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 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58

Is Atheism a form of Faith?

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 712

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/05/09 - 04:32 PM:	#551
kkiiji wrote: Haha the ontological argument was quite popular, why can't mine be their flagship proof as well? How are you coming to the conclusion that imagined definitions can not create realities? Through reason? You can't use reason to negate God though, since you just imagined him to be beyond reason. Well, I guess I did. Does that mean I have to believe in him now?
Or not.

kkiiji
Aubrey de Grey: a vampire

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Location: San Diego, California

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 1526

Posted 11/05/09 - 04:37 PM:	#552
Cheshire wrote: Well, I guess I did. Does that mean I have to believe in him now? If all your beliefs depend on reason, then yes. You can still unreasonably doubt God however. Haha
Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says "Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says "But Doctor... I am Pagliacci." Good joke, everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum... Curtains.

rigelrover
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 560

1 of 3 people found this post helpful Posted 11/05/09 - 04:42 PM:	#553
180 Proof wrote: "god" does not represent, or refer, to any state-of-affairs. Either everything constitutes such a state of affairs...or it doesn't. Your choice, Ben.
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.

atightropewalker
On par with an amoeba.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 127

Posted 11/06/09 - 02:54 AM:	#554
If we are going to try and categorically prove the non-existence of God through logic, language, science and causality, can we please solve all the paradoxes and inconsistencies present in these first. If you believe they can solve the question of God then that would appear to be a faith in the infallibility of the above schemes, something that experience has told us is not the case. God is not something in the real world that we can mould these properties to so you have to be able to look beyond them and use your experiences to find what you believe. If logic has served you well in life then by all means use it but don't think it holds power over everyone.
"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

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

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

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2876

Posted 11/06/09 - 03:28 AM:	#555
atightropewalker wrote: If we are going to try and categorically prove the non-existence of God through logic, language, science and causality, can we please solve all the paradoxes and inconsistencies present in these first. If you believe they can solve the question of God then that would appear to be a faith in the infallibility of the above schemes, something that experience has told us is not the case. God is not something in the real world that we can mould these properties to so you have to be able to look beyond them and use your experiences to find what you believe. If logic has served you well in life then by all means use it but don't think it holds power over everyone. Make god the exception. Believe that she is just one of those few things that must have fallen through the cracks in our methodologies, and in reason. Allow for god this free pass -- but this is your auto de fe, not mine.
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

atightropewalker
On par with an amoeba.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 127

1 of 1 people found this post helpful

Posted 11/06/09 - 03:42 AM:

#556

I don't think it does just apply to God. I think, in fact, it applies to everything we don't know. Logic, science, language are great for when we have evidence beyond our experience (though they still do have problems), they work most of the time. But they are in no way of use to things we haven't got evidence beyond our experiences. To quote Wittgenstein:

"To believe in a God means to see that the facts of the world are not the end of the matter."

The laws of logic et al., have been developed to explain facts of the world. But who can deny there is more to the world than they tell us and more beyond the world they can't possibly tell us. They are great for what we have evidence of beyond experience alone and if you want to believe they apply to all things, including your own experiences and things to be learnt, then thats your prerogative. It just deosn't make belief in God wrong for reasons other than contradicting your own beliefs.

"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

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 712

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/06/09 - 09:53 AM:	#557
atightropewalker wrote: God is not something in the real world that we can mould these properties to so you have to be able to look beyond them and use your experiences to find what you believe. If logic has served you well in life then by all means use it but don't think it holds power over everyone. There is one point to be made in this regard. Logic and reason regardless of the quality can not change reality. It seems too obvious to say, but if God exists a clever argument is not a threat. If there is a God I can't imagine being faulted for being reasonably skeptical. Can you hide from some one and then get mad if they don't find you? What part of logic is so questionable?
Or not.

alim1312
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 04, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/06/09 - 12:30 PM:	#558
Im not an atheist, but i believe that it is a faith position as to be an atheist one most have a concept of God to reject, if they have no concept of God to reject it is just the same as saying that: in one world where no faries exist, all people are afary which does not make full logicall sense as these peopel are not even aware that they are afary... therefore to be an atheist you must have a concept of God and therefore it is a faith position.

