Is atheism a faith position?

[jutl]

That is exactly the sort of thing I mean.

So defining your terms spoils your day?

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

I can see why you'd want to avoid such debate here, yes.

That probably applies to your particular brand of smug dismissive quips, as well. There's nothing quite as annoying as someone standing on the edge of the discussion taking potshots at other people's comments when other people have the balls to say what they think and engage in a debate.

[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.

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????"

So you're talking about... gibberish?  Just because unknowability is oh-so inconvenient doesn't mean it isn't real.  You're crapping on about how we stop being so philosophical about a topic which is wholly, completely philosophical.

[Artemis]

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

said ziggy, self-righteously.

The difference between an atheist and someone who believes in God is that atheists have a lot more to go on. They have more to be self-righteous about.

[jutl]

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

said ziggy, self-righteously.

The difference between an atheist and someone who believes in God is that atheists have a lot more to go on. They have more to be self-righteous about.

That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship of atheism to science (assuming the 'more to go on' you're talking about is scientific information).

[Purple Tentacle]

So you're talking about... gibberish?  Just because unknowability is oh-so inconvenient doesn't mean it isn't real.  You're crapping on about how we stop being so philosophical about a topic which is wholly, completely philosophical.

Oh read what I've said for a change. Science is always exploring the unknown, always making new discoveries. Clearly the unknown is 'real', but clearly the possibilites are NOT endless.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Quite right, Artemis. Most atheists tend to find their own way to their beliefs, rather than being led there, or tempted there by other people. Atheism is not only a rejection of spirituality but a rejection of the cult of religion; a statement of intellectual independence. There's quite a lot in Atheism to be smug and self-righteous about.

[ziggy starbucks]

I'm right right right, you're all wrong wrong wrong

there is an immaturity at the heart of many believers and atheists, with so much of their 'faith' being soley about slagging other people off, rather than developing their own beliefs and being quitely confident in them

[jutl]

Quite right, Artemis. Most atheists tend to find their own way to their beliefs, rather than being led there, or tempted there by other people.

Most atheists don't either undertake or fully understand the science that they base their ideas upon. It's taken on faith.

Atheism is not only a rejection of spirituality but a rejection of the cult of religion; a statement of intellectual independence. There's quite a lot in Atheism to be smug and self-righteous about.

That's not atheism, although it sounds like fun.

[samadriel]

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.

Hmm...  I might define agnosticism as an active belief in the unknowability of God (which, contrary to what hencole and PT have said, need not be the Christian God).  A third camp, which, contrary to some of the rot spouted here, can be very fervently held.

Also:  SS:  Honestly mate, pay attention.

[Purple Tentacle]

A third camp, which, contrary to some of the rot spouted here, can be very fervently held..

You've done a pretty lousy job of explaining your fervently held position, all I've seen is vague and wooly acceptance that we shouldn't make estimates about things we don't understand.


And nobody was directly arguing about the existence of a Christian god, but the concept of 'I dunno, something, a gas or an aura in the universe, sort of, you know?' is just as wanky and meaningless.

[samadriel]

That's because you're not reading it, mate.  Nice bit of preemptive dismissal, with the whole, "Or did I just blow your mind!" line of crap, but I'm not saying any such vague bullshit, that's all coming out of your IP.  I'm just talking about what's provable, and what's not.

So you're talking about... gibberish?  Just because unknowability is oh-so inconvenient doesn't mean it isn't real.  You're crapping on about how we stop being so philosophical about a topic which is wholly, completely philosophical.

Oh read what I've said for a change. Science is always exploring the unknown, always making new discoveries. Clearly the unknown is 'real', but clearly the possibilites are NOT endless.

Do you think that science can prove or disprove the existence of a God?

[ziggy starbucks]

There are known knowns
There are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns - that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

cough

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Re-jutl

You don't have to understand every element of science in order to be an atheist. You need to reject the statement that God(s) exist(s).

