Is Atheism a Religious Faith?

This subject has been discussed here time and time again, actually. Here's a few of them...

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Claiming that atheism is a religious faith is like claiming that people who don't believe cows can fly are also of a religious faith. It's anti-logic. It reminds me of Archie Bunker's bass ackward thought process.

Originally posted by Satyr
This subject has been discussed here time and time again, actually. Here's a few of them...

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Claiming that atheism is a religious faith is like claiming that people who don't believe cows can fly are also of a religious faith. It's anti-logic. It reminds me of Archie Bunker's bass ackward thought process.

Unless the atheist believes there is no God. In this case, it's at least a belief. This belief may not be labeled as religious faith because it is not of a specific RELIGION, but some faith IS involved, and would be a belief.

It is NOT a belief when the atheist simply does NOT believe anything until he can find out and KNOW it.

Originally posted by Satyr
This subject has been discussed here time and time again, actually. Here's a few of them...

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Claiming that atheism is a religious faith is like claiming that people who don't believe cows can fly are also of a religious faith. It's anti-logic. It reminds me of Archie Bunker's bass ackward thought process.

Hmm, lets see Mr. Saytr, both the ones that you have provided are dealing with Atheism as a religion.
Mine was dealing with faith and started back before you even came a member, interesting.

As such Mr. Satyr, in your own twisted "Archie Bunker base ackward thought process"...I guess you seem to have no clue of the difference between religion and faith?
Thought so.............

Besides, Mr. Satyr, your point was?
You add nothing to the thread but to point out that the thread has been "covered" before...like you simply could have ignored this topic for perhaps another more to your choosing....but then again, you do have an "agenda" that needs to be addressed?



seekerof

"help you win the argument that there is no God."

Please find anywhere that I have stated that there is no God. I believe that there is, so that isn't an arguement that I'm trying to win at all. You catagorize me incorrectly.

Since the topic is about Atheism, a discussion of belief vs. knowledge is a valid rider to this, since these concepts and the differences between them might figure prominantly in a persons decision to become an Atheist.

"Faith" is a synonym for "Belief". They mean virtually the same thing. "Faith" is usually used in a more religous context and can also mean "trust", whereas belief is used in a many circustances and does not always carry the religious connotations that "Faith" does. Also, I'm not sure "belief" always implies "trust" as "faith" does.

Descartes said something similar to the fact that the only thing we can know for sure it that we ourselves exist. The rest is subjective and subject to error. Well, that's not very helpful is it? That is fine if you never have to interact with the other stuff that may or may not exist.

Back to my earlier physical example. It is possible that the keyboard I drop may not hit the floor. Maybe my house explodes, or the gravity well burps, or I catch it. In this case, knowledge really isn't knowledge I suppose. It's just a very strong belief backed up by previous confirmations of that belief since this isn't the first time I've dropped my keyboard. There is a certain point of reliability where you cross from belief to our fudged version of knowledge.

What you choose to believe about God, if it does or doesn't exist, really depends on where your reliability point is in that muddy area between Belief/Faith and Knowledge

Originally posted by Seekerof
Hmm, lets see Mr. Saytr, both the ones that you have provided are dealing with Atheism as a religion.
Mine was dealing with faith and started back before you even came a member, interesting.

As such Mr. Satyr, in your own twisted "Archie Bunker base ackward thought process"...I guess you seem to have no clue of the difference between religion and faith?
Thought so.............

Besides, Mr. Satyr, your point was?
You add nothing to the thread but to point out that the thread has been "covered" before...like you simply could have ignored this topic for perhaps another more to your choosing....but then again, you do have an "agenda" that needs to be addressed?

seekerof

I hadn't checked the date of the original post, but I know I've posted in many similar threads here. Religion and faith are really one in the same, when associated with religion. If you don't think so, why don't you explain the difference? As a matter of fact, if you look it up, faith's definition actually refers to the belief in god and/or religion. They are, for the most part, synonyms. They're practically interchangeable.

www.merriam-webster.com...
www.merriam-webster.com...

BTW, I did add my commentary above, in case you missed it. Geez, touchy!

