Atheism is a faith.

[joobz]

I've made this contention now in multiple threads and I wish to centralize it. The issue is a view on what atheism is compared to other religions.

the primary issue I have is the notion that atheism is some how not bogged down by ideologies like other religions. That some how, atheists are not encumbered with faith.

My primary conjecture is this: A belief that there is no god or to have no belief in god is still a faith.

To presume nothing else is out there requires faith.
The primary argument against this point is the Russell's Teapot analogy. However, I feel that it simply explains the absurdity of specific examples of god but fails to demonstrate why thinking there is nothing more (god like) isn't a faith.


well, this is my Forum opener. There were some quite good comments made in other forums against me and I'd like to address those when I get more time.
Thank you.
joobz

 

[Dragonrock]

No, to assume there is nothing out there is the default position. Anything else requires proof.

 

[HeyLeroy]

A belief that there is no god doesn't require faith. It's called the default position. Having no belief in god somehow suggests there is a god.

ETA: Dang you, Dragonrock!

 

[Rufo]

[Quotes are from the old thread.]

There is no evidence of there not being a God either.

Or the IPU, the FSM, Narnia, Darth Vader...

No, not that I know of.

Why do these always turn up when I say something like that?

I'm simply stating that it takes faith to not believe in a god or to believe in no god.
(that adjustment is for rufo's sake)

Thanks!
However, I am not sure if I will be able to agree to that statement, with the new adjustment. Philosophically, I would say you are right, but scientifically, you are not. And as far as I can tell, most of the posters here have a lot more respect for science than for philosophy.

 

[zizzybaluba]

The primary argument against this point is the Russell's Teapot analogy. However, I feel that it simply explains the absurdity of specific examples of god but fails to demonstrate why thinking there is nothing more (god like) isn't a faith.

Tell me why exactly, the existence of god, period, is less absurd than any of the specific examples.

 

[Piscivore]

Atheism means "I don't know everything, but I know the steaming pile of nonsense you're selling is wrong."

 

[ReFLeX]

Atheists often differentiate between the positive claim that there is no god (strong or positive atheism) and the agnostic claim that we don't know there is a god (weak or agnostic atheism). An agnostic atheist thinks a god is possible but until we know of one, there is no point in believing it. They are both without belief in god.

 

[Hagrok]

However, I feel that it simply explains the absurdity of specific examples of god but fails to demonstrate why thinking there is nothing more (god like) isn't a faith.

Please explain why it does, rather then just continuing to assert it.

Note: The answer "because I said so" does not count.

 

[drkitten]

I've made this contention now in multiple threads and I wish to centralize it. The issue is a view on what atheism is compared to other religions.

the primary issue I have is the notion that atheism is some how not bogged down by ideologies like other religions. That some how, atheists are not encumbered with faith.

My primary conjecture is this: A belief that there is no god or to have no belief in god is still a faith.

And not collecting stamps is still a hobby.

And not living in Louisiana is still an address.

And not being a pharmacist is still a job.

And not-biology is still a college major.

And not pitching is still playing baseball.

And not drinking Scotch is still a form of alcoholism.

 

[CapelDodger]

I've made this contention now in multiple threads and I wish to centralize it. The issue is a view on what atheism is compared to other religions.

Immediately begging the question.

Consider this : if nobody had ever thought up a religion, there would be no concept of religion for philosophers to knaw over, yet there would still be atheism. If atheism can exist in a world without the concept of religion, how is it a religion?

 

[Dunstan]

To presume nothing else is out there requires faith.

"Presuming" that nothing else is out there is not what atheism is. Noting the lack of evidence for God is, and that does not require faith.

The primary argument against this point is the Russell's Teapot analogy. However, I feel that it simply explains the absurdity of specific examples of god but fails to demonstrate why thinking there is nothing more (god like) isn't a faith.

I think you miss the point. The teapot analogy isn't about relative levels of absurdity. It's about burdens of proof. Our society in general is religious, so atheists seem like the ones who are making a claim, but it's those who believe in God who bear the burden of proof.

I also think you are strawmanning a bit. You hold out this stereotype of atheists as people who are saying "nope, there absolutely positively cannot be any form of deity whatsoever. I can't prove it, I just know it." I don't know anyone who claims that. It is, of course, possible to prove that some definitions of God are logically contradictory, but that can't be done for all definitions.

