Atheism as a Faith: The (Hopefully) Final Debate

[hikersong]

So which sort of Atheism do you believe in antz?

A:

Already this religion is taking over our states, schools and medical institutions. I heard of a Christian school proposal refused by the ministry of Education because the statistics said the region didn't need another Christian school even though the land was purchased, the plans were ready to go and there was sufficient commitment from the church to run it as a private institution. These church members were desperately crying out to the government "we need another Christian school" but they put their fingers in their ears. This is nothing short of antichrist behavior coming from a government official enforcing their atheistic faith.

or B:

The code of morals and ethics from atheist's is some of the most unbiased and balanced moral opinion I have noticed.

 

[Key]

I'm really tired of people debating whether atheism is a faith or not, so I want to try and settle it here. I know this is probably futile, but I'll try anyway. So, lets begin.

First, the definition of faith from dictionary.com:

faith
   /feɪθ/ Show Spelled[feyth] Show IPA
–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

I stopped here and said "Yup they have faith", even the little catch line seemed fitting.

God Bless

 

[Ayersy]

No, atheists do not have 'faith'.

Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking. It's nothing to brag about. - Bill Maher

(That's going in my sig. )

 

[Mythunderstood]

I'm really tired of people debating whether atheism is a faith or not, so I want to try and settle it here. I know this is probably futile, but I'll try anyway. So, lets begin.

First, the definition of faith from dictionary.com:

faith
   /feɪθ/ Show Spelled[feyth] Show IPA
–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology . the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

I think the reason people get so riled up on this issue is because of a difference in definition. After all, there are 8 listed definitions of the word.

Atheists do not have faith with regards to point number 1 in the definition above. They do not have confidence or trust in a person or thing. You can't have confidence or trust in your biological brother if you only have biological sisters. You also can't trust that your car will start on a cold morning if you don't own a car. It makes no sense.

Well, let's start with point #1. Since definition #1 is not referring to gods specifically, where do you get the idea that atheists don't have "confidence/trust" (faith) in other people? In your example above, do atheists not have biological brothers and cars?

 

[Wicked Willow]

I find it kind of fascinating how people on both sides of the imaginary fence can get riled up over the definition of "atheism".

Oh, make no mistake: it's not as if I couldn't *understand* at least some of it, having had my share of "pagans are devil-worshippers"-allegations. But it's still somewhat amusing to behold.

 

[hamashiachagape]

I'm really tired of people debating whether atheism is a faith or not, so I want to try and settle it here. I know this is probably futile, but I'll try anyway. So, lets begin.

First, the definition of faith from dictionary.com:

faith
   /feɪθ/ Show Spelled[feyth] Show IPA
–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology . the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

I think the reason people get so riled up on this issue is because of a difference in definition. After all, there are 8 listed definitions of the word.

Atheists do not have faith with regards to point number 1 in the definition above. They do not have confidence or trust in a person or thing. You can't have confidence or trust in your biological brother if you only have biological sisters. You also can't trust that your car will start on a cold morning if you don't own a car. It makes no sense.

Point number 2 is more contentious because of the word "proof". Proof is listed as a synonym for "evidence". So number 2 can be reworded as "belief that is not based on evidence". In this case, from the viewpoint of the atheist, he does not have faith because he claims he does have evidence. Likewise, a theist would also claim that he has evidence. Both sides claim their "belief is based on evidence". The problem is that both sides disagree on the authenticity of the other's evidence. So lets say point 2 is moot and does not factor into the argument because it gets us nowhere from either side.

Atheists do not have faith based on number 3 because they don't believe in God(s).

I don't think point 4, 6 or 7 apply because they are using "faith" in an entirely different way than what we are concerned with.

Point 8 doesn't apply because it is strictly concerned with Christianity.

So, by my understanding, atheists do not have faith in anything.

Agreed?


This next bit is less logically sound and can be ripped apart a lot easier, but we'll try it out anyway:

You'll notice I conspicuously missed number 5. Because there's another facet to this argument. Whether or not atheism is a faith system (ie religion).

