Two reasons why atheists have faith

[WraithGod]

There's a different between having faith in something and theism. Atheists can have faith and beliefs, but by definition they are not of any kind of deity. Science by no means replaces deities.

For example, we have laws, which are supported by facts, which are proven and definite (the laws of gravity, proved by the fact that things fall towards the earth's core when dropped). Then there are theories and evidence which are supported by past events but not confirmed (birds evolved from dinosaurs, supported by skeletal remains). These are what we have faith in, those of us who favor modern science anyhow. There is really no such thing as religious laws and facts (show me some, if you can), but there ARE scientific facts. That's the difference.

Hope this makes sense, I'm kinda sleepy. ^^;

So it would seem that atheism is not dependant on science as alluded to in the OP. I became an atheist years before I was well educated in science.

I became an atheist in the 4th grade after being raised in a Catholic home in a Catholic school system, and voluntarily reading the entire Bible. I basically closed the book and said, "OK, no."

[Belle.]

BNW - I am simply declining to accept a claim that God/gods exist. I do not hold a belief - that is what the a in front of the theism means.

It is like saying that an asymmetrical shape intrinsically holds the same property as a symmetrical shape by virtue of holding the base/root word of symmetry. You in fact don't know anything about the shapes properties other than it is not symmetrical.

Did your dad and father-in-law confess under durress? just jokes i enjoy reading all your stuff on this.

Plus - ai guardian - great posts and explanation!

Edited January 28, 2008 by Belqis

[brave_new_world]

Why wouldn't it be a belief?

A belief is a cognitive thought, faith is (in turn) a confidence in this belief.

Belief and faith do not constitute to religious veiws - organised or personal.

Edit:

However, this depends on the context.

Because of the mega people online in this forum and others who say that atheism isnt a worldview or belief.

[Cadetak]

Because of the mega people online in this forum and others who say that atheism isnt a worldview or belief.

Well it is a belief but not a religion(although could be). When an atheist says "Atheism isn't a belief" they mean it more like "Atheism isn't a religious belief/religion"

Belief and Religion are entirely seperate things.

Edited January 28, 2008 by Cadetak

[Beckys_Mom]

I'd rather believe the results of experiments than a book written who knows how long ago and by people who may not have been there. And if that's a type of faith, then so be it. Some people's atheism isn't based on science either, just their lack of belief in a religion.

But why feel the need to insist that everyone has a faith? Just be happy in your own and accept that others don't.

Great post

But can I just add...... Atheists as we know do not have faith when it comes to religion and God...BUT they have faith inn other things like - themselves for starters, we all do (well we should do)

and a lot hold faith in science..

the idea of classing atheism as a religion is silly

[brave_new_world]

....continued from previous post.

A god (of sorts) for an atheist is unneccessary and unjustified therefore talking of "confidence in the truth that there exists a universe without a god" is not for an atheist but for a THEIST (and it's usually the opposite for a theist).

Not necessarily. It all comes down to who is trying to make the claim to truth.

If a theist has an experience that God exists but doesnt try to impose or convince others about it then that person is justified in believing that God exists. He doesnt have to show proof to anyone because he isnt trying to convince anyone.

If an atheist tries to convince this person that all there is, is mechanical movement of atoms and nothing more then the atheist has to justify this view. An atheist has to (just like the theist) justify that our senses are an accurate guide to what is in the universe in which we cant i.e the matrix argument.

Atheists therefore have a belief or worldview. Now if the atheist tries to tell a theist who has experienced God that there is nothing but only the physical or material realm but the theist says 'hang on but I experineced something that goes way beyond that' but says I cannot prove it physically because it is beyond the physical. Then the atheist says then it cant be true, the atheist then has to find a way (which can lead into various philosophy twists) how to doubt that persons experience.

Also let me point out, every single atheist I have met so far in my life has a concept of God whether vivid or not in which they disbelieve and only disbelieve it because they are aware of the concept to deny.

It is their construct. An atheist has confidence in the truth that there exists a universe with galaxies, stars, planets, trees, animals etc etc. fill in whatever has been found to exist via empirical evidence.

So mystics (and there are literally many mnay hundreds of accounts ) who say they have experienced God for themselves , first hand would come in as empirical evidence?

Also let me point out to you that that consciousness itself hasnt been proven to exist and that without consciousness there is no religion or science that we know of. Many of the mystics call God consciousness.

No, you are twisting the words and the english language IMHO, I am expressing the lack of a belief of the existence of god NOT the negation of the existence of god. Take a close look at the two bolded sentences, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE, YOU DO REALISE THAT, DON'T YOU? As I said earlier above, the belief that god does not exist has nothing to do with it. It is a lack of the belief, I don't know how many times I'll have to say it, it is not the negation of some supposed existence.

