Total Posts:148|Showing Posts:121-148|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheism is Faith-based

Jzyehoshua
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 2:31:32 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
To reuse my reasoning from here:

http://www.debate.org...

They have faith there's no God though they can't prove it.

They can't prove there's no God yet trust this is the case. If they simply did not take issue one way or the other they would be agnostic, not atheist. A (no) + gnostic (knowledge), i.E. No knowledge of God, as opposed to A (no) + theist (God) or a strong declaration God does not exist.

If they simply claimed they weren't sure one way or the other, and took the default position of not knowing they would be agnostic, the middle ground or default position. However, atheism is an adamant claim that God does not and cannot exist, a claim as definitive as the theist's that God does exist. A theist trusts that God exists, an atheist trusts that God doesn't exist, and an agnostic doesn't care or isn't sure.

Thus, both theistic and atheistic sides make extraordinary claims which require extraordinary proof; the theist to prove God's existence, and the atheist to prove God's non-existence. Only the agnostic makes no clear declaration, does not trust one side or the other to be true, and needs no burden of proof. Nonetheless, the agnostic's stance is one of ignorance from not investigating the issue or drawing a conclusion one way or the other, and is essentially a dodge of the issue altogether; which doesn't really solve or address anything.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 6:27:51 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/28/2013 2:31:32 AM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
To reuse my reasoning from here:

http://www.debate.org...

They have faith there's no God though they can't prove it.

They can't prove there's no God yet trust this is the case. If they simply did not take issue one way or the other they would be agnostic, not atheist. A (no) + gnostic (knowledge), i.E. No knowledge of God, as opposed to A (no) + theist (God) or a strong declaration God does not exist.

If they simply claimed they weren't sure one way or the other, and took the default position of not knowing they would be agnostic, the middle ground or default position. However, atheism is an adamant claim that God does not and cannot exist, a claim as definitive as the theist's that God does exist. A theist trusts that God exists, an atheist trusts that God doesn't exist, and an agnostic doesn't care or isn't sure.

Thus, both theistic and atheistic sides make extraordinary claims which require extraordinary proof; the theist to prove God's existence, and the atheist to prove God's non-existence. Only the agnostic makes no clear declaration, does not trust one side or the other to be true, and needs no burden of proof. Nonetheless, the agnostic's stance is one of ignorance from not investigating the issue or drawing a conclusion one way or the other, and is essentially a dodge of the issue altogether; which doesn't really solve or address anything.

One supports the side which says a random assertion isn't likely to be true if there isn't any evidence to support it, the other says believe in this random assertion just 'cause. Which requires more faith? Which is reasonable?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 6:18:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/28/2013 6:27:51 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 5/28/2013 2:31:32 AM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
To reuse my reasoning from here:

http://www.debate.org...

They have faith there's no God though they can't prove it.

They can't prove there's no God yet trust this is the case. If they simply did not take issue one way or the other they would be agnostic, not atheist. A (no) + gnostic (knowledge), i.E. No knowledge of God, as opposed to A (no) + theist (God) or a strong declaration God does not exist.

If they simply claimed they weren't sure one way or the other, and took the default position of not knowing they would be agnostic, the middle ground or default position. However, atheism is an adamant claim that God does not and cannot exist, a claim as definitive as the theist's that God does exist. A theist trusts that God exists, an atheist trusts that God doesn't exist, and an agnostic doesn't care or isn't sure.

Thus, both theistic and atheistic sides make extraordinary claims which require extraordinary proof; the theist to prove God's existence, and the atheist to prove God's non-existence. Only the agnostic makes no clear declaration, does not trust one side or the other to be true, and needs no burden of proof. Nonetheless, the agnostic's stance is one of ignorance from not investigating the issue or drawing a conclusion one way or the other, and is essentially a dodge of the issue altogether; which doesn't really solve or address anything.

One supports the side which says a random assertion isn't likely to be true if there isn't any evidence to support it, the other says believe in this random assertion just 'cause. Which requires more faith? Which is reasonable?

