Atheists, What's the point?

seeking Christ said:

Faith without seeing does not mean faith without evidence. This is a common misconception.

Click to expand...

There are plenty of people who mean exactly this when saying "faith" (btw. they have etymology on their side ).
I understand that you are saying that this isn´t what you mean when saying "faith". What do you mean?

seeking Christ said:

In what Universe?

Click to expand...

This one.... at least for rationally thinking people.

If you have a claim, you need to back it up with evidence to prove your claim.

Even if your assertion was correct that there's no evidence against Chrstianity (which is laughably wrong), that doesn't prove Christianity to be true. That's an Argument from Ignorance fallacy.

football5680 said:

To be an atheist requires an indefinitely greater measure of faith than to receive all the great truths which atheism would deny. - Joseph Addison[FONT='Corbel','sans-serif'][/font]

Click to expand...

Well then, tell me, what do I have faith in as an Atheist?

My position is that you have not provided sufficient evidence for me to believe your theological claims about God. Therefore, I am withholding belief until presented with such evidence that would make belief warranted.

Where is the faith in that statement?

football5680 said:

To be an atheist requires an indefinitely greater measure of faith than to receive all the great truths which atheism would deny. - Joseph Addison[FONT='Corbel','sans-serif'][/font]

Click to expand...

I´m certain there is a false equivocation somewhere in there.

seeking Christ said:

Aw c'mon, if you're Hovind you know this already.

No but seriously, the vast majority of Christians on this site have had at least some experience with the Spiritual. Some of us a LOT. Miracles are part of the Kingdom, which is very much a here and now thing.

Click to expand...

What sort of miracles?

Archaeopteryx said:

What do you mean by "faith" then?

Click to expand...

It's also a common misconception to expect he will provide any meaningful definition for "faith."

Tnmusicman said:

I've always been told BY ATHEISTS that weak atheists are the ones that say probably not but not claiming there definatly is no God whereas the strong atheists claim there is no God. If you are saying there's no distinction between the two types then why are there so many claiming the differences to seperate the types of atheists there are?


Strong Atheism vs. Weak Atheism: What’s the Difference?

Click to expand...

Thats the difference between agnosticism and atheism.

Atheists believe there is no God. This is a statement of faith.

mathetes123 said:

Thats the difference between agnosticism and atheism.

Atheists believe there is no God. This is a statement of faith.

Click to expand...

Wrong.

You may want to familiarise yourself with the concepts of strong and weak atheism.

FrenchyBearpaw said:

It's also a common misconception to expect he will provide any meaningful definition for "faith."

Click to expand...

Hebrews
Chapter 11
By Faith
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts. And through his faith, though he died, he still speaks. By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God. And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God. By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised. Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born descendants as many as the stars of heaven and as many as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore.
These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city. By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back. By faith Isaac invoked future blessings on Jacob and Esau. By faith Jacob, when dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, bowing in worship over the head of his staff. By faith Joseph, at the end of his life, made mention of the exodus of the Israelites and gave directions concerning his bones.
By faith Moses, when he was born, was hidden for three months by his parents, because they saw that the child was beautiful, and they were not afraid of the king's edict. By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward. By faith he left Egypt, not being afraid of the anger of the king, for he endured as seeing him who is invisible. By faith he kept the Passover and sprinkled the blood, so that the Destroyer of the firstborn might not touch them.
By faith the people crossed the Red Sea as on dry land, but the Egyptians, when they attempted to do the same, were drowned. By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they had been encircled for seven days. By faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given a friendly welcome to the spies.
And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets— who through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. Women received back their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life. Others suffered mocking and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword. They went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, mistreated— of whom the world was not worthy— wandering about in deserts and mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.
And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.

So God gives atheists the faith that there is no god.

So rather than typing out that incredibly long post, you could have just said:

"Faith is believing something without evidence"

muichimotsu said:

First off, your experience with atheists does not determine the behavior or statements of all atheists, strong, weak, hard, soft, explicit or implicit

This distinction you bring up is more recent, at least Antony Flew recent. The dichotomy of implicit and explicit atheism is relevant in its own way, though moreso a matter of affirmation, not degree of certainty, which is a fair distinction

But merely asserting it is more likely is not the same as saying it is absolutely true. I have not met an atheist myself who has ever argued they are absolutely certain no God or gods exist. They are usually fairly certain, but not absolutely so. Therefore, the burden of proof is not entirely on them, if it is at all, since they're arguing by probability, not strict evidence proof.