[Edited on 3-31-2004 by Satyr]

Religious faith, doesn�t this mean faith based on a religious belief?

Originally posted by lilblam
It is NOT a belief when the atheist simply does NOT believe anything until he can find out and KNOW it.

That's not Atheist, in that case. That's Agnostic.

I am going to have to respectfully disagree Satyr.
Seems to Atheists, there is a difference?
Religion of Atheism

Atheism is not a Religion or a Faith!

By definition, religion requires the belief in the or a supernatural, whereas faith, does not necessarily incorporate or require such a belief.


seekerof

We need to define Faith.

I can have faith in an action that has not yet been taken, like the faith that when I flip a light switch a light will go on. I can also have faith in something that cannot be proved such as Religious Faith.

So it depends on the definition of faith that we want to apply to this question.

Can a person have faith that all Religious doctrines are wrong? Yes.
Can that faith be considered Religion? No


[Edited on 31-3-2004 by kinglizard]

[Edited on 31-3-2004 by kinglizard]

"Can a person have faith that all Religious doctrines are wrong? Yes.
Can that faith be considered Religion? No "

That's what I said about 2 pages ago.

Originally posted by intrepid
"Can a person have faith that all Religious doctrines are wrong? Yes.
Can that faith be considered Religion? No "

That's what I said about 2 pages ago.

So are faith/belief/assumption synonymous then? If not, I'm failing to see something here, as it seems to me that if the electricity in your house was cut off, the light switch would not turn on the light, and therefore your faith would've been irrelavant in terms of etablishing the TRUTH of how something is. Keeping this in mind, what is the point of faith?

I think it's hard for humans to say "I don't know", so they like to say "of course I know..." even if they can be wrong. You can never be wrong if you never assume, right? Some would say that you're just afraid of being wrong, but I'd argue that being wrong (as in.. incorrect in relation to objective reality) means allowing illusion, wishful thinking, lies, and desire for the world to be as you WANT it to be and not as it is.. to consume you.

If this is courage, then by all means... be as courageous as ya want (this in reply to someone else, so I don't have to create another post).

So then I must ask once again, what is the point of belief/assumption/faith/anticipation? Wouldn't it be better to look at probabilities, but leave ALL the options open (aka: keeping an open mind)?

Originally posted by Seekerof
I am going to have to respectfully disagree Satyr.
Seems to Atheists, there is a difference?
Religion of Atheism

I know quite a few Atheists, and none of them consider their non-belief a religion, or a faith. How many do you know? Similarly, I'm Agnostic, and I know for certain that there is no faith involved in my skepticism. It's a lack of, if anything.

Originally posted by kinglizard
Can a person have faith that all Religious doctrines are wrong? Yes.
Can that faith be considered Religion? No

I believe that's a misuse of the word "faith". Not seeing any proof of something requires no faith not to believe in it. It's a lack of faith. Some people believe in things based upon proof. Those that don't need proof for their beliefs are those who operate on faith. Sure, you can say that you have "faith" that a light will come on when you flip the switch, but that's not really faith, since you're using previous, PROVEN experience to make that judgment. You know that, if the power is on, and there is electricity available, that light will come on. You also know that there's a good chance the bulb might flash and go out again. Why? Because it's happened before, and you witnessed it. If you walk into a dark house that you've never been in before, and flip a switch, you're not going to be so sure that the light is going to come on, are you?

[Edited on 3-31-2004 by Satyr]

Quote: "So are faith/belief/assumption synonymous then? If not, I'm failing to see something here, as it seems to me that if the electricity in your house was cut off, the light switch would not turn on the light, and therefore your faith would've been irrelavant in terms of etablishing the TRUTH of how something is. Keeping this in mind, what is the point of faith?"

This is assinine. Anyone can come up with an inane arguement to support something, or nothing.

I'm out, see my signiture.

Originally posted by intrepid
Quote: "So are faith/belief/assumption synonymous then? If not, I'm failing to see something here, as it seems to me that if the electricity in your house was cut off, the light switch would not turn on the light, and therefore your faith would've been irrelavant in terms of etablishing the TRUTH of how something is. Keeping this in mind, what is the point of faith?"