Your claim makes a big assumption, i.e., that EVERYONE'S assertion of a god is random. You take what some folks would call the "strong" atheist position. While you consider that more reasonable, there are people who have had spiritual experiences that lead them to believe in a god. (I'm not one of them.)

Based on your experience, and an unwillingness to believe other people's claims of spiritual experience, I'd say you are justified in saying it is more reasonable for you not to believe in any god(s).

I'm an agnostic, or "weak" atheist, because I'm willing to give other people the benefit of the doubt, AND as Hamlet says, to believe that there are more things on heaven and earth than in all MY philosophy (science.)

By the way, I hope that by now the OP has figured out that not all atheists believe the same thing.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 9:13:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
...and another thing...:D

without reading the other 120-odd posts, can I assume that the OP has been told that one of the most basic principles of evidence is that proving a negative is different--usually more difficult--than proving a positive?

One can think of the concept of "innocent until proven guilty."

Wish I'd been a better philosophy student, and could explain this better, but the burden of proof is on those who make a positive claim, not those who are not convinced by that claim.

Just to be clear, and fair, someone who makes the claim that nowhere in this or any other universe at any time past present or future is,was or will there be an all powerful creator that one could call "god", is also to my way of thinking making an unprovable "positive" claim.

To my mind that is the difference between agnostics and "strong" atheists.

http://www.youtube.com...
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 9:35:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'm not going through this thread to see if my question was answered so I'll just restate it:

If we accept atheism is "faith-based," so what?
Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 9:37:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/28/2013 9:13:50 PM, proglib wrote:
...and another thing...:D

without reading the other 120-odd posts, can I assume that the OP has been told that one of the most basic principles of evidence is that proving a negative is different--usually more difficult--than proving a positive?

One can think of the concept of "innocent until proven guilty."

Wish I'd been a better philosophy student, and could explain this better, but the burden of proof is on those who make a positive claim, not those who are not convinced by that claim.

Just to be clear, and fair, someone who makes the claim that nowhere in this or any other universe at any time past present or future is,was or will there be an all powerful creator that one could call "god", is also to my way of thinking making an unprovable "positive" claim.

To my mind that is the difference between agnostics and "strong" atheists.

http://www.youtube.com...

In my mind, by the very definitions, a lack of belief is disbelief, the inability or refusal to accept that God is real and true.

So to say, "I have a lack of belief" is intellectually dishonest, and the purpose of this is to put the burden of proof on Theists.

If you disbelieve without empirical and definitive evidence showing your disbelief to be fact, then you have complete trust or confidence in your disbelief in God, you have faith in God.

And Agnosticism is more about being skeptical, and claiming neither the existence nor the non-existence of God. Atheism by its very definition is the claim of the non-existence of God.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 9:44:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/28/2013 9:37:34 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/28/2013 9:13:50 PM, proglib wrote:
...and another thing...:D

without reading the other 120-odd posts, can I assume that the OP has been told that one of the most basic principles of evidence is that proving a negative is different--usually more difficult--than proving a positive?

One can think of the concept of "innocent until proven guilty."

Wish I'd been a better philosophy student, and could explain this better, but the burden of proof is on those who make a positive claim, not those who are not convinced by that claim.

Just to be clear, and fair, someone who makes the claim that nowhere in this or any other universe at any time past present or future is,was or will there be an all powerful creator that one could call "god", is also to my way of thinking making an unprovable "positive" claim.

To my mind that is the difference between agnostics and "strong" atheists.

http://www.youtube.com...

In my mind, by the very definitions, a lack of belief is disbelief, the inability or refusal to accept that God is real and true.

So to say, "I have a lack of belief" is intellectually dishonest, and the purpose of this is to put the burden of proof on Theists.

That's because that's where it belongs. I'm sorry that you don't like that everyone just take your assertions with no evidence whatsoever, but that's not how life works. If I say you owe me $50, it's my job to show WHY that is. Anyone making a positive assertion has that job.

