Where did you get the idea that atheism doesn't acknowledge human fallibility? I don't KNOW that there is isn't a god, I just lack the belief that there is one. I could change my mine tomorrow. How is that infallible? Do you believe in Orpheus or Dionysus? Do you believe in Ba'al? Do you believe in Rama or Lakshmi?
It's simple. Faith = Believing something without any evidence showing it's true. Therefore, it's only logical to conclude that there is no way to PROVE or DISPROVE the existence of a God, so not only is theism irrational, but so is Atheism. Atheism rejects the existence of a deity. That's pretty much what atheism is. It is the complete rejection of any type of knowable or conceivable deity. The reason why I said earlier that atheism requires faith, is because there is no way to prove that deities don't exist, and therefore, the most logical conclusion is to be cautiously skeptic, and not be authoritatively positive in your atheism. Which is why, I said that most people who claim they're 'atheists' are not purely atheists, they're agnostic atheists because they know they are incapable of disproving (or proving) God's existence, but they don't delude themselves into being 100% SURE THAT GOD CANNOT EXIST NO MATTER WHAT. That's what we're trying to say. If you can't wrap your head around that... well, there's no hope.
Aside from your typos Good Sir you are absolutely correct. disbelief - doubt about the truth of something There is no faith involved. faith - firm belief in something for which there is no proof The Agnostic on the other hand sits on the fence, aware that there very well could be a "God" or higher being in control of the Earth and/or universe but still acknowledges that there is a lack of evidence to prove such claims. Atheism is spiritually and philosophically immature in my opinion. So is agnosticism. Religion in general on the other hand is nothing more than bullshit and balderdash. This leaves the truth seeker and the lover of wisdom to search their own path of existence, for only experience alone can transform theory and logical reasoning into not belief, but knowledge.
But by definition, they ARE atheists. Atheism is just 'not believing in god'. Doesn't matter what the reasoning is behind it (ie, whether they believe there can be no god no matter what - or knowing that it can't be proven either way, but just choose to not believe due to lack of evidence), they are still atheists. Agnostics tend to be people who are still searching for what they believe, and are just unsure... Atheists, for the most part, are no longer searching. They're firm in their beliefs, but not so naive as to totally refute the possibility of there being a god. Werd!
A bit of wisdom from Homer Simpson- "Faith is what you have in something that's not real!" Lol, a closet atheist if I ever saw one.
You're not wrong, but there is a huge difference between being an agnostic and an athiest. Agnostic atheism is a middle ground, and is the most rational position, imo. This is just conjecture, but again, you're missing the point. I'm not saying athiests are agnostics, I'm saying that objectively, the most rational stance on disbelief in religion is agnostic atheism, because agnostic atheists don't delude themselves into believing there is NO WAY a diety can exist (AKA Faith), and they reject theism. Atheism rejects faith, but on the contrary takes a very faith-based position that THERE'S NO WAY GOD CAN EXIST.
Again, you're proving my point for me. Faith = belief in something. Atheism = lack of belief. I can wrap your brain around what you are saying, I just reject it in the same way that I reject the idea of god. I also find it extremely condescending that you feel like you need to tell others what they believe. Again, atheism does not mean being "100% SURE THAT GOD CANNOT EXIST NO MATTER WHAT" Being an atheist simply means that I don't believe in god. My belief is not infallible, it's not "100%". Don't read more into it then what is really there. Agnosticism is an uncertainty. I'm not an agnostic because I'm not uncertain of my beliefs. That doesn't mean my beliefs can't be proven wrong, and that doesn't mean that my beliefs won't change in the future. But for now, I simply don't believe. That's not faith. It's the lack of it. (unless it's opposite day)
I think we're not all in agreement with the terms knowledge, belief, faith and evidence here. (And A[gnosticism] and A[theism] as well.) This shit's hurting my head.
Aren't your beliefs based on what you KNOW? This seems nonsensical to me. Again, I think you're just tricking us with the semantics of your wording since your lack of belief can be phrased as "I believe God doesn't exist" and mean the exact same thing. I can say that I lack belief in x but what I'm really saying is I believe that x doesn't exist. With atheism you are still making a judgment about whether or not God exists. A belief is still present... the fact that you can say you lack belief is just an accident of the fact that you are on the negative side. You still have a belief, as opposed to an agnostic who reserves judgment on the matter. By your own words you admit you are agnostic: If atheism wasn't a belief there would be nothing to argue against believers since it wouldn't assume a position. I do. I believe in the allegorical, transcendent, truthful concepts that their stories were originally created to represent. Basically you've told us that you don't know whether God exists, yet you don't believe God exists.