This is assinine. Anyone can come up with an inane arguement to support something, or nothing.

I'm out, see my signiture.

Asinine is subjective, because what you think is stupid may not appear as such to someone else. Insane is also subjective, as I can call anybody whose ideas are "radical" in my mind insane. You've expressed your opinion, but offer nothing to demonstrate that what I said is incorrect.

Anybody can say anything they want, but if the argument is not objective and logical, it will fail to SUPPORT the statement, if the statement is objective in the first place of course.

[Edited on 31-3-2004 by lilblam]

Originally posted by lilblam

Originally posted by intrepid
Quote: "So are faith/belief/assumption synonymous then? If not, I'm failing to see something here, as it seems to me that if the electricity in your house was cut off, the light switch would not turn on the light, and therefore your faith would've been irrelavant in terms of etablishing the TRUTH of how something is. Keeping this in mind, what is the point of faith?"

This is assinine. Anyone can come up with an inane arguement to support something, or nothing.

I'm out, see my signiture.

You've expressed your opinion, but offer nothing to demonstrate that what I said is incorrect.

This is coming from the same guy who says God doesn't exist and doesn't have proof... says time doesn't exist and doesn't have proof, and says aliens are going to eat us and have no proof.

!!!ATTENTION!!!
ALL PEOPLE WHO THINK WE WILL BE EATEN BY ALIENS GO NEAR WATER NOW!!!

Faith is trust!

You are sitting in a chair, and have faith that it won't drop you to the floor. Trust is established through experience. At some point you were introduced to chairs, and learned that (except in rare occasions) they won't let you down.

Faith can also be applied to a Religious doctrine.

[Edited on 31-3-2004 by kinglizard]

Originally posted by kinglizard
Faith is trust!

You are sitting in a chair, and have faith that it won't drop you to the floor. Trust is established through experience. At some point you were introduced to chairs, and learned that (except in rare occasions) they won't let you down.

Faith can also be applied to a Religious doctrine.

You're almost right. Faith and trust are two completely different things, IMO. I would never interchange those two words. I don't really have faith. It doesn't play any part in my life. I could go the rest of my life and never use that word to describe anything in reference to my personal feelings. Faith has absolutely nothing to do with educated judgment based upon your life experiences. Faith can describe anything you believe that is not logical knowledge, based upon things you've learned through experience and education. When you say you have faith in someone, it's usually based upon their previous performance, or their knowledge. There are two types of "faith". One is an illogical guess, based upon nothing, but what you might want to believe. The other is reasonable, based upon real world experience. The latter could be close to trust, I suppose, but I don't consider it the same at all. At least, I would never use the word in place of trust. Religion is always of the first kind.

[Edited on 3-31-2004 by Satyr]

Originally posted by Shugo

Originally posted by lilblam

Originally posted by intrepid
Quote: "So are faith/belief/assumption synonymous then? If not, I'm failing to see something here, as it seems to me that if the electricity in your house was cut off, the light switch would not turn on the light, and therefore your faith would've been irrelavant in terms of etablishing the TRUTH of how something is. Keeping this in mind, what is the point of faith?"

This is assinine. Anyone can come up with an inane arguement to support something, or nothing.

I'm out, see my signiture.

You've expressed your opinion, but offer nothing to demonstrate that what I said is incorrect.

This is coming from the same guy who says God doesn't exist and doesn't have proof... says time doesn't exist and doesn't have proof, and says aliens are going to eat us and have no proof.

!!!ATTENTION!!!
ALL PEOPLE WHO THINK WE WILL BE EATEN BY ALIENS GO NEAR WATER NOW!!!

Proof doesn't exist, only knowledge. What you call proof isn't proof, just evidence. Before you can prove that God exists or not, you must first define what God is. If I define God as something non-existant, then yes, God wouldn't exist. If I define God as my left eyeball, then yes, he does. I've only shown that God doesn't exist according to the Christian definition of God, and this requires no "proof" at all, but simple observation and logical thinking about the Christian doctrine, and REALITY. Assumptions will get you nowhere, or do you want proof for that too? Once again, could I PROVE to you that assumptions do not equal TRUTH? If you do not use your mind, any and all proof will be irrelavant to you. If you wish to know and understand, you must first learn to BE and then learn to DO, something most humans fail to accomplish.

