What's so bad about faith in Atheism?

[MineMineMine]

It actually pops up now and then that atheism or science also needs faith to some extend. And i just can't see what is so bad about having faith in something. It feels like the word is high jacked here. I can still have faith in a person i just don't have any faith in the person called god.

Getting atheists arguing they don't have faith in atheism is the best way to let them appear without any compassion.

 

[lrkun]

It actually pops up know and then that atheism or science also needs faith to some extend. And i just can't see what is so bad about having faith in something. It feels like the word is high jacked here. I can still have faith in a person i just don't have any faith in the person called god.

Getting atheists arguing they don't have faith in atheism is the best way to let them appear without any compassion.

I have faith in science. ^-^ To be specific, on the scientific method.

 

[mirandansa]

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

It feels like the word is high jacked here. I can still have faith in a person i just don't have any faith in the person called god.

That is the thing though, isn't it? Faith in a person is vastly different from having faith in the existence of a god. Having faith in for example your spouse not putting a pillow on your face when you sleep is not of the same magnitude than the believe in a supernatural being that controls every aspect of our lives and we should all do what He tells us to do because He knows best.

I mean, what kind of faith are we talking about here? It's bordering equivocation fallacy, honestly.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

There's an equivocation fallacy that goes on here. "Faith" in fairies and Jesus and other made-up nonsense is "belief without evidence". "Faith" in the results of science is "belief based on logic and mountains of physical evidence". They are not the same thing at all, and when theists say that it takes "faith" to be an atheist or to accept science, they are insinuating that "belief without evidence" is basically the same as "belief based on evidence."

In other words, they're being blatantly dishonest. Dishonesty usually pisses people off, but it is a mistake to blame the victims of theistic lies for getting upset about it.

 

[Aught3]

The problem is that faith is the entire theistic argument and they then try to equivocate the type of faith they have in a god with the kind of faith people have in their friends or family. The difference is existential, they have faith a god exists we have faith that real people will behave in a certain way.

Faith is one of those words which I have no problem using in general but in conversations with theists you have to be a bit more careful. Other words like faith would include design and miracle.

 

[MineMineMine]

there have been some good responses but i was actually more aiming at: there is nothing wrong in having faith in atheism. Than that the word faith has multiple meanings.

Like here: http://forums.leagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=5593 (Strong Atheism and Faith)

Atheism shouldn't require no faith. It should just say that you are certain enough that the are no gods to say you are an atheist. Why you think so should not really be the question or should it?

 

[Yfelsung]

I used to be really anti faith, as I felt that was something that concretely set us apart from the believers. But then I realized, even if I have faith, I also have evidence for anything I believe or a complete void of evidence for anything I disbelieve.

So I have evidence and faith.

They still just got faith.

 

[DeathofSpeech]

I'm certain that god(s) don't exist, but the strength of an argument can vary, so the relative strength of conviction can as well.

I think it's reasonable to assume that atheists have faith that their are no gods.
I think it is probably reasonable to assume that intelligence and education favor the probability that a person will become an atheist, but it isn't particularly a requirement.

When we rely upon evidence to come to the conclusion that their are no gods, we are expressing faith that the evidence that supported that conclusion was properly handled, objective, absent prejudice, relevant and correct. It does require a faith in science and in the integrity of those who supplied the evidence.
The difference being that it isn't a religious faith based on no objective evidence but is a faith in scientific method and the integrity of our model of reality upon which we base our disbelief in a gods.

For some atheists, disbelief comes in the form not of scientific evidence but in a common sense version of Occam's Razor. "All that I know of religion is an obvious fabrication, is offensive, and each bears a resemblance to the other in the way they appear contrived."
Rather than replace one religion with another and then another searching for one that is not an offense to their common sense and moral values, they conclude that all religions are similar enough that they may all be discounted as a group for a sort of bloodthirsty extra silliness.

One point of view requires compelling evidence for disbelief and one finds no evidence to support the existance of gods. The two are not mutually exclusive and I think that most atheists have some amount of both reasons for their own disbelief.

Faith in the correctness of evidence, faith in their own ability to correctly interpret the objective reality around them. Not faith in magic.

 

[Aught3]

there have been some good responses but i was actually more aiming at: there is nothing wrong in having faith in atheism.

The sentence just doesn't make sense to me. I don't have faith in things I don't believe. I don't have faith the dragons don't exist, I just see no reason to assume that they do. If we take a positive belief like acceptance of evolution I could describe that as a kind of faith in the expertise of the scientists that work on explaining life, but faith doesn't seem to work for negative beliefs.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

there have been some good responses but i was actually more aiming at: there is nothing wrong in having faith in atheism.

