Does Faith in the Divine = Stupidity?

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
There's no Atheism without Theism. Maybe some misguided people have made Atheism into just another religion, but Atheism is not a belief system. If no one had invented God, no one would have invented Atheism.

Theism isn't God though. God is the object through which theists base their system of belief. Atheism is the denial of God (theism logically follows) and could very well exist in the absence of theism. Neither could exist in the absence of God.

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Putting Atheism and Theism on equal footing is ridiculous. If we're strictly talking about Atheism vs. Theism here, the non-belief (NOT the belief in no God, you can't prove a negative) in any concept of God even close to that held by a Theist is vastly more likely than say... the Catholic trinity.

When referring to an absence of belief rather than belief in absence (relative to God), I think it's better to use the term "nontheism." Atheism has several different "flavors," but the one most commonly associated with the term is "strong" atheism, or the belief that God is dead which is faith. (Theism appears to be an antonym to theism, while nontheism appears to be a lack of theism; although both encompass the same ideas.)

Nontheism is the default view of everyone who has never been exposed to God (implicit atheism) and is synonymous with "weak" atheism (the absense of belief in God). (Explicit atheism is moot, since it includes both strong and weak atheists. It is identical to the regular term "atheism" as we use it in discussion since we exclude implicit atheists when referring to people who have adapted a point of view.) Since atheism has more recently adopted several new meanings, I think it's best to use a term which is less ambiguous and contains atheism's alternative meanings.

Flowchart: Text

My personal definition of Atheism and the one all "flavors" of Atheism share is the simple denial that there is any good reason believe in God (or theism since you seem think they can exist independently of each other). That seems to be the simplest and broadest definition. I guess you would call it "weak" Atheism.

I know the most common interpretation of the term is "strong" Atheism. This seems to me an erroneous assumption, but I suppose the distinction should be made.

My particular brand of Atheism isn't strong as defined as a positive denial of God. Technically God could send me an IM at any second. But, it certainly isn't weak, as you can probably tell from my other posts. It's just the position that the leap from the default point of non-theism to theism is a lot farther than the leap from non-theism to atheism. It's also the position that Atheism shouldn't even be an -ism. No one's arguing semantics over the non-belief in spirit animals.

As for Atheism being able to exist without theism, that sort of assumes that God can exist without anyone believing in him, which is a theistic point of view. Wow, that thought almost put my brain into an infinite loop. Thank god I'm not on acid.

I love how people talk about atheism as if it was a default passive trait. It simply cannot be.

There is a choice set before you. You either
a) Choose to believe in something
b) Choose to disbelieve in something
c) Are undecided / unsure leaning in either direction.
How Strong or Weak your beliefs are is irrelevent.

You have actively chose a,b,or c depending on how you view the issue.

'I believe in nothing" does not exist, its a fallacy choice. (Excluding the undecideds / unsures) Lack of Belief and Belief of the Lack are one and the same.


Logically it would seem that theism of some sort would be the default (not atheism) since atheism didnt come about until about (while its known existance can be traced to 5BCE in greece) the 17th century "the age of enlightenment". While all kinds of theisms were present for thousands of years prior.

Totally incorrect. If "God(s)" appeared before us all on a regular basis thus Proving their existence, then you might be on to something. However, the only "proof" that "God(s)" exist are the claims of the few who insisted "God(s)" appeared to them. Just because the vast majority of People chose to believe those few peoples' stories, doesn't mean "God(s)" exist or that Atheism requires Faith/Belief. Atheism goes against the grain of what is generally accepted and that's about as close to it being "Faith" there is, which is to say, none at all.

Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Ferry, or "God(s)" are all equivalent. That is that they are purported to exist and many people accept them as existing and have Faith in their existence, but they do so with absolutely no Proof of their existence. The Atheist looks at the lack of Proof and concludes there's nothing there to concern oneself with.

 

[Techdog]

I personally believe, believe what you want. Just don't force it down someone else's throat. Secondly if devout believing means completely blind to everything else (Tunnel Vision) na ah... Thats just dangerous.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
There's no Atheism without Theism. Maybe some misguided people have made Atheism into just another religion, but Atheism is not a belief system. If no one had invented God, no one would have invented Atheism.

Theism isn't God though. God is the object through which theists base their system of belief. Atheism is the denial of God (theism logically follows) and could very well exist in the absence of theism. Neither could exist in the absence of God.

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Putting Atheism and Theism on equal footing is ridiculous. If we're strictly talking about Atheism vs. Theism here, the non-belief (NOT the belief in no God, you can't prove a negative) in any concept of God even close to that held by a Theist is vastly more likely than say... the Catholic trinity.

When referring to an absence of belief rather than belief in absence (relative to God), I think it's better to use the term "nontheism." Atheism has several different "flavors," but the one most commonly associated with the term is "strong" atheism, or the belief that God is dead which is faith. (Theism appears to be an antonym to theism, while nontheism appears to be a lack of theism; although both encompass the same ideas.)

Nontheism is the default view of everyone who has never been exposed to God (implicit atheism) and is synonymous with "weak" atheism (the absense of belief in God). (Explicit atheism is moot, since it includes both strong and weak atheists. It is identical to the regular term "atheism" as we use it in discussion since we exclude implicit atheists when referring to people who have adapted a point of view.) Since atheism has more recently adopted several new meanings, I think it's best to use a term which is less ambiguous and contains atheism's alternative meanings.

