The faithless atheist

[WretchedMan]

This has never been the definition of "agnosticism". You can be an agnostic atheist and an agnostic theist. Agnosticism is the position that the existence of a god is unknowable. Wikipedia may give you a good idea:

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.[1][2][3] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves there is a God, whereas an atheist disbelieves there is a God. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify knowledge whether God exists or does not. Within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a God exists but do not claim to know that).

I know this is one position of agnosticism. I have no problem with someone holding this position. Honestly, I have no issue with someone calling theirself an agnostic-atheist, if they mean that they believe there is no god but that we cannot know that there is no god. If that's your position, just don't act like you belief there is no god is anything less than faith. It may be faith in your own intuition, reasoning, naturalism, someone whose position you trust, or any numerable other things, but it is faith.

I addressed what faith is in my reply to Selfinflikted if you haven't read it.

 

[WretchedMan]

Wreched man (quote)

Let me give you a practical example to illustrate what I mean by faith.

You wake up in the morning and fix yourself a bowl of cereal and, without hesitation, you chow down with no fear that you are eating something poisonous. Why? Do you know, empirically, that the cereal you have brought home from the store isn't going to make you sick or kill you? No you do not, but you have observed others eating cereal from the store and you have eaten cereal from the store enough that you have developed faith in the process…… That is a practical example of faith. Another example is flying on a commercial airliner. You cannot personally and empirically, confirm that an aircraft is serviced properly, in flyable condition……. You exercise faith in almost everything you do everyday. Faith is, in essence, trust, and it is as central to human life as breathing”


(reply) You seem to believe faith has the same definition as the word “believe” which makes the word “faith” meaningless; why not just use the term believe?

To believe something that is backed up by facts, logic, reason, and empirical evidence is MUCH different than believing something that is not! Thus a different word should be used to distinguish the two. If you are not going to use the word “faith” to describe the type of belief that is not backed up by reason, logic, and empirical evidence, what word would you like to use?

(quote) “The idea that faith is this blind, religiously exclusive, mystical thing is a very new idea and was not at all what Jesus meant when He spoke of having faith.”

(reply) actually it was. Hebrews 11:1 describes faith as the substance of things hoped for, evidence of things UNSEEN. If it were backed up by logic reason and empirical evidence, it would not be unseen

Ken

Actually, I said faith is synonomous with trust.

My examples are harmonious with Hebrews 11:1. If you think they are not, please explain why that is the case.

 

[Ken-1122]

Actually, I said faith is synonomous with trust.

My examples are harmonious with Hebrews 11:1. If you think they are not, please explain why that is the case.

(reply) Logic, reason and empirical evidence is not unseen. Unseen is another word for blind; in otherwords Hebrews 11:1 confirms faith is blind.

K

 

[WretchedMan]

You´ve got that wrong: For most of this time the word was used to signify a philosophical position of the knowability of deities, and not until fairly recently it is used to signify some middle ground between atheism and theism.


Fair enough. Likewise, I will accept your self-identification as a Christian.

The word isn't even 150 years old, but the concept dates back at least 2400 years. When Huxley coined the word he said he didn't believe or disbelieve in the existence of any god. So, it carries both connotations. Unfortunately, we don't have a word that only addresses the uncertain position, so what should we calll them, if not agnostic?

 

[quatona]

I know this is one position of agnosticism. I have no problem with someone holding this position. Honestly, I have no issue with someone calling theirself an agnostic-atheist, if they mean that they believe there is no god but that we cannot know that there is no god.

The atheist part doesn´t even necessarily include a disbelief in gods. It´s sufficient not to believe either way.

If that's your position, just don't act like you belief there is no god is anything less than faith.

Sorry, I don´t seem to understand the grammatical structure and thus meaning of this sentence.

It may be faith in your own intuition, reasoning, naturalism, someone whose position you trust, or any numerable other things, but it is faith.

Yeah, by your extremely broad definition of "faith" you might conclude that. This, however, is very far from the sort of faith we are told is required from a Christian. Equivocation fallacy.
Anyway, I would like to understand what´s the faith part when actually my position is that I lack faith. How do you get to the conclusion that having no belief requires faith in any of those concepts you have listed?

I addressed what faith is in my reply to Selfinflikted if you haven't read it.

And I won´t repeat the responses you have already received in answer to your definition.

 

[WretchedMan]

I've got to head to a job. I'll try to get back on this evening and respond to the posts I haven't got to yet.

 

[quatona]

The word isn't even 150 years old,

I stand corrected.

but the concept dates back at least 2400 years.

Since it signifies at least two different concepts - which concept are you referring to here?