That isn't a scientific concept, just a logical concept based on probability, and the current world we live in.

More and more people have become atheists or non-religious people because of various factors- freedom from persecution, individual freedom and liberty, the seperation of church and state, the cultural erosion of indoctrination. Knowledge of science is not the primary reason people decide to beocme atheists, you're right. Science only comes into it for most atheists in a wide, dare I say philosophical sense based on scientific achievement undermining the 'truth' in holy texts- exploration of space and the universe, evolutionary theory. You don't need to know these things in minute detail, you just need to understand them as a concept and weigh that against the idea of a God. That's why the atheist argument wins- in terms of probability and logic, not in terms of absoluteism or blind faith, as you argue (quite stupidly, I think.)

[Purple Tentacle]

PT:Do you think that science can prove or disprove the existence of a God?

Honestly mate, pay attention, I've covered this. Cuh!

You can't disprove the existence of anything. That's logic. I've mentioned this loads.

You can prove the existence of God if he manifested himself and did godthings.

[samadriel]

You can't disprove the existence of anything. That's logic.

And that's why I'm agnostic.  Next!

[Artemis]

That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship of atheism to science (assuming the 'more to go on' you're talking about is scientific information).

I understand where you're coming from here, and the other post you've made about atheists accepting science 'on faith' but again, you're making faith a 'one size fits all' commodity. The faith I accept science on is vastly different from the faith that christians (for example) use to accept the reality of their God. I won't patronize you by explaining why, I'm sure you can see it.

Even if you take science away though, the God which we are asked to have faith exists doesn't even stand on His own merits. Take the Bible, a self-contradictory, incoherent, historically inaccurate, politically adapted book that holds no weight on any level other then for those who wish to switch off their mind and get spoon fed things that make them feel better. Even if you take that away, the root of christianity, its political adoption and its overriding agenda in its infancy is obvious to all but those who choose not to see it.

Atheistic arguments are nearly always centered around knocking religious thought, but it's a default position - it has nothing to prove of itself (accepting that it is simply a lack of belief in God).

[Purple Tentacle]

You can't disprove the existence of anything. That's logic.

And that's why I'm agnostic.  Next!

Oh for fuck's sake, oooh, how did I let that through? How did I not see that coming! My oh my, you checkmated me there for sure!

At the risk of repeating myself for the umpteenth time, you can't base your attitude to life around an invisible cat in a box. Just because something can't be disproven doesn't mean you should be open to any old bollocks.

This is the same bullshit logic misunderstanding that fundys use when they say that evolution is just a theory.

[jutl]

Re-jutl

You don't have to understand every element of science in order to be an atheist. You need to reject the statement that God(s) exist(s).

Well that's the definition, yes. Most people though (I'd say) reject the statement because they find it unlikely, and they find it unlikely because (a) they've never met Him/Her and (b) science says that they're unlikely to.

That isn't a scientific concept, just a logical concept based on probability, and the current world we live in.

That's a non-existent distinction.

More and more people have become atheists or non-religious people because of various factors- freedom from persecution, individual freedom and liberty, the separation of church and state, the cultural erosion of indoctrination. Knowledge of science is not the primary reason people decide to become atheists, you're right. Science only comes into it for most atheists in a wide, dare I say philosophical sense based on scientific achievement undermining the 'truth' in holy texts- exploration of space and the universe, evolutionary theory. You don't need to know these things in minute detail, you just need to understand them as a concept and weigh that against the idea of a God.

Bingo - and that's the problem. The two things are not comparable and only someone who doesn't 'get' science can argue that they are. Thus you end up with a lot of people for whom science is the root of a belief in the non-existence of God. Those people have built themselves a faith out of evidence which does not support that faith. In some ways just believing something entirely unsupported is less moronic than that.

That's why the atheist argument wins- in terms of probability and logic, not in terms of absolutism or blind faith, as you argue (quite stupidly, I think.)