Flowchart: Text

My personal definition of Atheism and the one all "flavors" of Atheism share is the simple denial that there is any good reason believe in God (or theism since you seem think they can exist independently of each other). That seems to be the simplest and broadest definition. I guess you would call it "weak" Atheism.

I know the most common interpretation of the term is "strong" Atheism. This seems to me an erroneous assumption, but I suppose the distinction should be made.

My particular brand of Atheism isn't strong as defined as a positive denial of God. Technically God could send me an IM at any second. But, it certainly isn't weak, as you can probably tell from my other posts. It's just the position that the leap from the default point of non-theism to theism is a lot farther than the leap from non-theism to atheism. It's also the position that Atheism shouldn't even be an -ism. No one's arguing semantics over the non-belief in spirit animals.

As for Atheism being able to exist without theism, that sort of assumes that God can exist without anyone believing in him, which is a theistic point of view. Wow, that thought almost put my brain into an infinite loop. Thank god I'm not on acid.

I love how people talk about atheism as if it was a default passive trait. It simply cannot be.

There is a choice set before you. You either
a) Choose to believe in something
b) Choose to disbelieve in something
c) Are undecided / unsure leaning in either direction.
How Strong or Weak your beliefs are is irrelevent.

You have actively chose a,b,or c depending on how you view the issue.

'I believe in nothing" does not exist, its a fallacy choice. (Excluding the undecideds / unsures) Lack of Belief and Belief of the Lack are one and the same.


Logically it would seem that theism of some sort would be the default (not atheism) since atheism didnt come about until about (while its known existance can be traced to 5BCE in greece) the 17th century "the age of enlightenment". While all kinds of theisms were present for thousands of years prior.

Totally incorrect. If "God(s)" appeared before us all on a regular basis thus Proving their existence, then you might be on to something. However, the only "proof" that "God(s)" exist are the claims of the few who insisted "God(s)" appeared to them. Just because the vast majority of People chose to believe those few peoples' stories, doesn't mean "God(s)" exist or that Atheism requires Faith/Belief. Atheism goes against the grain of what is generally accepted and that's about as close to it being "Faith" there is, which is to say, none at all.

Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Ferry, or "God(s)" are all equivalent. That is that they are purported to exist and many people accept them as existing and have Faith in their existence, but they do so with absolutely no Proof of their existence. The Atheist looks at the lack of Proof and concludes there's nothing there to concern oneself with.

You claim to have no faith.

Unfortunately if there is a lack of proof, then there is both a lack of proof in support, and a lack of proof to the contrary.

You have just made a choice based on a total lack of proof, which is the very definition of faith.


So do you have faith based faithlessness? or faithless faith?

Listen to your own argument again, your choice of words demonstrate that what I said is correct. Once you "examine the lack of evidence and draw a conclusion" you have made an active choice in what you believe is true.

Atheism is faith based.

 

[BudAshes]

Faith has helped us evolve if you think about it. That seems ironic, but it has to be true. Believing in a god is a great way for people to find something in common, and to organize. We know from history that an organized group of people is much more effective at surviving and procreating. So essentially evolution has morphed us all into believers.

 

[meltdown75]

i have faith in my love of pie.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
There's no Atheism without Theism. Maybe some misguided people have made Atheism into just another religion, but Atheism is not a belief system. If no one had invented God, no one would have invented Atheism.

Theism isn't God though. God is the object through which theists base their system of belief. Atheism is the denial of God (theism logically follows) and could very well exist in the absence of theism. Neither could exist in the absence of God.

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Putting Atheism and Theism on equal footing is ridiculous. If we're strictly talking about Atheism vs. Theism here, the non-belief (NOT the belief in no God, you can't prove a negative) in any concept of God even close to that held by a Theist is vastly more likely than say... the Catholic trinity.

When referring to an absence of belief rather than belief in absence (relative to God), I think it's better to use the term "nontheism." Atheism has several different "flavors," but the one most commonly associated with the term is "strong" atheism, or the belief that God is dead which is faith. (Theism appears to be an antonym to theism, while nontheism appears to be a lack of theism; although both encompass the same ideas.)

Nontheism is the default view of everyone who has never been exposed to God (implicit atheism) and is synonymous with "weak" atheism (the absense of belief in God). (Explicit atheism is moot, since it includes both strong and weak atheists. It is identical to the regular term "atheism" as we use it in discussion since we exclude implicit atheists when referring to people who have adapted a point of view.) Since atheism has more recently adopted several new meanings, I think it's best to use a term which is less ambiguous and contains atheism's alternative meanings.

Flowchart: Text

My personal definition of Atheism and the one all "flavors" of Atheism share is the simple denial that there is any good reason believe in God (or theism since you seem think they can exist independently of each other). That seems to be the simplest and broadest definition. I guess you would call it "weak" Atheism.

I know the most common interpretation of the term is "strong" Atheism. This seems to me an erroneous assumption, but I suppose the distinction should be made.

My particular brand of Atheism isn't strong as defined as a positive denial of God. Technically God could send me an IM at any second. But, it certainly isn't weak, as you can probably tell from my other posts. It's just the position that the leap from the default point of non-theism to theism is a lot farther than the leap from non-theism to atheism. It's also the position that Atheism shouldn't even be an -ism. No one's arguing semantics over the non-belief in spirit animals.

