Atheism Is A Faith Based Position

Discussion in 'Religion, Beliefs and Spirituality' started by mrgoodsmoke, Apr 24, 2010.

  1. But this discussion is about theism, so therefore the theist definition of faith is what applies here. The theist and/or religious definition of faith is a belief in god.

    Atheism is the opposite of that.

    If you want to use the term "faith" to define anything that someone does or doesn't believe in, then you're really watering down the the meaning of the word.
  2. No you see, I'm what people call an atheist. I don't go around all day thinking theres no god theres no god. That would be like characterizing christians as going around thinking theres no such thing as leperchauns all day.

    I see no proof of god so I don't concern my self with the notion. What are you going to label people non-leperchaunists if they don't believe in leperchauns? Or what about people who think the dinosaurs were real? Adinosuarists obviously. I myslef am a dinosaurist though because there is credible evidence to support dinosaurs.

    Do you see how silly this whole thing is?
  3. So, we all have faith in our belief that an invisible, intangible, undetectable unicorn doesn't float above our heads at all times?
  4. What'd I miss?:D

    Edit- Awwuh. No one made a decent argument for why atheism is a faith based venture.

    Well, I guess i'll just go get high... :(
  5. Okay, well I'm talking about having faith in the existence of god, not faith in god him(her, it)self.

    How? Why, if there is no god, does the term faith have some superfluous connotation? Everybody believes in something, even if they believe nothing.

    Without what I guess you could call 'subjective extentions' the brain function is the same: conscious decision making. It's the same thing, only different. :smoking:
  6. #66 TearDownGod, Apr 25, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2010
    There needs to be a line drawn between the kind of faith religious people have and faith as in beleif in something. They're different. In a few arguments it seems like the differences are being obscured.

    Edit- Whoop whoop cottons
  7. :hello:

    By that logic, you have faith in chairs - because when you sit down you trust it will support your weight. You have faith the sun will rise - when there's no guarantee it will... There are different ways to interpret the word faith. Religious faith is a belief in something without having any proof whatsoever... Non-religious faith (like faith that a chair will support your weight when you sit on it) is more like knowledge gained from experience, rather than blindly believing in something which has absolutely no evidence supporting it whatsoever.

    Or in other words... Religious faith is blind belief, without any supporting evidence. Non religious faith is a logical conclusion which is usually based off observable evidence. There is a HUGE difference in the two.

    Nor is there for god... So what makes god more believable than fairies? Neither one of them has any solid evidence supporting their existence. There are a lot of people who believe things like faeries DO exist, just as there are people who believe god exists... And just like people believed in Zeus, Hercules, and all those other gods (which everyone now accepts as non-existent)... So what makes any of the current gods more real than any of those commonly accepted as just being ancient myths/legends? Is it maybe the fact that you believe in god, and don't want to be wrong? Let me ask you this... Would you still believe, if no one had ever told you about god?

    Belief in god is taught. It's passed down by people who had it passed down to them. There is no proof/evidence to back it up. It's simply blind faith, in ancient traditions.

    I wish I could rep you for your last few posts... But I gotta spread it around first.

  8. this was what I was kind of saying in an earlier post. Religious faith is different from believing in a concept.

  9. Precisely. :hello:

    Those legs can break, and tomorrow may never come.

    The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

    What definition of God do you use? What religion do you refer to? People see evidence of some sort of omniscient creator in their lives, just as others see evidence of none whatsoever, everyday.

    A person can point to a starving child and claim it as evidence of no god. A person can point to the compassion in the heart of the person who feeds the starving child and claim it evidence of god.

    Who's right? With so many connotations and dogmatic variables, a rock can be evidence of god for somebody. It's an entirely circular debate.

    God is eternal, whether or not one exists.
  10. I never get that religious sounding shit.. 'god is eternal whether he exists or not.'

    What does this even mean?! Aaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh the religious need to speak in a way that non-beleivers can understand. this might as well be a different language.

  11. It means the argument lasts forever. :D:laughing:

  12. God is an argument?! OH NO. My beleif system... ruined.. :(

    Lol. Nahh.

  13. Roflllllll. I never understood what the fuck these people were talking about.
    "God is eternal"
    "All is one"

    I'd love it for someone to explain in detail just one of these statements. Just so I understand what you're trying to say.

    EDIT: actually I was moreso talking about the hippe/psychedelic mumbojumbo talk

  14. I may not believe in god, but many people do, and faith plays an important part in a lot of people's lives.

    To call atheism "faith based" really just makes a mockery out of the beliefs of both theists and non-theists.

    If one says they have faith in god, that goes much deeper then just trusting that you're chair won't break. If someone says they have no faith, then who are you to tell them they are wrong?
  15. Atheism's 'disbelief' in gods is of course logical, there is no evidence for god. Would you say it would be illogical not to believe in fairies? (we keep coming back to this).

    Your second paragraph; isn't that just the argument, "You can't prove he DOESN'T exist." No, but you can let your blind faith lead you where it will.

    I don't need an imaginary friend.

  16. That dude ete3 or whatever it is always says energy=god and types THE most stupid sounding, basless irrelevent shit i've ever heard. He's the epitome of who your refering too.

    I wish he would learn:rolleyes:

    Edit- I agree with penelope. It offends me to think that anyone could equate my beleifs with the baseless faith of a religious person. It's like there putting fucking words in my mouth and telling me how I feel and WHY. Fuck that.
  17. #77 H2O420, Apr 25, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2010

    I'm not sure what you're talking about, but you're still using faith in the wrong sense. Well, wrong relative to what I'm talking about.

    "Faith in the evidence of the non-existence of god". It's really that simple. The concept of submitting your will to external forces. E.g. "evidence".

    EDIT: For example, in the OP:

  18. I thought we invented the concept of 0 thousands of years ago?

    Oh well, atheism is not Faith based, it is evidence based.
  19. Yes, the legs on the chair CAN break... But we can look at the legs, and see (prior to sitting) if the chair is sturdy/able to support our weight.

    Faith in god is different, however. When you believe that there's this all power being that's responsible for everything we have here... You'd expect there to be some form of observable evidence... Not subjective theories... Your starving child illustration just goes to show that there's always that room for interpretation... Whereas the faith you have when sitting in a chair is based off the fact that you've likely sat in other chairs, at one time or another... And because those other chairs have successfully held your weight, you can confidently know that the chair you're about to sit in will also support your weight.

    No such thing can be said of any god... Because there will always be another possibility, other than god. That starving child may be starving because there's no god, just as easily as he could be starving because god 'has a greater purpose for his life'... But there's always that potential that he's not there, and the person exhibiting the faith is just reading too much into it.

    If there were a god, I think there'd be at least some observable proof. Why would we have to exercise blind faith? Where's the reasoning in that?

    And keeping with the OP... I believe calling atheism 'faith based' is kind of a stretch. We do not have faith that there isn't a god. We simply just don't see anything conclusive enough that would lead us to believe he/she/it's there. Instead, we prefer to judge our personal truths based on things we can observe, rather than just blindly believing in something because it might be there.

  20. It's not that simple.

    Atheism is not "faith in the evidence of the non-existence of god". That sentence alone makes my brain hurt, it is so wrong. It's like a double negative. You can not have "evidence of non-existence".

    Atheism is the "lack of faith, because there is a lack of evidence".

    I know that it seems like semantics, but the difference is profound.

Share This Page