Atheism is a faith?

Erm, no, in the words I chose to use, or I would not have strung them together in that way. Your words are in other words only you seem to understand - purposely. Tiresome? Yes. Been there. Don't wish to get there again. Take care. Bye. x

 

Thus it is happy to wait and falsify the truth of one's own Believing.

 

"To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."
- Thomas Paine, The American Crisis No. V (1776)

while it is possible to be fanatically athiest, it is far more likely and common, that the fanatic will use as their excuse, some form of religious belief or political ideology.

 

I would say that faith is belief without reason. A pretty word for prejudice. I'm not trying to be provocative, I just think there is a reason people are so sensitive about their "faith". I think the same type of offense is taken when a racist is questioned about his superiority.

So then Atheism, or at least what everyone here wants Atheism to mean (humanism, or naturalism) would be reason. Humble reality, without gods and
superstitions. Something we can all share.

 

Your definition reveals your own prejudice. You're free to define words as you like, so long as you make clear how you're using them. But if you're interested in rational discussion instead of propaganda, you might choose a more neutral, commonly accepted definition. Otherwise you stack the deck. What you've defined is blind faith. I think the word "faith" also applies to a willingness to trust based on reason, personal experience, and evidence. Bertrand Russell used to say that a truly rational person wouldn't expect sunrise tomorrow, but I think otherwise. A truly rational person would expect things to happen the way they always have in the past--realizing that a parametric shift could happen, but betting that it won't. A truly rational person could be wrong, of course, but it's the process that matters. Science properly minimizes reliance on faith, but it doesn't eliminate it. The realm of assumptions that Santayana called "animal faith"--that there is an objective reality, that we can rely on our senses to identify it, etc.--must be accepted without proof. Postulates are an essential tool of scientific inquiry. Faith is a bet, but rational gamblers place educated bets.

 

Born into a family

Going to church

The bible.




that is the definition of slippery

 

Atheism is a "faith" in that atheist people are devoted to their belief that there is no god or that god does not exist. Atheism could also be the "faith" in and worship of science (though another word would be used to describe a person who faithfully worships science).

Faith is: the highest form of trust.

 

i have an absolute faith that athiesm is a thing that exists.

once upon a time, there was a state in the u.s. called the show me state.

to me, that is what atheism is; people who honestly say "show me".

now i believe there are all kinds of things we don't know.

but as far as showing anyone, i don't see how anyone ever can or has.

 

Being born into a famiily has nothing to do with reason. Thinking things through is what I'm talking about.

As experiences go, this is pretty limited.

Again, limited evidence, if it can be called that at all. Consideration of the evidence for the Bible is more in line with what I'm talking about.

And your remarks are the definition of specious.

 

Being born into a family is is all the reason anyone has ever needed to Believe in god and accept indoctrination.

But it is called that. Maybe not by you or me, but id wager it is the more "commonly accepted definition", which is why I am not as interested in "common" as I am in cohesion; If one of the parts of your argument doesn't fit, or if i'm having trouble understanding what someone means or what someone is saying, I feel like i'm wasting my time. I gave my definition of faith because it is the one which fits into my paradigm which i believe to be naturalism, and it has not failed me.

I never thought this thread had hope of going anywhere in the first place because everyone is thinking through different paradigms.

 

Any child, maybe. Surely there are lots of folks who reject the religion or political allegiance they were brought up in. I'd bet a good many people on this forum are in that category.

If you're saying that many people take the gospels as gospel truth, I think you're probably right. I suspect that most folks don't think analytically. But I'm concerned about whether or not rational people have sufficient evidence for their beliefs.

Does that ever strike you as a bit closed minded?

 

this is how the bible describes faith:

“Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.” Hebrews 11:1


so, in essence, you could say that Athiesm is a faith, A faith in nothing

 

I don't think there's much need to get hung up on how the term 'faith' is used.

And another one on the fence eh, that's where I normally sit too, perhaps has the best view also, more open and less judgement. I am, however, over the fence on this one, but try to keep an open mind.

 

So if I'm understanding you, you've accepted a paradigm centered on naturalism which "has not failed" you. That sounds like faith to me. I accept naturalism as a first line of explanation, but mainly as a matter of policy. Assuming natural causes allows us to relate the findings to other observations about physical reality, thereby building knowledge--larger theories or networks of integrated refutable hypotheses. Saying that God, spirits, demons, etc., are responsible shuts off further inquiry or substitutes supplication for it. However, I'm willing to concede that it's only a paradigm which I accept as an act of judgment or will--i.e., a "joyful bet" (Luther) or "faith".

I think part of the confusion comes from the popular association of "faith" with religious belief. Dawkins and Harris both define faith as belief in supernatural things without sufficient evidence. That, however, stacks the deck, since it assumes insufficiency of evidence and precludes believing in natural phenomena without sufficient evidence. Marcus Borg defines faith in terms of its root word fides which is the same root as fidelity. When a person questions his/her spouse's fidelity (s)he isn't asking whether or not the spouse believes in supernatural beings. Fidelity is trust, and it is typically based on enough prior experience that we can be confident the spouse can be trusted. As you say, "it has not failed me."

 

Ummm yeah, I don't know what kind of twisted ass ideas you have about atheism but it sure as hell isn't a conclusion I was hoping for...
Jesus Christ.

 

Well, If they didn't have sufficient evidence, I wouldn't call them rational people. But then, I think its easier to talk about the logical status of ideas and beliefs than individuals. A rational person would still have emotions, beliefs don't.

Its not always closed. It brings me pleasure to inquire like a child and discover, to assume someone is right when I'm talking to them, but it hurts when they turn out to be prejudice or misguided.

So yes, if i see a flat tire, I'm going to tell you whats wrong with the car. Show me more car and I will show you more problems.