As for Atheism being able to exist without theism, that sort of assumes that God can exist without anyone believing in him, which is a theistic point of view. Wow, that thought almost put my brain into an infinite loop. Thank god I'm not on acid.

I love how people talk about atheism as if it was a default passive trait. It simply cannot be.

There is a choice set before you. You either
a) Choose to believe in something
b) Choose to disbelieve in something
c) Are undecided / unsure leaning in either direction.
How Strong or Weak your beliefs are is irrelevent.

You have actively chose a,b,or c depending on how you view the issue.

'I believe in nothing" does not exist, its a fallacy choice. (Excluding the undecideds / unsures) Lack of Belief and Belief of the Lack are one and the same.


Logically it would seem that theism of some sort would be the default (not atheism) since atheism didnt come about until about (while its known existance can be traced to 5BCE in greece) the 17th century "the age of enlightenment". While all kinds of theisms were present for thousands of years prior.

You're so wrong it hurts. Literally. Everything you've said is false.

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
My personal definition of Atheism and the one all "flavors" of Atheism share is the simple denial that there is any good reason believe in God (or theism since you seem think they can exist independently of each other). That seems to be the simplest and broadest definition. I guess you would call it "weak" Atheism.

Unfortunately, the broadest definition includes both active disbelief (weak) and active faith (strong), which, as you can see, has caused a bunch of problems in this thread alone. I understand this is picking nits, but most people view atheism as a position on the God issue rather than a lack of one. Having both of those meanings within the same word causes problems in debate.

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
I know the most common interpretation of the term is "strong" Atheism. This seems to me an erroneous assumption, but I suppose the distinction should be made.

I don't believe it is erroneous. As I said earlier, atheism appears to be an antonym (opposition) to theism just by the nature of the word. When atheism means both "neutral" and "opposed," it is easy to be confused. Therefore, I believe "nontheism" is a better term for "neutral."

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
My particular brand of Atheism isn't strong as defined as a positive denial of God. Technically God could send me an IM at any second. But, it certainly isn't weak, as you can probably tell from my other posts. It's just the position that the leap from the default point of non-theism to theism is a lot farther than the leap from non-theism to atheism. It's also the position that Atheism shouldn't even be an -ism. No one's arguing semantics over the non-belief in spirit animals.

Text

Wikipedia
Strong atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Weak atheism includes all other forms of non-theism. According to this categorization, anyone who is not a theist is either a weak or a strong atheist.

In other words, anyone who is not a theist is either neutral or opposed to God. True nontheism/weak atheism is perfect neutrality. One is either nontheistic by choice, or nontheistic by default. Being nontheistic does not mean that you cannot be firm in your point of view. However, the movement from genuine nontheism to either theism or atheism is equal, and a leap of faith is required in either direction.

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
As for Atheism being able to exist without theism, that sort of assumes that God can exist without anyone believing in him, which is a theistic point of view. Wow, that thought almost put my brain into an infinite loop. Thank god I'm not on acid.

Theism and atheism are not the only choices regarding God. Some people are just not interested in God or have no awareness of God in the first place and therefore claim no specific beliefs or allegiance (nontheism). God could very well exist whether or not we believe he does because his existence does not be depend on our opinions.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
There's no Atheism without Theism. Maybe some misguided people have made Atheism into just another religion, but Atheism is not a belief system. If no one had invented God, no one would have invented Atheism.

Theism isn't God though. God is the object through which theists base their system of belief. Atheism is the denial of God (theism logically follows) and could very well exist in the absence of theism. Neither could exist in the absence of God.

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Putting Atheism and Theism on equal footing is ridiculous. If we're strictly talking about Atheism vs. Theism here, the non-belief (NOT the belief in no God, you can't prove a negative) in any concept of God even close to that held by a Theist is vastly more likely than say... the Catholic trinity.

When referring to an absence of belief rather than belief in absence (relative to God), I think it's better to use the term "nontheism." Atheism has several different "flavors," but the one most commonly associated with the term is "strong" atheism, or the belief that God is dead which is faith. (Theism appears to be an antonym to theism, while nontheism appears to be a lack of theism; although both encompass the same ideas.)

Nontheism is the default view of everyone who has never been exposed to God (implicit atheism) and is synonymous with "weak" atheism (the absense of belief in God). (Explicit atheism is moot, since it includes both strong and weak atheists. It is identical to the regular term "atheism" as we use it in discussion since we exclude implicit atheists when referring to people who have adapted a point of view.) Since atheism has more recently adopted several new meanings, I think it's best to use a term which is less ambiguous and contains atheism's alternative meanings.

Flowchart: Text

My personal definition of Atheism and the one all "flavors" of Atheism share is the simple denial that there is any good reason believe in God (or theism since you seem think they can exist independently of each other). That seems to be the simplest and broadest definition. I guess you would call it "weak" Atheism.

I know the most common interpretation of the term is "strong" Atheism. This seems to me an erroneous assumption, but I suppose the distinction should be made.

My particular brand of Atheism isn't strong as defined as a positive denial of God. Technically God could send me an IM at any second. But, it certainly isn't weak, as you can probably tell from my other posts. It's just the position that the leap from the default point of non-theism to theism is a lot farther than the leap from non-theism to atheism. It's also the position that Atheism shouldn't even be an -ism. No one's arguing semantics over the non-belief in spirit animals.