You'll have to explain that a little more - I'm too stupid to understand.

[The Search Nazi]

ps I am constantly bewildered when I see people's post counts on this site. I think I post quite a lot and I've not even reached 1000!

You are closer to having made 2000 posts than 1000, Alex.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

science says that they're unlikely to

Thus you end up with a lot of people for whom science is the root of a belief in the non-existence of God

Science has, and I'm sure will continue to undermine some of the principle beliefs and holy texts of major religions. That is an actual basis for not following a religion at least, and I'm sure could lead to a person becoming an atheist.

If you're talking about someone believing only in the statement 'God doesn't exist because Science proved it', then you're probably right. If you're attributing that to the majority of atheists and non-religious people, that's pretty insulting.

My argument is that scientific study amongst other continues to undermine not only holy texts but the 'probability' of God. I think Science continues to make the concept of God a more ridiculous one, for example.

You'll have to explain that a little more - I'm too stupid to understand.

Rationally, you need to prove something before you believe it. God is not yet proven, so therefore I don't believe it. You don't have to prove something doesn't exist- rationally you start from zero and work forwards with what can be proven. Failing that, you start from zero and work forwards with what is probable. Atheism, ladies and gentlemen.

[Artemis]

Rationally, you need to prove something before you believe it. God is not yet proven, so therefore I don't believe it. You don't have to prove something doesn't exist- rationally you start from zero and work forwards with what can be proven. Failing that, you start from zero and work forwards with what is probable. Atheism, ladies and gentlemen.

I wholeheartedly agree. Atheism has nothing to prove. The burden of proof is always on the affirmative. That science is learning things that points us in the opposite direction from the claims of religion is partially inconsequential in this way. It's a typical tactic of a religious person to try and turn the tables on science and distract attention away from the fact that he has nothing at all to go on but blind, irrational, childish faith.

[samadriel]

You can't disprove the existence of anything. That's logic.

And that's why I'm agnostic.  Next!

Oh for fuck's sake, oooh, how did I let that through? How did I not see that coming! My oh my, you checkmated me there for sure!

At the risk of repeating myself for the umpteenth time, you can't base your attitude to life around an invisible cat in a box. Just because something can't be disproven doesn't mean you should be open to any old bollocks.

This is the same bullshit logic misunderstanding that fundys use when they say that evolution is just a theory.

It's not my 'attitude to life', you silly fuck!  Like I said before agnosticism is not a lifestyle -- neither I, nor any other agnostic I've ever met, wander around all day, nervously playing Pascal's Wager in an attempt to appease any and all deities who might possibly exist.  You can spout all the sarcastic crap you like about how I've 'checkmated you', but the fact of the matter is, the aforementioned inability to disprove is all the impetus an agnostic rightfully needs to reject the debate of whether there is or isn't a God.  And yes, he can do that while confidently dismissing the idea of the Easter Bunny, because there's a shitload of evidence out there against the Easter Bunny, but what have you got in your arsenal against any kind of pre-Big Bang impetus for the creation of our universe?  You have nowt, and you never will.  Does that mean that there's no God?  No, certainly not.  But it doesn't help.

Now I don't know about you, but this isn't a dilemma that figures a lot in my day-to-day existence.  I don't know if your tax forms or exam papers or office paperwork ask you whether or not the Earth was formed by an old man with a beard, or something unimaginable to man, or a robotic monkey, but mine don't.  If someone asks me whether the Easter Bunny exists, I'll say, "No."  That tiny sliver of possibility wherein he could conceivably exist no more interrupts my existence than your abject fear of quantum mechanics interrupts yours.

But it doesn't lessen the validity of God's* possible existence the slightest, tiniest little bit.

(By which I don't mean the Jewish or Christian or Muslim God, incidentally -- but ooo, it might upset you if my definition of 'God' is more inconvenient than those obvious, easily-debunked mockups, and we couldn't have that...)