Point 5 states "a system of religious belief". Point number 5 requires the definition of religion.
Religion is broadly defined as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs; a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed on by a number of persons or sects". Nowhere in the definition does it say that a religion necessitates a belief in the supernatural nor does it necessitate moral codes or devotional observances.
Belief is broadly defined as "an opinion or conviction; confidence in the truth of something".

Consider the statement: "There is/are no God(s)". I would say, atheists have an opinion or conviction as to the truth value of that statement. They have some level of confidence in the truth of that statement.

Therefore, I would say that, atheists do have a belief, opinion or conviction that the statement "There is/are no God(s)" is true.
Consider the following statements: "The universe was formed without a supernatural designer", "The universe as a whole progresses without an overarching, objective purpose", "The universe is governed by certain changeless laws as discovered by the scientific method, some of which may be true in all cases, some of which may be undiscovered and some of which may have been discovered but are not fully understood."

I would say that all atheists have a certain degree of confidence that those three statements are true along with the first statement. I am not fond of generalizations or overarching statements, but I think (I think) in this case, those four statements are universally true for any atheist. Please correct me if this is an invalid assumption.

By this, atheism is a religion because atheism then has "a set of agreed upon opinions or convictions, concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe". Atheism also has "a specific fundamental set of opinons or convictions generally agreed on by a number of persons or sects." (Atheism doesn't really have any specific "practices" that I know of).

If you accept all this, then it is logical to say that atheism is a religion and therefore that you can have the Atheistic Faith (going waaaay back to point number 5).

So, in conclusion.

Atheists do not have faith but Atheism is a faith system. Atheists do have fundamental beliefs.


Let the disagreement ensue.

Actually, you put trust in the system of Atheism. "confidence or trust in a person or thing"

The Supreme Court has already decided that Atheism is a religion. There are some from both sides, Christian and non-Christian who disagree.

Atheists often assert that their system is a lack of belief.

Well, thats an assertion and the same system of belief believes that he who asserts must prove the assertion. So prove that you have a lack of belief.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Lets just call this thread dead. Atheism is not a faith. Atheists don't have faith in anything. Conclusion reached.

Thread finished.

You have enough faith in your above assertions. I myself do not have enough faith to be an Atheist.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Atheism requires no faith because to any religious question an atheist can simply respond "I don't know".

Atheism only requires one thing, lack of belief in any god. Anything aside from that is up to the individual and not necessarily part of being atheist.

Thats agnostic.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. You assert that Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Prove that assertion using a lack of belief.

 

[Mythunderstood]

....snip....
You'll notice I conspicuously missed number 5. Because there's another facet to this argument. Whether or not atheism is a faith system (ie religion).

Point 5 states "a system of religious belief". Point number 5 requires the definition of religion.
Religion is broadly defined as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs; a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed on by a number of persons or sects". Nowhere in the definition does it say that a religion necessitates a belief in the supernatural nor does it necessitate moral codes or devotional observances.
Belief is broadly defined as "an opinion or conviction; confidence in the truth of something".

Consider the statement: "There is/are no God(s)". I would say, atheists have an opinion or conviction as to the truth value of that statement. They have some level of confidence in the truth of that statement.

Sure, I could have an opinion about that statement, just like a theist could have an opinion about that statement. So? Do I have some kind of "conviction" or confidence in the truth of that statement? Heck, no! How should I know either way? For all I know there could be hundreds of gods out there! I just have not been exposed to any convincing evidence, nor had any experience which would lead me to belief in any particular god right now. It does not mean I am not open to it. But it is this lack of belief in any god that defines one as an atheist. You don't have to believe in anything in particular to be defined as an atheist. You only have to lack a particular belief (in gods) to be defined as one.

Therefore, I would say that, atheists do have a belief, opinion or conviction that the statement "There is/are no God(s)" is true.
Consider the following statements: "The universe was formed without a supernatural designer", "The universe as a whole progresses without an overarching, objective purpose", "The universe is governed by certain changeless laws as discovered by the scientific method, some of which may be true in all cases, some of which may be undiscovered and some of which may have been discovered but are not fully understood."

