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 fait...

Page: First 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Last

Is Atheism a form of Faith?

Kelby
analytic poop

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 03, 2008
Location: The Fire Nation

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 388

Posted 10/31/09 - 09:39 PM:	#411
psychotick wrote: Now for both of you. I have deliberately left out all religious issues, all scriptures and holy books, because they are not relevant to the debate. If you want to argue that religion is false, fine, but not in this thread please. If you feel that the only way that you can state with certainty that there is no god / creator is by trashing religion, then you have already conceded the argument. The tenants of various religions or all of them relating to gods laws or actions within the universe can be debated until the cows come home. The fact that they make no scientific sense and disagree with one another does not in any way invalidate the existence of a creator. I did not trash religion once. You are creating a straw man. Majority of the things you have stated in the above do not pertain to me in the slightest as I have never made any of the above arguments.

psychotick
Dazed and confused

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 05, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 257

Posted 10/31/09 - 10:22 PM:	#412
Hi, Kelby, apologies if I invalidly accused you of trashing religions. My intent was only to point out that invalidating a religions tenants does not invalidate the existence or non-existence of a creator. Cheshire you said "Yes it does and you know it." Cheshire, clearly I do not know that invalidating the tenants of a religion or all of them invalidates the existence of a creator. I have stated this a number of times. Invalidating the tenants of a religion invalidates a religion only. Please do not accuse me of this sort of duplicitous arguing again. I say what I mean. I may be wrong, my logic may be found to be faulty, but I am not lying or holding a position I do not believe in. I believe that there is a god, a creator. I do not believe that all tenants of all religions are correct. These are not mutually exclusive positions. 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? Cheers.

180 Proof
kynic

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

Total Topics: 89
Total Posts: 5457

Posted 10/31/09 - 10:44 PM:	#413
atightropewalker wrote: My greatest problems with theism lie with religion ... Religion, however, still does inspire people to very great things, I just can't agree with the reasons. That's just it: what reasons? We all hold our own Gods yet we share an understanding of 'God'. What interests me is do(es) ... God become false, because I am not describing the same God as my neighbour ... No. Your god is just as false (i.e. fictional) as your neighbor's if neither of you express a concept (of a god) that evidently refers to possible, let alone actual, object (or state-of-affairs). We might disagree about what (e.g.) a 'five-sided triangle' looks like, or even what it's good for, but that's an idle disagreement (pace Meinong) since such an object is impossible (i.e. imaginary, fictional). I can fully understand anyone rejecting God on the basis that noone has shown the right God. On the balance of probability the blanket term 'God' is wrong and as so it appears as a result that anyone who ascribes their individual 'God' to the term 'God' is almost wholly wrong. And I think herein lies the faith: ... I have faith, I guess but I do know I do it all the time. Whereas it may seem wise to live on the balance of probability I don't always want to (and I've yet to encounter a reason why living on the balance of probability is 'good'). I want to have certainty of things where I may be proved right even though overwhelmingly statistically I am wrong ... I understand, and though I respect the honesty it takes to admit the need for "faith" amid the aggressively critical crossfires of this forum, atightropewalker, "certainty" in the face of insufficient, or counter, evidence is, I must point out, nothing but the crutch of dogma (i.e. "philosophical suicide"). psychotick wrote: But yes to clarify - I am equating god with existence. That is the sum total of what I am equating him with for the purposes of this debate, the creation of the universe. Finally. This 'predicate-free existence', however, is neither a "creator" (separate & prior to "creation" aka existence?) nor what theists -- except (maybe) pantheists -- call "god". But why call existence "god" (unless, protests to the contrary, you are invoking "religion") anyway? Why confuse the issue? Atheists reject the theist (deist & mystic) "god" but not existence itself. Thus, the OP posits a strawman. If you weren't so disingenuous, psychotick, you might've defined "your god" at the outset, or at least when I challenged you to do so 250 posts ago ... Edited by 180 Proof on 10/31/09 - 10:53 PM. Reason: Troll-spotting (again) ...
The question isn't "What do I believe?" but rather "What do I least disbelieve?" Absence of necessary evidence is evidence of necessary absence. [What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]

kkiiji
Aubrey de Grey: a vampire

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

Total Topics: 55
Total Posts: 1577

Posted 10/31/09 - 11:13 PM:	#414
But oh my God, why are we all using reason to justify God's existence or lack of existence? God is beyond reason, what do we mortals know about something that is beyond reason?
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.