As for Atheism being able to exist without theism, that sort of assumes that God can exist without anyone believing in him, which is a theistic point of view. Wow, that thought almost put my brain into an infinite loop. Thank god I'm not on acid.

I love how people talk about atheism as if it was a default passive trait. It simply cannot be.

There is a choice set before you. You either
a) Choose to believe in something
b) Choose to disbelieve in something
c) Are undecided / unsure leaning in either direction.
How Strong or Weak your beliefs are is irrelevent.

You have actively chose a,b,or c depending on how you view the issue.

'I believe in nothing" does not exist, its a fallacy choice. (Excluding the undecideds / unsures) Lack of Belief and Belief of the Lack are one and the same.


Logically it would seem that theism of some sort would be the default (not atheism) since atheism didnt come about until about (while its known existance can be traced to 5BCE in greece) the 17th century "the age of enlightenment". While all kinds of theisms were present for thousands of years prior.

You're so wrong it hurts. Literally. Everything you've said is false.

Wow... you've really put some thought into this one... I can see your view point by point... It so clear...

Perhaps you could explain yourself?

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: BudAshes
Faith has helped us evolve if you think about it. That seems ironic, but it has to be true. Believing in a god is a great way for people to find something in common, and to organize. We know from history that an organized group of people is much more effective at surviving and procreating. So essentially evolution has morphed us all into believers.

Wow. In the history of ATOT there might not have been a more clueless post.

Have you even the slightest shred of understanding about the history of mankind? Find something in common and organize??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? The idea of the invisible man in the sky has been responsible for more wars, more murders and more acts of atrocity than all other ideas combined.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
There's no Atheism without Theism. Maybe some misguided people have made Atheism into just another religion, but Atheism is not a belief system. If no one had invented God, no one would have invented Atheism.

Theism isn't God though. God is the object through which theists base their system of belief. Atheism is the denial of God (theism logically follows) and could very well exist in the absence of theism. Neither could exist in the absence of God.

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Putting Atheism and Theism on equal footing is ridiculous. If we're strictly talking about Atheism vs. Theism here, the non-belief (NOT the belief in no God, you can't prove a negative) in any concept of God even close to that held by a Theist is vastly more likely than say... the Catholic trinity.

When referring to an absence of belief rather than belief in absence (relative to God), I think it's better to use the term "nontheism." Atheism has several different "flavors," but the one most commonly associated with the term is "strong" atheism, or the belief that God is dead which is faith. (Theism appears to be an antonym to theism, while nontheism appears to be a lack of theism; although both encompass the same ideas.)

Nontheism is the default view of everyone who has never been exposed to God (implicit atheism) and is synonymous with "weak" atheism (the absense of belief in God). (Explicit atheism is moot, since it includes both strong and weak atheists. It is identical to the regular term "atheism" as we use it in discussion since we exclude implicit atheists when referring to people who have adapted a point of view.) Since atheism has more recently adopted several new meanings, I think it's best to use a term which is less ambiguous and contains atheism's alternative meanings.

Flowchart: Text

My personal definition of Atheism and the one all "flavors" of Atheism share is the simple denial that there is any good reason believe in God (or theism since you seem think they can exist independently of each other). That seems to be the simplest and broadest definition. I guess you would call it "weak" Atheism.

I know the most common interpretation of the term is "strong" Atheism. This seems to me an erroneous assumption, but I suppose the distinction should be made.

My particular brand of Atheism isn't strong as defined as a positive denial of God. Technically God could send me an IM at any second. But, it certainly isn't weak, as you can probably tell from my other posts. It's just the position that the leap from the default point of non-theism to theism is a lot farther than the leap from non-theism to atheism. It's also the position that Atheism shouldn't even be an -ism. No one's arguing semantics over the non-belief in spirit animals.

As for Atheism being able to exist without theism, that sort of assumes that God can exist without anyone believing in him, which is a theistic point of view. Wow, that thought almost put my brain into an infinite loop. Thank god I'm not on acid.

I love how people talk about atheism as if it was a default passive trait. It simply cannot be.

There is a choice set before you. You either
a) Choose to believe in something
b) Choose to disbelieve in something
c) Are undecided / unsure leaning in either direction.
How Strong or Weak your beliefs are is irrelevent.

You have actively chose a,b,or c depending on how you view the issue.

'I believe in nothing" does not exist, its a fallacy choice. (Excluding the undecideds / unsures) Lack of Belief and Belief of the Lack are one and the same.


Logically it would seem that theism of some sort would be the default (not atheism) since atheism didnt come about until about (while its known existance can be traced to 5BCE in greece) the 17th century "the age of enlightenment". While all kinds of theisms were present for thousands of years prior.

You're so wrong it hurts. Literally. Everything you've said is false.

Wow... you've really put some thought into this one... I can see your view point by point... It so clear...

Perhaps you could explain yourself?

No one's born a theist, anymore than anyone's born a strong atheist. Theism isn't the default point of view by any stretch of the imagination. In other words you're an implicit Atheist (or non-theist) until someone decides to hammer their religion into you as a child. Not that I expect you to acknowledge the distinction, since you apparently can't even be bothered to learn the terminology.

