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 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 Last

Is Atheism a form of Faith?

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 715

Posted 11/01/09 - 11:37 AM:	#421
psychotick wrote: Also am I to understand from your last post that you believe that the Avesta, the Koran, the Torah and the Bible and all other religious texts were written by people who knew that what they were writing was false and that therefore they deliberately set out to lie and decieve? Do you really have such a poor opinion of these people? The point is the books are fictional. I don't intend to judge the authors.
Or not.

sheps
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 15, 2008
Location: United Kingdom

Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 431

Posted 11/01/09 - 12:15 PM:	#422
Cheshire wrote: The point is the books are fictional. I don't intend to judge the authors. I think that the religious texts can be taken as reasonably reliable accounts of the characters within them. They are some of the oldest books in the world, and there is no reason to believe that figures such as Abraham, Jesus and the Disciples and Muhammed did not exist. "History is written by the victors," and I see no reason to discount the Bible and the Koran as totally fictional in terms of their accounts of the figures within them; in this sense, they are as reliable as any historical text. I must protest if atheists are going to dismiss the holy texts as historical and important texts in relation to events and people just because they disagree with some of the ideas contained within them. Anyone pre-Abraham I would have serious doubts about; Adam and Eve, evidently no. And the story of Noah sounds like many myths where a God or Gods flooded the world, so he's out too. But seeing as there's not much proof either way as to the existence of Abraham, why should we believe that he's fiction?
The Midnight Sun Never Sets.

sheps
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 15, 2008
Location: United Kingdom

Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 431

Posted 11/01/09 - 12:22 PM:	#423
mric wrote: The traditional philosophical definition of God is as an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent being. Not according to Plato. He believed that God created the universe, yet was not omnipotent, as he could only do things with the materials he was given, i.e. us. It was in the somewhat dull Timaeus, which I read recently and did not particularly enjoy. Still, if one of the most important philosophers of all time did not believe that God was omnipotent, I think one can hardly say that that is the traditional philosophical definition. I'd say more what you're describing here is the religious, Abrahamic faith God.
The Midnight Sun Never Sets.

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

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

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2876

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/01/09 - 01:33 PM:	#424
sheps wrote: I think that the religious texts can be taken as reasonably reliable accounts of the characters within them. They are some of the oldest books in the world, and there is no reason to believe that figures such as Abraham, Jesus and the Disciples and Muhammed did not exist. "History is written by the victors," and I see no reason to discount the Bible and the Koran as totally fictional in terms of their accounts of the figures within them; in this sense, they are as reliable as any historical text. I must protest if atheists are going to dismiss the holy texts as historical and important texts in relation to events and people just because they disagree with some of the ideas contained within them. No, because of the historical method. What you say is simply a fringe view in history, as a disciple. If what you say is true, then the bible would be taught in history classes, and all nations would recognize the figures as historical characters within their academic circles at least, when they do not. Anyone pre-Abraham I would have serious doubts about; Adam and Eve, evidently no. And the story of Noah sounds like many myths where a God or Gods flooded the world, so he's out too. But seeing as there's not much proof either way as to the existence of Abraham, why should we believe that he's fiction? Because we need positive evidence to accept people and events as actual, and when they start doing magic, or are themselves magic, that usually indicates that they are fictional, or at least exaggerated enough to be mere shadows of who inspired the tall tales. Edited by Wosret on 11/02/09 - 02:48 PM
"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: 16
Total Posts: 715