When Huxley coined the word he said he didn't believe or disbelieve in the existence of any god. So, it carries both connotations.

Yup.

Unfortunately, we don't have a word that only addresses the uncertain position, so what should we calll them, if not agnostic?

I guess, just like we do with self-professing Christians you would do well to accept the definition that those who call themselves "agnostics" use.

As for the uncertain and undecided ones: how about "uncertain" or "undecided"?

In any case, we have three different parameters here.
1. The personal belief, lack of belief or disbelief in the existence of a deities.
2. The (lack of) a positive claim concerning the existence of deities.
3. The philosophical position regarding the knowability of the existence of deities.

Personally, I lack belief in the existence of deities; I make no claim whatsoever concerning their existence; I think the knowability depends largely on the god concept in question (e.g. many deities are downright defined as unknowable by their believers).
So where exactly is the faith part in that (even in the very broad definition you suggested)?

 

[quatona]

Let me give you a practical example to illustrate what I mean by faith.

You wake up in the morning and fix yourself a bowl of cereal and, without hesitation, you chow down with no fear that you are eating something poisonous. Why? Do you know, empirically, that the cereal you have brought home from the store isn't going to make you sick or kill you? No you do not, but you have observed others eating cereal from the store and you have eaten cereal from the store enough that you have developed faith in the process that produces and delivers it to your store shelves. Is there no chance it could ever be poisonous? No, as we have all observed over the years, contamination from a bacteria, an accident, or a ticked worker somewhere along the line can lead to sickness, disease, and even death for an unsuspecting consumer that just wanted some spinach in their salad or were hungry for some spaghetios. However, even with the reality that these things happen, we do not operate out of fear, but rather faith, when we eat food bought at a store or in a restaurant. The only time this changes is for a short time after we hear a story of something happening or experience it first hand.

Apart from a lot of things that are wrong with this analogy (others have pointed it out already) your actual point would have to be that even not having "faith" in this food and not eating it would require "faith".

The idea that faith is this blind, religiously exclusive, mystical thing is a very new idea and was not at all what Jesus meant when He spoke of having faith. Is there an additional aspect to it within the context of a relationship with God? Yes, but it is an extension of what we already have and use, not something foreign to human experience.

Ok, so if you want to include pretty much everything in your concept "faith" we would need a new word for this very extension. Let´s call it "blind faith" or "superstition", then. Deal?

 

[selfinflikted]

If that's your position, just don't act like you belief there is no god is anything less than faith. It may be faith in your own intuition, reasoning, naturalism, someone whose position you trust, or any numerable other things, but it is faith.

Speaking only for myself here, I've already explained my stance on atheism. It's unbelief. There could very well be a god(s), I just haven't seen any evidence that would cause me to believe. I do not say that god(s) doesn't exist with any amount of certainty, I just don't believe in them. I think most atheists, though probably not all, would agree with me on this.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Your analogy is a good one, but I don't think it is applicable to atheism, but to one of the commonly held definitions of agnosticism, which more accurately fits your described position.

To me, agnosticism has to do with knowledge and theism/atheism have to do with belief.

I am an agnostic in that I don't know whether or not a god exists. However, I'm also an atheist in that I don't believe one does.

Atheism does, and always has, contained the truth claim that no god exists.

The majority of self-identifying atheists would disagree with you.

Using the strictest possible definition of atheism, you're right, it would be the position that no gods exist. However, as has been explained to you earlier, the definition of the word has changed.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

- Source - Italics and underling added by me

The broader definition of atheism has become the one most commonly used within the atheist community itself. If you wish to continue using the strict definition, feel free. Just please understand that, when conversing with atheists, you'll basically be using the exception as the rule.

 

[KCfromNC]

It may be faith in your own intuition, reasoning, naturalism, someone whose position you trust, or any numerable other things, but it is faith.

By this definition, Christians have faith in many things besides god. Doesn't that run afoul of the 1st commandment?

If the faith in "faith in their own ability to think" is the same as the faith in "faith in an invisible god" then believers have religious faith in two different things at once. That isn't going to make God very happy.

But in reality, believing that you can think is a far different thing than having faith in a god who does her best to hide from people who look for it. One's based on reasonable evidence, the other is belief despite the facts. There's no reason to try to use the same word for them except to score some sort of rhetorical point.

 

[mdancin4theLord]

Speaking only for myself here, I've already explained my stance on atheism. It's unbelief. There could very well be a god(s), I just haven't seen any evidence that would cause me to believe. I do not say that god(s) doesn't exist with any amount of certainty, I just don't believe in them. I think most atheists, though probably not all, would agree with me on this.