And you're seriously saying that no one doubted Theism before the 17 century? And you put "age of enlightenment" in quotes like you'd rather be stuck in Iron Age modes of thinking.

 

[BudAshes]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: BudAshes
Faith has helped us evolve if you think about it. That seems ironic, but it has to be true. Believing in a god is a great way for people to find something in common, and to organize. We know from history that an organized group of people is much more effective at surviving and procreating. So essentially evolution has morphed us all into believers.

Wow. In the history of ATOT there might not have been a more clueless post.

Have you even the slightest shred of understanding about the history of mankind? Find something in common and organize??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? The idea of the invisible man in the sky has been responsible for more wars, more murders and more acts of atrocity than all other ideas combined.

Exactly. And who procreates? The victor, my friend, thats who. You aren't having too many babies after you have been hung on a cross or eviscerated by spear, no matter how right you are.

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: BudAshes

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: BudAshes
Faith has helped us evolve if you think about it. That seems ironic, but it has to be true. Believing in a god is a great way for people to find something in common, and to organize. We know from history that an organized group of people is much more effective at surviving and procreating. So essentially evolution has morphed us all into believers.

Wow. In the history of ATOT there might not have been a more clueless post.

Have you even the slightest shred of understanding about the history of mankind? Find something in common and organize??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? The idea of the invisible man in the sky has been responsible for more wars, more murders and more acts of atrocity than all other ideas combined.

Exactly. And who procreates? The victor, my friend, thats who. You aren't having too many babies after you have been hung on a cross or eviscerated by spear, no matter how right you are.

 

[shocksyde]

Originally posted by: Blain

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: Blain

Originally posted by: FoBoT
athiests don't believe in faith

faith = firm belief in something for which there is no proof

and athiests only believe in things that are provable/proven

Where would an athiest have believed sickness came from, back before germs & bacteria were discovered to be a major cause?

What kind of retarded question is that? The onus isn't on the Atheist to explain his non-belief. You don't demand that people explain their non-belief in fuckin' mole people do you?

What the hell is wrong with just saying "I don't know"? And not just "I don't know", but why SHOULD I know? Why is it my job to know? Knowing without reason is religion's job. Why do I have to have a theory about every-fuckin'-thing in the universe just to doubt your theory of every-fuckin'-thing in the universe?

I don't know any more about the great "why's" of life than you do. No one does. Not the guy in the lab coat and not the guy with the pointy-hat. But, the guy in the labcoat knows some of the "how".

Have you considered decaf?

The man/woman makes a valid point and you retort with a stupid comment like that? You may be excused from the thread.

 

[laketrout]

Eh - I disagree that atheists can't have faith. I know one who is a Ducks fan and he had faith that Oregon football was going to do a lot better than it did last season. I bet Christopher Hitches doesn't have much faith that his book was going to change the world, but he had faith he'd sell a few copies (I def recommend it btw - its very good. Atheists just don't believe in religion, its not the same thing as faith. You can have faith in friends and family, just not god and still be an atheist. Then again, this is all just my own opinion, and I'm not an atheist at all. But I think I'm definitely going to bring this up over at Know Me Now though.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: sao123
I love how people talk about atheism as if it was a default passive trait. It simply cannot be.

There is a choice set before you. You either
a) Choose to believe in something
b) Choose to disbelieve in something
c) Are undecided / unsure leaning in either direction.
How Strong or Weak your beliefs are is irrelevent.

You have actively chose a,b,or c depending on how you view the issue.

If I do not choose to believe in god, I am not a theist. Therefore, I am an atheist. That's all it takes. If I do not choose to believe in god, and in addition I choose to believe that all gods are impossible, I am also not a theist, and therefore an atheist. The first condition is the necessary and sufficient one to qualify an atheist, however.

'I believe in nothing" does not exist, its a fallacy choice. (Excluding the undecideds / unsures) Lack of Belief and Belief of the Lack are one and the same.

Red herring. Atheism is not premised upon a "belief in nothing."

Logically it would seem that theism of some sort would be the default (not atheism) since atheism didnt come about until about (while its known existance can be traced to 5BCE in greece) the 17th century "the age of enlightenment". While all kinds of theisms were present for thousands of years prior.

Ridiculous. There's nothing logically necessary about the proposition that theism is a default position. Moreover, it should be obvious that any default position should begin from lacking the belief in question. Only from that point of view can one properly qualify a new belief and decide whether or not to assimilate them into one's worldview.

I can only imagine the hoards of ridiculous things you must believe by accepting them as the default. I have a bridge I'd like to sell you, by the way. What's your default position with regard to that?

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
There's no Atheism without Theism. Maybe some misguided people have made Atheism into just another religion, but Atheism is not a belief system. If no one had invented God, no one would have invented Atheism.

Theism isn't God though. God is the object through which theists base their system of belief. Atheism is the denial of God (theism logically follows) and could very well exist in the absence of theism. Neither could exist in the absence of God.

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Putting Atheism and Theism on equal footing is ridiculous. If we're strictly talking about Atheism vs. Theism here, the non-belief (NOT the belief in no God, you can't prove a negative) in any concept of God even close to that held by a Theist is vastly more likely than say... the Catholic trinity.

When referring to an absence of belief rather than belief in absence (relative to God), I think it's better to use the term "nontheism." Atheism has several different "flavors," but the one most commonly associated with the term is "strong" atheism, or the belief that God is dead which is faith. (Theism appears to be an antonym to theism, while nontheism appears to be a lack of theism; although both encompass the same ideas.)