The sentence just doesn't make sense to me. I don't have faith in things I don't believe. I don't have faith the dragons don't exist, I just see no reason to assume that they do. If we take a positive belief like acceptance of evolution I could describe that as a kind of faith in the expertise of the scientists that work on explaining life, but faith doesn't seem to work for negative beliefs.

I more or less agree with this, though I can see faith in a negative hypothetically existing. I could envision, for instance, faith in opposition to arguments advancing slavery.

 

[MineMineMine]

there have been some good responses but i was actually more aiming at: there is nothing wrong in having faith in atheism.

The sentence just doesn't make sense to me. I don't have faith in things I don't believe. I don't have faith the dragons don't exist, I just see no reason to assume that they do. If we take a positive belief like acceptance of evolution I could describe that as a kind of faith in the expertise of the scientists that work on explaining life, but faith doesn't seem to work for negative beliefs.

i can see your point and i think it's a matter of definition. We do seem have a lot of those discussions going on (not nazi thread etc.). One could say that 'we atheist' are currently rather bored so we occupy ourselves with such discussions.
I personally do feel that i can have faith in the non existence of god, so does this make me less of an atheist?
Anti- theist may be a way better word to describe what is currently referred as atheist? And people who do not care about all this and just happen to be without a confession are confessionless guys?

 

[Aught3]

i can see your point and i think it's a matter of definition. We do seem have a lot of those discussions going on (not nazi thread etc.). One could say that 'we atheist' are currently rather bored so we occupy ourselves with such discussions.
I personally do feel that i can have faith in the non existence of god, so does this make me less of an atheist?
Anti- theist may be a way better word to describe what is currently referred as atheist?

Here's my take on what it means to be an atheist:
The question is asked, do you believe that gods exist?
If the answer is yes, then you are a theist.
If you answer anything else, you are an atheist.

Now on top of being an atheist you may be an antitheist,, an agnostic, a freethinker, a sceptic, or have faith in this, that, or the other-thing (excepting god). Being or having any of these other things makes you no more nor no less of an atheist than any other non-believer.

 

[retardedsociety]

Faith does not require evidence and cannot be questioned. Science is always improving theories, and nothing is 100% certain, things can change over time.

So when it comes to science one can say, I believe in the science method, but faith only applies to religion, or when for example you have a cheating wife, everyone around you tells you shes cheating on you. If you have faith in her to be honest to you, then you will never bother to look for the evidence of her cheating.

If you simply believe in her, but then she gives you reasons to doubt, then you go on and look for the evidence, and in the end have a better result than the person who decided to sit there and have faith in his/her relationship.


I simply say that faith is the world's biggest excuse to not think

 

[lrkun]

You know, I think it's best to define the term faith. If we define it, maybe we can agree on how to apply it here.

 

[Nautyskin]

You know, I think it's best to define the term faith. If we define it, maybe we can agree on how to apply it here.

That's a great idea, but first, let's hear what George Michael has to say:

 

[lrkun]

You know, I think it's best to define the term faith. If we define it, maybe we can agree on how to apply it here.

That's a great idea, but first, let's hear what George Michael has to say:

It is blocked :cry:

 

[SpaceDust]

I have faith in science but more to the point how do you have faith in atheism if there is nothing to have faith in. you are more likely find somebody haveing faith in science then atheism.

 

[lrkun]

I have faith in science but more to the point how do you have faith in atheism if there is nothing to have faith in. you are more likely find somebody haveing faith in science then atheism.

It depends on how you define what atheism is. To be clear though, the definition of the thread starter should be the basis of our replies. If we can understand his/her point of view, then maybe we can agree or disagree with it and also give our point of view.

There are two terms that should be defined in this thread:

1. Atheism
2. Faith
3. Bad

 

[MineMineMine]

I have faith in science but more to the point how do you have faith in atheism if there is nothing to have faith in. you are more likely find somebody haveing faith in science then atheism.

It depends on how you define what atheism is. To be clear though, the definition of the thread starter should be the basis of our replies. If we can understand his/her point of view, then maybe we can agree or disagree with it and also give our point of view.

or the thread starter just wasn't clear enough in his question.

There are two terms that should be defined in this thread:

1. Atheism

Aught3 gave a pretty good answer to this one.

If the answer is yes, then you are a theist.
If you answer anything else, you are an atheist.

Now on top of being an atheist you may be an antitheist,, an agnostic, a freethinker, a sceptic, or have faith in this, that, or the other-thing (excepting god). Being or having any of these other things makes you no more nor no less of an atheist than any other non-believer.

2. Faith

A lack of knowledge we accept in our believe system

3. Bad

a common theist statement is that science and/or atheism needs as much faith as religion. To which the discussion partner will go on to explenation that thats not the case. Why not just answer "so what?"