Is Atheism a form of Faith?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Is Atheism a form of Faith? » Is Atheism a form of Faith?

Is Atheism a form of Faith?
I've wondered when reading posts if for some atheists their stance is a faith

Page: First 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Last

Is Atheism a form of Faith?

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 709

Posted 10/22/09 - 02:06 PM:	#231
I've got a different angle that maybe the theists can appreciate. I will claim to support atheism from the position of theism with the following argument. No harm in trying right? 1. If you believe God exists, then you believe you were separated from the animals as a result of Gods will. 2. Man is considered different than animals because of the rational mind. 3. If God gave you a rational mind and no evidence of His existence, then it follows, he does not intend for you to believe He exists. The conclusion is of course that to believe in God is to defy the will of God.
Or not.

trilla
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 22, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 18

Posted 10/22/09 - 02:27 PM:	#232
Cheshire wrote: You may be oversimplifying an atheist position in order to produce a claim that appears "out of the blue"; in the absence of a supporting argument or explanation any claim could appear as a statement based only on faith. Really, I can isolate any conclusion from an argument and say it is a statement of faith. It is a form of misrepresentation regardless of one' s intentions. I'm not saying any belief simply occurs out of the blue, and I don't see how you got all that from so few words (which I intentionally made concise in order to avoid such pettiness). Even if a claim has a supporting argument or explanation, it is still belief unless it is truly known to whoever is affirming or denying the claim. A belief (synonymic to faith, as any thesaurus will tell you) only exists in the absence of knowledge. And yes, you can isolate ANY conclusion from ANY argument and say it is a statement of faith, so what? And I'm not misrepresenting anything, I'm simply telling you that Atheism and Theism both presuppose faith until proved or disproved.

180 Proof
kynic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5133

Posted 10/22/09 - 02:39 PM:	#233
dclements wrote: If 180 Proof doesn't want to believe in God, but Mariner does then all I have to say is to each whatever works for them. This rank sophistry is what philosophy aspires to overcome. However no matter what you believe if you go around telling people what you believe in and why it is right, it is no different then people that have copies of the watch tower and trying to push them on to others. If you are on the forum it is a given that you are pushing your beliefs on to others, even if you are trying to claim that you are not. If you didn't care about others knowing what you believe then you wouldn't bother posting. More "projection" I suppose ... This is why, as a Philosophical Skeptic, Critical Rationalist & Pragmatic Fallibilist, I attempt to give the best available reasons only for what I least disbelieve about any topic or dispute. My "beliefs" are never at issue in these discussions. The OP here is simply false and I set out to demonstrate this. I don't give a rats ass what anyone here "believes" and defy any Member to cite an instance of me proselytizing for any "beliefs"; I am guilty, however, of relentlessly cross-examining reasons given by Members and inviting criticism of my reasoning. *What one thinks absent* how one thinks is completely irrelevant; how one thinks is what's primarily at issue in these discussions.** That your reasoning is repeatedly found wanting, dclements, is both your problem and opportunity to learn to reason better. Stop whining and think! ( ... ) I hope this clears things up some what. Yeah. Clear as mud. Edited by 180 Proof on 10/31/09 - 10:36 PM. Reason: Exorcising some spleen ...
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?" Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence. [What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2876