Nontheism is the default view of everyone who has never been exposed to God (implicit atheism) and is synonymous with "weak" atheism (the absense of belief in God). (Explicit atheism is moot, since it includes both strong and weak atheists. It is identical to the regular term "atheism" as we use it in discussion since we exclude implicit atheists when referring to people who have adapted a point of view.) Since atheism has more recently adopted several new meanings, I think it's best to use a term which is less ambiguous and contains atheism's alternative meanings.

Flowchart: Text

My personal definition of Atheism and the one all "flavors" of Atheism share is the simple denial that there is any good reason believe in God (or theism since you seem think they can exist independently of each other). That seems to be the simplest and broadest definition. I guess you would call it "weak" Atheism.

I know the most common interpretation of the term is "strong" Atheism. This seems to me an erroneous assumption, but I suppose the distinction should be made.

My particular brand of Atheism isn't strong as defined as a positive denial of God. Technically God could send me an IM at any second. But, it certainly isn't weak, as you can probably tell from my other posts. It's just the position that the leap from the default point of non-theism to theism is a lot farther than the leap from non-theism to atheism. It's also the position that Atheism shouldn't even be an -ism. No one's arguing semantics over the non-belief in spirit animals.

As for Atheism being able to exist without theism, that sort of assumes that God can exist without anyone believing in him, which is a theistic point of view. Wow, that thought almost put my brain into an infinite loop. Thank god I'm not on acid.

I love how people talk about atheism as if it was a default passive trait. It simply cannot be.

There is a choice set before you. You either
a) Choose to believe in something
b) Choose to disbelieve in something
c) Are undecided / unsure leaning in either direction.
How Strong or Weak your beliefs are is irrelevent.

You have actively chose a,b,or c depending on how you view the issue.

'I believe in nothing" does not exist, its a fallacy choice. (Excluding the undecideds / unsures) Lack of Belief and Belief of the Lack are one and the same.


Logically it would seem that theism of some sort would be the default (not atheism) since atheism didnt come about until about (while its known existance can be traced to 5BCE in greece) the 17th century "the age of enlightenment". While all kinds of theisms were present for thousands of years prior.

You're so wrong it hurts. Literally. Everything you've said is false.

Wow... you've really put some thought into this one... I can see your view point by point... It so clear...

Perhaps you could explain yourself?

No one's born a theist, anymore than anyone's born a strong atheist. Theism isn't the default point of view by any stretch of the imagination. In other words you're an implicit Atheist (or non-theist) until someone decides to hammer their religion into you as a child. Not that I expect you to acknowledge the distinction, since you apparently can't even be bothered to learn the terminology.

And you're seriously saying that no one doubted Theism before the 17 century? And you put "age of enlightenment" in quotes like you'd rather be stuck in Iron Age modes of thinking.

The word atheist already implies you have an opionion.
You are not an implicit atheist by birth. The word for that is agnostic.
Atheist is literally translated from greek as Godless.
Agnostic however means someone who has not commited to an opinion about theism.
You cannot interject uncertainty in to the word athiest which explicitly and quantifiably claims 0 gods.

I said it would be more logical to be a theist than an atheist at birth, based on historic premise. The first atheist recognized is a greek (Diagoras) around 5BCE, however aethism was not commonly mainstream until the 17th century beginning with Baron d'Holbach of France... and the "age of enlightenment" is a historically recognized age (of the 17th century to present) like the "age of steam" the "age of bronze/stone/iron" etc.


Sounds like you need to learn some terminology and history before you argue.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Does Faith in the Divine = Stupidity?

In the case of the Westboro Baptist Church members...yes, yes it does. Of this there can be no doubt.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: sao123
I love how people talk about atheism as if it was a default passive trait. It simply cannot be.

There is a choice set before you. You either
a) Choose to believe in something
b) Choose to disbelieve in something
c) Are undecided / unsure leaning in either direction.
How Strong or Weak your beliefs are is irrelevent.

You have actively chose a,b,or c depending on how you view the issue.

If I do not choose to believe in god, I am not a theist. Therefore, I am an atheist. That's all it takes. If I do not choose to believe in god, and in addition I choose to believe that all gods are impossible, I am also not a theist, and therefore an atheist. The first condition is the necessary and sufficient one to qualify an atheist, however.

'I believe in nothing" does not exist, its a fallacy choice. (Excluding the undecideds / unsures) Lack of Belief and Belief of the Lack are one and the same.

Red herring. Atheism is not premised upon a "belief in nothing."

the above posters would have you define athiesm as a lack of belief in god, rather than a belief in a lack of god. this is the sole argument i am refuting. Having an athiest view requires as much faith as a theist view.

Logically it would seem that theism of some sort would be the default (not atheism) since atheism didnt come about until about (while its known existance can be traced to 5BCE in greece) the 17th century "the age of enlightenment". While all kinds of theisms were present for thousands of years prior.

Ridiculous. There's nothing logically necessary about the proposition that theism is a default position. Moreover, it should be obvious that any default position should begin from lacking the belief in question. Only from that point of view can one properly qualify a new belief and decide whether or not to assimilate them into one's worldview.