Please PROVE to me that 2+2=4. See what I mean? Not so easy... but at the same time it's easy to SEE that 2+2=4, if you wish to see objective reality as it is. If you do not, no amount of "proof" or "evidence" will convince you, and you will remain in your own fantasy-island until you choose to SEE objectively, and put EFFORT into finding out the truth. The initiative is yours, as no one can do this for you.

So if I say time doesn't exist, to me it's like saying 1+1=2. I can't prove to you that 1+1=2 either, but if given enough thought, you arrive at the only logical outcome - the truth. Same goes for God/Time/Anything else.

So once again, proof is only proof if you want it to be. It may be proof to one person, but prove nothing to another. The only way to KNOW something is to SEEK the truth yourself. I have offered logical explanations for the lack of existance of the religious Christian God, and Time. If this isn't enough, you'd have to specifically point out to me what part of my logic is erronous. Anybody can scream "This doesn't prove anything" and then not back it up.

[Edited on 31-3-2004 by lilblam]

lilblam the next response I want from you I want to either be not at all or 30 word long

Damn I hate reading freakin books... I go to a library for that not on ATS.

Lilblam says:
"What's a "good" Christian? Good is relative and subjective. Also, they have absolutely no evidence for the existance of a separate creator God, NONE. Belief is pretending that something is true when you don't KNOW for sure. If you don't know, what's the use of pretending, just to make yourself feel good and fool others? You will only succeed in fooling those who are like yourself, service-to-self ignorance-oriented belief-inclined entities."

I'm not even going to touch the "good is subjective" yet, I'll get to that later. I agree that someone who does not know something for sure does not know, he or she believes. Someone who believes in something does not pretend to know it, he or she merely believes it until he or she is able to prove it to be true or false--believing that it is plausible--before he or she accepts it as knowledge or rejects it as false. Nobody's trying to fool anyone, it's all a pursuit of truth. Then you proceed to attack certain people groups because you have nothing else to say, that's very big of you.


"Perfect according to WHOSE definition? What's perfect, someone without faults?"

Yes.

"Well, who defines what a FAULT is anyway? Someone only makes a mistake when someone DEFINES what he did as a mistake."

This is the escape of the person that is tired of thinking. Just because everyone does not agree that something is right or something is wrong does not mean that it is objectively right or wrong. We argue forever about whether something is right or wrong, abortion for instance, and not everyone can agree on a concrete black and white view of right or wrong because there are a lot of details and specific exceptions. THIS DOES NOT MEAN, HOWEVER, THAT A CONCRETE RIGHT AND WRONG FOR EVERYTHING DOES NOT EXIST. Morality exists outside of our individual selves. Some things are obviously right and wrong, others are more obscure, but that does not mean that they are subjective. Right and wrong exist whether we agree or not. Now where do we draw this standard, you ask? Where is this ultimate right and wrong that exists outside of ourselves. THAT'S where the subjectivity comes in. I personally believe that morality comes objectively from God, but you don't care what I think. I just hope we can agree that although there are debates over whether or not something is right or wrong, a correct answer DOES EXIST. Just because something is debatable doesn't mean that everybody's right or nobody's right. Like you said, "TRUTH is objective." "The truth is out there," as was the X-Files tagline, whether we can all agree on it or not. That is what I'm saying and I hope you agree.


"--God is not human, therefore He can be perfect and is.--
So everything that's not human is perfect? What's the difference between being perfect and NOT being perfect? And when you set a limit (which is perfection) then you are stagnating and STOP your advance process, as there IS no limit to knowledge, is there!"

Good catch on my wording. But when I said, "He can be perfect" because He is not human, I was just saying that no human is perfect but God is human, so He's not limited in that way. Perfection is a limit? How so? I would think that something with a limit necessitates it being imperfect. Perfection is infinite.