If you disbelieve without empirical and definitive evidence showing your disbelief to be fact, then you have complete trust or confidence in your disbelief in God, you have faith in God.

No. Again, that's not how rationality works. You really need to learn what words mean, and how claims are justified.

And Agnosticism is more about being skeptical, and claiming neither the existence nor the non-existence of God. Atheism by its very definition is the claim of the non-existence of God.

Agnosticism is, generally, a form of atheism. You've had a hard time with this, even though it's true. I really do think you're talking about "Strong" atheists, who DO have a claim they have to support. But when you say an ENTIRE group has the attributes of a part of the group, you're being bigoted and foolish.

But then, this has been pointed out to you multiple times.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 10:08:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/28/2013 9:37:34 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/28/2013 9:13:50 PM, proglib wrote:
...and another thing...:D

without reading the other 120-odd posts, can I assume that the OP has been told that one of the most basic principles of evidence is that proving a negative is different--usually more difficult--than proving a positive?

One can think of the concept of "innocent until proven guilty."

Wish I'd been a better philosophy student, and could explain this better, but the burden of proof is on those who make a positive claim, not those who are not convinced by that claim.

Just to be clear, and fair, someone who makes the claim that nowhere in this or any other universe at any time past present or future is,was or will there be an all powerful creator that one could call "god", is also to my way of thinking making an unprovable "positive" claim.

To my mind that is the difference between agnostics and "strong" atheists.

http://www.youtube.com...

In my mind, by the very definitions, a lack of belief is disbelief, the inability or refusal to accept that God is real and true.

So to say, "I have a lack of belief" is intellectually dishonest, and the purpose of this is to put the burden of proof on Theists.

If you disbelieve without empirical and definitive evidence showing your disbelief to be fact, then you have complete trust or confidence in your disbelief in God, you have faith in God.

And Agnosticism is more about being skeptical, and claiming neither the existence nor the non-existence of God. Atheism by its very definition is the claim of the non-existence of God.

As far as I can tell some of this is a disagreement over which words to use.

Many people do use the words "atheist" and "agnostic" as you are using them. However, as bladerunner and others point out, that is not the only accepted or acceptable definition.

So I would say the following:

IF one defines "atheist" as someone who believes positively that there is no god or any possibility of a god, now or ever, here or anywhere, then yes, the burden of proof is on that person. I believe the black swan metaphor or something like that might apply. That person is so confident in her experience of the world that she is willing to discount BILLIONS of people believing differently and to have "faith" that the science she understands is enough to explain the universe. IMHO, she can't possibly prove this, though.

I would go further and to say that to my way of thinking any atheist that believes they can PROVE a god does not exist is just as mistaken for offering to prove a negative as someone who demands that they do so.

[NOTE: just to be clear the picture in the youtube was meant to represent me. :D]
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 10:17:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/28/2013 10:10:54 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
To lack belief is to have disbelief, to disbelieve in God is to claim there is no God.

No, as has been pointed out NUMEROUS times, that's not the way it works. Simply not believing your claim does not mean I necessarily say your claim is false, it means I say your claim has no support.

There is a huge difference between the two, and it has been explained to you numerous times.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 10:21:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Belief: An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. Or something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

Disbelief: Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real. Or lack of faith in something.

Do you have a problem with the English language or something? If you lack the acceptance of the statement that God is true and something that exists, you are inable or refusing to accept that God is true and something that exists. This means you do not just "lack a belief in God." This means that you disbelieve in God.

By disbelieving in God, you are making just as much of a claim that God is not true as a Christian is making a claim that God is true.

Atheism is faith-based, deal with it.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 10:34:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/28/2013 10:21:45 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
Belief: An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. Or something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

Disbelief: Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real. Or lack of faith in something.

Do you have a problem with the English language or something? If you lack the acceptance of the statement that God is true and something that exists, you are inable or refusing to accept that God is true and something that exists. This means you do not just "lack a belief in God." This means that you disbelieve in God.

