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 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Last

Is Atheism a form of Faith?

trilla
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 22, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 18

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 10/24/09 - 11:55 PM:	#261
180 Proof wrote: Well, if you must ask, I'm pointing out how thoroughly you don't know what you're talking about. Why that's the "god" in post no. 255 above which you said "is irrelevant" and (one) "can still have faith in ... existing or not existing, as far (you) reckon." It's the "god" implied by you "not referring to any particular god or gods" when you fatuously claimed that atheist disbelief is "a matter of faith" because we don't know whether or not it exists. But, of course, we know, trilla, insofar as the "god" in question is defined. The only "gods" we don't know anything about, including their existence status, are those which are "undefined". I'm aware of no theist who believes that (his) "god" is ONLY a "notion" and not ALSO a belief that describes, or refers to, god-as-a-fact. Atheists simply examine this fact-claim and find it completely unwarranted. The theist nonetheless persists in believing there is a god in fact without evidence or sound reasons; he trusts (in) what surpasses all reason & understanding (as they say), which is an expression of 'faith'. The thinking atheist disbelieves, however, BECAUSE the facts do not warrant belief; there is no 'act of faith' -- no believing without reason or understanding -- on the atheist's part. If you 'take it on faith', so to speak, that there is no god, trilla, that's your problem; many of us, however, are not nearly so intellectually lazy as you seem to be. Wow. So all atheists KNOW that god doesn't exist, but theists don't know the same thing, because they're wrong and and we're right, basically? Your argument is the same one that a theist would give; rationalizing the validity of said argument with nothing but assumptions. If you think you know that god doesn't exist, cool points for you. I guarantee that you have no undeniable evidence of god's nonexistence, just as theists have no undeniable evidence of god's existence. And without evidence, or proof, a conjecture is said to be ignorant, no? Yet we are entitled to not thinking of it (atheism) as simply a belief because we are so smart and they are so dumb, amirite? I never said god was only a notion, Lol. Did you even read what I posted? *the notion that their particular gods exist... the notion that no gods exist at all.* And yes, I used belief in the second sentence. Which is synonymic to notion. Which is also synonymic to faith. And I'm intellectually lazy.

180 Proof
kynic

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

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5126

Posted 10/24/09 - 11:59 PM:	#262
trilla wrote: And I'm intellectually lazy. Finally, we agree.
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?]]]

trilla
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 22, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 18

1 of 3 people found this post helpful Posted 10/25/09 - 12:08 AM:	#263
180 Proof wrote: Finally, we agree. Way to do absolutely nothing to validate your argument, yet at the same time validate the fact that you've caught feelings (Probably anger. Which over the internet is akin to failure) enough to try to diss me with every post you make.

MarchHare
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 23, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 190

Posted 10/25/09 - 12:08 AM:	#264
trilla wrote: So all atheists KNOW that god doesn't exist, but theists don't know the same thing, because they're wrong and and we're right, basically? That's in line with mainstream epistemology: truth is a necessary condition for knowledge. I thought today was the day for collecting rubbish, but it turns out it isn't, so I didn't know it. On the other hand, I knew that today would be Sunday. "trilla" wrote: Your argument is the same one that a theist would give; rationalizing the validity of said argument with nothing but assumptions. That's a pretty good way to argue, since provided the assumptions are correct a valid argument will also be sound. "trilla" wrote: If you think you know that god doesn't exist, cool points for you. I guarantee that you have no undeniable evidence of god's nonexistence, just as theists have no undeniable evidence of god's existence. Is undeniable evidence for a claim requisite for knowing it? Because that will mean all of your attributions of the word "know" are incorrect. Nothing is undeniable and even if something was undeniable there is something very odd about making induititability a major epistemic factor in evaluating an item of evidence. "trilla" wrote: Yet we are entitled to not thinking of it (atheism) as simply a belief because we are so smart and they are so dumb, amirite? Do you think that was 180Proof's argument?
Doubt requires a reason to doubt. Nothing is immune from potential doubt. The correct response to a question isn't always to try to give the question's answer.

trilla
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 22, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 18

Posted 10/25/09 - 12:21 AM:	#265
MarchHare wrote: That's in line with mainstream epistemology: truth is a necessary condition for knowledge. I thought today was the day for collecting rubbish, but it turns out it isn't, so I didn't know it. On the other hand, I knew that today would be Sunday. That's a pretty good way to argue, since provided the assumptions are correct a valid argument will also be sound. Is undeniable evidence for a claim requisite for knowing it? Because that will mean all of your attributions of the word "know" are incorrect. Nothing is undeniable and even if something was undeniable there is something very odd about making induititability a major epistemic factor in evaluating an item of evidence. Do you think that was 180Proof's argument? Yeah, I suppose it is. However, his assumptions are not correct, as I showed with my post. His argument is ignorant at the very least. No, undeniable evidence of a claim is not requisite for knowing it. However, if both sides fail to produce any evidence to support their beliefs, then they are just that-- beliefs. Which has been my argument this entire time, no less. I'm asking 180 what his proof is (c wut i did thar?) that god doesn't exist, because if he has none, I fail to see why he can consider atheism not a faith based on the fact that he and others "know." Yes. That was basically it.

MarchHare
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 23, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 190

Posted 10/25/09 - 12:25 AM:	#266
trilla wrote: Yeah, I suppose it is. However, his assumptions are not correct, as I showed with my post. His argument is ignorant at the very least. No, undeniable evidence of a claim is not requisite for knowing it. However, if both sides fail to produce any evidence to support their beliefs, then they are just that-- beliefs. Which has been my argument this entire time, no less. I'm asking 180 what his proof is (c wut i did thar?) that god doesn't exist, because if he has none, I fail to see why he can consider atheism not a faith based on the fact that he and others "know." What was the object whose existence you were disputing? "trilla" wrote: Yes. That was basically it. Now we can find out if that was what 180Proof thinks his argument was and perhaps some confusion will have been unravelled.
Doubt requires a reason to doubt. Nothing is immune from potential doubt. The correct response to a question isn't always to try to give the question's answer.

trilla
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 22, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 18

Posted 10/25/09 - 12:28 AM:	#267
MarchHare wrote: What was the object whose existence you were disputing? Now we can find out if that was what 180Proof thinks his argument was and perhaps some confusion will have been unravelled. God. My rationale is that if neither an atheist nor a theist can produce proof supporting their position, then both positions are beliefs (or faiths, for the sake of this argument).

MarchHare
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 23, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 190

Posted 10/25/09 - 12:36 AM:	#268
trilla wrote: God. Jehovah?
Doubt requires a reason to doubt. Nothing is immune from potential doubt. The correct response to a question isn't always to try to give the question's answer.

trilla
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 22, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 18

Posted 10/25/09 - 12:41 AM:	#269
MarchHare wrote: Jehovah? Any deity or deities.

MarchHare
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 23, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 190

Posted 10/25/09 - 12:49 AM:	#270
trilla wrote: Any deity or deities. Would that mean that, to prove the negative, one would have to show that all possible deities do not exist?
Doubt requires a reason to doubt. Nothing is immune from potential doubt. The correct response to a question isn't always to try to give the question's answer.

Page: First 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Last

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