I bet if an english scholar was here he would side with me on this, in my view. As for dictionary meanings this is the definition of atheism according to my

Pocket oxford english dictionary, Thesaurus and Spellchecker (seiko):

atheismnoun the belif that God does not exist.

--DERIVATIVES

atheist noun

atheistic adjective

You say yourself:

It is their construct. An atheist has confidence in the truth that there exists a universe with galaxies, stars, planets, trees, animals etc etc. fill in whatever has been found to exist via empirical evidence

An atheist even has to justify there is a universe and that empirical evidence via experimentation is the only means that truth can be found, just as a religious person has to prove that their means is reasonable. If a atheist and religious person can they can, if they cant they cant.

One question for you BNW, why do you think all the dictionary definitions say "disbelief/denial of existence" instead of "a belief in the non-existence..." ?????????? There is a reason for it, and I've been repeating it over and over, the two statements are NOT the same.

I disagree. I showed my pocket dictionary definition. Also here is a dictionary online definition of disbeief:

1. the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disbelief

All atheists that I have ever met all say that they dont believe that God exists. Not believing that God exists is the exact same as saying you disbelieve him. An atheist according to this defintion above doesnt lack a notion of God but has an inability (based on their argumentative grounds whether valid or invalid) to believe God exists, or refuse to believe that God (whether in concept or fact) God exists.

In the light of this, how is disbelieving in God different from saying I believe in the non-existence of God, other than the word use? The words are only slightly different but express the exact same thing.

Because the THEISTS have created the concept and conveyed the concept but it is not the atheists' concept or construct. Now re-read what you have written, you said "An atheist therefore wouldn't say.......", you've already defined (or should I say because of theists there's a definition such as atheist) the atheist (and the concept of god FOR THEM!)

I simply say that atheists are people who dont believe God exists.

If they dont know of the concept of god then that also shows that they dont believe god exists. They could also be buddhists for that matter.

If they do know that God exists and dont approve then they also dont believe in it.

To disbelieve something one must know of the concept in order to disbelieve i.e I disbelieve the ufo reports.

To not believe in something because they havnt been exposed to that belief or construct they will neither oppose or take up whatever the polarity is within that belief.

Some say this is what an atheist is. But by this argument, someone who has never been exposed to god belief systems or atheist ones could very well be a mystic because mystics (which too is a belief) believe (or according to them they know/experience) that reality/universe is beyond all names and labels and therefore (as some do) reject both religious and atheist or any form of view towards the universe.

The relinquishing of all views leads to emptiness (mystic state of being)

But if emptiness is the view, then you have achieved nothing.

--Nagarjuna (Buddhist mystic)

Many atheists use the word God to symbolize the mystic state but all admit that it is beyond name and that anything can be attributed to it because according to mystics the mystic state is everything.

Bingo. That is why there would not be any such thing as an atheist if theists didn't construct the concept of a diety. The theists have mentally constructed the concept and then conveyed as best as they can to a person who is then labelled an atheist because they disbelieve what the theist has imposed on them.

Or not imposed on them but simply suggested as an alternative explanation to the universe. We have Christian neighbours next door and never once have they tried to impose their view of God on me.

Or taken the concept themselves. Richard Dawkins openly says he is an atheist.

And I bet he too also doesnt believe in Gods existence. He experienced the anglican church when he was young and grew out of the beliefs imposed on him etc.

Are you arguing for my side or yours? LOL. And your point is?

It isnt that an atheist (well none I have met anyway) has no knowledge of the basic concept of God it is that they disbelieve in it and this disbelief would require a subject to direct their disbelief at. Which in a philosophical way is a paradox.Therefore they have a construct of God in their head (whether from their own imaginings or others) and reject it.

This means that they form a concept (whether they believe in it or not or whether it came from their own imaginnings or not) of God(s) by the very act of expressing their disbelief.

I use someone elses construction/word/concept, no? Read the Theist/Atheist conversation example. A person has no concept/meaning until the theist conveys it, then the person becomes an atheist and uses the concept (which is the theists' concept) to show there is a lack of the belief.

But let me outline to you once again. No one can believe or disbelieve in God until they are exposed to the concept. I person who lacks any belief in God in the sense that they have never been exposed to the concept at all isnt a theist or atheist. It is just a blank slate.

Both believers and atheists are wrong here to call this person a atheist.

This person could very well be a mystic. But they arnt.

Ultimately I dont believe in labels but we have to go by them for expression (because we only have words here to use inthis forum).

Again

The rest of your argumentation is based on your misunderstanding of what I was saying about the construct of a diety which I hope I cleared up above, therefore snippedy snip.

That is your belief and you are entitled to it.

Cheers

Guardian

Cheers

Brave

Here is two defintions I found on atheism:

Some people describe two kinds of atheism - weak atheism and strong atheism.