Posted 11/01/09 - 01:50 PM:	#425
sheps wrote: I think that the religious texts can be taken as reasonably reliable accounts of the characters within them. They are some of the oldest books in the world, and there is no reason to believe that figures such as Abraham, Jesus and the Disciples and Muhammed did not exist. "History is written by the victors," and I see no reason to discount the Bible and the Koran as totally fictional in terms of their accounts of the figures within them; in this sense, they are as reliable as any historical text. I must protest if atheists are going to dismiss the holy texts as historical and important texts in relation to events and people just because they disagree with some of the ideas contained within them. They were written in a context that may reflect the time period. However, in comparison to what we consider a historical account, they appear fictional. There may be some history grouped together with fictional accounts; this does not prevent the entire work from being labeled fiction or myth. sheps wrote: Anyone pre-Abraham I would have serious doubts about; Adam and Eve, evidently no. And the story of Noah sounds like many myths where a God or Gods flooded the world, so he's out too. But seeing as there's not much proof either way as to the existence of Abraham, why should we believe that he's fiction? Well, make up your mind. Is it fiction or non-fiction. You don't get a brief camp fire narrative in any science book I've owned. I believe he's fictional, because that is the reasonable category in which this type of literature falls. It was written prior to any peer review or publisher, so I have no reason to suppose it represents historical accuracy. People ascribe emotional value to religious text, because they do have a special place in the history of our respective cultures. However, these texts should be enjoyed for their intrinsic value and allow science and academia to further the progress of nations. Edited by Cheshire on 11/01/09 - 03:12 PM
Or not.

sheps
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 15, 2008
Location: United Kingdom

Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 431

Posted 11/01/09 - 03:17 PM:	#426
Cheshire wrote: Well, make up your mind. Is it fiction or non-fiction. You don't get a brief camp fire narrative in any science book I've owned. I believe he's fictional, because that is the reasonable category in which this type of literature falls. It was written prior to any peer review or publisher, so I have no reason to suppose it represents historical accuracy. If nothing else it has an obvious Hebrew bias. How come the authors were the "chosen people", instead of their enemies? People ascribe emotional value to religious text, because they do have a special place in the history of our respective cultures. In my opinion, Abraham was someone who went round saying he was a prophet, and there is no evidence to say that he did not exist; this is really a moot point, as you don't believe that he did converse with God, so it doesn't matter if he existed or not. But as a person on earth, I think that he did exist, in the same way that Jesus existed. Just because you don't believe what they preached doesn't mean they didn't physically exist. And, just because the theories of creation in the Bible are not true does not mean that there was not a man named Jesus. You don't believe the four gospels when they say that Jesus existed, but do you then not believe that Socrates existed because of the accounts of Plato and Xenophon? Chesire wrote: However, these text should be enjoyed for their intrinsic value and allow science and academia to further the progress of nations. True, but any book written around the time of a period deserves to be considered to be an accurate representation of what Jesus said. I may not agree with what he said, but I am prepared to take this book's word that he said it. My reason for not believing in Noah, amongst other things, is that we're pretty sure that the whole world wasn't swallowed up by a flood about 4000 years ago; we are not sure that a man named Abraham did not exist a few hundred years later. We mustn't let the fantastic stories of what the Bible says Jesus and Abraham preached distract us from the idea that they may well have existed. Wosret wrote: No, because of the historical method. What you say is simply a fringe view in history, as a disciple. If what you say is true, then the bible would be taught in history classes, and all nations would recognize the figures as historical characters within their academic cycles as least, when they do not. What about in the case of Abraham, where there is little or no evidence to contradict his existence (to my knowledge)? Wosret wrote: Because we need positive evidence to accept people and events as actual, and when they start doing magic, or are themselves magic, that usually indicates that they are fictional, or at least exaggerated enough to be mere shadows of who inspired the tall tales. The fact that they are doing magic according to these texts does not mean that they are fictional. It is probable that King Arthur existed as a warrior who fought the Saxons; it is not probable that he fought dragons and was mates with wizards, however. The fact that something has been distorted by myth usually suggests that there is a much more mundane figure behind it, as you say. They are not usually 'fictional,' though. I see no reason to believe that there wasn't a man named King Arthur who fought Saxons; if there wasn't, where did the inspiration for the fantastical myths come from?
The Midnight Sun Never Sets.

