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 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Last

Is Atheism a form of Faith?

Samuel Locke
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 17, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 72

0 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 10/26/09 - 06:29 PM:	#291
Haha I would say that you are avoiding the question. But nice try.

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 712

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 10/26/09 - 06:50 PM:	#292
Samuel Locke wrote: So if God is such a stupid answer for what caused everything then what did? Something not imaginary.
Or not.

Samuel Locke
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 17, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 72

Posted 10/26/09 - 07:10 PM:	#293
Cheshire wrote: Something not imaginary. Well geez I was expecting something a bit broader. Please elucidate.

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 712

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 10/26/09 - 08:59 PM:	#294
Samuel Locke wrote: Well geez I was expecting something a bit broader. Please elucidate. God can not create a universe, because he is a literary figure that is the subject of a mass delusion. So, the universes existence is explained by something that actually exists.
Or not.

Samuel Locke
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 17, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 72

Posted 10/26/09 - 09:14 PM:	#295
Cheshire wrote: God can not create a universe, because he is a literary figure that is the subject of a mass delusion. So, the universes existence is explained by something that actually exists. That might be the most unsound argument ever conceived. you state the unfounded sentiment that God is not real so in conclusion something that is real must have created the universe. Anybody else care to take a crack at it?

mric
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Location: UK

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 1116

2 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 10/26/09 - 11:46 PM:	#296
Samuel Locke wrote: So if God is such a stupid answer for what caused everything then what did? Here are some options. A net-zero quantum vacuum fluctuation. Nothing, because the universe is eternal. Nothing, because the universe is cyclical. However, since we don't know (and there are current theoretical limits to understanding within one Planck unit of time of the big bang), I would suggest that any of those options, or any others a cosmologist may suggest, are better than arbitrarily applying the attribute of 'self-causing' to a conscious being, and saying that is the answer. God is a weak answer because it appears to be an entirely arbitrary end to the regress problem.

MarchHare
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 23, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 190

2 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 10/27/09 - 12:10 AM:	#297
Samuel Locke wrote: That might be the most unsound argument ever conceived. you state the unfounded sentiment that God is not real so in conclusion something that is real must have created the universe. Anybody else care to take a crack at it? Let's take a look at your question- "Samuel Locke" wrote: So if God is such a stupid answer for what caused everything then what did? How did Cheshire not answer that question? If God is a stupid answer, then the answer must be something else. That's a perfectly logical answer: if the cat didn't spill the milk, then someone else must have done so. "Unfounded sentiment"? You made it an axiom of the question!
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.

atightropewalker
On par with an amoeba.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 127

0 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 10/27/09 - 04:59 AM:	#298
Okay until we develop a science for pre-creation can we please try not to explain it in real world terms. Please remember science only applies to what we can observe. It has no domain over that which we cannot observe i.e pre-creation and God. And I'm not so sure that God is such a wrong ides. It seems to me to be used here as a blanket term for pre-creation i.e. whatever was before creation was God. It is a lot broader than, say, a net-zero quantum vacuum fluctuation and is a lot harder to disprove. Whether it is a satisfactory answer is another question but at the moment it seems that some people are saying that pre-creation is God where as others call it pre-creation (by this term I mean anything before the start of the universe) which seems a lot more correct (though more of a cop-out) than saying a net-zero quantum vacuum fluctuation which is almost certainly wrong. In fact believing in a net-zero quantum vacuum fluctuation, which is almost invariably wrong, seems to me a greater faith (certainly in the Kierkegaard sense, than arbitarily assigning it to a blanket God that people are too often unwilling to define.
"An honest religious thinker is like a tightrope walker. He almost looks as though he were walking on nothing but air. His support is the slenderest imaginable. And yet it really is possible to walk on it." - Ludwig Wittgenstein 'It is the duty of the human understanding to understand that there are things which it cannot understand...' - Søren Kierkegaard

rigelrover
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 560

Posted 10/27/09 - 05:10 AM:	#299
The distinction that is sought is whether the world is intentional or necessary.
I am more interested in questions than answers; dialog than dictation. If we can reasonably believe that there is not just a breach, but a fundamentally unclosable gap between the individual mind and the ultimate nature of the reality; the primordial thing in itself, then 'true' mystery does exist.

longfun
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 04, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 133

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 10/27/09 - 05:31 AM:	#300
psychotick wrote: Hi, is athiesm, (for some), a form of faith? If atheists are confident...yes they can be viewed as believers, If they are just explorers, they will not even look at the problem of theism, unless theism for some reason tries to control their world ..., as theism is an unproven theory, just as many other unproven theories, theism will only gain value (as in probability) in an atheist mind if controllable proof arrives, and if definitions used by theists are accepted by them... but as there is nothing comparable in both ways of thinking, I would not even start an argument on the topic itself but on the definitions used by the theists... Clearly not the god's are important ... the definitions and conclusions are important as they grant a form of value...(ps. the numbers of believers is no proof for the correctness of the definitions)
I'm Long and I'm playing the greatest game of all.

Page: First 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Last

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