I would say that all atheists have a certain degree of confidence that those three statements are true along with the first statement. I am not fond of generalizations or overarching statements, but I think (I think) in this case, those four statements are universally true for any atheist. Please correct me if this is an invalid assumption.

By this, atheism is a religion because atheism then has "a set of agreed upon opinions or convictions, concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe". Atheism also has "a specific fundamental set of opinons or convictions generally agreed on by a number of persons or sects." (Atheism doesn't really have any specific "practices" that I know of).

Atheism does not espouse any particular claim/theory/belief regarding the origins of the universe. Isn't it already obvious that if you don't have a belief in god, then you wouldn't believe a god to have done anything (which includes the creation of the universe)? I also don't believe any god jumped over the moon, drove a taxi, or laid a golden egg.

Atheism says nothing about what affirmative beliefs I have regarding the creation of the universe. It only assumes an indirect link to the origins of the universe question, because we don't happen to believe a god did anything (much less create the universe)! For me, this is only one of the things that I don't believe created the universe.

We can all say that there are millions of things that we don't believe created the universe. For example, most of us would probably agree that we don't believe pancakes, unicorns, gumby, or Tzyetyw created the universe. However, this says nothing about what our actual affirmative beliefs are (if any) regarding the issue.

Because we don't believe in any gods does not mean that we must have some kind of alternative "explanation" regarding the origins of the universe. Many atheists admit that they have no idea how the universe was created if it was even "created" at all. Some may believe in an eternal universe, while others may believe some theory (Big Bang, etc). Just because atheists don't have a belief in god, does not mean you can assume what it is that an atheist affirmatively believes about the origins of the universe.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Sure, I could have an opinion about that statement, just like a theist could have an opinion about that statement. So? Do I have some kind of "conviction" or confidence in the truth of that statement? Heck, no! How should I know either way? For all I know there could be hundreds of gods out there! I just have not been exposed to any convincing evidence, nor had any experience which would lead me to belief in any particular god right now. It does not mean I am not open to it. But it is this lack of belief in any god that defines one as an atheist. You don't have to believe in anything in particular to be defined as an atheist. You only have to lack a particular belief (in gods) to be defined as one.



Atheism does not espouse any particular claim/theory/belief regarding the origins of the universe. Isn't it already obvious that if you don't have a belief in god, then you wouldn't believe a god to have done anything (which includes the creation of the universe)? I also don't believe any god jumped over the moon, drove a taxi, or laid a golden egg.

Atheism says nothing about what affirmative beliefs I have regarding the creation of the universe. It only assumes an indirect link to the origins of the universe question, because we don't happen to believe a god did anything (much less create the universe)! For me, this is only one of the things that I don't believe created the universe.

We can all say that there are millions of things that we don't believe created the universe. For example, most of us would probably agree that we don't believe pancakes, unicorns, gumby, or Tzyetyw created the universe. However, this says nothing about what our actual affirmative beliefs are (if any) regarding the issue.

Because we don't believe in any gods does not mean that we must have some kind of alternative "explanation" regarding the origins of the universe. Many atheists admit that they have no idea how the universe was created if it was even "created" at all. Some may believe in an eternal universe, while others may believe some theory (Big Bang, etc). Just because atheists don't have a belief in god, does not mean you can assume what it is that an atheist affirmatively believes about the origins of the universe.

You're Agnostic.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Is this a discussion about Atheism between Theists and Atheists or just a thread for Atheists to spit out their personal feelings about what they feel about their faith?

 

[Mythunderstood]

You're Agnostic.

Acutally, I am agnostic when it comes to "knowledge" about god, but I am an atheist in regards to belief in god. Agnosticism does not address "belief", it addresses "knowledge". On the spectrum of belief, there are only 2 choices. You either have a belief in god, or you don't. There is no fence sitting.

Let's say someone asked you the question "do you believe in god."? If you cannot answer affirmatively "yes, I believe in god", then you are by definition an atheist in regards to belief. You still can claim that you do not "know" whether or not god exists (agnostic), but you additionally would currently be without a belief in one (atheist). That doesn't mean that you don't think gods are "possible", just that you do not currently actively believe in any particular god. All agnostics either have a belief in god (theist/deist) or they don't (atheist). You don't have to choose to be an atheist, or purposely claim the title of atheist, to be one by definition. Sort of like being bald (lacking hair).....