180 Proof
kynic

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

Total Topics: 89
Total Posts: 5457

Posted 10/31/09 - 11:50 PM:	#415
kkiiji wrote: God is beyond reason ... Spiderman, for example, isn't "beyond reason" so why assume this about (any) "god"? Btw, kkiiji, which "god" are you talking about?
The question isn't "What do I believe?" but rather "What do I least disbelieve?" Absence of necessary evidence is evidence of necessary absence. [What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]

kkiiji
Aubrey de Grey: a vampire

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

Total Topics: 55
Total Posts: 1577

Posted 11/01/09 - 01:15 AM:	#416
God, a being who possesses many features, one of which is being so God damn powerful that he is beyond any reason and comprehension by the human brain. I mean clearly a simple application of ockhom's razor would cut God like a samurai cuts up his innocent civilians, IF God was contained within the realm of reason. Too bad God is just so damn powerful.
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.

psychotick
Dazed and confused

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 05, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 257

Posted 11/01/09 - 03:37 AM:	#417
Hi 180Proof. I'm getting tired of being called disingenuous by you. Here are the definitions of god I've used in this thread. Post 62: How is god different you ask? God, first impulse, creator of himself and the universe out of nothing. Post 100: Fifth, yes I am asking what was here before the universe and how it was created. That is rather the point of the debate. God for the purposes of this thread created himself and is the creator of the universe. Post 100: Perhaps if where I have said 'god' you replaced that word with 'creator'. Post 111: Once more we come back to the basic point of difference. You're speaking here about changes in the world, i.e. the world already exists and from that I infer that you're talking about things like miracles and religion. I am not. This post for me at least has been specifically about whether athiests can prove the non existence of god by scientific means or whether they maintain their position based on faith. Therefore the only god I have been referncing is the creator. For the purposes of this argument I do not care if you prove that Jesus did not ascend or heal the sick or anything else. Only the argument that the universe was created by a creator, as held in a number of religions. Post 399: You will remember that I defined god for the purposes of this debate as being that which created himself and then the universe. No specific religion was mentioned nor is it relevant. Likewise all predicates as defined in religions were left out. The only predicate that matters in this debate is the existence of life, the universe and everything, i.e. that which god created. I realise now that to have been absolutely clear on this one single point in my last post I should have said creator instead of creation, but I think my definition of god for the purposes of this debate has been made often enough that you would have understood what I meant. Cheers