"--In fact, He's perfect and He doesn't care whether or not you agree with Him, because He is since He invented the good, true, and the beautiful and you didn't.--
And you know all this because HE told you? I can self-proclaim anything I want too!"

I'm not proclaiming anything from myself. No, He did not tell me this. I'm saying that IF God exists and IF the Bible is without error, God is perfect and it doesn't matter what anybody else thinks because He created perfection and you did not. You can create your own view of perfection, I wouldn't put that past you, but it would not be TRUE, Objective Perfection, IF the proceeding is all true. And if it is all true, it is true whether or not you agree, that's all I'm saying.

"Also, beautiful is subjective, as what's beautiful to someone is ugly to someone else. TRUTH is objective, as it exists regardless of your opinion or anybody else's view. GOOD is subjective, as what's good to you is bad to someone else. So what's the difference between me and God? Or do you still not understand what I said?"

No I get you. Plato's turning over in his grave after what you just said though. Claiming that within the Platonic triad, the Good, the True and the Beautiful, only Truth is objective? That doesn't make sense, even aside from Plato. Sure, two people may look at a piece of art, one calling it beautiful and the other ugly, but this is a specific instance and it is perfectly plausible that the one who called it ugly is simply ignorant to the beauty that is there objectively. They do not see it, but that does not mean that it does not exist. Now with goodness, we could go on for years debating this one because you will never agree with me that goodness is objective. When something produces a positive result (not necessarily pleasure, that gets tricky) that benefits both that which is acting and that which is receiving the action, it is good. If something performs its function, that which it was made to perform, it is good. Anything on the contrary of these is bad. If something doesn't do what it was made to do or does something that either harms or produces a negative result in something else, or itself, it is bad. Sure, once again, we can get into specific exceptions, but please do not deny the fact that even though not everyone can agree on what is Good, the Good does exist outside of our opinions. Why else do we debate anything? We want to uncover the objective truth of what is good, what is true, and what is beautiful.

"--Murder is wrong. Every single person in the world knows this to be true, objectively.--
False. People fight in wars, which is simply "politically justified" murder, but murder nevertheless. THOSE who commit murder obviously don't think it's so wrong, and in fact often think it's VERY right and necessary. Need I go on?"

No, stop before you make another wrong statement. Murder and killing are two separate things. Murder is the unjust ending of life. DON'T TELL ME JUSTICE IS RELATIVE, I'VE HAD ENOUGH OF YOUR RELATIVITY! You know what, why not? Go ahead and tell me it's relative. In war, ending someone's life in a just circumstance is not wrong. But both sides in a war think they are just? So what do we do, you ask? Let's go back to Hitler since I think everyone in their right mind agrees that he was wrong. So the Nazi's and their allies were unjust and those that they fought against were just. In other wars, it could be true that both sides are unjust because the cause being fought over is unjust in the first place. Murder is wrong, no if's and's or but's.


"--Is it just by coincidence that the laws of every nation of the world are strikingly similar?--
No, they were made by the same power-hungry psychopaths with similar goals, no coincidence. They are reflective of a service-to-self 3rd density control structure, and the illusions of good/evil and right/wrong that are so easily imposed upon docile citizens in order to control them with their own ignorance. You asked."

Okay, well if these laws were all developed by these awful people and that's why they were the same. Provide for me a legal code that makes sense for all people that is strikingly different than the ones already in place. Let's hear your code of laws.

"Who defines righteousness? The church? Come on now..."

Now when did I say that? The church didn't invent righteousness. The church might support righteousness, but it didn't invent it. I say that Righteousness comes from God, but you don't agree with that, go figure.


"Good or bad is always subjective, because otherwise debates would not exist about them."

Here it is, your moment of brilliance! We debate things why? TO COME TO THE TRUTH; TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT SOMETHING IS GOOD OR BAD IN TRUTH! Or do you debate just to realize that nobody can agree, therefore no one can be right? Why debate then, you'll never get anywhere? Whether or not we can all agree on what is right, that which is right still exists objectively?

