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

Is Atheism a form of Faith?

rigelrover
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 559

Posted 11/06/09 - 05:55 PM:	#561
atightropewalker wrote: So while I'm all too happy to use logic where I know of its domain this is only because logic=experience essentially. This is interesting. It is my understanding that reality is self-consistent. So it seems that logic is an intrinsic property of reality. Direct experience is always consistent with reality. But all representations/claims to descriptions of formal truths about reality (in languages, models, etc.) to ourselves and to others seem to fall short of closing themselves around it. This is what encourages me to seek meaningful metaphors from all types. Philosophers, priests, physicists, friends, fiction, fact, people I run into on the street. It is tough to get me out of this because I especially appreciate constructive criticism, but have never experienced enough for it to remove the seed of mystery. Edited by rigelrover on 11/06/09 - 06:01 PM
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.

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

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

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2874

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/06/09 - 06:36 PM:	#562
atightropewalker wrote: I'd love the idea of beliving in everything but its beyond me. No what I believe I base solely on my experiences. So a posteriori? Empiricism essentially? That makes no sense from what you've been saying. You must mean something else by "experience" than how I understand the word. I'm not going to cloud my judgement by falling back to a faulty system such as logic or science. What do you use that is superior that using logic and science would qualify as "falling back on"? If I don't have certainty in my own experiences then all I am left with is Cartesian doubt. Only when convenient. I notice that people only doubt to this extent when they have the convenience. No one doubts the lethality of a weapon pointed at them, or the threat of falling from a high distance when dangling. I can't take seriously a position that is merely espoused, but never practiced. So while I'm all too happy to use logic where I know of its domain this is only because logic=experience essentially. No, quite the opposite in fact. Logic deals with formalized systems of our own invention, and the relationship between information, and conceptions. It is inherently abstract, and in no way dictates reality. Logic can't demonstrate that one can't ice skate on the sun, experience, empiricism demonstrates this. I'm sure atheists don't want to hear it but you cannot disprove God (lets go for a broad definition here). I can to the extent that we all find satisfactory for every other fictional creature and being. Anything that's existence isn't disprovable with logic has no better evidence against its negation than any other supernatural postulate. Though, here you are, denying logic and evidence's ability to demonstrate anything to your satisfaction in this instance, yet demanding it do so regardless. But you cannot flatly deny God. There are no gods. Not a single one. At no place, at no time, in any location in the universe was space occupied by a supernatural person that was responsible for its creation. God does not exist in the actual, it is a mere idea. Looks like I can. You can merely reach a conclusion for yourself only. No, my conclusions are based on information and reasoning that I at least contend to be valid for everyone, and is available to everyone. You're just projecting. If that is applying logic evenly to all then so be it but I just want to point out that appears to involve faith. By mere assertion. Repeat it if you like, repetition strengthens belief. If you want to argue this, rather than assert how it appears then I would be happy to address it. 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. Nonsense. I don't tunnel vision on god, I exclude god from my ontology for the same reason that I exclude all other supernatural entities, and postulates. This exclusion is a consequence of my methodology. Unlike for the theist, the "god" subject is not special to me. 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. It can either exist or not exist. Not a lot of spectrum there -- either the universe was the result of a supernatural person, or it wasn't. The fog only begins to encompass the land when the obfuscating commences. 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. Where ever the wind takes you, I'm sure. 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. Yeah, you're a foggy. You like the mystery, and suspense. You like that water nice and muddy. Edited by Wosret on 11/06/09 - 06:47 PM
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

180 Proof
kynic

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

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5119

Posted 11/06/09 - 08:11 PM:	#563
atightropewalker wrote: I'm sure atheists don't want to hear it but you cannot disprove God (lets go for a broad definition here) ... But you cannot flatly deny God. I've laid out here and here how god(s) can be disproven beyond a reasonable doubt. And in post no. 400 above I reformulated the question of (some) 'god's existence' as a question of whether (some) god is a fiction or a fact. As I point out in post no. 517 above that atheism meets its onus of proof which consists in proving that theism (vis-a-vis extant god-concepts e.g. JCI, Hindu, pagan deities) is conceptually incoherent & theistic-claims (e.g. scriptural accounts, miracles, etc) are empirically false. None of the worshipped god(s) or foundational/transcendental god-construct(s) have survived critical examination on conceptual, logical & empirical grounds. I wish some really smart theist or agnostic would either 1) *non-fallaciously defeat the conceptual, logical & empirical tests* discussed on this thread or 2) non-fallaciously demonstrate that any intelligible, rational, test for theistic claims (re: states-of-affairs (e.g. "there is a god")) is impossible.** Edited by 180 Proof on 11/06/09 - 08:22 PM. Reason: Yes ...
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?]]]

