Please note: because you're not logged in, you may be viewing older cached versions of pages which are served up to reduce server load.
Is Atheism a form of Faith?
I've wondered when reading posts if for some atheists their stance is a faith
PrintPage: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Last
 Is Atheism a form of Faith? | |
|
Ghosthack
Graduate Usergroup: Members Joined: Jul 19, 2009 Total Topics: 7 Total Posts: 129 |
 #41
Maybe I should go into the philosophy of language forum and say I don't believe in language or its ability to communicate. I've never seen language after all. You can't even define it! |
|
Primero
Aspirant Usergroup: Members Joined: Oct 15, 2009 Total Topics: 1 Total Posts: 21 |
#42
But I see or believe things in this world that indicate that a God exists... Like what? ...but as we can't see causation I attribute those to God. What? We "see" causation all the time! |
|
atightropewalker
Graduate  Usergroup: Members Joined: Oct 06, 2009 Total Topics: 1 Total Posts: 214 |
#43
Ghosthack wrote: Maybe I should go into the philosophy of language forum and say I don't believe in language or its ability to communicate. I've never seen language after all. You can't even define it! Feel free but you have experienced it. I played it fast and loose with the word see and I apologise for that but that shows one of the problems of language. And I can't define language except what it means to me, what a car means to me, what a horse means to me? Just like I can't define what they mean for you. That is if you believe language is a reflection on the real world. Would you call a toy car a car? Would you be justified. Language isn't faultless and has many similar belief issues like religion. What actually is a car so that we alrive at the same meaning, for example? But whereas if I used the word horse to describe a car you'd rapidly correct me so there is a real world expereince to guide us, though it is no more than that. There isn't that guidance with God. "We do what we must, because we can." -GLaDOS |
|
ciceronianus
Attorney at Natural Law  Usergroup: Members Joined: Sep 20, 2008 Location: USA Total Topics: 18 Total Posts: 1609 Last Blog: On the Death of Death in the Afternoon |
#44
Ghosthack wrote: I would be content to argue only with other theists. I welcome arguments with theists. At least they would make sense. I'm all for interfaith dialogue (excluding the faith of atheism of course). I ask you this: How many people in the philosophy of language forum don't believe in language? Just what Philosophy of Religion is, or is intended to be, is an interesting question. Judging from the examples given in the "subtitle" of that branch of this forum it involves questions such as what the nature of God would be, and related to the development of religions. Regarding your analogy, though, recall that this forum refers to "Philosophy of Religion" not "Philosophy of God." It's quite possible to believe in religion, and not believe in God. It's also quite possible, I think, to be irreligious, like me, and believe in God. I think the problem is inherent in the terms of the debate, or perhaps more correctly the problem is the debate, itself. If you assert that God exists, and you contend that there are sound reasons for that claim, you will asked, sometimes impolitely, to describe and defend those reasons. The fact you are questioned in that case is understandable; hostility is not, unless the claim itself is made in a provocative manner. I have not yet encountered any reason for the claim that is ultimately convincing, and can hold up under attack, and I doubt there is one. I think there is no way to establish the existence of God the way we would normally establish things we encounter in "the world" (to the extent we can; generally we can't with "absolute certainty", nor do we need to). We can only intelligently address "the world", however; certain aspects of the universe and its constituents are all we know how to explain, i.e. to present reasons for. Reasons and reasoning which "work" in "the world" won't do a thing to establish God's existence. So, I think it's fruitless to engage in the debate in there first place. Eventually, the proponent of God's existence is reduced to making assumptions which cannot be supported, or engaging in bewildering linguistic contortions like Mr. Kung. Some things, I think, suggest God to some of us. Sometimes those suggestions are very strong, and can be persuasive, and some of us are content with this. Some feel no need to establish God exists as we establish things we encounter in "the world." For me, that is in any case an impossibility. "Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."--C.S. Peirce "There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it."--Marcus Tullius Cicero "Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men."--John Dewey |
|
sgp667
Initiate  Usergroup: Members Joined: Oct 15, 2009 Location: New York Total Topics: 1 Total Posts: 15 |
#45