What I said was that based on historical context theism would be a more logical default than athiesm... having no default belief (agnostic) is the true default.

I can only imagine the hoards of ridiculous things you must believe by accepting them as the default. I have a bridge I'd like to sell you, by the way. What's your default position with regard to that?

I'm not quite sure what you are saying...but
atheism = affirmative belief that no god exists
atheism != lack of beliefs whether god exist.


you are arguing the same points as me, whether you realize it or not.

 

[meltdown75]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Does Faith in the Divine = Stupidity?

In the case of fundies in general, yes.

fixed for maximum blanket effect!

 

[Estrella]

Originally posted by: MillionaireNextDoor
While it's true that there is no proof that there is a God, realize that there is also no proof that there is no God. In fact, God is outside of the realm of science, as are many things.

"I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there." -Richard Dawkins

You can't live life through science alone; there's much more to life and the universe, and science is only one part of it.

That is a claim and you must support it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: sao123
I love how people talk about atheism as if it was a default passive trait. It simply cannot be.

There is a choice set before you. You either
a) Choose to believe in something
b) Choose to disbelieve in something
c) Are undecided / unsure leaning in either direction.
How Strong or Weak your beliefs are is irrelevent.

You have actively chose a,b,or c depending on how you view the issue.

If I do not choose to believe in god, I am not a theist. Therefore, I am an atheist. That's all it takes. If I do not choose to believe in god, and in addition I choose to believe that all gods are impossible, I am also not a theist, and therefore an atheist. The first condition is the necessary and sufficient one to qualify an atheist, however.

'I believe in nothing" does not exist, its a fallacy choice. (Excluding the undecideds / unsures) Lack of Belief and Belief of the Lack are one and the same.

Red herring. Atheism is not premised upon a "belief in nothing."

the above posters would have you define athiesm as a lack of belief in god, rather than a belief in a lack of god. this is the sole argument i am refuting. Having an athiest view requires as much faith as a theist view.

False. You are simply using a peculiar and unuseful definition to further your own agenda. I know this because I am an atheist, and yet I do not hold the beliefs you claim I must.

Logically it would seem that theism of some sort would be the default (not atheism) since atheism didnt come about until about (while its known existance can be traced to 5BCE in greece) the 17th century "the age of enlightenment". While all kinds of theisms were present for thousands of years prior.

Ridiculous. There's nothing logically necessary about the proposition that theism is a default position. Moreover, it should be obvious that any default position should begin from lacking the belief in question. Only from that point of view can one properly qualify a new belief and decide whether or not to assimilate them into one's worldview.

What I said was that based on historical context theism would be a more logical default than athiesm... having no default belief (agnostic) is the true default.

Atheism is having no belief. Agnosticism is having no knowledge.

I can only imagine the hoards of ridiculous things you must believe by accepting them as the default. I have a bridge I'd like to sell you, by the way. What's your default position with regard to that?

I'm not quite sure what you are saying...but
atheism = affirmative belief that no god exists
atheism != lack of beliefs whether god exist.

This is already refuted in my previous post with arguments you didn't even address.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: sao123

The word atheist already implies you have an opionion.
You are not an implicit atheist by birth. The word for that is agnostic.

Agnosticism is not mutually exclusive to atheism. To describe newborns completely would be to categorize them as agnostic atheists.

Atheist is literally translated from greek as Godless.

More accurately, "not theist."

Agnostic however means someone who has not commited to an opinion about theism.
You cannot interject uncertainty in to the word athiest which explicitly and quantifiably claims 0 gods.

It does not. I know this, because I am an atheist, and I do not make such a claim.

I said it would be more logical to be a theist than an atheist at birth, based on historic premise.

...which is meaningless and false.

The first atheist recognized is a greek (Diagoras) around 5BCE, however aethism was not commonly mainstream until the 17th century beginning with Baron d'Holbach of France... and the "age of enlightenment" is a historically recognized age (of the 17th century to present) like the "age of steam" the "age of bronze/stone/iron" etc.

Irrelevancies.

Sounds like you need to learn some terminology and history before you argue.

Recommended reading

http://www.infidels.org/librar...dern/mathew/intro.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist
http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: shocksyde

Originally posted by: Blain

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: Blain

Originally posted by: FoBoT
athiests don't believe in faith

faith = firm belief in something for which there is no proof

and athiests only believe in things that are provable/proven

Where would an athiest have believed sickness came from, back before germs & bacteria were discovered to be a major cause?

What kind of retarded question is that? The onus isn't on the Atheist to explain his non-belief. You don't demand that people explain their non-belief in fuckin' mole people do you?

What the hell is wrong with just saying "I don't know"? And not just "I don't know", but why SHOULD I know? Why is it my job to know? Knowing without reason is religion's job. Why do I have to have a theory about every-fuckin'-thing in the universe just to doubt your theory of every-fuckin'-thing in the universe?

I don't know any more about the great "why's" of life than you do. No one does. Not the guy in the lab coat and not the guy with the pointy-hat. But, the guy in the labcoat knows some of the "how".

Have you considered decaf?

The man/woman makes a valid point and you retort with a stupid comment like that?

He was ranting...

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: shocksyde

Originally posted by: Blain

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: Blain

Originally posted by: FoBoT
athiests don't believe in faith

faith = firm belief in something for which there is no proof

and athiests only believe in things that are provable/proven

Where would an athiest have believed sickness came from, back before germs & bacteria were discovered to be a major cause?