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 715

Posted 11/01/09 - 03:39 PM:	#427
sheps wrote: In my opinion, Abraham was someone who went round saying he was a prophet, and there is no evidence to say that he did not exist; this is really a moot point, as you don't believe that he did converse with God, so it doesn't matter if he existed or not. But as a person on earth, I think that he did exist, in the same way that Jesus existed. Just because you don't believe what they preached doesn't mean they didn't physically exist. And, just because the theories of creation in the Bible are not true does not mean that there was not a man named Jesus. You don't believe the four gospels when they say that Jesus existed, but do you then not believe that Socrates existed because of the accounts of Plato and Xenophon? You choose to isolate their mere existence from the stories about their existence. I don't believe there was a man who talked to god. So, any story with a man talking to god is a fictional story. They may be "based" on people that might have lived, but they are still fictional accounts of these people. It has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree with their teaching. In fact I find Jesus's concepts of forgiveness and non-judgement rather profound social philosophy. It is a shame they can't be valued simply for their intellectual contributions. We have to pretend they are superheros to get the masses to appreciate an interesting idea. A bit off topic: I have wondered if Socrates was just a literary tool employed by Plato. I really don't know and I imagine there is a lot I'm unaware of in regards to the topic. Either way I enjoy Socrates's attitudes. W
Or not.

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 715

Posted 11/01/09 - 03:45 PM:	#428
sheps wrote: True, but any book written around the time of a period deserves to be considered to be an accurate representation of what Jesus said. I may not agree with what he said, but I am prepared to take this book's word that he said it. Why does that book get the benefit of the doubt?
Or not.

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

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

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2876

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/01/09 - 03:59 PM:	#429
sheps wrote: What about in the case of Abraham, where there is little or no evidence to contradict his existence (to my knowledge)? He purportedly was born 1600 years before the events were recorded -- and he is a character that lived to be 175, and in a religious narrative. If you read the core principles of the historical method, you would see that this is all highly damaging to its credibility. The fact that they are doing magic according to these texts does not mean that they are fictional. It's a damn good indication that they are. Especially when they are part of an epic, religious narrative. It is probable that King Arthur existed as a warrior who fought the Saxons; it is not probable that he fought dragons and was mates with wizards, however. Then in what sense does it make sense to say that King Arthur existed rather than saying King Arthur is based on* an actual figure? Saying just "king arthur existed!" is highly misleading, isn't it? The fact that something has been distorted by myth usually suggests that there is a much more mundane figure behind it, as you say. They are not usually 'fictional,' though. This depends on what you mean by "fictional", if there never existed a character that did or said, was bore through the circumstances, in the location, at the point in history, didn't know or speak to the same people, or anything like that -- then I call them fictional. Regardless of whether they were inspired by* an existing person or thing; aren't all fictional characters? Edited by Wosret on 11/01/09 - 04:05 PM
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

jorndoe
Investigator

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 06, 2008
Location: Canada,Denmark

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 723

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/01/09 - 04:03 PM:	#430
sheps (#426) wrote: there is no evidence to say that he did not exist If Abraham did not exist, then how would you find evidence for that? I suppose nonsensical ideas can be abandoned, or if a scroll is discovered that explicitly states him being a fictional persona... If Abraham did exist, then at least there's a chance of finding independently corroborated historical/archeological evidence of his existence and goings and doings. No particular evidence has been discovered in support. So, anyway, you tell me, which option is more justifiable. In the case of a historical Jesus, plausible evidence is scanty. Per se, there's a narrow consensus among historians that there indeed was a historical Jesus (actually, there may have been several). However, the Jesus pieced together by historians differs significantly from the Jesus of the Gospels. It is puzzling why everyone is so quick to simply assume that Abraham and Jesus of the Bible were historical personae, and the Bible is the historical account. Personally, I find it implausible that there was an actual historical Jesus performing various (real, genuine, supernatural) magic tricks; I have a similar sentiment toward Shakespeare's Titania. But, does it even matter?
People are to themselves what they think; people are to others what they do. ∞ ∑ 1/i² = π²/6 i=1

Page: First 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 Last

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