To Mega Therion wrote: Well, so far you argue like a theist (hm, why do I have a feeling I'm setting myself up for a 'how appropriate' retort?). Really, your examples prove nothing (if you wish to argue this point you will have to offer something more than the existence of the bloody Bible), and if you would contend that atheism is a faith based on such flimsy 'counter-evidence', then how can you escape the conclusion that your belief that you are sitting at your computer, reading this, is just faith? After all, all your 'evidence' might as well mean that Descartes' evil magician is deceiving you. I'm still an atheist cause I don't like this evidence either, I just accept that I could be wrong (unlike others), and if atheism is not faith based then on what is it based? Bet your going to say "facts" -- give me facts then, facts that will prove and not just suggest nonexistence of God. But wait, you already said To Mega Therion wrote: Besides, it's not like there is actual evidence of the nonexistence of unicorns (I'm not sure what would count as evidence for the nonexistence of something in the first place) Then there is no fact stating that there is no God, so how can you be so dogmatic about it? I used to think that only religious people can be like that. Edited by Incision on Oct 16, 2009 - 3:00 PM. Reason: illiteracy "I think therefore I am" doesn't that come from world that may not exist? |
|
atightropewalker
Graduate Usergroup: Members Joined: Oct 06, 2009 Total Topics: 1 Total Posts: 214 |
#46
Primero wrote: Like what? Only things that would lead to Euthyphro's dilemma. And more things I cannot explain and I hate nothing more than being unable to explain myself which is probably why I fell into philosophy. Primero wrote: What? We "see" causation all the time! We don't see causation. It tooks us years to see that radioactivity caused cancer. Only after many times did we see radioactivity handled badly and then cancer did we consider radioactivity to cause cancer. We didn't handle radioactivity and see it damage cells. "We do what we must, because we can." -GLaDOS |
|
To Mega Therion
Dogmatist en chef  Usergroup: Members Joined: Oct 11, 2009 Location: Zagreb, Croatia Total Topics: 20 Total Posts: 699 |
#47
atightropewalker wrote: Can I deny that there are things that exist that my senses cannot see? Of course I can't - we weren't even aware of nuclear reactions until very recently. But I also believe in things my senses have never experienced by what I see or feel. Humans do not act on logic (well not any we know of) and facts alone and I'm glad for that because it means there is diversity and a semblance of free will. But I see or believe things in this world that indicate that a God exists but as we can't see causation I attribute those to God. Can I be certain? No. But am I free to believe this? Yes. If you disprove the causation we cannot see, or to use Hume disprove the A through which I see B, then I'll revise my view. But given we cannot see causation or disprove A then anyone is free to believe as they wish to the existence of A. If I say that because of the world I believe in unicorns then someone could say "look mate, millions of people have seen millions or animals but a narwhale horse has never been seen" which you can't of God. It may be true that invisible creatures exist but a unicorn to me means the white horse with a horn, or whatever, it doesn't mean an invisible creature. This obviously leads to the problems with the definition of God that I believe Wittgenstein highlighted. But my definition of God can't be disproved by any real world argument just like your unicorn. The thing is, nuclear reactions and even the dreaded causation (as long as we don't read too much into the term) are needed to make sense of the world. But you seem to be saying that the same can be said of God? Very well then, but you can't expect me to leave that unchallenged? If there are 'things in this world that indicate God exists' then they can be analysed, debated, etc. But this doesn't in any way mean we should simply be silent about the matter. sgp667 wrote: I'm still an atheist cause I don't like this evidence either, I just accept that I could be wrong(unlike others), and if atheism is not faith based then what is it based, bet your going to say facts, give me facts then, facts that will prove and not just suggest nonexistence of god. But wait you already said Of course I accept that I could be wrong, but I find it unlikely. As for what my atheism is based on - I simply don't need the concept of a god or gods. Having it in my model of the world would do nothing, explain nothing, and lead to nothing. And if you want definite proof, forget it. Do you think the possibility of one being wrong is restricted merely to theological questions? You will never get definite proof of anything, not even that you will die if you jump out of the window, and yet you wouldn't call that belief religious, would you? So, I ask you why your belief in the inexistence of a god should be any different? sgp667 wrote: Then there is no fact stating that there is no god, so how can you be so dogmatic about it I used to think that only religious people can be like that I'm not dogmatic, but I find it annoying when theists and agnostics want to get away on the flimsy excuse that the existence of God hasn't been conclusively demonstrated. Like I said, nothing will ever be conclusively demonstrated, and if we had to qualify every sentence we say because of it, or accept a naked fideism, we wouldn't get very far, now would we? Get down on your knees If you want to touch the sky If you want to see clearly now You better gouge out your eyes. - Chemlab, Neurozone |