"Nothing is right or wrong objectively, period. I already gave you examples where people disagreed upon what is right and wrong, and STILL disagree, and will forever disagree, as long as people remain service-to-self, which promotes subjectivity, ignorance, and LACK of objective understanding of reality as it IS, not as we WANT it to be."

Just because a lot of people are self-centered, ignorant people doesn't mean that it's okay to never come to an agreement on something. You're right, some people will debate topics until the end of time, but does that mean that there is no right answer? Why do they do it then? What's the point of debating something in which everyone is right or everyone is wrong? THERE IS A RIGHT ANSWER TO EVERYTHING! Granted, many times it is hard to see the right answer, but it does not mean that it doesn't exist. For the sake of this argument, I do not pretend to have the right answers, but I do know that there is a right answer out there and I will pursue it all of my life as I know you will also.


"Some did [believe things before they knew them], yes. Others didn't believe, they had a hunch and they tested IF it's true, and then proved it. The difference is, people believed the Earth was flat, but that was proven false wasn't it. Therefore, belief is irrelavant, and does not bring you closer to truth, as I just demonstrated."

Okay, so a hunch is not a belief according to you. What is it then? It's not knowledge, it's a BELIEF that someone has some knowledge about and thinks might be true but isn't sure. Just a side note by the by, those who thought the world was flat weren't very well educated. Turns out Plato knew the world was a sphere, I'll get text if you want it, so whatever historical thinker you're thinking of must have been left out of the loop. And even if historical thinkers were proved wrong by newly acquired knowledge, how is that a hindrance to the pursuit of truth? We can't be right all of the time. We learn from mistakes. People make assumptions that seem right and if they're later proven to be right, then they're right, if not, what have we lost? Nothing. Are you deeply scarred by the fact that people once thought the world was flat? Does that make any difference to you in regard to what you believe now? It's harmless to assume things, or dare I say, believe things that we cannot prove, at least at the moment. Now I would agree with you that when people impose their beliefs on unwilling people, it is wrong. Christians should not do that. But something like Evolution is not entirely proven either, there are still a lot of holes whether or not your biology teacher is willing to admit it or not. So how is it acceptable for Evolution to be taught in schools if it is not entirely proven? It's not knowledge yet, it's still a belief. Could turn out to be another "world is flat." Or it could be true, I'll give you that for the sake of this argument. But why the hypocrisy? Now I'm not saying you are a supporter of evolution, I don't know. Doesn't really matter, this is a tangent anyway.


"--In the end times, when either all is explained to perfection or nothing happens and we all simply cease to exist, some of us will have at least made a guess and stuck with it.--
And others will have not made guess, but searched for the truth and FOUND it. They then looked at those who stucked to their guess till their deaths, and smiled as they waved to them."

For one, if Christianity is wrong, you won't be waving in the end times, you'll be dust. For another, the scientific method does not function without a hypothesis, or a guess--educated, yes, but a guess nonetheless. So truth does not come without first making a guess and testing it. I am not one of those people, nor is any good Christian, who will stick with their guess if and when it is proven wrong without a shadow of a doubt. Belief is not blind, it has conditions, and if there is proof that these conditions are not met, Christians will abandon ship.


"--Others of us will have not even tried because they were afraid.--
Do you think it takes courage to believe in something? If you don't, you're a wuss? So those who seek to know the truth are wusses, and those who choose to PRETEND TO KNOW the truth are courageous? Well once again, this is your choice to label and judge anyone you want, but it is really irrelavant in objective reality, isn't it."

It does take courage to believe in something. Who wants to be wrong? No one. So to be so vulnerable to error as to say that one believes in something that could be wrong takes courage. Those who don't accept anything until someone else proves it (who does do a little believing) are playing it safe. Those who seek to know the truth are those who believe first, then prove it later. Those who pretend to know the truth aren't wusses, they're just stubborn idiots. Christians don't pretend to know the truth, they believe in a possible truth. If you meet a pretentious Christian, I apologize, but don't accuse the rest of us. I pretend to know nothing. I believe in many things and I believe that I CAN know these things.

I apologize for calling you a wuss and I thank you for a good discussion.

[Edited on 31-3-2004 by GregoryON520]