Atheism is a faith?

I find that in my own musings on this matter,I do not have the requisite "Faith" to decide that I am atheist,that to not believe in God itself a requires leap into the unknown.This is why I am an agnostic - that is my mind is open to there being a superior power or intelligence,whilst not be able to offer axiomatic proof either way.Both scenarios in fact seem unlikely to me - that there is God or that there isn't God,seem equally puzzling and unlikely.For me it raises question similar to the one of eternity and infinity.That is to say,both an eternal and infinite universe and a universe bounded by time and space seem equally impossible,when you think about it.It's not so comfortable sitting here on the fence,and I end up doubting both believers and non-believers,and this even extends to the dichotomy of this abstraction as it exist in my OWN HEAD!

So essentially I am saying,yes,I lack the necessary faith for atheism,whilst finding notions of God an unfathomable and supra-liminal mystery.

 

Atheism is rather the absence of faith I would say.

 

Perhaps you need some faith to sincerely uphold your conviction that makes you atheist but it isn't a faith in my book neither.

 

I am not suggesting that atheism should be classed as a faith as such,rather that for me to declare disbelief in God requires a massive feat of self-conviction,which I used to hold,presently don't,but may again sometime in the future.Maybe I want to believe in God because a part of me wants to believe in salvation and that the "good will out",even as I am often impressed with the arguments of atheists.What I find interesting is that both scenarios are in their own way intensely remarkable: If there is God than that is amazing...And on the other hand it would be extraordinary if the universe and existence was all chance occurrence with no prime mover involved,that is also mind-blowing.As humans can we think of a third possibility? I suppose we would have to start looking at advanced physics to start thinking about this,but that is an area of study I really can't keep up with.

 

That would depend on what kind of god it is. Most of those described by mainstream religions are not very impressive to me.

 

You mean their actions, TheGhost? Because their existence on itself would indeed be mind boggling right :biggrin:

 

It is not that their existence would be so mind boggling to me.

But you're right it is the actions. And even more so stupid rules and rituals.

But then it all goes to show that religion was made by man.

 

That's what I mean too, if it's the actions, rules and rituals that makes them dubious we can be reassured because they are all clearly manmade (which does not necessarily mean all their rules and rituals are obsolete or bogus! ). It would be amazing beyond belief to find out God is actually as human as portrayed in for example the OT!

 

Maybe the entire system is god, and we are just part of the whole god, albeit the tiniest speck of sand, each of us...

 

my point being....not separate to us.....a god.

 

There are many qualities attributed to God(s) in religion which have been defined by theists that I think atheists can rely Largely on empirical observations and reason to come to many of their conclusions without faith. Removing some of the religious aspects, there are certain aspects of the universe which seem like things had to line up in a pretty precise manner to give way to life which may suggest to some, some sort of designer. However humans often have the tendency to give way to incredulity to validate their faith and I think while atheists can be in awe in a similar way, they tend to not let incredulity shape their paradigm.

I read a book by Michio Kaku which had a section where theoretical physicists discussed advanced civilization types and I may slightly botch the various aspects of the civilizations but it'll give you a general idea. The 3 types established are a Type I civilization could harnass the power of a planet, type II civilization could harnass the power of its star, type III of its galaxy and then there was a suggested Type IV which might exist and it talked about in a dying universe how a Type IV could maybe control galaxies in a way such that it could transmit the information for life, stars, matter, etc. Into a wormhole or some type of object which would transfer the information to a different universe.

So there is that option, would that Type IV civilization be considered Gods? They could possibly be considered 'our maker' but then of course the question then is raised where did they come from?

 

If so, where are the facts and logic that oppose my Atheism?
Faith \/

 

This conception of what I refer to as a 'Gestalt' God probably makes the most sense to me of concepts I've heard of God(s).

However my example of advanced civilizations as well as some other physics pretty much requires a multiverse which is where I throw in the metaphysical towel and this thread coming on the heels of a week were the Big Bang has been further substantiated makes me ask...

What is 'the entire system' that you refer to?

 

I would have thought Atheism was more of a Choice, than a 'Faith'

 

if athiesm is a form of faith, then sexual abstinance is a form of sexual perversion.

however, if you're going to pretend to religions freedom, well you don't have anything of the sort if it is the freedom only to associate yourself, with only one, or one of a very small number, of religious beliefs. religious freedom can only exist as an impartial and equal freedom toward ALL beliefs AND non beliefs.

 

It all comes down to how we define "atheist" and "faith". I follow Martin Luther in thinking of faith as a "joyful bet". As a believer, I'm betting that there is a God. Atheists are betting that there isn't one. "Soft' atheists say they don't believe in God. "Hard atheists" say there is no God. In either case, they seem to be betting on an outcome. Agnostics are unwilling to gamble, even though not taking a position can have consequences.

 

i don't think too much into atheism i more or less use it mostly as a quick and simple identifier to make my basic stance known. take for example the average person that believes in the average god.. i can say with confidence that relative to or in comparison to them that i am absolutely an atheist because i simply don't believe in the shit that they do. if you want to get more deep into it then i don't know. i think i can sort of identify w/ a person who was once asked "are you an atheist" and he replied "what is it i'm not supposed to believe in?" i think thats an excellent answer, but i find its helpful in a common situation that might arise to identify myself as an atheist if i need to for simplicity sake if nothing else. it doesn't bother me if its not totally true on some deep level or something like that

 

also in direct response to the OP.. i say that there are as many types of atheists as there are people. not all have "faith" that there is no god. just a few tiny examples out of many:some people were raised without god AND without atheism, some people just don't give much thought to the subject because its not that important and if they HAD to choose would identify as an atheist. its like you are shopping around for something to call yourself and ya know i would agree with you that maybe its not right for you to call yourself an atheist, but i don't think anyone can say that all atheists have faith in what they believe if you can even call it a belief.

 

Well your 'third way' is how I perceive 'atheists'.
They tend to look at 'advanced physics' etc as a way to explain the universe.
It is a lot better than thinking the question has already been answered.

 

In other words; does it take faith to choose engineering when it is ignorant which way it stands on an environmental point of futurity?