Sashianova
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 01, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 112

Posted 11/06/09 - 08:21 PM:	#564
All traditional theistic claims aside, 180 Proof, is it accurate to say that atheism does not attempt to disprove the possibility (however slim) of the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent being fitting the general definition of "god/creator?" Or does the atheist insist there is no such possibility whatsoever?

180 Proof
kynic

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

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5119

Posted 11/06/09 - 08:40 PM:	#565
Sashianova wrote: All traditional theistic claims aside, 180 Proof, is it accurate to say that atheism does not attempt to disprove the possibility (however slim) of the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent being fitting the general definition of "god/creator"? Or does the atheist insist there is no such possibility whatsoever? We disprove the actuality, and not the mere possibility, of a referent to a "god/creator"-concept. As for impossibility, that depends upon the definition in question. I argue that "transcendent gods" (e.g. JCI & Hindu deities) are impossible and that extant "non-transcendent gods" (e.g. pagan deities), while possible, are uncorroborated by the evidence entailed by their respective predicates or scriptural/mythic accounts.
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?]]]

NothingtoSay
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 285

Posted 11/06/09 - 09:05 PM:	#566
What is a transcendent God?

180 Proof
kynic

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

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5119

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/06/09 - 10:20 PM:	#567
NothingtoSay wrote: What is a transcendent God? A god that transcends the universe (i.e. physical laws) insofar as it is alleged to have "created" (i.e. preceded/caused) and/or sustains (via intervening everywhere/everywhen in) the universe. The JCI deity, for example, falls into this category.
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?]]]

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004

Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 1447

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 11/07/09 - 04:11 AM:	#568
180 Proof wrote: I've laid out here and here how god(s) can be disproven beyond a reasonable doubt. And in post no. 400 above I reformulated the question of (some) 'god's existence' as a question of whether (some) god is a fiction or a fact. As I point out in post no. 517 above that atheism meets its onus of proof which consists in proving that theism (vis-a-vis extant god-concepts e.g. JCI, Hindu, pagan deities) is conceptually incoherent & theistic-claims (e.g. scriptural accounts, miracles, etc) are empirically false. None of the worshipped god(s) or foundational/transcendental god-construct(s) have survived critical examination on conceptual, logical & empirical grounds. I wish some really smart theist or agnostic would either 1) *non-fallaciously defeat the conceptual, logical & empirical tests* discussed on this thread or 2) non-fallaciously demonstrate that any intelligible, rational, test for theistic claims (re: states-of-affairs (e.g. "there is a god")) is impossible.** But all you argument does is explain why God is incoherent according to your beliefs, it does nothing to provided reasons why other people should not believe in God if they have different beliefs than your own. Although there may be concepts of God that are incoherent and/or incorrect, it doesn't mean that all are nor does it prove that one 'ought' not to believe in God. Whether you like it or not, your argument is suggesting that others should change their belief in order to make them more similar to your own. You have already explained that you reasons showing the flaws in believing in God it that you wish to reduce the some of 'wrong'actions committed by those that believe. However neither you nor theists can explain using facts why anyone else needs to believe as you do. In the end it is your opinion against the theist opinion (since facts can not support moral opinions) and both hope that they can fool someone else into thinking as they do.
No, you don't get it, thats why I'm telling you. You think you get it, which isn't the same as actually getting it. Get it?-Kakashi Hatake Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied, And vice sometimes by action dignified-Friar Lawrence The state of mind that questions is much more important than the question itself.Any question may be asked by a slavish mind, and the answer it receives will still be be within the limitations of its own slavery...Freedom of desire for an answer is essential for the understanding of a problem-Krishnamurti

atightropewalker
On par with an amoeba.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 119

