Atheism isn't a beleif either, by that reasoning. I don't beleive 'god' exists. I'm suspending my judgement until I have proof otherwise. It isn't faith that leads me to beleive this. It's lack of reason to do so. It doesn't take a conscious effort to not beleive something, whereas beleif in something does. I don't have 'faith' that the yeti isn't real. I have no reason to think that it is. Requires no faith to make that call, on my part.
Lack of belief in God = assertion that God doesn't exist... how could you disagree with this? The only difference are the semantics of how its worded. Somebody can't lack belief in God without asserting that God doesn't exist. The two mean the same thing, one is just stated passively and the other actively. You don't think beliefs always assert knowledge?
This is just semantics, dude. What I bolded is still a belief, its just worded conversely. It's the exact same thing as "I believe 'god' doesn't exist."
The familiar argument, translated: "Atheists believe without evidence that gods have no evidence of existing." This makes zero sense to me.
It doesn't take evidence to disbelieve something, if there is no evidence pointing torwards belief. Why beleive something completely baseless? I sincerely doubt anyone here beleives in a Anubis or Ra. It doesn't take faith to to not beleive in them. We have no evidence to say they don't exist, but we have no evidence saying they do either. It takes effort to beleive something. Remaining the same with no reason to change doesn't. It's effortless. Faithless. Edit- Someone had a good argument a while back.. It wasn't Occams razor.. It was.. Argh. I can't remember what it was called exactly but it stated that, "If there is no evidence to lead someone to believe something, then the most logical explanation is to not beleive." (I worded it like a five year old, it was more profound then that.. ) If you start out not beleiving, it doesn't take faith to stay the same.
Even if I did believe that gods have no evidence of existing, that still wouldn't lead me to believe that they don't exist. The existence of God is a much more vague and ambiguous matter than the easily settled matter of the existence of something physical like fairies. Better, I think, to at least suspend judgment until positive evidence (which will be philosophical, not scientific) emerges. I first went from being atheist to agnostic upon realizing that humans are infallible and our knowledge is severely limited - its not too hard to believe that evidence for God does exist, but we just don't know about it. I believe in the metaphysical concepts they represent. Religion doesn't assert the physical existence of anything not scientifically provable. Any appearance to the contrary is faulty interpretation.
Atheism is the lack of belief. Got this from a site: Perhaps it would also help to examine what a religion is. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, in its article on Religion, lists some characteristics of religions. The more markers that are present in a belief system, the more "religious like" it is. Because it allows for broader grey areas in the concept of religion, I prefer this over more simplistic definitions we can find in basic dictionaries. Read the list and see how atheism fares : 1. Belief in supernatural beings (gods). 2. A distinction between sacred and profane objects. 3. Ritual acts focused on sacred objects. 4. A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods. 5. Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual, and which are connected in idea with the gods. 6. Prayer and other forms of communication with gods. 7. A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it. 8. A more or less total organization of one's life based on the world view. 9. A social group bound together by the above. To try and claim that atheism is a religion requires, it should be pretty obvious from the above, a radical ad hoc redefinition in what it is that "being a religion" is supposed to mean, resulting in a radically equivocal use of the new term-- if atheism is a religion, then just what isn't a religion?
I don't think anyone was implying that it was a religion. Edward was right ( I think it was ed who said it) it's a matter fo semantics, and doesn't matter either way. Even if i'm wrong, I don't think I am, but even if I am it doesn't matter. It's all just a matter of wording. But I truly don't feel that it takes faith to believe something that has no evidence suggesting otherwise and will argue until proven wrong. Atheism is not based on the same beleif system as religion. It isn't.
Ah, maybe I didn't follow the thread. The part I highlighted, I don't follow... If you don't have faith it exists, what else is there?
I think you may be stretching it a bit. They don't have belief in God I don't understand why you think this equals that they have to have a faith in order to believe this. There are different types of faith; Religious faith, Faith in a concept, etc. which one are you talking about?
Exactly. Atheism isn't a belief. It's not a religion. It's not faith based. It is the LACK of faith, religion and belief. I don't believe in unicorns, faeries or elves. Not because of faith, but because I am older then 9 and have common sense. Not believing in Unicorns, Faeries or Elves wouldn't be defined as a religion either.
So anything you don't believe, you're in a faith based position? I don't believe in fairies, nor do the majority of people, they are all in a faith based position?
Centuries ago, a guy named Copernicus said the Sun was at the center of the solar system. Because he could not prove it, the view of the antiquities (that the heavens were unchanging and revolved around the Earth) went unswayed. In the next century, a guy named Galileo finally proved him right. I think this demonstrates the fundamental problem with (ED: aggressive) atheism. It is asserted that a god cannot exist because it can't be observed, most often pointing to science. Some scientists believe there may be 11 dimensions in spacetime that we haven't even observed yet. Who knows what awaits us? Nearly a century passed before Galileo proved the Sun was at the center of the solar system after Copernicus proposed it. Though it was unproven, it was true the whole time. If I go back to that time and suggest there are black holes in the universe, they will tell me it can't be because they can't prove it. Yet those black holes will be out there every day until they do. I don't know if there is a god. I have no reason to believe there is. This seems like the fairest possible position.
I think most atheists would consider a deity if proof were found. It's just that there is ZERO evidence for a god at the moment.
Atheism. These seem to contradict each other. I guess it's not too hard to believe evidence for god exists, but then it is just as likely that evidence for an infinite amount of deities to exist so this point is moot.
I asked what else there is, if believing something that has no evidence requires no faith? Okay, take a god as an example.