I'm not telling people what they do and don't believe in, I'm simply saying that you guys misunderstand what you believe in. And no, Atheism is not lack of belief, Atheism is the rejection of deities. Dictionary.com a·the·ism /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA –noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god. Wikipedia.org Atheism is commonly described as the position that there are no deities.[1] It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[2] A broader meaning is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is distinguished from theism,[4] which in its most general form is belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6] Look anywhere else. Atheism is not simply the rejection of faith, it's the rejection and outright assumption (Remember, we cannot prove OR disprove the existence of a God/deity) that there are no Gods/dieties. You just proved my point. Faith is when you believe something, even when it can or can't be proved. We can't disprove the existence of God. Therefore, you have faith that God doesn't exist. You're conflating faith, and automatically assuming faith MUST MEAN THAT YOU BELIEVE IN A GOD. No. Faith means you can believe in ANYTHING without evidence. I can believe there's UFO's that visit the Earth every day, but there's no evidence to support my position. THAT is faith. Saying that there's 'no god', and being certain, is FAITH. Agnostic atheism is basically atheism, but as an extension, it says 'I'm an atheist because I can't possibly come to ab objective conclusion. So yes, you are faithful in your atheism if you really truly believe what you just typed in the paragraph I quoted above.
Still... we're not claiming to have knowledge of God's (non)existence; we just don't believe God exists. We're Atheist. And Agnostic.
I spit out what I was drinking after I read this. It is really quite something to assert that you know how and why an idea was made thousands of years ago.
I find it sad that you have so little control over your bodily functions... get a grip, dude. These kind of outbursts could get expensive. Typical response from somebody who doesn't have the understanding necessary to know what religious texts are truly talking about. To suggest that the utility of a writing can't be determined by its contents is ludicrous. Furthermore, I sincerely hope you don't do the same thing you accuse me of doing. You probably have your own version of why religious texts were written that asserts the people who wrote them were basically retards trying to explain natural events in terms of complex allegory and fables.
religious texts were written by people, like us. that means that human fallacy is ALL OVER religious texts. i gotta agree with Aero18 here - it's pretty amazing that people don't realize how ridiculous it is to believe in something that was written thousands of years ago. Religion is the sole concept that people still believe in from that time period.
Of course religion is man's inadequate and imperfect way of communicating the incommunicable. That's why it must be subject to reason, instead of dismissed altogether on a vague ad hominem basis that its too old.
well - i agree with that. i definitely respect followers of religion who understand that adaptations in their beliefs have to be made according to the age we live in and how society has progressed.
have we figured out how to consistently recreate experiential evidence in a lab yet? i suppose believing in experience is just silly anyway. for all i know this is a dream
Why did you leave out the second half of that definition: 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. When you are talking about theism and religion, faith very specifically means the belief in god. What is the opposite of having a belief in god? Again, Look at the dictionary definition of Atheism in relation to the belief in god: 1. A belief that there is no god Here is the thesaurus definition of "Faith", in relation to god: 3. belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion Because we are specifically discussing god, and the belief/disbelief, THIS is the definition that counts. They are the exact opposites of each other. Now, let's look at the second definition of Atheism: 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. What does the thesaurus have to say about faith: Main Entry: \tfaith Part of Speech: \tnoun Definition: \tbelief in a higher being; community of believers Synonyms: \tcanon, church, communion, confession, connection, conviction, credo, creed, cult, denomination, doctrine, dogma, doxy, gospel, orthodoxy, persuasion, piety, piousness, principle, profession, religion, revelation, sect, teaching, tenet, theism, theology, worship Antonyms: agnosticism, denial, doubt, rejection, skepticism, unbelief See?? THEY ARE OPPOSITES. I suppose now someone is going to argue what the meaning of Antonym is. For even further proof, let's see how the encyclopedia defines faith: Faith inner attitude, conviction, or trust relating man to a supreme God or ultimate salvation. In religious traditions stressing divine grace, it is the inner certainty or attitude of love granted by God himself. In Christian theology, faith is the divinely inspired human response to God's historical revelation through Jesus Christ and, consequently, is of crucial significance. Again, isn't atheism the OPPOSITE of this? How can two things be defined as opposites, yet be the same thing?
So do you completely reject the first definition and allege that disbelief in gods isn't in itself a belief that gods don't exist? The opposite of having a belief in the existence of God is not having no belief regarding the matter at all. The opposite is believing that God doesn't exist. Obviously, atheism can't have the third definition of faith as it pertains to belief in God. You can't rig the definitions in your favor and throw others out. The primary, less narrow definitions of "faith" still apply to anybody who believes without evidence. Nobody alleged that atheists have the third definition of faith... you are arguing against nobody at this point. Um, they aren't opposites, even according to your cherry-picked definitions. It very clearly lists "agnosticism" as an antonym for faith, not "atheism."
So are people who don't believe in Buddah, Abuddists? What about people who don't believe in karma, Akarmists? You see what I'm getting at here?