Posted 11/07/09 - 05:44 AM:	#569
Wosret wrote: So a posteriori? Empiricism essentially? That makes no sense from what you've been saying. You must mean something else by "experience" than how I understand the word. A kind of empiricism, yes. But it applys to more than objects outside of me. I look back at my beliefs, my thoughts and see where they lead me. Wosret wrote: Only when convenient. I notice that people only doubt to this extent when they have the convenience. No one doubts the lethality of a weapon pointed at them, or the threat of falling from a high distance when dangling. I can't take seriously a position that is merely espoused, but never practiced. I don't have doubt in my experiences. I don't doubt a gun could kill me and I don't doubt I would be very surprised if I saw God standing in front of me (assuming human form). But in both cases providing I know I am of sound mind I can deny them. My experiences I cannot pick or choose, merely learn from. Wosret wrote: No, quite the opposite in fact. Logic deals with formalized systems of our own invention, and the relationship between information, and conceptions. It is inherently abstract, and in no way dictates reality. Logic can't demonstrate that one can't ice skate on the sun, experience, empiricism demonstrates this. Thats why I don't use logic to demonstrate I can't skate on the sun. I only use logic to decide where to stand when logic has been shown to have an application. One such application is not God as I see it. And actually as I understand it the philosophical logos movement is aiming to apply logic to real-world concepts - to shoot beyond mathematics. But in any cse I can't say everyone is using it wrongly, use it as you will. I just don't think it can solve all our problems and don't use it as such Wosret wrote: I can to the extent that we all find satisfactory for every other fictional creature and being. Anything that's existence isn't disprovable with logic has no better evidence against its negation than any other supernatural postulate. Though, here you are, denying logic and evidence's ability to demonstrate anything to your satisfaction in this instance, yet demanding it do so regardless. I believe all that matters is your experience. Who am I to say what is true for you. If you look back at your experiences and can disprove God with your experiences then so be it. If your experiences don't tell you anything of God then you will have to apply science and logic because you have experienced them working in the past. In any case you have appealed to an outside authority (faith? - I know I do this) and if you did have an idea of God then all you are doing is doubting your experiences for external authority. Passing the buck somewhat. Wosret wrote: There are no gods. Not a single one. At no place, at no time, in any location in the universe was space occupied by a supernatural person that was responsible for its creation. God does not exist in the actual, it is a mere idea. Looks like I can. I have to admit I don't know why I put you cannot flatly deny God. You, of course, can but it is somewhat contrary to experience and isn't helping us to proceed anywhere. Wosret wrote: No, my conclusions are based on information and reasoning that I at least contend to be valid for everyone, and is available to everyone. You're just projecting. So are the conclusions I draw of the experiencable physical world. When I use science I do so in the belief that anyone can replicate anywhere and be correct. I have no intentions for anyone to believe my God largely because I don't want anyone to doubt their experiences on such a matter. I know science, logic, language can't settle this matter to a point where I can tell other people to use them. Wosret wrote: Where ever the wind takes you, I'm sure. Wherever my experiences take me and as I mentioned previously I don't want to start doubting them yet. If my experiences deny God (as they have very nearly in the past) then that is where I stand. Wosret wrote: Yeah, you're a foggy. You like the mystery, and suspense. You like that water nice and muddy. I like the learning, I like the idea I can find the correct answer. I just don't like philosophy's obsession with logos. Philosophy is that area where there is no right answer, so searching for it is somewhat futile. I want philosophy to get people to see things from a new perspective, not just for your beneift but for theirs as well. Atheism seems such a certainty in the modern age that we are losing a lot of potentially great thought in a wall of logical rebukes and ontological arguments. As it says in one of my books: "Work on philosphy is - as work in architecture frequently is - actually more a kind of work on oneself, on one's own conception, on the way one sees things." (Attributed to Wittgenstein).
"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

180 Proof
kynic

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

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5119

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 11/07/09 - 08:23 AM:	#570
dclements wrote: But all you argument does is explain why God is incoherent according to your beliefs, it does nothing to provided reasons why other people should not believe in God if they have different beliefs than your own. No. My arguments do not express any "beliefs", they only demonstrate that theism lacks sound reasons. I'm not trying to persuade others to change their "beliefs"; I'm just helping them to recognize that their theism is unreasonable. Whether you like it or not, your argument is suggesting that others should change their belief in order to make them more similar to your own. Not at all. "Beliefs" are irrelevant, supporting reasons are what's at issue. Those "beliefs" lacking reasons are suspect, or arbitrary (i.e. whimsy, fantasy, wishful thinking, or what have you). It doesn't matter so long as one is honest about holding "beliefs" that no one else need take notice of or take seriously. In the end it is your opinion against the theist opinion (since facts can not support moral opinions) and both hope that they can fool someone else into thinking as they do. Perhaps. But then again my opinions (which are not "moral" as I've not made any "moral" arguments on this thread) have the advantage of being more reasonable and informed than yours or the contrary. If it weren't, dclements, you'd no doubt jump at addressing (i.e. knocking down) my actual arguments instead of editorializing ad nauseam. Uncritical relativism, such as yours, amounts to little more than a circle-jerk. No thanks. Edited by 180 Proof on 11/08/09 - 12:20 AM. Reason: Beating a dead horse, what else?
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 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.