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 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Last

Is Atheism a form of Faith?

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 705

Posted 10/30/09 - 02:01 PM:	#391
180 wrote: What specifically differentiates any existing god from any nonexistent god? If there's no difference, then "god" is only a word. If there is, then it's not a 'matter of faith' which gods exist and which do not exist, but a matter of examining that which (e.g. conditions, predicate implications, etc) differentiates them. A group of believers.
Or not.

atightropewalker
On par with an amoeba.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 120

Posted 10/30/09 - 02:04 PM:	#392
Kelby wrote: we wind up right back where we started. Is the lack of an answer to what exists beyond the universe a faith? Faith is a positive belief in something. So I have faith if I believe in gravity and no faith if I believe in no gravity. Or I have faith and believe in the tooth fairy and no faith if I don't believe in the tooth fairy. I merely think faith is a total belief in something (nothing in this case is a something) which cannot be verified wholly, like God or anthropogenic climate change. The problem is people intertwine faith and theism but theism is a form of faith and faith is not a form of theism. Ciceronius wrote: God's teeth. The distinction between the statement "God does not exist" and the statement "There is no evidence, and therefore no reason, to believe that God exists." Or, perhaps, the distinction between "God does not exist" and "It is remotely possible that God might exist, but there is no reason to believe he exists at the present time, and the chance that his existence may ever be established is wildly improbable." Is that what this has been about? Definitions pretty much. From this discussion I have can draw two simple definitions of athiesm: 1) Absolute belief in there being no God 2) The balance of probability says there is no God so I choose not to believe it, but he may still exist, and a whole lot of fuzzy logic in between. I don't mind which definition people choose (or indeed somewhere in between) but trying to decide which one was right is just a cyclical argument that will lead us in the entire same direction. We could define a set meaning of atheism in which case we would all lose our meaning of atheism and it becomes false to everyone but we could solve the problem. Or we continue with our myriad of meanings and get nowhere but it is true to everyone. I personally think people should choose on this and keep it true for themselves: a point that so many 'theists and atheists' don't want to allow. But that leads to the same problem and so it goes on...
"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

Kelby
analytic poop

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 03, 2008
Location: The Fire Nation

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 372

Posted 10/30/09 - 02:10 PM:	#393
180 Proof wrote: 180 Proof wrote: *What specifically differentiates* any existing god from any nonexistent god?** If there's no difference, then "god" is only a word. If there is, then it's not a 'matter of faith' which gods exist and which do not exist, but a matter of examining that which (e.g. conditions, predicate implications, etc) differentiates them. *Is there anyone here cogent* (or honest) enough to explain non-fallaciously why the question above and/or its implications either make no sense or are not true?** Judging by the last 39 posts, apparently not. Res ipsa loquitur. you were expecting a theist to answer right?

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 705

Posted 10/30/09 - 02:12 PM:	#394
walker wrote: So I have faith if I believe in gravity and no faith if I believe in no gravity. Or I have faith and believe in the tooth fairy and no faith if I don't believe in the tooth fairy. I merely think faith is a total belief in something (nothing in this case is a something) which cannot be verified wholly, like God or anthropogenic climate change. The problem is people intertwine faith and theism but theism is a form of faith and faith is not a form of theism. Again, your comparing a belief in a "thing" to an explanation about a thing. We know there is a climate and that it changes. Prior to the explanation of climate change. New theory same misleading comparison.
Or not.

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 705

Posted 10/30/09 - 02:14 PM:	#395
Kelby wrote: you were expecting a theist to answer right? It's still the only observable answer. Gods that are agreed by both atheist and theist to be false have no believers.
Or not.

Kelby
analytic poop

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 03, 2008
Location: The Fire Nation

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 372

Posted 10/30/09 - 02:16 PM:	#396
atightropewalker wrote: So I have faith if I believe in gravity and no faith if I believe in no gravity. Or I have faith and believe in the tooth fairy and no faith if I don't believe in the tooth fairy. I merely think faith is a total belief in something (nothing in this case is a something) which cannot be verified wholly, like God or anthropogenic climate change. The problem is people intertwine faith and theism but theism is a form of faith and faith is not a form of theism. I'm sorry, I am having trouble understanding what exactly you're trying to get at. Perhaps a rephrasing will do? For now, I will do my best to respond: So I have faith if I believe in gravity and no faith if I believe in no gravity. No. You have faith if you believe in something without grounds. You don't need faith to believe in gravity. I merely think faith is a total belief in something (nothing in this case is a something) which cannot be verified wholly then you are using a completely different definition of faith...different to the one I am specifically arguing against. So the issue is where?