* Weak atheism is the belief that there is no reason to believe a god exists. Someone who is a weak atheist does not believe in any god he or she knows about. He or she does not expect to believe in any god he or she hears about. Weak atheists may also be open to the idea that there is some driving force that keeps the universe in motion but that force is not a divine being.

* Strong atheism is the belief that there can be no such thing as a god. Some use arguments that it would not be possible for there ever to be a god. For example, some say that it is not possible for any being to know everything.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Atheists disbeief in God is the belief that thereis no reason to believe in him.

Strong atheists believe that there can be no such thing as god.

Edited January 28, 2008 by brave_new_world

[brave_new_world]

No offense taken. Just pointing out that science and atheism are not codependent on one another.

My guess would be that your fathers base their atheistic beliefs on more than just the lack of scientific evidence. I came to the conclusion that god does not exist, at the age of 16 though personal experiences, and observations, based on Christians (my only example) and their overall conflicting and very inconsistent, actions, beliefs, and interpretations of the bible. Later in life, variables such as; military experiences, science, higher education, and the knowledge of past and current world events have only served to confirm what I believe.

So yes my core atheist belief, or "faith" as you wish to call it, is truly rooted on a very shaky 16 year olds conclusions. If that isn't faith I don't know what is. I guess it works pretty good for me as my atheistic "faith" has not wavered up to this point or into the foreseeable future as far as I can tell.

All admiration to you.

[brave_new_world]

I do not know why you need to prove how someone else thinks and believes. It's up to them, not you. Plus, I think you mixing up a couple of meanings of what faith means here.

Yes, to the religious or believer, you have a faith, or (belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.), but here you trying to assess that Atheists have faith (confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. ) and thinking that is the same thing. [from Dictionary.com.] I don't believe it is the same thing, and it should be known that I don't think you can label Atheists like that.

As I see, that you seem uneasy about other people's thought processes, I feel uneasy about you being uneasy of other people and what they believe. Maybe I shouldn't worry about it, but if your worry about others, does that mean you are not comfortable about you and what you believe?

I just enjoy philosophical debate and challenge. I myself like to challenge all orthodox religious believer, atheists, agnostics, philosophers etc

My point is just in response to a large number of people saying that their disbelief isnt a form of belief which is a fallacy in my view. Dont take offense,

[brave_new_world]

Brave, you're arguing semantics not substance.

Semantics is the most cruficial thing because it about the meanings of what we say.

We don't believe that god exists.

And I dont mean to come across as putting you down. Please dont take me the wrong way. I am not putting down atheist belief I am only pointing out the inconsistency of saying that atheism isnt a belief.

You are logically consistent in my view of what an atheism (though deep down I dont believe in labels but it is what i am using in for shortcuts in speech) isnt a belief of some kind.

What you call that belief, doesn't matter. It doesn't change anything. It's simply a label. Ok, so I have faith in atheism or I have lack of faith in theism, what does it change? Nothing. You are simply trying to say that atheists trust in something different than theists, but everyone already knows that.

But not everyone does! Many atheists (I respect you here as well for not emphasizing on labels) believe that atheism isnt a belief. I only wish to debate with those who say this for the sake of stimulating debate because this is a debating forum.

[KBA]

I do not see reason to believe in the existence of a god.

Takes a lot of mangling and mashing to turn that into something that even slightly infers any sort of faith.

Most atheists as far as I know will say they haven't absolutely ruled out the possibility of a god or godlike being, it just is extremely small.

And what's the point anyway? Why the big discussions? Even if atheists did have some inherent sort of unavoidable faith, so what?

Semantics is the most cruficial thing because it about the meanings of what we say.

People latch onto the word with their own idea of what it means, people don't look in a dictionary and say "That's what I think, yep."

Edited January 28, 2008 by KBA

[brave_new_world]

What I don't understand is the need to paint theists and atheists with the same brush.

It is because atheists do not need to rely on a 'supreme being' that somehow theists must "level the field" by (figuratively speaking) dragging atheists into the same muddy, blood soaked arena that the theists wallow in?

Both are to a degree in the same arena. Both have beliefs of the world. My point is only to show that a religious believe and an atheist both share something in that they both believe.

Many people say that religious belief isnt a very good justified belief but it is only that persons belief that it isnt logical.

It isnt about putting down atheist beliefs or religious beliefs. It is saying that both theism and and atheism theoretically can be doubted and therefore both are beliefs.

Whatever one is more rational or whatever is another thread.

Or is it just a semantical game of one-upmanship? "AHA! You said you don't >>BELIEVE<< in god, therefore you have beliefs!"

Whatever. Based on the evidence in my life, I cannot come to the conclusion that there is an interventionistic, humanocentric deity that keeps a record of the doings and beliefs of millions of people, to later use that record to judge them in the afterlife. If at some time, evidence comes to light to alter my conclusion, then I will re-evaluate my position.