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004

Total Topics: 48
Total Posts: 1515

Posted 11/01/09 - 07:04 AM:	#418
Sorry I'm again late in replying...work has made it difficult in keeping up during the week. 180 Proof wrote: dclements wrote: How how do you know your arguemnts are not mere sophistry to others? Well, perhaps because my arguments are usually not demonstrated to be sophistical by them. By 'them' do you mean the people that read your arguments or the arguments themselves? If 'them' references people that read your posts then the fact that some people agree with you doesn't prove you are correct just as when people use to believe that the world was flat didn't make it true. If 'them' is your arguments then your argument is circular. 180 Proof wrote: dclements wrote: Also if you had been reading my posts then you would realize that I have never denied the possiblity that all positions, arguments, or knowledge may be moot including my own? Damn,dc, you make it so easy. Read any Protagoras, Gorgias ... Rorty or Derrida lately? I know a little bit about Derrida and Deconstructivism but haven't read too much, must of my argumebts come what I know about eastern philosophy and life expereinces. Since you consider yourself a skeptic, why do you believe it wrong for other skeptics to doubt pretty much everything including knowledge? You are comfortable questioning the existing God, but what about those that are willing to question everything else? 180 Proof wrote: dclements wrote: I'm arguing a position similiar to Jainism where I'm trying to be tolerate of other beliefs and at the same time questioning my own position as well as everyone elses. Does "toleration" require uncritical acceptance of fallacious arguments, misinformed or incoherent premisses, arguing from rather than to positions, flagrant equivocations, etc? I'm not accusing you of all that all the time, but I challenge your non-positions on those faults which in turn call my own into question for sticking my own neck out as a critic. I see no virtue in navel-gazing self-criticism amid the promise of such readily available dialectical engagement. Jain Syadvada is all well & good for the 'metaphysical purposes' it serves (e.g. moksha) but that presumes too much in this little virtual Agora (i.e. PF) where 'metaphysical commitments' must be bracketed in order to for dialectics to flourish. Yeah, 'truth' is many-sided, or as Nietzsche teaches perspectival, but falsehood & nonsense are legion, which both mystify 'truth' and stupify (our) 'perspectives'. No. Tolerance is not the uncritical acceptance of every belief. As I already said I make an effort to tolerant all beliefs but at the same time question them. All beliefs exist either because they are useful or because they serve a role in dealing with the human condition, which is pretty much the same thing. If they are not useful the societies that believes them will not survive such as the Shakers who didn't believe in having children. When looking at both the human condition and pragmatism most beliefs make some sense. If a system of beliefs is not pragmatic or not pragmatic enough then it can not survive. 180 Proof wrote: Then why call it "god" with all that connotes? Dao -- certainly as interpreted in Daojia -- is insightful and does not require 'faith' or produce cognitive dissonance with regard to scientific rationality. Btw, many early Christian traditions were informed by a neo-Platonic conception of "god" which included in 'The One' the original Platonic idea of 'The Good'. Even today Christians still say "god is good". But 'good', like dao, is a concept through which to perceive the world, or experience life, like a lens and not an external object, or state-of-affairs in the world. The theistic "god" is alleged to be more than that, existent (though "hidden" (i.e. occult)). Because it isn't that easy. Understanding is an iterative process that is dependent on how a person already sees and understands the world. Expecting others to convert to your way of thinking is easiest for you, but for them it is easier if you just started thinking as they do. Everyone wants someone else to take the necessary actions in order to think rationally according to what they know and if they don't then their beliefs are 'wrong'. Awareness of Prattyasamutpda and speaking with God are pretty much the same thing, the only difference is whether one comes from a Abrahamic or Dharmic religion. The knowledge that there is something outside of oneself can be experienced in several ways and the people that go through it communicate it to others differently. However the idea that there is something more oneself is common concept through nearly all religions. 180 Proof wrote: dclements wrote: Nobody ever argues that 'good'/'god' does not exists, to argue such a thing would be a waste of time since there is no reason to argue that all actions are pointless. The only thing people argue concerning 'good'/'god' is what it is This is true of 'good' but in a theistic milieu calling it "god" only confuses the issue. That depends on your concept of 'God'. If you are aware that your concept of God is different then Mariner's concept of God which of course is different then what I believe God to be. In eastern religion/philosophy good and god are pretty much the same thing. If people believe that God is some cartoon character then it is a given that such a God is not rational, but that doesn't mean that just because that concept of God is not rational that all concept of God are also not rational.
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
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 210