By disbelieving in God, you are making just as much of a claim that God is not true as a Christian is making a claim that God is true.

Atheism is faith-based, deal with it.

I've given you a much needed helping hand by bolding out the bit of the definition you completely ignored but that everyone else keeps telling you is important. I do not believe ridiculous religious claims because there is no evidence to support them and the evidence required to make them credible would need to be substantial. Do I know for certain there is no god? No. Can I say with a fair degree of confidence that a god that relies on logical inconsistencies and contradicts observable facts doesn't exist? Yes. Yes I can.

So, I do not believe I can say with certainty that no god exists, but I can still legitimately claim that certain formulations of god are, according to everything we know and the entire foundation of our linguistic toolset, are a load of balls. Neither of these are faith positions, since the only tools of judgement available to me all tell me the same thing. That is what we mean when we talk of 'certainty' in this sense.
Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 10:39:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/28/2013 10:34:35 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/28/2013 10:21:45 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
Belief: An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. Or something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

Disbelief: Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real. Or lack of faith in something.

Do you have a problem with the English language or something? If you lack the acceptance of the statement that God is true and something that exists, you are inable or refusing to accept that God is true and something that exists. This means you do not just "lack a belief in God." This means that you disbelieve in God.

By disbelieving in God, you are making just as much of a claim that God is not true as a Christian is making a claim that God is true.

Atheism is faith-based, deal with it.

I've given you a much needed helping hand by bolding out the bit of the definition you completely ignored but that everyone else keeps telling you is important. I do not believe ridiculous religious claims because there is no evidence to support them and the evidence required to make them credible would need to be substantial. Do I know for certain there is no god? No. Can I say with a fair degree of confidence that a god that relies on logical inconsistencies and contradicts observable facts doesn't exist? Yes. Yes I can.

So, I do not believe I can say with certainty that no god exists, but I can still legitimately claim that certain formulations of god are, according to everything we know and the entire foundation of our linguistic toolset, are a load of balls. Neither of these are faith positions, since the only tools of judgement available to me all tell me the same thing. That is what we mean when we talk of 'certainty' in this sense.

Then you would lack a complete trust or confidence in God. You are the opposite of Theism. And that is also not the stronger definition. And if you noticed

Going by the definitions of the words, you have disbelief, and not a lack of belief, and without definitive and empirical evidence proving the non-existence of God, it is not a fact, but your faith in the non-existence of God.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 10:45:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/28/2013 10:39:59 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/28/2013 10:34:35 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/28/2013 10:21:45 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:

Disbelief: Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real. Or lack of faith in something.

Going by the definitions of the words, you have disbelief, and not a lack of belief,

I stripped out the contradiction here, since English and the meanings of words seems to be not your strong suit:

lack of faith.

and without definitive and empirical evidence proving the non-existence of God, it is not a fact, but your faith in the non-existence of God.

Again: No.

A lack of faith is just a lack of faith. It is not a faith in the opposite. You see how that works yet?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
StevenDixon
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 10:52:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/28/2013 10:39:59 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/28/2013 10:34:35 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/28/2013 10:21:45 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
Belief: An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. Or something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

Disbelief: Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real. Or lack of faith in something.

Do you have a problem with the English language or something? If you lack the acceptance of the statement that God is true and something that exists, you are inable or refusing to accept that God is true and something that exists. This means you do not just "lack a belief in God." This means that you disbelieve in God.

By disbelieving in God, you are making just as much of a claim that God is not true as a Christian is making a claim that God is true.

Atheism is faith-based, deal with it.

I've given you a much needed helping hand by bolding out the bit of the definition you completely ignored but that everyone else keeps telling you is important. I do not believe ridiculous religious claims because there is no evidence to support them and the evidence required to make them credible would need to be substantial. Do I know for certain there is no god? No. Can I say with a fair degree of confidence that a god that relies on logical inconsistencies and contradicts observable facts doesn't exist? Yes. Yes I can.

