossible to do it. But history has proven us wrong many times. What is really impossible should be shown so by correct logical reasoning. For example, human beings can't fly because they don't have wings, not because they tried flapping their arms for millions of years and nothing happened. (Please don't talk about airplanes, I'm not talking about that kind of flying.)

** Interestingly, a number of theists also claim strong agnosticism, deliberately putting themselves under the category of agnostic theist. Have you heard of an argument that sounds like this? "It's beyond the scope of human knowledge to find out the ways of God and the heavens, hence I simply take it by a [huge] leap of faith."

Interesting ideas, the idea of strong / weak agnosticism is indeed irrevelant to the summary when explained that way. An as you said, the evidence of impossibility can be very confusing, and can be used in theism or atheism.

** I have heard arguments that could be "put" in the agnostic theist, and it is not that uncommun I think. Well I think many theist are actually in this category, where they know it's impossible to prove that God (or else) exist, and are using that opinion to bring non-scientific arguments or ignorance to support their faith.

That is beyond the scope of this summary because it concerns only with belief in and knowledge about the existence of god.

While theism and atheism are positions specifically about belief in god, agnosticism and gnosticism are positions that can be extended over anything, because the definition concerns with whether you have knowledge or don't. In my summary, I limit the terms to mean only knowledge about god, because:
- I'm trying to address belief in and knowledge about the existence of god. (As just mentioned)
- Most people understand agnosticism to be about god, and not one of all the other things one could be gnostic or agnostic about.

Didn't think at all at this explanation. We can indeed have a gnostic / agnostic "point of view" over various things. Returning to the main subjet, I think there is much confusion about beliefs and faith, and we have to have a clear and precise definition of both before even thinking of a comparison between atheism and faith.

Great discussion btw

 

[topstarclub]

I think atheism describes an absence of god beliefs.