What kind of retarded question is that? The onus isn't on the Atheist to explain his non-belief. You don't demand that people explain their non-belief in fuckin' mole people do you?

What the hell is wrong with just saying "I don't know"? And not just "I don't know", but why SHOULD I know? Why is it my job to know? Knowing without reason is religion's job. Why do I have to have a theory about every-fuckin'-thing in the universe just to doubt your theory of every-fuckin'-thing in the universe?

I don't know any more about the great "why's" of life than you do. No one does. Not the guy in the lab coat and not the guy with the pointy-hat. But, the guy in the labcoat knows some of the "how".

Have you considered decaf?

The man/woman makes a valid point and you retort with a stupid comment like that? You may be excused from the thread.

Coincidentally he was actually on to something. I had just taken a caffeine pill before I wrote that. 200 mg to the stomach ftw.

 

[Estrella]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
There's no Atheism without Theism. Maybe some misguided people have made Atheism into just another religion, but Atheism is not a belief system. If no one had invented God, no one would have invented Atheism.

Theism isn't God though. God is the object through which theists base their system of belief. Atheism is the denial of God (theism logically follows) and could very well exist in the absence of theism. Neither could exist in the absence of God.

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Putting Atheism and Theism on equal footing is ridiculous. If we're strictly talking about Atheism vs. Theism here, the non-belief (NOT the belief in no God, you can't prove a negative) in any concept of God even close to that held by a Theist is vastly more likely than say... the Catholic trinity.

When referring to an absence of belief rather than belief in absence (relative to God), I think it's better to use the term "nontheism." Atheism has several different "flavors," but the one most commonly associated with the term is "strong" atheism, or the belief that God is dead which is faith. (Theism appears to be an antonym to theism, while nontheism appears to be a lack of theism; although both encompass the same ideas.)

Nontheism is the default view of everyone who has never been exposed to God (implicit atheism) and is synonymous with "weak" atheism (the absense of belief in God). (Explicit atheism is moot, since it includes both strong and weak atheists. It is identical to the regular term "atheism" as we use it in discussion since we exclude implicit atheists when referring to people who have adapted a point of view.) Since atheism has more recently adopted several new meanings, I think it's best to use a term which is less ambiguous and contains atheism's alternative meanings.

Flowchart: Text

My personal definition of Atheism and the one all "flavors" of Atheism share is the simple denial that there is any good reason believe in God (or theism since you seem think they can exist independently of each other). That seems to be the simplest and broadest definition. I guess you would call it "weak" Atheism.

I know the most common interpretation of the term is "strong" Atheism. This seems to me an erroneous assumption, but I suppose the distinction should be made.

My particular brand of Atheism isn't strong as defined as a positive denial of God. Technically God could send me an IM at any second. But, it certainly isn't weak, as you can probably tell from my other posts. It's just the position that the leap from the default point of non-theism to theism is a lot farther than the leap from non-theism to atheism. It's also the position that Atheism shouldn't even be an -ism. No one's arguing semantics over the non-belief in spirit animals.

As for Atheism being able to exist without theism, that sort of assumes that God can exist without anyone believing in him, which is a theistic point of view. Wow, that thought almost put my brain into an infinite loop. Thank god I'm not on acid.

I love how people talk about atheism as if it was a default passive trait. It simply cannot be.

There is a choice set before you. You either
a) Choose to believe in something
b) Choose to disbelieve in something
c) Are undecided / unsure leaning in either direction.
How Strong or Weak your beliefs are is irrelevent.

You have actively chose a,b,or c depending on how you view the issue.

'I believe in nothing" does not exist, its a fallacy choice. (Excluding the undecideds / unsures) Lack of Belief and Belief of the Lack are one and the same.


Logically it would seem that theism of some sort would be the default (not atheism) since atheism didnt come about until about (while its known existance can be traced to 5BCE in greece) the 17th century "the age of enlightenment". While all kinds of theisms were present for thousands of years prior.

Totally incorrect. If "God(s)" appeared before us all on a regular basis thus Proving their existence, then you might be on to something. However, the only "proof" that "God(s)" exist are the claims of the few who insisted "God(s)" appeared to them. Just because the vast majority of People chose to believe those few peoples' stories, doesn't mean "God(s)" exist or that Atheism requires Faith/Belief. Atheism goes against the grain of what is generally accepted and that's about as close to it being "Faith" there is, which is to say, none at all.

Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Ferry, or "God(s)" are all equivalent. That is that they are purported to exist and many people accept them as existing and have Faith in their existence, but they do so with absolutely no Proof of their existence. The Atheist looks at the lack of Proof and concludes there's nothing there to concern oneself with.

You claim to have no faith.

Unfortunately if there is a lack of proof, then there is both a lack of proof in support, and a lack of proof to the contrary.

You have just made a choice based on a total lack of proof, which is the very definition of faith.


So do you have faith based faithlessness? or faithless faith?

Listen to your own argument again, your choice of words demonstrate that what I said is correct. Once you "examine the lack of evidence and draw a conclusion" you have made an active choice in what you believe is true.

Atheism is faith based.

Why can't people say I have no evidence for or the contrary. Or, one can say,"I do not know"

Because realistically at this point no one in this thread has ascertained the existence of God.