Is atheism a faith position?

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

Richard Branston.

[samadriel]

Richard Branston, esteemed advertiser in Viz?

(Oh, and it's 'could have', you cunt.)

[Neville Chamberlain]

God is living in my jar of Marmite right now.

Anyway, I agree with Mr. Tentacle, only he argues the case in a far more handsome and witty way than I could ever hope to.

[Gazeuse]

I find it much easier to believe that there isn't a God rather than be undecided about it.

Atheism...It saves time.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

the Easter Bunny... and Spider Man are all technically possible

Awesome!

[jutl]

OK, another example, I'm 'know'  that it is impossible for two helium atoms to bond with each other as neither have an electron defecit, so don't need to leech electrons off eachother.

Since my knowledge of atomic physics stops at the GCSE textbooks, if a physicist told me that it IS possible, then it wouldn't rock my world.

But my belief that it may well be possible for two helium atoms to spontaniously bond is based on ignorance. I know very little about atomic science, so 'anything is possible', really.  Someone who has a PHd in the subject can say with much more conviction about whether it is or is not possible.

I don't think so. Science isn't going to rule anything impossible. It just says that as far as it can see right now there's no way for it to happen. People on the other hand tend to bake these scientific uncertainties into certainties and then state them loudly in public houses and on omnibuses.  This is why I had a problem with your earlier 'improbable' vs 'crackpot' distinction. The binary division you're making is your own, and is not derived from science. Science might cautiously support your conclusions, but it can't prove them.

[thewomb]

A very very unlikely set of circumstances may result in Camelot giving me £8million quid without me buying a ticket, but if I spent my time believing that it might happen, I wouldn't get anywhere.

Oh, so now it's not about possibilities, but "getting anywhere"?

[thewomb]

Paul Drewett
Powderham Crescent, Exeter

(Mrs.)

[hencole]

Agnostics are a bunch of wimps. They don't have the ability to relaise somethings are so unlikely as to be discounted, and they don't even have the faith of the truly religious.
Most agnostics in my experience believe the following

'I understand science enough to realise the bible can't be true, but I still fear gods wrath, if it turns out he really exists.'

Basically they are usually superstitious people, who feel it isn't worth the risk of openly declaring that god doesn't exist. Afterall if he does exist he'll hear them, and he'll punish them for the unbeliveing atheists that they are. ie they don't go to heaven. They put self preservation before logic and there own moral code.

[Paul's Boutique]

As another poster has stated, agnosticism is perfectly logical because it is impossible to take a concrete position on something that's unprovable and/or unknowable.

The comparisons with belief in Father Christmas (for example) are erroneous. His existence would defy scientific explanation and the laws of science themselves - plus there is a rational explanation for those presents appear on a Christmas morning and (SPOLIERS) most people are aware that he is a fictional creation. Personally I believe that the Christian God is somewhere in the Father Christmas realms of plausibility.

The existence of a "creator" is more difficult to disprove since the creation of the universe has not been adequately explained by science - the origin of the Big Bang defies scientific explanation in itself. What triggered the Big Bang? Where did all the matter come from? These issues will probably never be fully explained - they are essentially unknowable (although I'd be happy to be proved wrong in the future).

Of course, none of this proves that a "creator" exists, only that it's impossible to prove otherwise. It would therefore be foolish to take a concrete position at either end of the spectrum. Personally I think that the idea of a "creator" is highly unlikely - who "created the creator"? But then again the sudden appearance of 3 x 10^55 g of matter out of nothing is pretty improbable too.

Given these huge areas of unknowability, agnosticism is the only possible conclusion, although my own strain leans heavily towards the atheist end of the spectrum. To quote Einstein: "You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist....I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."

[Eight Taiwanese Teenagers]

To quote Einstein: "You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist....I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."

Hey, that's what I was going to say!!

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

What's this topic about anyway? Making atheists feel uncomfortable about describing their standpoint as 'a faith'?