Posted 10/22/09 - 02:52 PM:	#234
Apathy Kills wrote: It seems as if you're saying, concerning the thought experiment, 'Well, I can't really tell you what would convince me until it happens.' But I didn't say that. I told you specifically what I would require -- for god to outline her search parameters. What sort of answer do you expect? Do you suppose that I should already possess all of the information that I would require to do this, and without god's help? So, the question itself of there existing evidence that could legitimatize a spiritual encounter with a possible god is left open - yet... This wasn't your question. You asked what kind of evidence god would need to provide to me within a telepathic communique. You didn't ask me if there were already evidence that I have access to. The answer to this completely different questions, is: no. I don't quite see much of a separation from the thought experiment itself and the [possible] reality of it. One ought to be able to contemplate, to think abstractly, of what sort of things would be convincing to oneself or not: What action, what substance of information could fit into "X" that satisfices? And I offered it. Search parameters that would allow me to externally verify her existence. Of course, I have tried this thought experiment and racked my mind with all the circumstances that I could think of that could fill action "X" and pretty much every time I come away with some measure of doubt. It seemed like whatever I had this hypothetical god being do to prove its existence to me, I was unsatisfied with the evidence. I would be satisfied if god offered me the evidence I requested as my action X. I could dismiss it as a dream or not real, even when the "X" was tailored to prevent such a dismissal. Perhaps my stubbornness is getting in the way? I guess, in part, why I find your answer suspicious is that it confirms my own frustrations. But my answer isn't the same as yours. I would be satisfied if god preformed my action "X". I would be rationally satisfied at least. My offer to exchange belief for the fulfillment of a wish still stands as well -- I wouldn't be rationally justified, but that would be enough for me to embrace faith, and without a hint of dissatisfaction. Edited by Wosret on 10/22/09 - 02:59 PM
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

Apathy Kills
Decaying Organic Matter

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 07, 2007
Location: United States, MIDWEST

Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 232

Posted 10/22/09 - 03:30 PM:	#235
Wosret wrote: This wasn't your question. You asked what kind of evidence god would need to provide to me within a telepathic communique. You didn't ask me if there were already evidence that I have access to. The answer to this completely different questions, is: no. Sorry, that sentence was worded wrong - "The question of whether there could exist evidence that can legitimize...." So, I'm not implying that there exists evidence currently... heh told ya I can be incoherent at times. That's what I get for shooting these responses straight from the hip and not doing a proper grammatical check. Search parameters that would allow me to externally verify her existence. Well, your staring at a spectacle of light in the middle of your bedroom - if this hypothetical god goes along with the traditional concept of god (the "Omni"-stuff) then this being should be able to know you completely (perhaps even better than you can possibly know yourself),your dispositions and particular standard of criteria for belief, and performs whatever action "X" that would bring out belief in its existence. So, what particular impression must this being make in order to elicit your acceptance - or ,in other words, what evidence must be presented to you? Err, or maybe I'm not understanding the way you're meaning search parameters. My offer to exchange belief for the fulfillment of a wish still stands as well -- I wouldn't be rationally justified, but that would be enough for me to embrace faith, and without a hint of dissatisfaction. So if your one wish was, say, to live out a full day in your own anime world and have a crazy-awesome threesome with some unbelievably hot manga chicks and it was fullfilled, then you would believe? Dude, do you have any integrity?
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire..." Nietzsche

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2876

Posted 10/22/09 - 03:44 PM:	#236
Apathy Kills wrote: Well, your staring at a spectacle of light in the middle of your bedroom - if this hypothetical god goes along with the traditional concept of god (the "Omni"-stuff) then this being should be able to know you completely (perhaps even better than you can possibly know yourself),your dispositions and particular standard of criteria for belief, and performs whatever action "X" that would bring out belief in its existence. Grant me a wish, god. Seriously, it's that easy. You know what I want. So, what particular impression must this being make in order to elicit your acceptance - or ,in other words, what evidence must be presented to you? Err, or maybe I'm not understanding the way you're meaning search parameters. Well, gaining my acceptance wouldn't be as difficult. There are a lot easier ways to sway someone than rationally, or evidentially, and I'm by no means immune. Evidence though, is different. I would need her to tell me how I would be able to go about externally confirming her existence. I would also need to have her ontology defined for me in such a way that the evidence would work to imply her existence. So if your one wish was, say, to live out a full day in your own anime world and have a crazy-awesome threesome with some unbelievably hot manga chicks and it was fullfilled, then you would believe? My wish is by no means so trivial, hedonistic and fleeting, but if my wish were granted, then I would submit to belief, no questions asked. Though, if I had three wishes... Dude, do you have any integrity? Somethings are worth more to me than holding onto a belief that is merely circumstantially supported. It really could be god for all I know, and my wish necessitates consequences that would be impossible currently, and perhaps even fundamentally. If she could do it, then that would be enough for me. I'm not unreasonable, I'd take it as good enough. Of course the fulfillment of my wish has necessary conditions which would prevent it from being evidence for anyone else.
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 709