So, I do not believe I can say with certainty that no god exists, but I can still legitimately claim that certain formulations of god are, according to everything we know and the entire foundation of our linguistic toolset, are a load of balls. Neither of these are faith positions, since the only tools of judgement available to me all tell me the same thing. That is what we mean when we talk of 'certainty' in this sense.

Then you would lack a complete trust or confidence in God. You are the opposite of Theism. And that is also not the stronger definition. And if you noticed

Going by the definitions of the words, you have disbelief, and not a lack of belief, and without definitive and empirical evidence proving the non-existence of God, it is not a fact, but your faith in the non-existence of God.

A-without theism-belief in god

Without belief in god.

Idc either way though, Unnecessary suffering, consciousness being the result of physical processes(yet god is supposed to be immaterial while still being conscious, wtflux?) as well as it not making any coherent sense for an eternal being just happening to exist forever that just happened to be loving, all powerful, etc.(Does no one think about how incomprehensible that is? THis thing...just exists, for no reason...forever and has all of these crazy abilities...for no reason, it just does) tagged along with no reasons to believe, are good reasons to doubt the abrahamic god as most define him. I have good reasons for my belief, it's not just complete trust based on nothing.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 12:25:41 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/28/2013 10:21:45 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:

Atheism is faith-based, deal with it.

Justified faith. In contrast to unjustified faith which people demonstrate by following religions.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Sower4GS
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 5:37:25 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
There are many religions but only one way, Yahshua the Mashiach sent froth by the Father who is YHWH, they are Echad (One) and Have existed forever.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 5:43:43 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Do you think your incessant, irrelevant evangelism does anything but alienate the people you're (presumably) trying to get to? Because it doesn't. Try engaging people as people, rather than just parroting old literature at them.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 10:28:57 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/29/2013 5:37:25 AM, Sower4GS wrote:
There are many religions but only one way, Yahshua the Mashiach sent froth by the Father who is YHWH, they are Echad (One) and Have existed forever.

How?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Sower4GS
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 10:46:31 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
You can ask them when you see them, just follow the Master!
They are not of this world, you are so it will be a looooooonnnng answer, you will have eternity to receive the answer. Faith and trust, use it.
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 3,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 10:55:39 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Never understood what posts like this were trying to prove. Yes, I have faith in that my observations and senses are true and give me an accurate representation of what is really happening. I have faith in logic and so on. How does that undermine my beliefs? I don't need to have faith in atheism to be one, though. I just need to believe that, given the "proof" for God I've seen up to now, nothing is enough to make me think that God is likely to exist.
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 11:30:02 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/29/2013 10:46:31 AM, Sower4GS wrote:
You can ask them when you see them, just follow the Master!
They are not of this world, you are so it will be a looooooonnnng answer, you will have eternity to receive the answer. Faith and trust, use it.

Nahh, I need the answer now. There are many wild claims about many different deities and transcendent happenings, so why should I trust the claims if the people making them don't even really understand what they themselves are claiming, let alone being able to provide any reasonable evidence.

Also, they are not my master, I have no master.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 4:17:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/28/2013 9:35:23 PM, drafterman wrote:
I'm not going through this thread to see if my question was answered so I'll just restate it:

If we accept atheism is "faith-based," so what?

As far as I can tell, no, your question has not been answered, at least not directly.

My answer, as an agnostic--i.e., weak atheist/weak believer that there may be a higher power that approaches what some religions point to*--is that the type of faith intended here is a faith in something not susceptible to empirical evidence.

The semantics involved in the word "faith" together with the word "atheist" leads to such strong disagreements, IMHO.

It seems folks are either not able, or unwilling to look beyond the semantics, and give each other the benefit of the doubt. And some are so evangelical [for AND against a belief in God or gods] that they don't want to see the other point of view.

* [definition provided not for you drafterman, but for some of the folks who seem to have semantic difficulty with the term "atheist."]
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 4:20:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/30/2013 4:17:15 PM, proglib wrote:
At 5/28/2013 9:35:23 PM, drafterman wrote:
I'm not going through this thread to see if my question was answered so I'll just restate it:

If we accept atheism is "faith-based," so what?

