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 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58

Is Atheism a form of Faith?

Sashianova
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 01, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 140

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/07/09 - 09:17 AM:	#571
180 Proof wrote: 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. I do not disagree and only wanted to clarify the lack of certainty in atheism, and to identify the fact that the notion of the existence of god is still relevant to the extent that it is possible. Theists make regular leaps of faith in the association of personally beneficial circumstances to the context of their mythical deity of choice. They narrowly avoid a car wreck and immediately attribute it to their god of choice, without any recognition whatsoever that this is a non sequitur. It's as simple as saying, "thank God." This is actually fascinating, how much such a thought is taking for granted in a split second. In the Christian sense, it is presuming the historical accuracy of the Bible, the nature of God, one's own good standing with God and how God is helping out, while simultaneously disregarding all of that for the other people who got in car wrecks and weren't OK. When god helps, and circumstances are positive, thank god. When god doesn't help, deal with the negative circumstances, they're part of the plan. That's theistic faith in a nutshell. It's all about self-preservation, and maintaining a glass-is-half-full outlook on god. It's not difficult to identify the fallacious reasoning in the theistic viewpoint. The leaps of faith made without corroborating evidence are many. However, this does not empirically deny the possibility that there is some sort of god responsible for existence. Perhaps, the tendency for human beings to conceptualize god arises not entirely from fear of the unknown and the desire for an explanation which isn't there, but from the sense of interconnectedness which we have with each other. Is the nebulous sense of spirituality anything more than just an active imagination? Is there such a thing as the collective unconscious? Is there more to existence than can be reasoned about? Musicians often feel as though they are channeling melodies which already exist. There is evidence of precognition among humans and animals. Many people experience deja vu. My own intuitive leap of faith is that it all points to a synthesis of science and spirituality, much in the way that the first law of thermodynamics is consistently utilized by believers. That there is both an empirical explanation yet to be discovered for all questions and that it may approach religious proportions. Still, all of this postulating is entirely without merit from the atheistic point of view. It's mere wanking in the lab. Optimism is not valued by atheism.

NothingtoSay
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 287

Posted 11/07/09 - 10:37 AM:	#572
180 Proof wrote: 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. And what do you refer to when you say 'god'? I ask only because I am confused, for I don't think I share the same idea of God with you even though I am a theist, and I wouldn't know what you are talking about.

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 11/07/09 - 12:43 PM:	#573
NothingtoSay wrote: And what do you refer to when you say 'god'? I ask only because I am confused, for I don't think I share the same idea of God with you even though I am a theist, and I wouldn't know what you are talking about. Personally, when I say god, I mean a supernatural, personal progenitor of the cosmos. Anything less, not god, anything more is superfluous. If your god holds these attributes, then I'm talking about her.
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

NothingtoSay
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 287

Posted 11/07/09 - 02:51 PM:	#574
Wosret wrote: Personally, when I say god, I mean a supernatural, personal progenitor of the cosmos. Anything less, not god, anything more is superfluous. If your god holds these attributes, then I'm talking about her. Yes, I think of God as the origin. But when I think of God, I think more of an intelligence. I think similarity and difference and the persistence of both have something to do with my thinking this.

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004

Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 1450

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/07/09 - 03:32 PM:	#575
180 Proof wrote: 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. But you do believe that other people 'ought' to be rational which is itself a moral belief. If people disagree that they need to be rational or they do not agree with what you consider to be rational then they will not accept your beliefs. The belief that someone 'ought' to do one thing instead of another is a moral belief no matter if someone wants people to follow their religion or to be rational. Trying to help others recognize that their views are unreasonable is just another way to word that you are trying to persuade them 180 Proof wrote: 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. Beliefs other than your own are not as irrelevant to those who hold them. You have already shown that your belief that others should be rational is one that you are willing to defend, perhaps if you would put the same energy into understand other people's beliefs as you do in defending your own you would understand the dilemma of trying to argue that people shouldn't believe in God. I will not deny that there are misguided theists, but it is not a given that belief in God is the reason that they are that way. As far as I can tell a person is corrupt regardless of whether they believe in God or not. However there exists some possibility that believing in God helps in allowing someone to have more empathy for those around them. 180 Proof wrote: 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 reasonable and informed than yours or the contrary. If it weren't, dclements, you'd no doubt jump at addressing (i.e. knocking dowm) my actual arguments instead of editorializing ad nauseam. Uncritical relativism, such as yours, amounts to little more than a circle-jerk. No thanks. Any statement where you or anyone else claims someone 'ought' to do something is a moral argument. Otherwise as you said in post #529 your statements are merely a philosophical critique. I will have to admit, you are as stubborn Bubba use to be. Perhaps even worse.
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