 

[CapelDodger]

And not collecting stamps is still a hobby.

And not living in Louisiana is still an address.

And not being a pharmacist is still a job.

And not-biology is still a college major.

And not pitching is still playing baseball.

And not drinking Scotch is still a form of alcoholism.

And bald is a hair-colour.

(Not mine, damn but I wish it was.)

 

[TobiasTheViking]

And not collecting stamps is still a hobby.

And not living in Louisiana is still an address.

And not being a pharmacist is still a job.

And not-biology is still a college major.

And not pitching is still playing baseball.

And not drinking Scotch is still a form of alcoholism.

i was gonna do that

But oh well

 

[Rufo]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/6197454770d2500d5.gif[/qimg]

A belief that there is no god doesn't require faith. It's called the default position. Having no belief in god somehow suggests there is a god.

ETA: Dang you, Dragonrock!

No belief that there is a God is the default position. Belief that there is no God is not.

 

[Hagrok]

Immediately begging the question.

Consider this : if nobody had ever thought up a religion, there would be no concept of religion for philosophers to knaw over, yet there would still be atheism. If atheism can exist in a world without the concept of religion, how is it a religion?

He's not saying it's a religion, he's saying it "takes faith"; whatever that's supposed to mean.

I guess I have faith that a stop light's going to turn green after red instead of, I suppose, teal.

 

[El Greco]

Always God, God, God, God.... Same old, same old. I'm getting bored with this. Why don't people start more interesting threads like "A belief that there are no women with four boobs is still faith" ? What's more interesting in a God than in a woman with four boobs ?

 

[Katana]

No belief that there is a God is the default position. Belief that there is no God is not.

Exactly.

 

[Hagrok]

No belief that there is a God is the default position. Belief that there is no God is not.

No, it isn't.

See, we can play the "unsupported assertion" game too!

 

[roger]

Without playing dueling dictionaries, in terms of religion, "faith" means holding and acting as something is true absent of any evidence. If I have no evidence of gremlins, but still decide to believe in them anyway, I'm using faith. Note that the conclusion, or belief, is in direct opposition of all available evidence.

An atheist has no evidence of God, and thus doesn't believe a God exist. This is not "faith" as defined above, because the conclusion follows the evidence, rather than contradicts it.

Now, sure, you can define "faith" however you want, and under some definitions I suppose you could say an atheist is using faith, as in assuming the (lack of) evidence is correct. But the act is still qualitatively and logically different than the act of a religious believer.

And when people argue that atheists have faith, they are usually trying to say that there is no qualitative difference between the faith of a believer and the 'faith' of an atheist. It's all 'faith', just in different things. I've shown that not to be the case. It's logical to provisionally assign unknown or does not exist to an object with no evidence; it's not particularly logical to assign exists in that case.

Note the argument above strongly disagrees with your statement

To presume nothing else is out there requires faith

I say no. We have no evidence of Gods, so the presumption goes along with all available evidence. It's reasonable to assign provisional truth, or a status of unknown, when we have no evidence. No faith is required, no matter how you want to define the word.

I am atheist. I have no more of a belief in a God than I do in pogo sticks that rule the galaxy. Given the evidence available to me, that's reasonable, and no faith is required.

I can go further, and rule out the pogo sticks, because pogo sticks (using the standard definition) have no cognitive abilities, and thus cannot rule. I have shown this to be impossible, thus I am able do declare that there are no ruling pogo sticks in the galaxy, despite having no evidence.

I can do the same with specific definitions of God which are self contradictory, or contradict available evidence, but I can't do it with a generic concept of God. So, personally, I weigh the liklihood of a God as very small, but of course cannot dismiss it entirely.

No faith. Just lack of a belief.

 

[Jimbo07]

Now that's interesting!

Put me in the strong agnostic camp. There gets a point where we are incapable of knowing. Even weak atheism cannot answer: why something, rather than nothing? Physics doesn't seem to (although that probably shouldn't stop people from trying).

How can 'no God' be the default position for something we just don't know anything about.

I would have thought that 'meh' was the default position...

Starting with 'meh,' assuming for exercise that God plays no role in the day to day physics of the universe does not adversely impact study of the physical universe. You can study the physical framework separately from a consideration of God... my question is,

Is that the same as 'no God' being the default?

I certainly can't prove 'no God,' a statement which is not to be confused with supporting any one person's idiotic assertions about their particular invisible friend.