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 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Last

Is Atheism a form of Faith?

atightropewalker
On par with an amoeba.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 128

Posted 11/01/09 - 04:33 PM:	#431
jorndoe wrote: 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? I sometimes like to think of Jesus as a great philosopher. A man whose ideas of life were so profound to people at the time that he, like none before him and none after, was claimed to be so like God that he was the 'son of God'. His teachings like any great philosophy gained followers who adapt it and continue it. Take empiricism, for example, that has many incarnations and yet is still doggedly sticking around now. In a time when belief-based knowledge ruled Christianity sprung forth, in our more fact-based times empiricism still can't be shrugged off. I know they are not one and the same but the similiarities between them are interesting, though probably nothing more than coincidental. The miracles performed could be nothing more than the power of placebo, metaphors, conjecture... Now for my own reasons I don't believe this to be the whole truth (I suspect that I shall never know - and don't flagrantly said the Bible is just a ruse) but as exercise in analysing the history I found it interesting. I find if you allow yourself to draw meaning from the Bible, being aware that metaphors and similes exist, you can read alot into possible stories. The problem is the moment it was written down it was divorced from the truth and like any historical text, the more times it is read and reproduced by someone else the more false it becomes. Whats left is only to draw your meaning and accept you will never know how it was or how it was intended to be read but then the same applies for any text or story.
"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: 123

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/01/09 - 09:32 PM:	#432
Hi, MIRC Yes I made this definition of god specifically content free as I have said before. It was that or be bedevilled with endless arguments about the Bible says this or the Koran says that. The only way that I could leave this out of it was to trim every bit of religion out of it, and since the essence of my argument was always in the negative, i.e. that the atheist position (there is no god) in part relies on faith, and not in the positive, (that there is a god and athiests are denying the evidence), I could logically do this. Remember that the athiest position that there is no god requires that the athiest must disprove all gods and beliefs in god, even the stripped down, content free version I provided. Clearly this is not my own personal belief in god, but as I am not pushing a belief in god, that is irrelevant to the argument. Obviously this has upset some people posting on this thread. They have accused me of being disingenuous. I have not been, I have given the attributes of my god for this argument, and it would have been clear to all that this was not the god of my personal belief. It was a proposed god for this debate. I have also been accused of creating a god that is ultimately unable to be disproven, the ultimate god of the gaps. There is some truth in this, but I do not apologise for it. Again the athiest position requires that all gods be disproven, even those that are made up purely from a couple of sentences in Genesis. The atheist must either prove that this god does not exist or alternatively accept that when he states categorically that there are no gods that statement is based in part on faith, faith that his reasons for making the statement are better then he can show. Besides, this created god has some of the features of the Christian god and other monotheistic gods, and is also quite similar to that which a lot of people do believe in. As you will have seen on many documentary type shows, while attendance at formal churches and belonging to established religions is declining in the West, the number of people who believe in some sort of creator / spirituality remains very high, and often the god / spirit that they believe in is no more well defined then my proposed god. As to your questions, is this god physical? Still existing? Self aware? Ultimately inexplicable by science? All good questions when exploring the question of whther there is or is not a god and what he is like, and obviously I have my own personal positions on them, but again I do not believe they are relevant to a debate on when an athiest states that there is no god, that he is going beyond what he knows to base his position in part on faith. As for why 'he' instead of 'it' - 'it' is for toasters and the like, call it an attribute of my upbringing, but to me to refer to god as an 'it' would be disrespectful. I am curious about your comment that under this content free definition of god many athiests would be agnostic. Does this suggest that they are not so much opposed to the idea of a creator as they are to the concept of an organised religion? Clearly I don't know but I do take the position that agnosticism is a reasonable position for an atheist, and also theists, to hold. I do not take the view that agnosticism is a cop out, and some of the writers to this thread have also espoused this view. Others however have been vehemently opposed. Finally a quick plea to anyone reading this post and thinking that I have been disingenuous or unfair, that I have created a strawman god etc, or that I am confessing to some horrible breach of the laws of debating or logic. Read this post again, and if you must attack me on it, quote the whole post not the cherry picked bits and pieces that fit your argument. Cheers.