I'm not saying there aren't distinctions, but I'm saying the atheist you're describing is highly unlikely to exist, as opposed to a more reasonable qualification between highly probable and somewhat probable, for instance

Click to expand...

I understand your points. Now, should I totally disregard every definition of atheism ever given me?? Since, they seem to mean nothing . (No disrespect here, I'm genuinly asking). Yknow theists can only work with what they are given. I'm presenting to you what I've been given time and time and time again. Am I to disregard that someone who ckaims "thre is no God" as being what???? Untrue to their beliefs? Forget what they can prove....I'm going by what they say.

muichimotsu said:

First off, your experience with atheists does not determine the behavior or statements of all atheists, strong, weak, hard, soft, explicit or implicit

This distinction you bring up is more recent, at least Antony Flew recent. The dichotomy of implicit and explicit atheism is relevant in its own way, though moreso a matter of affirmation, not degree of certainty, which is a fair distinction

But merely asserting it is more likely is not the same as saying it is absolutely true. I have not met an atheist myself who has ever argued they are absolutely certain no God or gods exist. They are usually fairly certain, but not absolutely so. Therefore, the burden of proof is not entirely on them, if it is at all, since they're arguing by probability, not strict evidence proof.

I'm not saying there aren't distinctions, but I'm saying the atheist you're describing is highly unlikely to exist, as opposed to a more reasonable qualification between highly probable and somewhat probable, for instance

Click to expand...

Gadarene said:

Wrong.

You may want to familiarise yourself with the concepts of strong and weak atheism.

Click to expand...

Would you concur that my definitions and the links definitions are somewhat an accurate representation of strong/weak atheism?

Tnmusicman said:

I understand your points. Now, should I totally disregard every definition of atheism ever given me?? Since, they seem to mean nothing . (No disrespect here, I'm genuinly asking). Yknow theists can only work with what they are given. I'm presenting to you what I've been given time and time and time again. Am I to disregard that someone who ckaims "thre is no God" as being what???? Untrue to their beliefs? Forget what they can prove....I'm going by what they say.

Click to expand...

People don't always qualify what they mean by their words. One can believe there is no God without having faith there is no God. One can believe there is no God without being absolutely certain. One could say there probably is no God, which is a step down from believing there is no God. One could even say God is irrelevant, which is not a statement of belief or disbelief or even probability, but simply that God has no meaning to them. I'd ask what you mean by "God" as an ignostic, but also would assert that "God" as a term is nonsensical as a theological noncognitivist.

There are various kinds of atheist, but there is at least some unifying idea, they don't have a belief in God. Whether they believe there is no God, that there probably is no God or any other variation, they don't by any necessity have faith. That's sort of a common trait: faith is viewed as illogical and irrational, therefore one shouldn't use it to justify their worldview.

Tnmusicman said:

Would you concur that my definitions and the links definitions are somewhat an accurate representation of strong/weak atheism?

Click to expand...

Strong/Weak Atheism I find is a bad way to label it, as the terms can be taken many different ways and easily misunderstood.... that's why I generally try to stick to Agnostic/Gnostic Atheism.

I don't agree with the claim that strong Atheism is a claim to knowledge, as at it's heart, Atheism describes a position of belief, not knowledge. Gnostic/Agnostic addresses what a person claims to know.

What's also very important is the definition of God that you use.

For example, if you go visit a tribe of islanders, and they have a totem pole that they identify as their Tribal God... I am a Gnostic Theist. I can see their God with my own eyes, although most would not accept that as a valid definition of God. Likewise, Julius Caesar was labelled as a God during his lifetime. In the case of him, I am also a Gnostic Theist, although I don't particularly agree with that definition of God either.