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 11/06/09 - 01:07 PM:	#559
atightropewalker wrote: I don't think it does just apply to God. So you're not a theist? Do you believe in everything? Or do you just arbitrary pick and choose what you will believe? All of your rhetoric does not hide that you believe in a god, and not in a plethora of other supernatural entities and phenomena. That you employ logic, reason, and evidence to live your everyday life, and in everyday situations would require backing, and evidence for assertions in order for you to accept propositions as true -- yet you accept god, and freely offer up that fact, logic, and reason do not imply god. This, sir, is faith. I don't have faith in reason, and empiricism, I understand their limitations, and I accept "truth" as merely provisional, and open to future revision. Nothing is absolute, or certain, and I don't expect, or anticipate it to be. I trust these things to the level that it is justified to trust them. Based on their reliability, I can estimate their trustworthiness, and trust them to that extent. This still however does not mean that I no longer use reason and evidence to formulate my views of the world, it's the best I've got. I'm staying consistent, I am making no exceptions, I am applying my methodologies to this question like I would any other. It is you sir, you that is saying, "no, no! Not in this case. Let this be different. Let us not apply our methodologies to this, let us just accept it." This extreme, almost Cartesian skepticism that theists seem to fall back on when it comes to criticisms of their theism is astonishing. It is bad enough that theists deny reason and evidence in this instance, but then they expect disproofs, and demonstrations, and to discuss this position -- how am I to dissuade you if you reject my only legitimate ways of doing so? Shall we arm wrestle? Edited by Wosret on 11/06/09 - 01:49 PM
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

atightropewalker
On par with an amoeba.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 127

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/06/09 - 05:41 PM:	#560
Wosret wrote: So you're not a theist? Do you believe in everything? Or do you just arbitrary pick and choose what you will believe? I don't have faith in reason, and empiricism, I understand their limitations, and I accept "truth" as merely provisional, and open to future revision. Nothing is absolute, or certain, and I don't expect, or anticipate it to be. I trust these things to the level that it is justified to trust them. Based on their reliability, I can estimate their trustworthiness, and trust them to that extent. This still however does not mean that I no longer use reason and evidence to formulate my views of the world, it's the best I've got. I'm staying consistent, I am making no exceptions, I am applying my methodologies to this question like I would any other. It is you sir, you that is saying, "no, no! Not in this case. Let this be different. Let us not apply our methodologies to this, let us just accept it." This extreme, almost Cartesian skepticism that theists seem to fall back on when it comes to criticisms of their theism is astonishing. It is bad enough that theists deny reason and evidence in this instance, but then they expect disproofs, and demonstrations, and to discuss this position -- how am I to dissuade you if you reject my only legitimate ways of doing so? Shall we arm wrestle? I'd love the idea of beliving in everything but its beyond me. No what I believe I base solely on my experiences. I'm not going to cloud my judgement by falling back to a faulty system such as logic or science. If I don't have certainty in my own experiences then all I am left with is Cartesian doubt. And I'm not saying God alone is given such rarefied treatment. If I was to say 'future technological discovery' I can't apply what I know to define what it is. Yet I know such a thing exists. So while I'm all too happy to use logic where I know of its domain this is only because logic=experience essentially. I'm sure atheists don't want to hear it but you cannot disprove God (lets go for a broad definition here). You can point out flaws in beliefs or flaws in logic, which are of the person not of God. But you cannot flatly deny God. You can merely reach a conclusion for yourself only. If that is applying logic evenly to all then so be it but I just want to point out that appears to involve faith. And as alim1312 put it, the moment you set out to disprove a God you have imagined that God and are disproving the God you have created in your mind. I just find it a shame that were we to discuss ethics we would get a myriad of answers where there is no right one. We apply it to God and everyone considers it an answered question, case closed, in one direction or the other. For me God is an active learning process, my concept of God has changed throughout the years, and I may yet end up not believing in God. I essentially want to know more of God and the usual God is logically unsound, scientificaly improbable, ambiguous through language, cosmological arguments, do as the bible says etc. do nothing to help me learn more of God. Now I'm not saying all of the posts on here have been of such a nature but many have and I guess I just miss the ambiguity of it all. I miss the variety of ideas you get when you philosophize.
"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

Page: First 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58

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