If it makes anyone sleep better at night to say I have "faith" in a "belief" system, then let them.

Why does it hurt somany atheists (not you) to admit that their atheism is a belief (whether personal or organized)? This is my point. I am curious as to how lets say my father who doesnt believe in gods existence (he says it is a belief) isnt a belief (according to many atheists)?

I am not trying to put atheists down or their beliefs. I am only challenging those who say that their view isnt a belief.

Labels belong on jars, not people.

Agreed

[KBA]

Why does it hurt somany atheists (not you) to admit that their atheism is a belief (whether personal or organized)? This is my point. I am curious as to how lets say my father who doesnt believe in gods existence (he says it is a belief) isnt a belief (according to many atheists)?

Doesn't hurt anyone, it's just easy to annoy people if you do everything you can to move some invisible margin your way for no apparent reason in, as was said before, an upmanship of semantics. You aren't focusing on what the people actually say they think, you're simply going "No no no but the dictionary says you have to be this!" You're trying to argue with people then ignoring any sort of reasonable explanation as to what they actually think and replacing it with your perceived version of their opinion.

[Cadetak]

When you think something is true without knowing it is true it is a belief. Trust is when you think someone is telling the truth and/or think they are going to do what they should without knowing they will. Combine these and you basically get faith.

In this way Atheists have faith and/or belief. They believe gods do not exist without knowing they do not. Their faith lies in that one day they think they will be right even though they don't know they will be.

Religion is a different thing because religion is when you apply your belief to the structure of the way you live your life. In this way an Atheist could maybe sort of be considered a religion. But generally speaking an atheist has no 'religious faith' although they may have faith.

Although this will differ from Atheist to Atheist.

Belief and Religious belief are almost seperate things entirely.

Edited January 28, 2008 by Cadetak

[brave_new_world]

This is from the Beliefs, Opinions, Ideas do not merit automatic respect thread and rather than going off on a tangent there I continue with brave_new_world here since this topic is more appropriate.

Your sentence (bolded) is an example of a double negative, lol. And yes, you are not rejecting the existence of god because what your sentence means is "I believe in the existence of God". What is the point you were trying to make?

I had a late one last night. I meant to say that believing god doesnt exist is the same as beliving in the non-existence of god. It isnt saying there is a lack of beliefs.

By you saying that not believing that God exists is non-existent (because it is all just 'lack of belief to you) you are saying in effect 'I dont believe in the non-existence of God.'

My point is simple. If one doesnt believe in the existence of God then that is a belief. Then they believe that God does not exist.

You try to say that atheism isnt a belief. How?

I think that's the sentence (bolded) you should have had in your previous comment. I have pointed out the difference but you seem to have issues with it so I'll address those further down.

Generally, this would be correct but we're not talking in general terms we're talking specifics, more precisely the disbelief in a diety/dieties. Let me elaborate a little and hopefully you will see exactly what I mean by this. Your "disbelief is a belief" statement is correct if the subject(s) of the disbelief already exist.

A case in point, there is an apple on my table. If I say I disbelieve there is a worm in it, you would be correct in saying that I believe there is no worm in it. Why, because we all agree that apples exist, worms exist and that some apples have been found with worms in them. This is simple and I'm sure you'll agree with what I've just said, right?

Hang on here. This is you assumption, your belief that apples and worms exist. I dont necessarily believe that. I myself believe also that it could be an illusion and that apples and worms dont exist.

I even doubt and also believe the universe exists. I believe in everything and therefore also believe in nothing and in not everything. But I use and communicate what my eyes see for practical purposes that the worm and apple exists but I actually cannot say whether they exist or not because I cannot prove that my senses are giving me an accurate description of reality or not.

Another case in point, there is an apple on my table. If I say I disbelieve there is a god in it, you would NOT be correct in saying that I believe there is no god in the apple, UNLESS I AM A BELIEVER. Believers/theists are more than welcome to believe a god does not exist in the apple. Now this is the important point (and once again I elaborate further down), a god is the believers'/theists' construct, NOT MINE! At best, my response to the god in the apple would be "I disbelieve the existence of your god in the apple! I've seen worms, pips, and whitish fibrous stuff in an apple" and at worst I'll say,

This again is your assumption/belief. Why would you say you disbelieve there is a god in it if you had no construction whatsoever of God(s) is in the apple (whether from your own imaginnings or others)?

If you said I disbelieve there is a god in the apple and I was a believer who has never talked to you about God that whole day or while we were in that room then why say it? I would (theoretically) being a believer or not a believer say to you, what is god? As a believer I would say it to find out your interpretation of god, as a supposed atheist who has no notion of the concept of god would say 'what is god?'