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 11/02/09 - 12:50 AM:	#433
My only concern is why Psychotick has used the word "god" for his first cause. Without the properties of continued existence, consciousness or intent, the word "god" looks wrong. I would ask another question. Are atheists committed to the position that there is no first cause? I think the answer is "no". psychotick wrote: I am curious about your comment that under this content free definition of god many athiests would be agnostic. Does this suggest that they are not so much opposed to the idea of a creator as they are to the concept of an organised religion? I don't think it is the organisation of religion that is a problem for many atheists. Speaking for myself, it is the claim that there is an omnipotent benevolent being that appears to be wrong. That claim is wrong whether made by the Pope or by a free-thinking adherent of no sect.

180 Proof
kynic

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

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5135

Posted 11/02/09 - 01:35 AM:	#434
mric wrote: My only concern is why Psychotick has used the word "god" for his first cause. Without the properties of continued existence, consciousness or intent, the word "god" looks wrong. I would ask another question. Are atheists committed to the position that there is no first cause? I think the answer is "no". I don't think it is the organisation of religion that is a problem for many atheists. Speaking for myself, it is the claim that there is an omnipotent benevolent being that appears to be wrong. That claim is wrong whether made by the Pope or by a free-thinking adherent of no sect.
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?]]]

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 715

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/02/09 - 08:33 AM:	#435
psy wrote: Yes I made this definition of god specifically content free as I have said before. I must have missed this tactic at some point. So, your coming up with your own undefined creator god for the purpose of a bias argument. If you get to decide what god is or is not, then we are obviously debating the existence of your particular imaginary construction. I don't think faith will be required given that your position is unbelievable in the first place. We finally agree. I also think god is completely "content free". psy wrote: As to your questions, is this god physical? Still existing? Self aware? Ultimately inexplicable by science? All good questions when exploring the question of whther there is or is not a god and what he is like, and obviously I have my own personal positions on them, but again I do not believe they are relevant to a debate on when an athiest states that there is no god, that he is going beyond what he knows to base his position in part on faith. So, it has come down to "in part on faith". Basically, you've selected to argue that faith is required for certainty. Which is hilarious. Edited by Cheshire on 11/02/09 - 08:50 AM
Or not.

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 715

Posted 11/02/09 - 08:41 AM:	#436
Worset wrote: 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. I was looking over the historical method and the concept of a "bias" source seemed to jump out at me. I assume any attempt to present "a chosen people" would be considered bias in this context? Secondly, Abraham seems to serve the purpose of ancestor worship that was so common in early religions. If I am allowed a functionalist approach to the topic.
Or not.

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 11/02/09 - 10:22 AM:	#437
psychotick (#404) wrote: Why are we here? How can we be here? Where did the universe come from? All good questions. Certainly not new ones. How do you propose to go about examining their semantic content (assuming they are meaningful)? I think these types of questions are members of a much larger class/category; we'll just have to watch out for ambiguities. By the way, anyone can invent answers, but to actually discover the truth of things, some reasoning and examination is due. So, anyway, what do you suggest?
People are to themselves what they think; people are to others what they do. ∞ ∑ 1/i² = π²/6 i=1