[jutl]

science says that they're unlikely to

Thus you end up with a lot of people for whom science is the root of a belief in the non-existence of God

Science has, and I'm sure will continue to undermine some of the principle beliefs and holy texts of major religions. That is an actual basis for not following a religion at least, and I'm sure could lead to a person becoming an atheist.

The principle belief of nearly all religions is the existence of a transcendent God, and science can't undermine that.

If you're talking about someone believing only in the statement 'God doesn't exist because Science proved it', then you're probably right. If you're attributing that to the majority of atheists and non-religious people, that's pretty insulting.

I'm saying that the positive decision that God does not exist is often made on the incorrect assumption that science supports it.

My argument is that scientific study amongst other continues to undermine not only holy texts but the 'probability' of God. I think Science continues to make the concept of God a more ridiculous one, for example.

No, science can't do that, honestly. Name one scientific theory which has made the existence of a transcendent God less likely (please).

You'll have to explain that a little more - I'm too stupid to understand.

Rationally, you need to prove something before you believe it.

No, that's incorrect. I assume you'd call yourself rational, so which things that you believe are proven?

God is not yet proven, so therefore I don't believe it.

and can't be, so you never will.  

You don't have to prove something doesn't exist- rationally you start from zero and work forwards with what can be proven. Failing that, you start from zero and work forwards with what is probable. Atheism, ladies and gentlemen.

No, atheism says that there is no God. Science says that it can't prove there is a God, or prove that there isn't.

[Purple Tentacle]

But it doesn't lessen the validity of God's* possible existence the slightest, tiniest little bit.

You have absolutely no reason to believe that God exists. There is not one shred of evidence to support that he exists. I say that there is AS MUCH evidence for Father Christmas and The Easter Bunny... you can trace the 'creators' of those myths back through history, just as you can with God (or whatever), back to when the first ape had to rationalise why the sun was so bright in the sky.

My original position, which you tutted at saying I had no understanding of how deep you were, was that people with belief in the utterly groundless, baseless and unproven are wooly minded. You have not shaken my assertion one little bit.

Show me one shred of evidence, one credible hypothesis that there is a deity of any sort, and we can start talking.  A scientist can speculate about whether the universe is open, closed or looping using established theories, but you can't even begin with deities. There is absolutely no reason to believe in them, and therefore they are invalid.

You need to establish some absolutes in life to discount the impossible and concentrate on the improbable and possible. The speed of light's a good one. The fact that every phenomonon in the universe can be explained scientifically is another good one.

[jutl]

You need to establish some absolutes in life to discount the impossible and concentrate on the improbable and possible. The speed of light's a good one. The fact that every phenomenon in the universe can be explained scientifically is another good one.

The second one is faith-based.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

science says that they're unlikely to

Thus you end up with a lot of people for whom science is the root of a belief in the non-existence of God

Science has, and I'm sure will continue to undermine some of the principle beliefs and holy texts of major religions. That is an actual basis for not following a religion at least, and I'm sure could lead to a person becoming an atheist.

The principle belief of nearly all religions is the existence of a transcendent God, and science can't undermine that.

If you're talking about someone believing only in the statement 'God doesn't exist because Science proved it', then you're probably right. If you're attributing that to the majority of atheists and non-religious people, that's pretty insulting.

I'm saying that the positive decision that God does not exist is often made on the incorrect assumption that science supports it.

My argument is that scientific study amongst other continues to undermine not only holy texts but the 'probability' of God. I think Science continues to make the concept of God a more ridiculous one, for example.

No, science can't do that, honestly. Name one scientific theory which has made the existence of a transcendent God less likely (please).

You'll have to explain that a little more - I'm too stupid to understand.

Rationally, you need to prove something before you believe it.

No, that's incorrect. I assume you'd call yourself rational, so which things that you believe are proven?

God is not yet proven, so therefore I don't believe it.

and can't be, so you never will.  