Now because you said I disbelieve there is god would have to explain the concept of God in order to communicate what you mean. Surely this communication of the concept of God verifies that you do have a notion or construct of God within your mind (again whether from your own imaginnings or others).

And therefore you reject that notion and believe that there is no God in that apple.

"WHAT IS A GOD?".

There are literally thousands of definitions and answers for that (millions even).

THEN YOU CONSTRUCT HIM/HER/IT FOR ME, NO? NOTE THAT IT IS STILL YOUR CONSTRUCT THAT TO ME IS COMPLETELY UNNECCESSARY (if I were an atheist). Until I adopt the construct, it is not mine. Theists have adopted these constructs, atheists have not.

No they havnt accepted there constructs with belief but they have accepted them via concept in order to disbelieve it. Otherwise what is the disbelief aimed at?

Yes this is where semantics comes in, but if there is no notion or construct whatsoever about God in the mind of the atheist (general atheist) then an atheist wouldnt say: I disbelieve in God.

They wouldn't say anything or express their disbelief in God (which all the ones I have met have done) because they have no experience with the construct of God(s) to reject and not believe in.

See above why disbelief does not always equal "belief in invalidity".

I have and have used logic and reason to refute it (though let it be pointed out that it is only my belief of what logic and reason is that I have used)

People dont realize how much of their day is made up out of faith and belief. Perhaps even all of it (whether you believe in the existence of god or not).

It is fallacious exactly for this reason, you assert that "disbelief is a form of belief" when it is not (especially in this case when the subject is non-existent by way of no empirical evidence) and hence by asserting this you have created the circular logic that could now mean that atheists contradict themselves by saying that they have disbelief in a diety. Your fallacious assertion and your assertion only has created the contradiction where there is none!

It is only your belief and assumption that empircal evidence is a source of reliable truth. This in itself requires belief. Atheists dont contradict themselves inmy view when they say they disbelieve in a deity. All they are saying is that they hold no opinion or belief that a deity exists.

See above.

You're reading my mind, lol. It is nonsensical because you do not have a belief in a belief in a diety, YOU KNOW you have a belief in a diety if you have that belief! You either have that belief or you don't, unless you are schizophrenic (no disrespect or offence intended) there is no belief in a belief. There are two ways your statement above could be interpreted, please let me know if I read you incorrectly.

No belief in a belief???? You must be kidding right?

There is the belief that the world is round. I have belief in that belief. Let me explain how.

The word belief means:

1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief

What is schizophrenic about confidence in the truth of a conviction????? Unless of course these dictionary meanings are wrong.

There is a possibility that I am misunderstanding what you are saying as there are two ways one can interpret what you are saying so if this is the case, yell out. So you are not sure if you have your spiritual beliefs? So when I ask you "do you have spiritual beliefs?" your reply would be "I believe so" or would you say "I do", you don't know that you have spiritual beliefs? Even I know you have spiritual beliefs (and if I'm unsure of that then I will say that I believe you have spiritual beliefs and then I will look to you confirm either "YES" or "NO", not "I BELIEVE SO" - unless of course YOU are UNSURE OF WHAT SPIRITUAL BELIEFS ARE) So, do you know what spiritual beliefs are or not, is there some sort of doubt what spiritual beliefs are?

I have faith/belief in my spiritual beliefs. That is I cannot be sure that my spiritual beliefs are real via physical proof (just as theoretically we cannot be sure the universe exists even if we can show more evidence for its being than spiritual being, supposedly) but I believe them anyway.

You quoted (me)...

...and responded with...

Read it again BNW because what you have just said is that "we don't know one hundred percent" that "disbelief in a diety" exists. Of course it 100% exists, all you need is 1 atheist as defined in the dictionary! And yes, you are correct, atheism cannot be theoretically doubted BECAUSE THERE IS NO BELIEF TO DOUBT.

That is your belief my friend. You say that atheism cant be doubted because it can be. What if God does exist? If God(s) dos exist then atheism can be doubted.

Atheism is a label for those that disbelieve (DO NOT BELIEVE) in a diety. Now, if a diety is proven (empirically) to exist then atheism will instantly disappear The label will stay for historical purposes but I'm sure that atheists will agree that they will become theists if that conclusive empirical evidence surfaces...but they are not holding their breath because even most theists admit that their construct (of a deity) cannot be empirically proven.

But then you have to prove that things empirically proven is the only means of gaining truth. Going by empirical evidence we can doubt the existence of consciousness/awareness because there is no empirical evidence for it (yet).

Also you have to prove for empirical evidence to be one hundred percent that our senses are giving us correct information about the universe, which more or less all philosophers (as well as scienctists) cannot prove.

Therefore if the emprical method cannot be one hundred percent proven it can be doubted. And therefore all conclusions that come forth from empirical experimentation can be doubted.

