Atheist Faith

I don't care how you want to see it but evolution is simply adaptation. For example, your tires have evolved, not because they increased in quality, but because they adapted to the road they roll over.

And yes, I believe in evolution.

 

Any statement of belief carries a burden of proof. Stating you don't believe a person's testimony is different than stating you believe a person's testimony is false. The first carries no BoP, the later does carry a BoP.

With regards to the concept of Deity, it is...absence of belief in the existence of God vs belief in the non-existence of God. The common definition of Atheist is one who believes God doesn't exist, which carries an equal burden of proof, as believing God does exist.


Peace

 

Eprox

Ok. where do the new strains of resistant TB bacteria come from...?
They did not exist 'as is' 50 years ago.
Not one
So, where did they come from?
They are certainly are not devolved forms.
cause THEY SURVIVE in the same arena as the progenitors.
AND THAT IS WHAT EVOLUTION IS ABOUT.

Fundie evolutionists???
Evolution is a mostly incomplete theory.. how could one be a fundie?
You guys are such plagarists.

Occam

 

A&O

And so does occam

Those that dont, think a magical god created everything from nothing
about 100 'begats' back
A universe 30 billion lightyears across.
Neutron stars, accretion disks, warped space, supermassive black holes,
Galactic superclusters, Super novea.
It seems this 'smart god' made 100 thousand square killometers of land.
And plopped us down on 10 square millimeters.

Occam asks what he considers a reasoble question.
why?
And why fill that 10 square millimeters with fossils of creatures that no longer exist.

C'mon el prox..
Why fossils of dinosaurs?
did they actually exist?
when, after the 3rd begat in 3950 bc?

Wake up boy.. you think we are fools?

Occam

 

Ones who believe in 'god' are always hiding something quite hard in ugliness or failure in understanding. It is fair that atheists sharpen their teeth on them.

We do not 'believe' god to be non-existent. That conceit about us is reserved for all believers who do not believe well enough in themselves to equate realization with knowledge.

 

The literal meaning of "atheist" is non-religious. "Antitheist" is "One opposed to belief in the existence of a God." I think you have them confused.

No.

 

the only faith atheists can have is a faith that there is no god.Conversely,the only faith theists can have is that there is a god.Agnostics rightly don't know,but are open to all possibilities.Oxymorons are not so tricky.

 

You have used the word "faith" with different meanings. The christian concept of faith is exclusive to the belief/trust in god which is different then the general concept of the word in general usage. It doesn't require faith to lack a belief, since it is a neutral term, which is what "atheism" is. "Anti theism" is the negative of "theism".

A person born and raised with no religious indoctrinations, would not know that the belief of god/s even existed, thus how would it require faith to not know something?

 

No--a theist is a believer.He/she believes there IS a deity.An atheist is also a believer.He/she believes there IS no deity.Atheists have a belief ,as I stated,---and I'm sure they have faith that they are correct.Likewise with deists.Furthermore,how do jews know they are jews.How do baptists know they are baptists.They've been informed of such.Otherwise,how would they know?

 

An`ti`the´ist (antitheist)

n.1.A disbeliever in the existence of God.
(from the freeonlinedictionary)

There is no one single agreed upon definition of atheist, but literally meaning "a" syn. "non" while "anti" syn "against". To deny or reject a belief does not necessitate the belief in the oppose. Beliefs are very different then "faith". Knowing on the otherhand can be directly experienced. To say that it requires belief to not believe something so increadible stupid and impossible seems silly.

 

I always wonder why some atheist make such a fuss over the "believing that God doesn't exist" versus "lacking a belief in God." A more cleaver theist could simply question the atheist's grounds for rejecting theistic arguments, or more precisely the grounds for requiring theistic arguments. If, for example, this requirement is grounded in some deontological notion dealing with one's objective epistemic duty to only believe what one has sufficient evidence for, the theist came simply question how such norms exist apart from God.

But stuff like that tends to get messy. Both parties should just man up and realize they both hold separate worldviews, in terms of which of they interpret the world and evidence. They should discuss their views openly, and go from there. Too much stuff is about winning debates, and not finding truth.

 

Shouldn't 'Atheist Faith' be considered a bit of an oxymoron?

Faith is defined as:

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.

etc...

So Faith means you have to believe in a god (idea, material being, whatever you want), be it any god you choose.

The definition of Atheist is something like:

* One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

So with these very basic definitions, if you consider yourself to belong to a sort of 'Atheist Faith' you would therefore believe in the existence of an anti-god (a deity that does not exist :uhoh2:.)

 

My view openly disclosed:

God is nothing at all.

 

It's a matter of semantics,I suppose.

 

Very well, and in the spirit of disclosing ideas: God is very much something

 

i have an absolute faith that we need to avoid screwing everything up for each other if we want everything to not be screwed up for ourselves.

i have an absolute faith that the possible is highly unlikely ever to be limited to the known.

i have an absolute faith that the existence of nontangable forces and beings is not only possible but probable. and a reasonably strong conviction that i have experienced them.

i have a reasonably strong faith that no system of organized believe possessess an entirely accurate understanding.

i also have an invissable little furry friend that curls up on top of my covers at night.
being an invissable little furry friend it doesn't try to tell me anything, just provide a warmth and a weight i can feel when it does.

the existence of what may, and the need, for its own sake, to avoid screwing things up for each other, are entirely seperate things, neither of which require the existence of the other to do so themselves.