I don't feel at all uncomfortable about my opinions regarding this issue.

The power of Almighty God isn't what convinces people to become religious. Being raised as a Christian (or whatever other), or being 'introduced' to it as an adult makes people religious. It's just cultish behaviour on a large scale, forcing it to be socially acceptable. Unfortunately these particular cults are full of in-fighting, tribal warfare and hypocrisy that undermines any positive arguments they have to bring to the world. So I'd rather they stopped (not going to happen), or ceased to exist (not going to happen). Oh dear. I hate religion.

[hencole]

But then again the sudden appearance of 3 x 10^55 g of matter out of nothing is pretty improbable too.

Well seeing as one appeared to have happened (there is direct evidence to support this claim), and the other has no direct evidence, I know which I see as more probable. Hell the easiest explanation is usually the right one. If God exists then you still have the 'how did the universe begin?' argument. Explain how the universe works and you explain how god works. Explaining how god works does not explain how the unvierse works, it refuses to explain how the universe exists.

[Paul's Boutique]

To quote Einstein: "You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist....I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."

Hey, that's what I was going to say!!

I should have just quoted that instead of (self-)indulging in my own intellectual meanderings.

There ain't half been some clever bastards (lucky bleeders, lucky bleeders).

[samadriel]

What Einstein said!

[hencole]

"You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist....I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."

Yep that probably sums up most atheists postitions. I wouldn't call him an agnostic because of that one statement.

Whilst an atheist would never pray to god, an agnostic may do.

When using these defintions I refer to the people I know who use these words, rather than dictionary definitions. It's much more useful to debate peoples beliefs, than to deconstruct a word.

[jutl]

What's this topic about anyway? Making atheists feel uncomfortable about describing their standpoint as 'a faith'?

I thought it was pretty clear from the first post. The question is - is atheism the same kind of a thing as belief, and isn't it odd to have a word for people who don't have something rather than a word for people who do have it?

[Purple Tentacle]

And back to the 'humility'

Bollocks to being humble! Where's the spine in that? And people who go around talking about being humble don't sound very humble to me.


Just because there are things that you don't understand doesn't mean that you can start throwing out the things you DO understand.

I understand x,y and z reasons why God can't exist, and just because it's tricky to understand how the universe started (and, as I understand it, because of the elastic nature of time, the concept of  'starting' being a moot point may be more mind-bendingly complex and interesting than the idea of a big bearded man pointing and clicking the 'start' button) doesn't mean you can throw your physics book away and start leaving your mind open to the impossible.

Science doesn't discount the unknown as impossible. A view that religious people take on science, misinterpreting it, is that scientists refuse to acknowledge anything outside of their understanding. This is demonstratably not the case, as new discoveries are being made all the time.

But while one can say that there COULD be a planet out there made entirely of iron, making it the most noisy of all planets, you can't say there COULD be a planet out there made entirely of Dairylea. You can demonstrate how the reaction within a star and the conditions of space are not suitable of making Dairylea.

It's so wooly to go 'aaaaah, but there MIGHT be', it's philosophical masturbation with no purpose and no constructive merit.

An estimate is different from a guess.

[samadriel]

It's so wooly to go 'aaaaah, but there MIGHT be', it's philosophical masturbation with no purpose and no constructive merit.

So it's exactly like the assertions that there is or isn't a God, then.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

It's much more useful to debate peoples beliefs, than to deconstruct a word.

But it's important to all agree on what a word means before we all start slinging it back and forth in a discussion. Otherwise you might as well just make words up on the spot.

[hencole]

Quite agree with all you've said PT. This is very much like debating with  christian fundemntalists. ie pointless,

[Neville Chamberlain]

It's much more useful to debate peoples beliefs, than to deconstruct a word.

But it's important to all agree on what a word means before we all start slinging it back and forth in a discussion. Otherwise you might as well just make words up on the spot.

Yes, we don't want to cause any pericobobulations.