Posted 11/01/09 - 10:41 AM:	#419
180 Proof wrote: That's just it: what reasons? Ok I see religion inspiring people to greatness (as well as its opposite) but I don't like seeing people inspired to greatness through the rituals of a mistaken belief in God. The people who fear lending money, who are led to feel bad when they experience pride in their work, I could see no God wanting this. I actually can't see God condemning anyone provided they made the choice for themselves (see next part). 180 Proof wrote: No. Your god is just as false (i.e. fictional) as your neighbor's if neither of you express a concept (of a god) that evidently refers to possible, let alone actual, object (or state-of-affairs). We might disagree about what (e.g.) a 'five-sided triangle' looks like, or even what it's good for, but that's an idle disagreement (pace Meinong) since such an object is impossible (i.e. imaginary, fictional). But I believe my God is not just a figment of my imagination. I don't believe it is a five-sided triangle because, apart from anything, were I to see such an object I would attempt to give it a new name and not describe it in real world terms. I'm not attempting to build God through causal means (i.e five-sided shape and triangle leads to God). To me I experience and believe in God but not as anything on Earth I could build up. Though I may have commited the error of assigning him the blanket term God, rather than renaming him, that was because I my understanding of the definition was very similar to give it meaning And if my God is pseudo-empiricism so be it. Though this is a slightly terse way of portraying it, I have experience enough to know there are things I don't experience that still yet influence me. So I am experiencing something that I cannot experience through sight, sound, touch etc. I can experience this only through reflection, moving above the causal chain and the direct-sense-world we live in - something like my experience of experience. So I have arrived at God not through anyone elses diction, any presupposed beliefs but through the experience of my experiences. Now I have not reached certainty to the exact make-up of God but I have not reached certainty as to the make-up of myself (i.e. the complete mechanism of my bodies working) yet I 'know' of my existence (and through my experiences your existence and everyone elses). This state-of-affairs exists to me and though I do not know its outline, I can't deny its existence. Now this is where the individualism comes in again, because I cannot deny anyone the validity of their experience. For example as a colourblind person myself can anyone deny my experience when I see 'red' as 'not-red'. Can anyone say that experience is wrong unless they were me and saw that I was actually seeing 'red.' Am I to deny the validity of all my experience and imagine I live in a senseles world and given I would have drawn this conclusion from experience, am I to deny this experience - all the while I am experiencing things. And this leads me back to the first part, people can only decide God for themselves (as I see it) you act because someone else says 'God' wants you to act that way. 180 Proof wrote: I understand, and though I respect the honesty it takes to admit the need for "faith" amid the aggressively critical crossfires of this forum, atightropewalker, "certainty" in the face of insufficient, or counter, evidence is, I must point out, nothing but the crutch of dogma (i.e. "philosophical suicide"). Following on from the above point I'll attempt to clarify a meaning of faith. On paper my God seems overwhelmingly wrong it is such a small chance depending on many factors of which a diversion anywhere could produce another thing not to mention everyone elses God. But through my experience it is right, wholly so. But if I was an officious bystander to myself I would look it and say this seems so improbable that this is unlikely to have happened and so shouldn't be believed on the balance of probability - it is far more likely you are wrong. But I am not an officious bystander to myself - I am myself. I have faith in the values of my experiences rather than assigning them to an 'out-of-myself' arbritrator who says I should deny my own experiences. Because where do I draw the line: do I deny all my experiences and refer myself to this arbritatrator of which experience I cannot be certain. No. I have to accept my senses as true and not of my recognition of the senses deceiving myself. This to me is faithful as well (and can't be proved right or wrong). So I come to the conclusion that life is not science nor religion, I don't have to act solely by belief or by fact. I can mix the two together - I mesh belief and fact and am all the happier for it. I think philosophy should be the same, it isn't an exact science nor an exact belief system and it never can be (unless we believe it to be an exact science or we show by fact that such a belief is correct). It like to think of it as the paradox of everyone moving together with separateness. This isn't science where we use fact to move together to agree principles (e.g gravity), nor religion where we are supposed to use belief to move together to arrive at certain principles (like many people consider good and bad). We should all help each other to arrive at the philosophy that is correct for each of us individually and then act our own individual philosophy with certainty even though we are all entirely wrong. Provided we make the choices ourselves on our own experiences then thats what counts (and is ultimately correct for the person). Edited by atightropewalker on 11/01/09 - 11:46 AM. Reason: Bad grammar.
"We do what we must, because we can." -GLaDOS

mric
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Location: UK

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 1185

Posted 11/01/09 - 11:11 AM:	#420
psychotick wrote: Hi 180Proof. I'm getting tired of being called disingenuous by you. Here are the definitions of god I've used in this thread. Post 62: How is god different you ask? God, first impulse, creator of himself and the universe out of nothing. Post 100: Fifth, yes I am asking what was here before the universe and how it was created. That is rather the point of the debate. God for the purposes of this thread created himself and is the creator of the universe. Post 100: Perhaps if where I have said 'god' you replaced that word with 'creator'. Post 111: Once more we come back to the basic point of difference. You're speaking here about changes in the world, i.e. the world already exists and from that I infer that you're talking about things like miracles and religion. I am not. This post for me at least has been specifically about whether athiests can prove the non existence of god by scientific means or whether they maintain their position based on faith. Therefore the only god I have been referncing is the creator. For the purposes of this argument I do not care if you prove that Jesus did not ascend or heal the sick or anything else. Only the argument that the universe was created by a creator, as held in a number of religions. Post 399: You will remember that I defined god for the purposes of this debate as being that which created himself and then the universe. No specific religion was mentioned nor is it relevant. Likewise all predicates as defined in religions were left out. The only predicate that matters in this debate is the existence of life, the universe and everything, i.e. that which god created. I realise now that to have been absolutely clear on this one single point in my last post I should have said creator instead of creation, but I think my definition of god for the purposes of this debate has been made often enough that you would have understood what I meant. Cheers Under this definition, many (or most) atheists are agnostic about the existence of this content-free god. I just don't know why you bother to call this first cause 'god'. Surely you would understand why people might wonder if you are smuggling in other beliefs about this first cause? Do you believe it still exists? Do you believe it is non-physical? Do you believe it is in principle inexplicable by science? Do you believe it is conscious and has intentions? There are clues that you are indeed smuggling in those characteristics - for instance, you use the word 'himself' to refer to god. Why not 'itself'?

Page: First 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Last

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