See above, no doubt is theoretically possible, hence NO FAITH AND NO BELIEF!

Ahhh, but there is no belief for the atheist - see above.

Again, I emplore you to substitute the official definition for atheism ie. "the disbelief/unbelief/non-belief/denial of the existence of god" in your sentence. I'll do it for you, now read...

Therefore it is possible that their disbelief/unbelief/non-belief/denial of the existence of god doesn't exist

...and read it again, and again and again and again, do you understand what you have just said??? I don't think you do.

I dont because it doesnt make logical sense to me.

Once again, there is nothing to prove!!! The burden lies with the one who has adopted the construct upon which theism is based.

What you are erroneously doing is thinking that atheism is a belief in something and that's where the knickers get tied in a knot. Is it possible that non-belief in the existence of a diety is wrong? Yes, but that is not the same as saying that non-belief in the existence of a diety doesn't exist. Furthermore, to show that the non-belief in the existence of a diety is wrong is to conclusively & empirically prove that a diety exists. Do you understand?

The burden of proof always lies (in my view) on who is trying to to make a claim of truth. Philosophically and scientifically we cant even prove that the universe one hundred percent exists. Yet you said :

An atheist has confidence in the truth that there exists a universe with galaxies, stars, planets, trees, animals etc etc.

Can you prove that our eyes and senses are giving a correct reading of the universe?

As we both know, we cannot prove or disprove that our senses are giving the correct information. Therefore a belief that there exists a universe, stars etc also is subject to doubt.

Some of the most earliest philosophers i.e Plato talked about this.

Bravo brave. Atheists simply do not believe a god exists. I've illustrated the difference between this statement and "belief that god doesn't exist" and I'll illustrate some more now...

Wipe slate clean, clear your mind, no belief.

Theist (after forming/adopting a diety construct/concept): I believe there is a god responsible for the universe, life and everything.

Soon-to-be-labelled Atheist (no notion of a diety and therefore no belief): What is god?

Theist (definition will depend on the religion in question): An omnipotent, omniscient & omnipresent being.

Soon-to-be-labelled Atheist: I don't believe such a being exists.

Theist: So you believe god does not exist?

Atheist: No, I believe such a construct/concept (of god) is unneccessary and unjustified, therefore it is only your construct and therefore I don't believe your god exists.

I would then ask the question 'since you believe such a concept/construct is necessary then what is your stance on whether god exists or not?' Because saying that a concept isnt necessary you are implying two things:

1) God is self-evident and therefore doesnt need to be believed because it is self-evidently known

2) You dont believe that God (as represented by the construct or idea) exists.

It has got nothing to do with believing a god does not exist! All it has to do with is the theist believing and my original non-belief!

Think of it like this...

A person is a bucket that holds beliefs. Agreed.

One bucket has a label "Theist" and contains "belief that a god exists" + common beliefs. With me so far?

Another bucket has no label (for now) and CONTAINS NOTHING EXCEPT THE COMMON BELIEFS!!!

Now the "Theist" bucket slaps a label "Atheist" on the other bucket because it sees that its belief that makes it a theist is not there!!!

Do you get it yet???

continued in next post....

I dont get it still. It is still the atheists belief.

Had to fix up an explanation, hence the edit.

Edited January 28, 2008 by brave_new_world

[brave_new_world]

When you think something is true without knowing it is true it is a belief. Trust is when you think someone is telling the truth and/or think they are going to do what they should without knowing they will. Combine these and you basically get faith.

In this way Atheists have faith and/or belief. They believe gods do not exist without knowing they do not. Their faith lies in that one day they think they will be right even though they don't know they will be.

Religion is a different thing because religion is when you apply your belief to the structure of the way you live your life. In this way an Atheist could maybe sort of be considered a religion. But generally speaking an atheist has no 'religious faith' although they may have faith.

Although this will differ from Atheist to Atheist.

Belief and Religious belief are almost seperate things entirely.

So would you admit that (this isnt sticking up for religious believers) because god cannot be proven or disproven an atheist cannot be one hundred percent that God doesnt exist and therefore their disbelief in God can be doubted and therefore it requires belief to be an atheist (if even only a small measurement of it)?

[brave_new_world]

I do not see reason to believe in the existence of a god.

Takes a lot of mangling and mashing to turn that into something that even slightly infers any sort of faith.

Most atheists as far as I know will say they haven't absolutely ruled out the possibility of a god or godlike being, it just is extremely small.

And what's the point anyway? Why the big discussions? Even if atheists did have some inherent sort of unavoidable faith, so what?

My point is, as you would have seen by some of the people on this thread already, that wherever that unavoidable faith exists there is room for doubt (no matter how big or small) and therefore to have a worldview which canbe doubted (all of them so far as I have seen) is a belief.