Posted 10/22/09 - 08:23 PM:	#237
trilla wrote: I'm not saying any belief simply occurs out of the blue, and I don't see how you got all that from so few words (which I intentionally made concise in order to avoid such pettiness). I was describing the "feel" of your presentation. It seemed as if you thought atheism lacked any rationale and was developed as an arbitrary choice. I'm guessing your not an atheist, so you have no first hand experience regarding the nature of an atheistic philosophical position. Even if a claim has a supporting argument or explanation, it is still belief unless it is truly known to whoever is affirming or denying the claim. A belief (synonymic to faith, as any thesaurus will tell you) only exists in the absence of knowledge. And yes, you can isolate ANY conclusion from ANY argument and say it is a statement of faith, so what? You see, when the structure of the argument creates the conclusion it loses validity. By your own statements, it is clear that you have simply selected the most general sense of the term faith in order to support your claim. And I'm not misrepresenting anything, I'm simply telling you that Atheism and Theism both presuppose faith until proved or disproved. I know. I would tell you your incorrect and the above reasoning should make this quite clear. However, I've been down that road a lot lately, so I'll agree with you instead. Atheism and Theism are both faith based, so I've been told. Does this mean it makes as much sense to believe as it does to disbelieve?
Or not.

d_martin
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 21, 2009
Location: Quartzsite Arizona

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 39

Posted 10/23/09 - 06:50 AM:	#238
ben_tam64 wrote: Any belief system is based on the faith of your premises. Faith is the trust we put into what we believe. If you believe something, you have faith it is true On one hand I would agree, but faith seems to be treated as though it has no place in the world where as it is the world that most have faith or trust in. Therefore those who trust the world trust it, because they know it, experience it. But anything not perceived as of the world they would not trust, nor act on. Without the action, it is no faith at all, only talk and speculation of what is unknown.
You don’t have to believe something you don’t know is true, whether it be fact or fiction. But if you know it’s true?

d_martin
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 21, 2009
Location: Quartzsite Arizona

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 39

Posted 10/23/09 - 07:02 AM:	#239
Cheshire wrote: I've got a different angle that maybe the theists can appreciate. I will claim to support atheism from the position of theism with the following argument. No harm in trying right? 1. If you believe God exists, then you believe you were separated from the animals as a result of Gods will. 2. Man is considered different than animals because of the rational mind. 3. If God gave you a rational mind and no evidence of His existence, then it follows, he does not intend for you to believe He exists. The conclusion is of course that to believe in God is to defy the will of God. Nice points: But what if the rational mind is the evidence that it is God’s Will for you to know Him. Doesn’t the rational mind seek that which is true to be trusted? Consider; wouldn’t He be as Wise as it gets, as knowledgeable as it gets, as understanding of all things as it gets? Surly the rational mind need not be denied the awareness of the Truth.
You don’t have to believe something you don’t know is true, whether it be fact or fiction. But if you know it’s true?

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 709

Posted 10/23/09 - 09:37 AM:	#240
martin wrote: But what if the rational mind is the evidence that it is God’s Will for you to know Him. I will agree that the rational mind is evidence that it is God's Will for you to know what he intends you to know; based on logical deductions from evidence. In order to suppose it is God's will for you to know him; then we must show that he provides evidence to the rational mind of his existence. When we speak of evidence "to know him", then we must show there is evidence he exists. There is no known evidence for the existence of God, so we can only infer that His existence is not something he intends us to know about. I think it creates an interesting paradox. It also lets atheist off the hook, because their disbelief is actually in keeping with God's Will. Also, if we acknowledge that God created a rational mind, then he would see our denial of Him as the result of His actions. It is only by appealing to the value of truth that we can honorably deny the existence of God. A person that claims God does not exist, because there is no evidence to show his existence is merely adopting a position of intellectual honesty. I think it shows a greater respect for God, by avoiding the chance of a person speaking as if they knew what God would say. My denial of God is based on my respect for God.
Or not.

Page: First 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Last

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.