atightropewalker
On par with an amoeba.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 120

Posted 10/30/09 - 02:24 PM:	#397
180 Proof wrote: *What specifically differentiates* any existing god from any nonexistent god?** If there's no difference, then "god" is only a word. If there is, then it's not a 'matter of faith' which gods exist and which do not exist, but a matter of examining that which (e.g. conditions, predicate implications, etc) differentiates them. *Is there anyone here cogent* (or honest) enough to explain non-fallaciously why the question above and/or its implications either make no sense or are not true?** I think our belief of what we can't understand is lumped under the term God because people believe they have the same basis. I think people are just as happy to lump their belief of what we can't understand atheism, even though there understand is different to everyone elses. I guess I'm saying we group similar things together. So God is both just a word and something examinable and atheism is both just a word and something examinable. I guess it is a matter of faith which general word you lump your description into.
"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

atightropewalker
On par with an amoeba.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 120

Posted 10/30/09 - 02:35 PM:	#398
Cheshire wrote: Again, your comparing a belief in a "thing" to an explanation about a thing. We know there is a climate and that it changes. Prior to the explanation of climate change. New theory same misleading comparison. atightropewalker wrote: Kelby wrote: we wind up right back where we started. Is the lack of an answer to what exists beyond the universe a faith? Faith is a positive belief in some thing . So I have faith if I believe in gravity and no faith if I believe in no gravity. Or I have faith and believe in the tooth fairy and no faith if I don't believe in the tooth fairy. I merely think faith is a total belief in something (nothing in this case is a something) which cannot be verified wholly, like God or anthropogenic climate change. The problem is people intertwine faith and theism but theism is a form of faith and faith is not a form of theism. Actually I was merely trying to prove why I don't believe faith to be a positive belief in something. In this example I helpfully presuppose gravitys existence and the non-existence of the tooth fairy. If you can understand these you hopefully can understand the point - if you don't believe in gravity or do believe in the tooth fairy then sorry this isn't an example for you. Basically I'm saying that a positive belief for me is gravity existence (i.e always - though my belief is not a pre-requisite for gravity) so do I have faith in gravity. Yeah we are using different definitions of faith - what interests me is why do we both think our definitions deserve the title faith? And I am aware that there is an ever-changing climate. What I'm debating is the anthropogenic effect that we all understand i.e. that of CO2 et al raising global temperatures. Yes I'm sure that humans can effect the weather but that is not what is generally understood by anthropogenic climate change. Yet again it goes on unverifiable but widely understood definitions (see my last post) which I guess you need a sort of faith to understand. This is not an exercise in being ruthlessly literal for me.
"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

psychotick
Dazed and confused

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 05, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 119