Many here argue that atheism isnt a belief. I am not trying to put down the atheist belief down or stick up for a religious one. I am merely saying that atheism is also a belief because it as a concept cannot be one hundred percent proven.

It may be a more justified belief based on 'empirical evidence', but it is a belief regardless and doesnt take as much faith as religious belief.

[KBA]

When you think something is true without knowing it is true it is a belief. Trust is when you think someone is telling the truth and/or think they are going to do what they should without knowing they will. Combine these and you basically get faith.

In this way Atheists have faith and/or belief. They believe gods do not exist without knowing they do not. Their faith lies in that one day they think they will be right even though they don't know they will be.

Religion is a different thing because religion is when you apply your belief to the structure of the way you live your life. In this way an Atheist could maybe sort of be considered a religion. But generally speaking an atheist has no 'religious faith' although they may have faith.

Although this will differ from Atheist to Atheist.

Belief and Religious belief are almost seperate things entirely.

This kind of thinking is just counter-productive though. If you act like this, you can turn ANYTHING into a belief, because the truth is always relative. It is impossible to know everything (As far as we know ), and so you can never actually "know" something is true. If you want to define things like this, then you can even turn things like gravity into faith and not knowledge. Maybe it's a magical suction force powered by tiny invisible ladybugs in small intervals and not gravity, eh? You just believe it's gravity based on the evidence you've seen.

My point is, as you would have seen by some of the people on this thread already, that wherever that unavoidable faith exists there is room for doubt (no matter how big or small) and therefore to have a worldview which canbe doubted (all of them so far as I have seen) is a belief.

Many here argue that atheism isnt a belief. I am not trying to put down the atheist belief down or stick up for a religious one. I am merely saying that atheism is also a belief because it as a concept cannot be one hundred percent proven.

It may be a more justified belief based on 'empirical evidence', but it is a belief regardless and doesnt take as much faith as religious belief.

Again I'd have to say that when you act like this, anything is a "belief".. and the point you were originally trying to make of atheists not wanting to have "belief" becomes worthless because there's no such thing as not having a belief in the first place

Edited January 28, 2008 by KBA

[brave_new_world]

Doesn't hurt anyone, it's just easy to annoy people if you do everything you can to move some invisible margin your way for no apparent reason in, as was said before, an upmanship of semantics. You aren't focusing on what the people actually say they think, you're simply going "No no no but the dictionary says you have to be this!" You're trying to argue with people then ignoring any sort of reasonable explanation as to what they actually think and replacing it with your perceived version of their opinion.

Aqi gardian is also using dictionary definitions. Semantics is about the meaning of what we express. I use the dictionary to back up my meaning of words when my knowledge of that word is doubted.

[KBA]

Aqi gardian is also using dictionary definitions. Semantics is about the meaning of what we express. I use the dictionary to back up my meaning of words when my knowledge of that word is doubted.

What I'm trying to say is that there's no one "absolute" definition of a word, a dictionary just attempts to reflect what people know that word to mean. A word is only a rough translation of a thought, you have to pair up different thoughts under one word sometimes.. because if there were a word for every thought, nobody could hope to learn even a small fraction of the language .

[GreyWeather]

Because of the mega people online in this forum and others who say that atheism isnt a worldview or belief.

As I said before, it depends on the context of the post you are replying to.

As this is in the SvS thread, belief and faith are mainly attributed to the religious side (I believe in god as my faith says to.) Where-as in the General thread (for example) belief and faith are mainly attributed to the thoughts/thinking side (I believe chocolate is great.)

Many topics on this thread here have tried to paint Atheists with a religious colour, claiming them to have faith (religiously) as they have an (un)belief. It doesn't work like that, so you have to understand why Athiests say they have no faith in this thread.

But as I have already stated, it depends on the context of the conversation.

[DrunkDwarf]

This kind of thinking is just counter-productive though. If you act like this, you can turn ANYTHING into a belief, because the truth is always relative. It is impossible to know everything (As far as we know ), and so you can never actually "know" something is true. If you want to define things like this, then you can even turn things like gravity into faith and not knowledge. Maybe it's a magical suction force powered by tiny invisible ladybugs in small intervals and not gravity, eh? You just believe it's gravity based on the evidence you've seen.

Again I'd have to say that when you act like this, anything is a "belief".. and the point you were originally trying to make of atheists not wanting to have "belief" becomes worthless because there's no such thing as not having a belief in the first place

You've hit the nail on the head... everything is a belief, religious folks, atheists, agnostics, etc etc... every label, every category people end up placing themselves in, is a form of belief... nobody is correct, nobody is wrong.