 

[hamashiachagape]

Acutally, I am agnostic when it comes to "knowledge" about god, but I am an atheist in regards to belief in god. Agnosticism does not address "belief", it addresses "knowledge". On the spectrum of belief, there are only 2 choices. You either have a belief in god, or you don't. There is no fence sitting.

Let's say someone asked you the question "do you believe in god."? If you cannot answer affirmatively "yes, I believe in god", then you are by definition an atheist in regards to belief. You still can claim that you do not "know" whether or not god exists (agnostic), but you additionally would currently be without a belief in one (atheist). That doesn't mean that you don't think gods are "possible", just that you do not currently actively believe in any particular god. All agnostics either have a belief in god (theist/deist) or they don't (atheist). You don't have to choose to be an atheist, or purposely claim the title of atheist, to be one by definition. Sort of like being bald (lacking hair).....

No you can be an Agnostic. You can simply say, I do not know. Or I can't know. Thats Agnosticism about God. Your example is too extreme in nature, Christians do the same when they say "either Christianity or Atheism." It doesn't make sense from either end.

The true Atheist believes he can affirm in the positive that there is no God.

On the hair, bad example. Their hair molecules are still present. Otherwise, we would have no need for products which were able to regrow the hair to begin with.

Secondly, you are utilizing an a posteriori example to try to prove an A Priori explanation. A Posteriori knowledge can only validate or invalidate something. You can't prove this statement through Science.

 

[Mythunderstood]

Actually, you put trust in the system of Atheism. "confidence or trust in a person or thing"

The Supreme Court has already decided that Atheism is a religion. There are some from both sides, Christian and non-Christian who disagree.

Atheists often assert that their system is a lack of belief.

Well, thats an assertion and the same system of belief believes that he who asserts must prove the assertion. So prove that you have a lack of belief.

I guess you could hook me up to a lie detector and ask me if I believe or not. Why would I need to prove that I don't believe in something?

 

[hamashiachagape]

I guess you could hook me up to a lie detector and ask me if I believe or not. Why would I need to prove that I don't believe in something?

Why do I need a lie detector? Thats the Atheist's problem and not ours. He who asserts bears the onus of proof.

Oh second thing. You are agreeing now with the comment that you do not believe in something. So it is not a lack of belief at all according to your wording.

Why don't you believe?

 

[Mythunderstood]

Why do I need a lie detector? Thats the Atheist's problem and not ours.He who asserts bears the onus of proof.

Proof of what? What are you suggesting that I am asserting? After all, I am not asserting that god does not exist, just that I have no belief in any gods. Just like if you said that you believe in god, I would not ask for proof that you believed. I would take you at your word that you believed in god and were not just pretending to believe. Now, if you asserted that god does in fact exist, THEN, I would ask for proof of this.

Oh second thing. You are agreeing now with the comment that you do not believe in something. So it is not a lack of belief at all according to your wording.

When did I not agree that I do not believe in something? Lack of belief and not believing in something are the SAME THING! Maybe you're confusing no belief/lack of belief with the actual holding of the postive belief that god does not exist (which few atheists hold, btw). I do not hold this belief.

Why don't you believe?

As an atheist, I am not discounting the possibility that gods could exist. I actually would like to believe that there is a god. But how am I supposed to know which one to believe in? None of them have revealed themselves to me and I have never had any personal experience of a god of any kind.

As I have said before, religious texts written by men are a dime a dozen. They don't prove one god over any other god. So, I wouldn't base my belief on such a thing. How would you know which "holy text" was true if you didn't have some other kind of proof of that particular god? It would not be fair to discount a god based on these texts alone, would it? If I were to have an actual experience or something (anything!) that would let me know a god existed (and which god!), then I could at least say I have knowledge of god. At that point I could choose to accept/reject him.