Posted 10/30/09 - 11:09 PM:	#399
Hi, 180Proof you asked what differentiates an existing god from a non existing god - quite clearly the god's existence - the question is its own answer. But in even asking this question you are moving the debate from what I began it as, which was whether it requires faith to believe that there is no god, into one of religion. I did not ask whether it took faith to believe there is no specific god such as Zeus or Allah, I asked whether it took faith to believe that there is no god. Comparing specific gods of specific religions and saying that because you belive there is evidence to disbelieve one of them there is reason to disbelieve all of them is slipping away from the tenants of the argument. You will remember that I defined god for the purposes of this debate as being that which created himself and then the universe. No specific religion was mentioned, nor is it relevant. Likewise all predicates as defined in religions were left out. The only predicate that matters in this debate is the existence of life, the universe and everything, i.e. that which god created. Now you may say that this is being slippery, creating a deliberately unprovable and un-disprovable god but remember I am not pushing a particular theistic position. I am not asking you to believe in a god, any god, and I am not forcing evidence into this debate to show that god exists. The question is purely in the negative, does it require some form of faith to believe that there is no god? As I said before it requires no faith at all to go through all the scientific evidence and everything you know of religions and life and the universe in general and say based on what I know I have no reason to believe that there is a god. That is a very logical, completely rational athiest position in my opinion. However to go beyond that, to say flat out there is no god, I believe that requires a degree of faith. That is the crux of this debate. As for the gravity versus god issue which has cropped up once more, look upon both as being both theories and potential things. At some point I assume, I'm not actually old enough to have been there, someone or a number of indipendant someones came up with a theory of how the universe came into being, and that theory was god. Religions and faith followed, but in the first instance god was surely a theory. Similarly at some point someone must have asked the question why do things fall down and they came up with a theory, gravity. Now both the fact that things fall down and that there is existence have been around ever since these theories appeared and they were both there before the theories appeared. To argue that god could not have existed before someone came up with the theory of god is the same argument as to say that gravity could not have existed before someone came up with the theory of gravity. They are both nonsense positions. To argue that we can go back and find evidence of things falling down from before the theory of gravity was invented is equally useless since we can also go back to find evidence of existence from before the theory of how that existence came to be was developed. Once more to return to the begining, in order I believe to prove that the 'strong athiest' position as I've named it is not in part based on faith, the athiest must have proof. Proof either that there is no god (not that the religions about a creator are conflicting and nonscientific, but actual proof that there is no god), or alternatively proof that the universe came into existence from nothingness by purely non-divine means. Failure to do this means that in taking the strong athiest position the athiest is going beyond that which he can prove or justify scientifically, and is instead basing his position in part on faith. Cheers.

180 Proof
kynic

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

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5123

Posted 10/31/09 - 12:22 AM:	#400
psychotick wrote: 180 Proof wrote: What specifically differentiates any existing god from any nonexistent god? If there's no difference, then "god" is only a word. If there is, then it's not a 'matter of faith' which gods exist and which do not exist, but *a matter of examining* that which (e.g. conditions, predicate implications, etc) differentiates them. 180Proof you asked what differentiates an existing god from a non existing god - quite clearly the god's existence - the question is its own answer (...) Are. You. Serious. atightropewalker wrote: I think our belief of what we can't understand is lumped under the term God because people believe they have the same basis. I think people are just as happy to lump their belief of what we can't understand atheism, even though there understand is different to everyone elses. In post no. 122 above I pointed out that theists fill in their gaps with "god" -- or as you say, atightropewalker,** cover "under the term God" their unknowns / misunderstandings -- and that atheists reject this "god of the gaps" ruse. The answer to 'the origin of the universe' question that "god created the universe" is rejected for philosophical as well as scientific reasons, and instead left unanswered (or provisionally conjectured at most) since the data is still streaming in and our models are continuously being developed & revised. The atheist is saying that "god" is not an intelligible answer to any questions of social or physical consequence. We don't subsume our lack of understanding, or ignorance, under the "gods" that we soundly reject; rather we say: *away with all gods since these fetishes only camouflage (our) unknowns and bewitch us into taking for granted that we "know" what when & where, in fact, we do not.* EDIT Perhaps a(nother) reformulation of terms can make (our) respective positions a little clearer. (Perhaps not, but here goes anyway ...) Consider THEISM as consisting in a suspension of disbelief in the claim that 'gods are facts' (i.e. "there are gods" or "there is a god") and ATHEISM as consisting in a justified belief that 'gods are fictions'. When we say that "there are no gods" what's implied is that we observe that the term "god" designates an agency which is indiscernible from a fictional character (or force), and consequentially does not indicate any ostensible, or actual, state-of-affairs. The perennial failure to show on what basis the theist's "god(s)" can be discerned from fictions is the theoretical basis (i.e. justfication) for the atheist's belief. The question of "gods' existence" is more precisely a question of "gods' concept-use" -- (in effect) *Is god a reference* (i.e. fact) or name (i.e. fiction)?** If the former, then the word "god" corresponds to an non-verbal object; however, if the latter, then the word "god" itself is the object. note: I'm using "name" "reference" etc as follows: name = a word that designates but without referring reference = a word (or object) that indicates an object (or state-of-affairs) suspension of disbelief = faith (i.e. trust, hope, ... unjustified belief) Edited by 180 Proof on 10/31/09 - 02:44 AM. Reason: Insomnia is a bitch (especially when you're hung-over) ...
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?]]]

Page: First 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Last

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