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004

Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 1450

Posted 11/08/09 - 12:28 AM:	#576
Sashianova wrote: Theists make regular leaps of faith in the association of personally beneficial circumstances to the context of their mythical deity of choice. They narrowly avoid a car wreck and immediately attribute it to their god of choice, without any recognition whatsoever that this is a non sequitur. It's as simple as saying, "thank God." This is actually fascinating, how much such a thought is taking for granted in a split second. In the Christian sense, it is presuming the historical accuracy of the Bible, the nature of God, one's own good standing with God and how God is helping out, while simultaneously disregarding all of that for the other people who got in car wrecks and weren't OK. When god helps, and circumstances are positive, thank god. When god doesn't help, deal with the negative circumstances, they're part of the plan. That's theistic faith in a nutshell. It's all about self-preservation, and maintaining a glass-is-half-full outlook on god. Perhaps the problem is not in the belief in God itself, but instead in the human condition.I forget the title of the book, but it talked about that there is a theory that in early human evolution man's brain became wired to believe in God in order to survive. How it worked is that members of a tribe would follow orders of a chief and by working as part of a team the tribe would do better. However when members got separated they would sometimes have trouble thinking for themselves. The way that some dealt with this problem was trying to figure out what the chief would want them to do. However they still had difficulty in acting on their own. In order to get around this instead of just thinking for themselves they would image that they chief was talking to them and telling them what needed to be done. When tribes got bigger there was too many people for one chief alone and members would be subjected to the wills of many chiefs. In order to deal with the problem a big chief was created to deal with inconstancies of the many chiefs and that chief was both ruler and god. Since people often never saw the ruler they could only imagine what his will was from other tribe members, but in the end it worked a lot the same way. To this day the chief still resides as part of our superego in our unconscious. In order to access it someone would need to go through a process similar to what our ancestors went through when they would talk to their imaged chiefs. What part of the struggle with religion may be is that people do not like that this alter-ego exists and the problems that it may cause. For example, if someone was greatly influenced by their own inner chief just the action of this person speaking may awaken other people's chiefs. If they are able to keep their wits about them, they may go along with whatever the person is saying even if they really do not agree with it. I think one example of such a person was Joan of Arc although many other leaders may use similar tactics.
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

180 Proof
kynic

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

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5135

Posted 11/08/09 - 01:01 AM:	#577
NothingtoSay wrote: And what do you refer to when you say 'god'? It depends on the context. I ask only because I am confused, for I don't think I share the same idea of God with you even though I am a theist, and I wouldn't know what you are talking about. In the post you quote I refer explicitly to the "JCI deity" (i.e. Judeo-Christian-Islamic deity) aka "the god of Abraham". But when I think of God, I think more of an intelligence. I'm definitely not referring to any vague idiosyncratic notion of "god" but one established by any number of religious, or theistic, traditions. dclements wrote: But you do believe that other people 'ought' to be rational which is itself a moral belief. I've never asserted or implied this imperative. What orifice are you pulling this out of, dc? Beliefs other than your own are not as irrelevant to those who hold them. *This issue is not what some "belief" means to the one who holds it but what it conveys* to others to which it is expressed.** An unjustified "belief" (i.e. faith-based) never conveys truth and infrequently conveys sense though it may well be 'meaningful' in certain contexts. I will have to admit, you are as stubborn Bubba use to be. Well, you're certainly as wedded to non sequiturs & strawman gambits as he used to be. Better stubborn than fatuous any day.
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?]]]

atightropewalker
On par with an amoeba.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 128

Posted 11/08/09 - 03:27 AM:	#578
180 Proof wrote: *This issue is not what some "belief" means to the one who holds it but what it conveys* to others to which it is expressed.** An unjustified "belief" (i.e. faith-based) never conveys truth and infrequently conveys sense though it may well be 'meaningful' in certain contexts. So your problem with belief is its expression to others - presumably others cannot think for themselves (which I do agree can be a real problem). But then what are we to do in life - refer only to evidential truths, try and avoid metaphysics like the Vienna circle? Am I to stop saying the murderer is wrong? I have an unjustified belief in what is good - there is no scientific measure, it is not necessarily logical and, apart from anything else, everyone holds a different value. The moment I talk about good in a specific sense I have commited a falsity unless that is my experience of good in which case I have commited a falsity to everyone else. I am fully aware that there are too many people who won't think for themselves and many who are being misled. With religions this is dangerous because it is an active position, at least being misled to atheism is equating with a 'lazy' position. The problem as I see it is that you should be able to look back on your past experiences and draw your own conclusions on God. Then arguments such as these are only to reassess your belief, to try and see things from a new perspective, which is why you have to present them as certainty. You have to let people pick and choose these things for themselves and trust that they won't let themselves be misled (using the Bible, science etc.) from what really matters: their experiences. I guess the question is why should we not be certain of our experiences?
"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: 16
Total Posts: 715

Posted 11/08/09 - 11:45 AM:	#579
Sashianova wrote: I do not disagree and only wanted to clarify the lack of certainty in atheism, and to identify the fact that the notion of the existence of god is still relevant to the extent that it is possible. I expected this agnostic position to be easier, but I've run into a bit of a wall. Namely, that the only problem with atheism is adopting a structurally(it is argued)unprovable position. However, if I select a position similar to what 180Proof suggested I can argue from evidence to conclusion. To be more specific if I assert "God is fictional" I have a literary argument to the positive conclusion of categorically fictional. I'd like to also turn the theist argument upside down and say "Yes, God does exist, as a literary character". I am a Literary Theist; I believe God exists, because the religious texts exist. So, Literary Theism anyone? The counter position would of course be Illiterate Theism. Edited by Cheshire on 11/08/09 - 11:55 AM
Or not.

180 Proof
kynic

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

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5135

Posted 11/08/09 - 05:04 PM:	#580
Cheshire wrote: I expected this agnostic position to be easier, but I've run into a bit of a wall. Namely, that the only problem with atheism is adopting a structurally(it is argued)unprovable position. However, if I select a position similar to what 180Proof suggested I can argue from evidence to conclusion. To be more specific if I assert "God is fictional" I have a literary argument to the positive conclusion of categorically fictional. I'd like to also turn the theist argument upside down and say "Yes, God does exist, as a literary character". I am a Literary Theist; I believe God exists, because the religious texts exist. So, Literary Theism anyone? The counter position would of course be Illiterate Theism.
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 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.