|
Primero
Aspirant Usergroup: Members Joined: Oct 15, 2009 Total Topics: 1 Total Posts: 21 |
#48
atightropewalker wrote: And more things I cannot explain... I'm glad I'm not the only one who needs to say this. Cheers! ...and I hate nothing more than being unable to explain myself which is probably why I fell into philosophy. Same here. Primero wrote: What? We "see" causation all the time! We don't see causation. It tooks us years to see that radioactivity caused cancer. Only after many times did we see radioactivity handled badly and then cancer did we consider radioactivity to cause cancer. We didn't handle radioactivity and see it damage cells. So we eventually "saw" the causation, in this case. I really don't buy your argument about not "seeing" causation. |
|
sgp667
Initiate Usergroup: Members Joined: Oct 15, 2009 Location: New York Total Topics: 1 Total Posts: 15 |
#49
To Mega Therion wrote: Of course I accept that I could be wrong, but I find it unlikely. As for what my atheism is based on - I simply don't need the concept of a god or gods. Having it in my model of the world would do nothing, explain nothing, and lead to nothing. And if you want definite proof, forget it. Do you think the possibility of one being wrong is restricted merely to theological questions? You will never get definite proof of anything, not even that you will die if you jump out of the window, and yet you wouldn't call that belief religious, would you? So, I ask you why your belief in the inexistence of a god should be any different? That's my point. Glad we finally agreement on something(except for having god in model of the world), and yes I agree that you can never be sure of anything, I mean everything we know is either based on axioms(logic), or plain faith(assumptions). My only point is that your better of believing in no god, but there is that possibility of us being wrong, and as for everything being beliefs I <b>believe</b> in what Socrates said "I know one thing, I know nothing" To Mega Therion wrote: I'm not dogmatic, but I find it annoying when theists and agnostics want to get away on the flimsy excuse that the existence of God hasn't been conclusively demonstrated. Like I said, nothing will ever be conclusively demonstrated, and if we had to qualify every sentence we say because of it, or accept a naked fideism, we wouldn't get very far, now would we? I know exactly what you mean I grew up in a 99% Catholic country, and until last year most of the people that surrounded me were Catholic, but I still don't support their beliefs, I just consider them(as if they were right) to check if my beliefs are right. So don't bring up their arguments because I think they are sound, they are plain valid(most of them). "I think therefore I am" doesn't that come from world that may not exist? |
|
To Mega Therion
Dogmatist en chef Usergroup: Members Joined: Oct 11, 2009 Location: Zagreb, Croatia Total Topics: 20 Total Posts: 699 |
#50
sgp667 wrote: That's my point. Glad we finally agreement on something(except for having god in model of the world), and yes I agree that you can never be sure of anything, I mean everything we know is either based on axioms(logic), or plain faith(assumptions). My only point is that your better of believing in no god, but there is that possibility of us being wrong, and as for everything being beliefs I <b>believe</b> in what Socrates said "I know one thing, I know nothing" I know exactly what you mean I grew up in a 99% Catholic country, and until last year most of the people that surrounded me were Catholic, but I still don't support their beliefs, I just consider them(as if they were right) to check if my beliefs are right. So don't bring up their arguments because I think they are sound, they are plain valid(most of them). Well, then my point was simply that calling atheism a religion because it hasn't been conclusively demonstrated is a bit counterproductive. But in the end it seems that you used a rather weak concept of 'religion', and we agree in substance of our beliefs if not in phrasing. And as for using the arguments of theists to check your beliefs, that's actually a rather good idea. And don't just go for the religious theists (after Suarez and possibly Maritain I can't think of anything worthwhile that they've produced) but try to read the more acceptable theists like Whitehead or Hegel. Get down on your knees If you want to touch the sky If you want to see clearly now You better gouge out your eyes. - Chemlab, Neurozone |
| |
||
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Last
Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.