Everybody in every nation is confronted with some form of religion/ideal/faith/whatever, and the worlds populace seperates into two main categories, which then tend to split further... but the main two categories are:

1. those who simply take on board what they are told/taught by others

2. those who rebel against what they are told/taught by others

(There is actually a rare third category, and that is those who have never been told/taught by others at all... such as individuals seperated from other humans, or those with specific mental/physical disabilities that would prevent interaction with others)

But one thing remains consistent throughout nearly everyone, regardless of category, and thats some form of belief that what they know is true, what their senses tell them is true.

And as such, this debate, and any other like it, is pointless in the end, everyone will defend what they believe with great passion, no-one will back down, it will never change, never end... the only point in continuing such debates, is the enjoyment of debating with those of the other side, and that is ultimately why a lot of us are on this forum.

Edited January 28, 2008 by DrunkDwarf

[brave_new_world]

Just for self-reference and a means to back my argument that atheism is a belief. Here is some info from 'religioustolerance.com':

Atheism isn't necessarily a religious belief. However, it is certainly a religious issue because it deals with concepts that are found throughout many religions.

On this site, we define the term "religion" as:

"Religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, a philosophy of life, and a worldview."

Atheism is not a complete religion in the sense that Christianity, Islam, and, Judaism are. Atheism is not generally perceived as offering a complete guideline for living as do most religions. However, Atheists frequently derive their own ethics and philosophy of life and worldview using their Atheism as a starting point. They are generally derived from secular considerations, and not from any "revealed" religious text. Many Atheists now celebrate the Winter Solstice.

Some Atheists, when asked what their religion is, will answer, simply, "Atheist." Others will say that they have no religion, they are an Atheist.

Note that:

bullet Atheism relates to a belief in the existence or non-existence of a deity, or whether the person associates any meaning to the terms "God" or "deity."

bullet Atheism can involve the positive assertion that there is no deity; this is sometimes referred to as "strong Atheism." It is the most common dictionary definition for the term "Atheist," and is probably the definition used by most theists.

bullet Atheism can be the absence of a belief that there is a deity. This is the belief promoted by the American Atheists group and many individual Atheists.

bullet Atheism often promote the belief that all Gods and Goddesses (as well as angels, demons, ghosts, etc.) are nonexistent entities created by human minds.

In one way, most people in North America are Atheists. Christians will generally deny the existence of the Mayan, Hindu, Ancient Roman, Ancient Greek, Ancient Egyptian, Ancient Sumerian, Sikh, and many hundreds of other Gods and Goddesses, even as they assert their belief in the Christian Trinity. Thus, the difference between a typical Christian and a typical Atheist is numerically small: The strong Atheist believes that none of the many thousands of Gods and Goddesses exist; the Christian believes that one God exists in a certain structure -- a Trinity -- whereas all of the other thousands of deities are nonexistent, artificial creations by humans. Although the numerical difference is much less that 0.1%, the philosophical difference is immense.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist.htm

This doesnt speak for all atheists of course, as no one internet site can speak for all christians, agnostics etc. Tis a nice general review though. Also the bolded bits are my emphasis.

[brave_new_world]

You've hit the nail on the head... everything is a belief, religious folks, atheists, agnostics, etc etc... every label, every category people end up placing themselves in, is a form of belief... nobody is correct, nobody is wrong.

Everybody in every nation is confronted with some form of religion/ideal/faith/whatever, and the worlds populace seperates into two main categories, which then tend to split further... but the main two categories are:

1. those who simply take on board what they are told/taught by others

2. those who rebel against what they are told/taught by others

(There is actually a rare third category, and that is those who have never been told/taught by others at all... such as individuals seperated from other humans, or those with specific mental/physical disabilities that would prevent interaction with others)

But one thing remains consistent throughout nearly everyone, regardless of category, and thats some form of belief that what they know is true, what their senses tell them is true.

And as such, this debate, and any other like it, is pointless, everyone will defend what they believe with great passion, no-one will back down, it will never change, never end.

Good post. However it fascinates me that some atheists say they have no belief. And therefore how can they defend the belief of atheism? Again this isnt putting atheism down. Just trying to understand how an atheist can passionately debate atheism (supposedly as a belief) when many themselves claim it isnt a belief.

[DrunkDwarf]

Good post. However it fascinates me that some atheists say they have no belief. And therefore how can they defend the belief of atheism? Again this isnt putting atheism down. Just trying to understand how an atheist can passionately debate atheism (supposedly as a belief) when many themselves claim it isnt a belief.

Fairly understandable really... a lot of those who are categorised as Atheists are those who were confronted with one of the core religions, and rebelled against it, and as such, would react negatively to any term that suggests similarity to those they are rebelling against.

[brave_new_world]

Fairly understandable really... a lot of those who are categorised as Atheists are those who were confronted with one of the core religions, and rebelled against it, and as such, would react negatively to any term that suggests similarity to those they are rebelling against.

Hence emotion overtakes reason.. . . .