At this point I don't claim that gods definitely do not exist. I just have not been presented with any proof/evidence to believe in any particular god in the first place. Consequently, since I don't have a belief in god, then that makes me an atheist...nothing more.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Proof of what? What are you suggesting that I am asserting? After all, I am not asserting that god does not exist, just that I have no belief in any gods. Just like if you said that you believe in god, I would not ask for proof that you believed. I would take you at your word that you believed in god and were not just pretending to believe. Now, if you asserted that god does in fact exist, THEN, I would ask for proof of this.

Then who is right?

When did I not agree that I do not believe in something? Lack of belief and not believing in something are the SAME THING! Maybe you're confusing no belief/lack of belief with the actual holding of the postive belief that god does not exist (which few atheists hold, btw). I do not hold this belief.

Then Atheism is "I do not believe". Philosophically speaking a "lack of belief" is something completely different. This is why Atheists do not like being associated with the phraseology "I do not believe" in the first place.

As an atheist, I am not discounting the possibility that gods could exist. I actually would like to believe that there is a god. But how am I supposed to know which one to believe in? None of them have revealed themselves to me and I have never had any personal experience of a god of any kind.

Then you are an Agnostic, since you do not know.

As I have said before, religious texts written by men are a dime a dozen. They don't prove one god over any other god. So, I wouldn't base my belief on such a thing. How would you know which "holy text" was true if you didn't have some other kind of proof of that particular god? It would not be fair to discount a god based on these texts alone, would it? If I were to have an actual experience or something (anything!) that would let me know a god existed (and which god!), then I could at least say I have knowledge of god. At that point I could choose to accept/reject him.

We need criteria to find the true God then.

God is all knowing. Would an all-knowing God contradict himself?

At this point I don't claim that gods definitely do not exist. I just have not been presented with any proof/evidence to believe in any particular god in the first place. Consequently, since I don't have a belief in god, then that makes me an atheist...nothing more.

Okay, so epistemologically, you do not know whether there is a God or not. Thats Agnosticism.

Would you like to see some of the evidence that there is for the existence of God? What specific questions do you have?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

This futile debate is giving me a headache. Have we really gotten to the point where one party tries to tell the other what s/he does or does not believe, or at least what his or her REAL label ought to be?

(Edit: and just as I write about headaches, an ad at the top of the page announces: "Dial 911 at the first sign of a Stroke!"
Clearly, that's proof of the God of the Bible, innit? Conversion-by-anti-stroke-ad. )

 

[hamashiachagape]

This futile debate is giving me a headache. Have we really gotten to the point where one party tries to tell the other what s/he does or does not believe, or at least what his or her REAL label ought to be?

It can be boiled down to one thing in fact.

"There is no absolute truth." Thats a statement meant to be absolutely true. If it was absolutely true, then its a contradiction. If it is not, then there is an absolute truth. Epistemologically it is a failure.

Now the question becomes, what is the absolute truth?

 

[Mythunderstood]

No you can be an Agnostic. You can simply say, I do not know. Or I can't know. Thats Agnosticism about God. Your example is too extreme in nature, Christians do the same when they say "either Christianity or Atheism." It doesn't make sense from either end.

I already told you that I AM an agnostic. An agnostic atheist, as opposed to an agnostic theist. Agnosticism does not say "I don't know if I believe in a god." It says "I believe that god cannot be known". All agnostics still either have a belief in god or not despite their understanding that gods cannot be known. Agnostic theists/deists believe in god despite acknowledging that gods cannot be known. That is why they have "faith."

You seem to be confusing knowledge with belief. This link might explain it a little better: Atheism vs. Agnosticism: What's the Difference? Are they Alternatives to Each Other?

Question:
If atheism is just disbelief in gods, then what is the difference between that and agnosticism?

Response:

<snip>
Agnostic Atheism & Agnostic Theism

Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not. Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism.
​

The true Atheist believes he can affirm in the positive that there is no God.

"True Atheist"? What do you mean by that? The lowest common denominator and only defintion that fits all atheists is having no belief in any god.

Although I hate using dictionary definitions since they only reflect "popular usage", and each dictionary has a different definition, here is a dictionary definition which defines it as most atheists do.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861587465/atheism.html

atheism
a·the·ism [ áythee ìzz&#601;m ]
noun
Definition:unbelief in God or deities: disbelief in the existence of God or deities