=^^=
.../\...

 

It would be a more spirited and engaging idea were you to expound just a fraction of what you imagine that something consists.

The possible is limited to the known, but the ways in which it is may not always be known.

For instance, the highest possible meaning 'desired' to be given to the word god is nothing at all. So we demand the most of ourselves, from our will, and of all possibility. That most be synonymous with best in this instance is beyond question. A single word can hold all meaning as little as all words could, and should we presume to hold more than our own? We go on.

 

Jatom

Thats it

Athiests say.. what exists to them does not warrant a belief or factual basis for the concept of god

Agnostics say.. what exists to them suggests a god is quite possible.
There is much indicative evidence
but, not enough to qualify as 'fact'.

Theists say.. that the concept of god allows them to make up any story they like and try to convince as many as they can to believe that story.

So.. THE TRUTH CANNOT BE KNOWN TO US AT THIS TIME.

The arguements on this forum are wholely the theists trying to tell
all others.[athiests agnostic] that they know the truth.
This pretty much defines human history.

Occam

 

I don't know anyone who would claim atheism as their "faith."

But, I do know that it would seem naturally more plausible to place one's confidence in the stories of alien abduction than the astronomically irrational story of Sky Daddy and Son.

 

Ummm, no I don't. The etymology, and common use, of the word Atheist, is Atheos-ist...not A-theist. Personally, I'd call those people who actively want to rid the world of all Theism, anti-Theists.

Anthony Flew:

Flew totally ignores the -ist, -ism, part of the word. Amoral-ism is a belief/doctrine. Agnostic-ism is a belief/doctrine. Atypical-ism, and asymmetrical-ism, would also be beliefs/doctrines, if the -ism suffix was added to them. Trying to change Athe-ism to A-theism is not reading the prefix a- in the same way as those other words.

Exactly. His "new interpretation" is close to the position put forward by Huxley, for Agnosticism.

George H. Smith, does the same:

There he put the word together, differently than its etymology, and common usage. The word Athe-ism, came before the word Theism. You cannot attach an a- to a word that doesn't exist. It's impossible. The word "A-theism" is an attempt to redefine the word.

There he acquired Agnosticism's absence of belief position.

There he slipped, and mentioned that "Atheism" has a usual definition, that isn't his. After Atheism, he moves on to mangling the definition of Agnosticism.

He just quoted Huxley as stating that someone else might know, that which he doesn't, then retardedly locks Huxley into an absolute unkowabiblity category.

There, he states that Agnosticism is compatible with Theism or Atheism (totally against Huxley's definition).

There he contradicts the above assertion, now stating that Agnosticism is a form of Atheism.

There he claims that Agnosticism is absolute unknowability (totally against Huxley's definition).

There, he slips and states the common usage of the term Agnosticism, as well as slipping about the common usage of Atheism, again. Then uses his uncommon redefinition of Atheism to discredit the common definition of Agnosticism as a third alternative.

Smith is a total ignoramus, with regards to the topic of Atheism and Agnosticism, as far as I can tell.

I don't see any confusion in that statement.

Atheism: the belief that God does not exist (Compact Oxford English Dictionary) http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/atheism?view=uk

Atheist: someone who believes that God does not exist (Cambridge Dictionary of American English) http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...ist*1+0&dict=A
Atheism: the belief that God does not exist (Cambridge Dictionary of American English)

Atheist: one who believes that there is no God or gods (The Wordsmyth English Dictionary-Thesaurus) http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.p...atchtype=exact
Atheism: the belief that there is no God (The Wordsmyth English Dictionary-Thesaurus) http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.p...atchtype=exact

Atheist: one who believes that there is no deity (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary, Eleventh Edition) http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheist
Atheism: a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary, Eleventh Edition) http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...ary&va=atheism
Disbelief: mental rejection of something as untrue (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary, Eleventh Edition) http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/disbelief

Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief. (Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#_note-3

Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial. (Britannica Concise Encyclopædia 2002) http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9356044

Atheism: denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence, to be distinguished from agnosticism, which holds that the existence cannot be proved. (The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05) http://www.bartleby.com/65/at/atheism.html

Atheism: Belief that god does not exist. Unlike the agnostic, who merely criticizes traditional arguments for the existence of a deity, the atheist must offer evidence (such as the problem of evil) that there is no god or propose a strong principle for denying what is not known to be true. (Dictionary of Philosophical Terms and Names) http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a9.htm#athe

Atheism: (metaphysics) Atheism is an active disbelief in the existence of gods, deities, and supernatural powers; in this respect it is similar to secularism and opposed to any variety of theism. Atheism is to be contrasted with agnosticism, which takes a skeptical attitude towards the existence of gods but does not proclaim disbelief. (The Ism Book) http://www.ismbook.com/atheism.html

Atheism: <ethics, philosophy of religion> the belief that, or the philosophical position according to which, God, gods, deities, and supernatural powers do not exist. (Free On Line Dictionary Of Philosophy) http://www.swif.uniba.it/lei/foldop/foldoc.cgi?atheism

Atheism: The belief that God does not exist. (Ethics Terms) http://ethics.sandiego.edu/Glossary.html


Peace