Atheists make a truth statement....there is no god. I do not believe that anyone can make that claim...because no one has proof. You have to have all the knowledge in the universe to make the statement......there is no god.

At best someone can only be an agnostic...who says, I don't know but I do not think there is a god based on the evidence.

And to believe anything it takes faith...even if that faith is only in ourselves. So to say that some don't need faith to live...is proposterous.

I would say you were an agnostic not an atheist.

 

[quatona]

Atheists make a truth statement....there is no god.

No, they don´t.

I do not believe that anyone can make that claim...because no one has proof.

...but you can make the claim "there is a god"?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Atheists make a truth statement....there is no god. I do not believe that anyone can make that claim...because no one has proof. You have to have all the knowledge in the universe to make the statement......there is no god.

At best someone can only be an agnostic...who says, I don't know but I do not think there is a god based on the evidence.

And to believe anything it takes faith...even if that faith is only in ourselves. So to say that some don't need faith to live...is proposterous.

I would say you were an agnostic not an atheist.

That is your personal definition, but as this thread attests, virtually all self-professed atheists do not agree. What you call an 'agnostic', we call an 'atheist'. So please, stop with the equivocation.

 

[Antarctika]

What difference do you make between the two labels?

 

[quatona]

What difference do you make between the two labels?

An atheist is a person who lacks belief in deities. (This comes in various degrees - people who don´t even care, people who just don´t belief, people who make an affirmative statement that no gods exist...).
Agnosticism is the position that it´s impossible to know whether a god/gods exist/s or not. (An entirely different category than theism/atheism).
So there can be agnostic atheists and agnostic theists.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What difference do you make between the two labels?

Theism/atheism is one's stance on whether or not the gods exist, it describes whether you affirm their existence or their non-existence (or neither). It's ontological.

Gnosticism/agnosticism is one's stance on whether or not we can ever know if the gods exists. It's epistemological.

Atheists can be further split into two categories: weak and strong. Strong atheists affirm that there are, in fact, no gods. Weak atheists don't affirm either the existence or the non-existence of the gods.

Gnostic theist: believes we can deduce the existence or non-existence of deitites, and believes that gods do indeed exist
Gnostic atheist: believes that we can deduce their existence, but doesn't actually affirm their existence
Agnostic theist: doesn't believe we can deduce their existence, but believes anyway
Agnostic atheist: doesn't believe we can ever deduce their existence, and doesn't believe in them

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Atheists make a truth statement....there is no god. I do not believe that anyone can make that claim...because no one has proof. You have to have all the knowledge in the universe to make the statement......there is no god.

This is simply an often repeated, but patently false cliché. For various reasons.

For example, contradictions can not exist; and meaningless statements are meaningless statements. If "God" falls into either one of the categories, then it is perfectly justified to be a strong atheist.

Another reason for why you would not need all the knowledge in the universe, is that God is just not that kind of entity which we would seek for example behind the sofa or in the fridge. And so I wouldn't actually need to know what is behind the sofa or in the fridge (and gazillion of other things) when I make the statement "God does not exist."

 

[ToddNotTodd]

And to believe anything it takes faith...even if that faith is only in ourselves. So to say that some don't need faith to live...is proposterous.

I'm finding that Christians use the word "faith" in a ridiculously broad way only when they're trying to equate their beliefs with other's, more evidenced, beliefs. I'm hoping this is unconscious, because if it isn't then they're engaging in egregious intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Ken-1122]

I am curious as to why so many Christians are always trying to accuse us Atheists of having faith? No matter how often we insist we don't use the stuff, they are always "scraping the bottom of the barrel" often changing the definition of the word all in an effort to accuse us of having faith! You never see us accusing them of using reason and logic!!

If they told me they've come to the conclusion that God does exist and they came to this conclusion without the use of reason or logic but only faith, I will be fine with that and recognize that the reason their belief's don't make sense to me is because their beliefs are unreasonable and illogical unlike my own. I will NOT expend any effort looking for an excuse to claim their beliefs are anything but what you say they are; now why can't they offer us the same courtesy? Why can't these guys accept the fact that the idea of some "invisible guy in the sky" looking over everyone's shoulder keepin score; sounds illogical and unreasonable to us and "faith" isn't required to conclude that this guy doesn't exist! Why can't these guys be okay with that? Maybe someone can explain that one for me.

Could it be because deep down they know faith (the type required to believe in God) is a faulty way of asserting belief; but because their religion requires it, they are forced to use it but don't want to be the only one in a debate to have to use such a faulty system of belief; so they try to justify saying we use it too? If that is not the reason, maybe someone can explain why sooo much effort is used in accusing us of using faith; cause I just don't get it!

Ken