You don't have to prove something doesn't exist- rationally you start from zero and work forwards with what can be proven. Failing that, you start from zero and work forwards with what is probable. Atheism, ladies and gentlemen.

No, atheism says that there is no God. Science says that it can't prove there is a God, or prove that there isn't.

Ok, quote fatigue is kicking in now.

1. Science can continue to undermine religion and the probablity of existence of a god by further exploring the universe, and further developing evolutionary theory and genetics, things which is will inevitably do. It can't prove absolutely there is no God but I can conceive of a future where it is on the same logical level as Elvis-faced baboons, to most humans, culturally.

2. How do you know that this is 'often made'? It isn't wise to enter into a discussion with the assumption that the people who disagree with you are stupid or ignorant. If people haven't thought about it properly, and are happy to assume 'Science disproved God', that shows the sort of immense impact God has on their lives does it not? That shows the immense significant of the Holy Father and world religion. I'd argue these people don't constitute the majority of atheists anyway, given that atheists are regularly called to account for their views.

3. I believe Science can render the concept of a God more ridiculous. All it has to do is create a more developed understanding of the world. Belief in God has eroded ever since Science started to do this. The developments even in the last 100 years have caused damage to the religious cause. Religion is the protector of 'God' anyway. Without it, God would be on the same rational level as Elvis-faced baboons.

4. 'I assume you'd call yourself rational, so which things that you believe are proven? '

For example, I believe The Earth is orbiting the Sun. Science has 'proven this*. Pre-Science, we believed we were the centre of the Universe. What does that tell you about ancient religious and spiritual belief- Egoiste much!

*Don't start relativism, please please please. It's the get-out clause for cod-philosophers and it would waste all of our time, as PT has already anguished.

5. Anything can be proven. It has to exist, and we have to discover it, study it, test it and understand it. Before all of those stages happen it's quite logical to not believe it.

6. I've explained my beliefs, and I am an atheist. Stop saying 'science says this, science says that' as well.

[Purple Tentacle]

You need to establish some absolutes in life to discount the impossible and concentrate on the improbable and possible. The speed of light's a good one. The fact that every phenomenon in the universe can be explained scientifically is another good one.

The second one is faith-based.

But I very broadly agree with the question... athiesm is a faith OF SORTS, but an entirely different faith from the blind faith of religion.

If I were to see water flowing up a hill, for example, I'd have 'faith' that there is a perfectly rational explanation for it. Clearly I'd be freaked out and frightened and confused and possibly drunk, but ultimately I'd 'believe' that it can be explained rationally, even if I don't understand it. I could hypothesise that, I dunno, the water was filled with iron and was drawn up by magnets, or that there was a hidden pump or something, but that's different from basing my explanation on something completely fictitious, like the fart of an angel or the bored hand of God.

My point is that scientific theory is demonstratably provable. When scientists work out what the dark matter that makes up 70% of the universe is, they'll be able to explain it in clear, provable terms. At the moment it's all very mysterious, but I have 'faith' that it will be explained.

But I'm basing that on theories and understandings that we already have.

The question of 'faith' is more of a semantic question than anything, really. Even using the word in a scientific context opens the door to cheap shots about it being exactly the same as religious faith.

[slim]

I have a definite opinion on [...] whether there's an angry man in the ether who will judge us when we die.

[MojoJojo]

You can't disprove the existence of anything. That's logic. I've mentioned this loads.

Commonly held belief, but wrong - it's often impossible to prove something doesn't exist, but not always.

For example, I can prove the non existence of a prime number larger than all other prime numbers.

People are over stating the usefulness of Logic - it only ever tells you about what happens if your axioms are true, and there is a huge fuzzy area between axioms and reality. As such, Logic is mostly a debating tool - it is a precise language for expressing your ideas, that makes it difficult to accidently or deliberately mislead the reader, and if correct, limits discussion to the appropriateness of the axioms.