[jutl]

I understand x,y and z reasons why God can't exist,

...do you? They're not scientific reasons if you do.

Science doesn't discount the unknown as impossible. A view that religious people take on science, misinterpreting it, is that scientists refuse to acknowledge anything outside of their understanding. This is demonstratably not the case, as new discoveries are being made all the time.

But while one can say that there COULD be a planet out there made entirely of iron, making it the most noisy of all planets, you can't say there COULD be a planet out there made entirely of Dairylea. You can demonstrate how the reaction within a star and the conditions of space are not suitable of making Dairylea.

It's so woolly to go 'aaaaah, but there MIGHT be', it's philosophical masturbation with no purpose and no constructive merit.

It also describes the scientific mindset. You can't have it both ways - you're closed-minded about the possibility of religions being objectively correct, while science is not. That belief of yours is essentially unscientific. To keep waving your hands anf going: "but it's woolly and doesn't get us anywhere" just shows how little you respect the concepts of science that you nominally base your estimates on. This isn't just wankery - it's about understanding the roots of your own beliefs.

[hencole]

It's much more useful to debate peoples beliefs, than to deconstruct a word.

But it's important to all agree on what a word means before we all start slinging it back and forth in a discussion. Otherwise you might as well just make words up on the spot.

No. I disagree. I've had enough philosophy based discussion in my time to realise that debating the meaning of words is a pointless waste of time and destroys many half decent debates.

[ziggy starbucks]

god believers and atheists have one thing in common - absolute self -righteousness.

boo to you

[jutl]

It's much more useful to debate peoples beliefs, than to deconstruct a word.

But it's important to all agree on what a word means before we all start slinging it back and forth in a discussion. Otherwise you might as well just make words up on the spot.

No. I disagree. I've had enough philosophy based discussion in my time to realise that debating the meaning of words is a pointless waste of time and destroys many half decent debates.

How do you know they were decent if you admit you were not sure what they were about?

[Purple Tentacle]

It's so wooly to go 'aaaaah, but there MIGHT be', it's philosophical masturbation with no purpose and no constructive merit.

So it's exactly like the assertions that there is or isn't a God, then.

I don't understand what you're trying to say there. I'm talking about the endlessly tedious philosophical argument that everything is possible just because we can't prove it isn't. Cat in the box stuff. Philosophical wankery that says 'aaah, your tiny mind can't think OUT OF THE BOX like what my philosophical mind can, if a tree falls and nowhere's there to hear it, have I just BLOWN YOUR FUCKING MIND????"

Still, it helped Bart in that crazy golf tournement with Todd Flanders.

[samadriel]

It's much more useful to debate peoples beliefs, than to deconstruct a word.

But it's important to all agree on what a word means before we all start slinging it back and forth in a discussion. Otherwise you might as well just make words up on the spot.

No. I disagree. I've had enough philosophy based discussion in my time to realise that debating the meaning of words is a pointless waste of time and destroys many half decent debates.

With your crayon-scrawled concept of agnosticism, I can see why you'd want to avoid such debate here, yes.

[hencole]

It's much more useful to debate peoples beliefs, than to deconstruct a word.

But it's important to all agree on what a word means before we all start slinging it back and forth in a discussion. Otherwise you might as well just make words up on the spot.

No. I disagree. I've had enough philosophy based discussion in my time to realise that debating the meaning of words is a pointless waste of time and destroys many half decent debates.

How do you know they were decent if you admit you were not sure what they were about?

That is exactly the sort of thing I mean.

We have all smoked cannabis ,we have all talked the talk and we have all woken up the day after, none the wiser.

[Artemis]

As another poster has stated, agnosticism is perfectly logical because it is impossible to take a concrete position on something that's unprovable and/or unknowable.

There's an argument that agnosticism is a redundant concept, though. If you define atheism simply as 'lack of a belief in God' then where does that leave agnosticism?! You either have some kind of belief and are a theist, or you don't, and you're an atheist.