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 43 44 45 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: 16
Total Posts: 715

Posted 11/04/09 - 01:59 PM:	#521
sheps wrote: Equating all atheists with Hitler and Stalin is obviously ridiculous, but many religious people use this argument. And I believe I can see the possiblity of truth in it. You said it yourself, it is obviously ridiculous but it sounds true. So, dig a little deeper. Why were they atheist? Is it perhaps that religion is an element of social control and they sought total political power? So, there reasons for atheism were the result of trying to gain power and not the cause of their desire. It sure is misleading talk about atheism in this way. I could mention that Stalin burned approximately zero witches, while theists burned quite a few. I imagine you don't want to burn any witches alive at the stake for insane reasons? In spite of your beliefs.
Or not.

sheps
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 15, 2008
Location: United Kingdom

Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 431

Posted 11/04/09 - 02:02 PM:	#522
Cheshire wrote: I imagine you don't want to burn any witches alive at the stake for insane reasons? In spite of your beliefs. I'm not religious.
The Midnight Sun Never Sets.

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

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

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2876

Posted 11/04/09 - 02:19 PM:	#523
sheps wrote: Wosret, I agree with you. But this argument can lead into dangerous territory, such as: "Hitler and Stalin were in effect atheists; hence, a world without religion destroys all concepts of ethical behaviour." Equating all atheists with Hitler and Stalin is obviously ridiculous, but many religious people use this argument. And I believe I can see the possiblity of truth in it. The only way I can make heads or tales of this is to assume that this is you picturing "atheism in practice". I certainly hope I am misinterpreting you.
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

sheps
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 15, 2008
Location: United Kingdom

Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 431

Posted 11/04/09 - 03:31 PM:	#524
Wosret wrote: The only way I can make heads or tales of this is to assume that this is you picturing "atheism in practice". I certainly hope I am misinterpreting you. Just the possiblity of someone religous claiming that societes devoid of religion lead to crude misinterpretations of Social Darwinism existing amongst different groups of humans. They have used this as an argument against atheism, I assure you! It is used to suggest that religion is the only source of morals.
The Midnight Sun Never Sets.

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

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

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2876

Posted 11/04/09 - 03:41 PM:	#525
sheps wrote: Just the possiblity of someone religous claiming that societes devoid of religion lead to crude misinterpretations of Social Darwinism existing amongst different groups of humans. They have used this as an argument against atheism, I assure you! It is used to suggest that religion is the only source of morals. I've heard it said before, sure. I just found it strange that you would think of that by just the mention of the words "practical atheism". Took me a few reads to even understand in what way at all your response related to what you were quoting, before I noticed the tenuous thread that caught your attention. Edited by Wosret on 11/04/09 - 03:54 PM
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 715

Posted 11/04/09 - 03:47 PM:	#526
sheps wrote: I'm not religious. I think the correct answer is 'I'm not homicidal".
Or not.

sheps
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 15, 2008
Location: United Kingdom

Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 431

Posted 11/04/09 - 03:50 PM:	#527
Cheshire wrote: I think the correct answer is 'I'm not homicidal". Ha ha ha! Seriously, though. You're not talking with a theist here - at best, I'm a reluctant dialetician.
The Midnight Sun Never Sets.

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004

Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 1450

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/04/09 - 05:59 PM:	#528
180 Proof wrote: So yeah, if theism goes away, then atheism goes away with it. There is no (non-trivial) 'a-Santa Claus-ism' because no persons, or institutions, are making claims and undertaking practices of social, political & intellectual consequence -- which require justification / accountability -- based on "Santa Claus". Atheism (B) is not an alternative to theism (A) the way (e.g.) materialism (X) is an alternative to idealism (Y); "there are no gods" (~Z) is only a negation of "there are gods" (Z). So this really isn't about whether someone believes or doesn't believe in God, but more about the 'wrongs' committed by the church and the actions carried out by those that believe in God. If Christianity didn't have any power and wasn't able to effect you negatively in the way that you perceive then there wouldn't be a reason take up the banner of atheism and fight against their cause. But if this is true then wouldn't it be plausible that it is some individuals that follow Christianity that are guilty of of whatever wrongs and not all people that believe in God?
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: 5139

Posted 11/04/09 - 07:27 PM:	#529
dclements wrote: So this really isn't about whether someone believes or doesn't believe in God, but more about the 'wrongs' committed by the church and the actions carried out by those that believe in God. If (ANY THEISTIC CULT, OFFICIAL OR OTHERWISE) didn't have any power and wasn't able to effect you negatively in the way that you perceive then there wouldn't be a reason take up the banner of atheism and fight against their cause. Yeah, atheism would otherwise be merely (or narrowly) a 'philosophical' critique. But if this is true then wouldn't it be plausible that it is some individuals that follow Christianity that are guilty of of whatever wrongs and not all people that believe in God? My objections to theism (religious or secular) do not consist in ad hominems against theists.
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?]]]

kkiiji
Aubrey de Grey: a vampire

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

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 1526

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/04/09 - 08:50 PM:	#530
You never addressed my God is so powerful that he doesn't need to follow reason point. Thus if you can not proceed with the reasonable negation of theism due to God being defined as beyond reason, you can not be an atheist. Even though our reason is insufficient in understanding God, we can still imagine a being who is so powerful that he is beyond reason, a being that we can only grasp partially, thus any attempts to invalidate his existence through reason is naturally fallacious. It's like the ontological argument, except a lot more hardcore.
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.

Page: First 43 44 45 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.