In the case of the more traditional views of Gods, and the Christian God in particular, that is also open to how it's defined. For example in the case of a God which has defined attributes that are clearly self-contradictory, I would consider myself a Gnostic Atheist. As it's a violation of the law of non-contradiction, it's impossible such a being can exist.

In the example of a deistic or more loosely defined God, I would call myself an Agnostic Atheist. There's no evidence to warrant belief, however I can't claim to know this God doesn't exist either... So the rational position is taken to withhold belief until evidence is presented to support belief.


In regards to Strong/Weak Atheism, I think the best way to define it is:

Weak Atheist: Someone who does not believe a God exists
Strong Atheist: Someone who believes no Gods exist.

However, the important thing to note here is that neither position is a claim to knowledge.

For example, I consider myself a Strong Atheist. I came to this position (without going into too much detail) because I think the evidence shows that God is a concept invented by humans. Because of this belief, I am of the belief that Gods are just a human invention and therefore no Gods actually exist in the real world.

Do I claim to know this to an absolute certainty? Of course not. It's nearly impossible to prove the non-existence of something. For example, I can't disprove the idea that a Deistic God exists, however due to a complete lack of empirical evidence, I believe it's something that someone made up one day.

So, that puts me in a position where I am an Agnostic Atheist (and indeed an Agnostic Atheist towards many Christian ideas of God), however a Strong Atheist at the same time. I don't claim to know for certain that a God does not exist, however it is my belief that all God concepts are ultimately a human invention and therefore I believe no Gods actually exist in reality.

That's why I think it's not proper to use Strong/Weak in the same context as Gnostic/Agnostic. Atheism is a position of belief, not knowledge, so therefore labeling someone as "strong" should not imply knowledge, it should merely imply a strong belief.

I just thought of a better way to clearly define the terms.

A gnostic atheist claims to know that no gods exist. Since they claim to know, then they must be able to definitively disprove all possible concepts of God. (Exceptions can be made for totem pole gods or men labeled as gods etc)

A strong atheist like myself can not, and does not claim to be able to disprove all concepts of god. Therefore in my case I'm fully aware that there might be a demonstrable concept of god that I am not currently aware of, that will alter my beliefs if I ever discover it. Every concept I am aware of I believe is man made, but there might be a concept I am not yet aware of, or evidence I am not aware of that would alter my views on existing claims.

Seems like the major divisions are: implicit/explicit: division between lack of statements of God belief, but implied to have no God belief due to ambivalence and those who outright say they don't believe in God to one degree or another; strong/weak: division between those who are fairly certain and those who are less certain, but still lean towards disbelief/skepticism; and gnostic/agnostic: those who are certain of God's nonexistence and those who simply say they cannot know with absolute certainty, but lean towards disbelief. The last is fairly similar to the strong/weak distinction, or, as I once formulated it, hard/soft

Gnostic means you claim to know for a fact. Agnostic means you do not know, but are at least fairly sure.

Atheist says no gods, theist says god or gods.

So an agnostic theist says, "I believe there is a god or gods, but I can't know for sure."

Gnostic Atheist says, "I know for a fact there are no gods."

You'll find very few gnostic atheists, very few agnostic theists.

Tiberius said:

You'll find very few gnostic atheists, very few agnostic theists.

Click to expand...

Well, that's not really true, there's quite a lot of agnostic theists around. Anyone that says "I can't say for sure that God exists, however I believe he does because I feel it" etc... are Agnostic Theists.

You are correct that there aren't many Gnostic Atheists around though.

Eudaimonist said:

What is your definition? I tend towards:

Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1 (American Standard Version)

I take faith to mean both the hope and the steadfast conviction that something currently unseen will come to pass, such as having faith that one will end up in heaven.

Perhaps some evidence works its way into supporting this conviction, but ultimately it comes down to believing in something that is not available to sensory validation.[/I]

Click to expand...

Note the emphasized word; this is quite right. Where the difference comes in, is there is still not only validation, but evidence; just (sometimes) not via the normal 5 senses. Peter and doubting Thomas are both recorded as having this type of evidence, over the same fact, at different times.

Faith is the ability to "see" what's going on in the Spiritual realm, which itself is evidence. Therefore to say "blind faith," or "faith is believing without evidence" misses the point entirely.