sheps
Assistant Professor

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

Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 431

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/02/09 - 10:59 AM:	#438
Cheshire wrote: I was looking over the historical method and the concept of a "bias" source seemed to jump out at me. I assume any attempt to present "a chosen people" would be considered bias in this context? Secondly, Abraham seems to serve the purpose of ancestor worship that was so common in early religions. If I am allowed a functionalist approach to the topic. What history is not written with bias? Also, do we not today admire our ancestors, the great minds of the past? If you believed Abraham really did talk to God, I imagine you'd admire him like people admire public intellectuals today. jorndoe wrote: 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. The Hebrew bible does seem to be the only evidence we have for the existence of Abraham; my worry is that atheists will deny that he EXISTED because of the fantastic myths concerned with his actions. All I'm saying is that Abraham probably did exist, even if the Bible greatly mythifys his life. So, you've got the Bible as evidence for the EXISTENCE of Abraham, and little or nothing against. I'm not going to deny that the Bible might be right about one thing just because I disagree with a lot of the ideas within it. jorndoe wrote: It is puzzling why everyone is so quick to simply assume that Abraham and Jesus of the Bible were historical personae, the Bible is the historical account. It's one account which deserves to be considered as possibly true; I personally think that the individual prophets in it probably existed even if they didn't talk to God, and I see no harm in seeing it that way. You're right though, it probably doesn't matter, except as a matter of historical curiousity. And I do enjoy history. Wosret wrote: It's a damn good indication that they are. Especially when they are part of an epic, religious narrative. I meant that it does not disprove the possibility that a guy called Abraham went round claiming he talked to God; whether he did that or not is irrelevent, in my mind he might well have existed, as most of these much exaggerated fantasticial stories have a base on a historical figure. Wosret wrote: 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? Sorry, not sure I understand ya. Are you saying that the person which Arthur was based on just might not have been called Arthur? You're right if you are, but I can hardly see how the change of his name in a text makes a difference. Wosret wrote: 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? I find it far more likely that Abraham was some guy who went round telling everyone he'd talked to God, and then had a book written about him. Problem is, unless there is concrete archeological evidence found which proves his existence, we'll never know for sure, as I'm sure there were thousnads of people living in Ur in his time. Thus, the chances of finding any evidence either way are extremely unlikely, so in my naive non-postmodernist state I'm prepared to accept the Bible's word that there was a man called Abraham who went round telling everyone about his heavenly experiences. This does not mean I believe that he talked to God, however. Chesire wrote: 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. But come on, you must admit that there is a great chance that there was someone who went round SAYING that he talked to God. The number of supposed messiahs in Jesus' time surely shows that he could be anyone of these historical figures. I suppose, in this case, that I am seperating the mythical stories of their life from their existence. But I am only concerned with the Bible's account of their existence and its reliability of the dates of their life - this is where history ends. If you start disbelieving in their existence because you disbelieve in their actions, then you're into theological criticism. Chesire wrote: 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. A very interesting point, one which I'll convert into a thread at some point when I have time. It seems that we have enough corroborating evidence to suggest that Socrates was a historical figure, but Plato in particular used him as a literary device; a physcial representation of 'the philosopher king' he so idealised. So again, Socrates was a mythical figure to an extent, but this does not mean he did not exist and does not mean that he even said some of the things which are attributed to him in the Platonic dialogues. He bears great similarities, to me at least, to Jesus; he may not have had all the ideas (no one can be as brilliant as Plato makes him!) just like Jesus didn't do the miracles. However, I am prepared to believe that Socrates came up with some of the ideas in Plato's work, just as I am prepared to believe that a man named Jesus gave many of the ethical teachings which are attributed to him.
The Midnight Sun Never Sets.

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 715

Posted 11/02/09 - 11:16 AM:	#439
sheps wrote: But come on, you must admit that there is a great chance that there was someone who went round SAYING that he talked to God. The number of supposed messiahs in Jesus' time surely shows that he could be anyone of these historical figures. I suppose, in this case, that I am seperating the mythical stories of their life from their existence. But I am only concerned with the Bible's account of their existence and its reliability of the dates of their life - this is where history ends. If you start disbelieving in their existence because you disbelieve in their actions, then you're into theological criticism. I appreciate your honesty. It is a difficult position to maintain, so your non-evasion of criticism should be rightfully acknowledged. Prior to more criticism.
Or not.

sheps
Assistant Professor

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

Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 431

Posted 11/02/09 - 11:43 AM:	#440
Cheshire wrote: I appreciate your honesty. It is a difficult position to maintain, so your non-evasion of criticism should be rightfully acknowledged. Prior to more criticism. It's a moot point anyway, the historicity of the Bible is pretty irrelavent I guess. Just wanted to turn this discussion in a different direction, and to satisfy my own curiosity.
The Midnight Sun Never Sets.

Page: First 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Last

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