As far as I can tell, no, your question has not been answered, at least not directly.

My answer, as an agnostic--i.e., weak atheist/weak believer that there may be a higher power that approaches what some religions point to*--is that the type of faith intended here is a faith in something not susceptible to empirical evidence.

The semantics involved in the word "faith" together with the word "atheist" leads to such strong disagreements, IMHO.

It seems folks are either not able, or unwilling to look beyond the semantics, and give each other the benefit of the doubt. And some are so evangelical [for AND against a belief in God or gods] that they don't want to see the other point of view.

* [definition provided not for you drafterman, but for some of the folks who seem to have semantic difficulty with the term "atheist."]

The problem is that "faith" is a word with connotative baggage. And when those who believe in religion talk about "faith", they aren't talking about the same kind of "faith" that everyone has in, say, a real world (non-solipsism) or rationality (which they accept everywhere else).

This entire thread is about making a false equivalency.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 5:04:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/30/2013 4:20:53 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/30/2013 4:17:15 PM, proglib wrote:
At 5/28/2013 9:35:23 PM, drafterman wrote:
I'm not going through this thread to see if my question was answered so I'll just restate it:

If we accept atheism is "faith-based," so what?

As far as I can tell, no, your question has not been answered, at least not directly.

My answer, as an agnostic--i.e., weak atheist/weak believer that there may be a higher power that approaches what some religions point to*--is that the type of faith intended here is a faith in something not susceptible to empirical evidence.

The semantics involved in the word "faith" together with the word "atheist" leads to such strong disagreements, IMHO.

It seems folks are either not able, or unwilling to look beyond the semantics, and give each other the benefit of the doubt. And some are so evangelical [for AND against a belief in God or gods] that they don't want to see the other point of view.

* [definition provided not for you drafterman, but for some of the folks who seem to have semantic difficulty with the term "atheist."]

The problem is that "faith" is a word with connotative baggage. And when those who believe in religion talk about "faith", they aren't talking about the same kind of "faith" that everyone has in, say, a real world (non-solipsism) or rationality (which they accept everywhere else).

This entire thread is about making a false equivalency.

You have faith that we're not all spam-bots and that the food you eat isn't poison, therefore you are the same as the Jedi who have faith in the Force. Amen.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2013 11:18:56 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/30/2013 5:04:41 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 5/30/2013 4:20:53 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/30/2013 4:17:15 PM, proglib wrote:
At 5/28/2013 9:35:23 PM, drafterman wrote:
I'm not going through this thread to see if my question was answered so I'll just restate it:

If we accept atheism is "faith-based," so what?

As far as I can tell, no, your question has not been answered, at least not directly.

My answer, as an agnostic--i.e., weak atheist/weak believer that there may be a higher power that approaches what some religions point to*--is that the type of faith intended here is a faith in something not susceptible to empirical evidence.

The semantics involved in the word "faith" together with the word "atheist" leads to such strong disagreements, IMHO.

It seems folks are either not able, or unwilling to look beyond the semantics, and give each other the benefit of the doubt. And some are so evangelical [for AND against a belief in God or gods] that they don't want to see the other point of view.

* [definition provided not for you drafterman, but for some of the folks who seem to have semantic difficulty with the term "atheist."]

The problem is that "faith" is a word with connotative baggage. And when those who believe in religion talk about "faith", they aren't talking about the same kind of "faith" that everyone has in, say, a real world (non-solipsism) or rationality (which they accept everywhere else).

This entire thread is about making a false equivalency.

You have faith that we're not all spam-bots and that the food you eat isn't poison, therefore you are the same as the Jedi who have faith in the Force. Amen.

praise Einstein! (random scientific genius; no need to divert the thread to whether he believed in God or not
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 3:15:14 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/25/2013 10:08:12 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
Faith is defined as the complete trust or confidence in something.

Atheists do not have definitive and empirical evidence that God is not real.

Therefore they have faith that God is not real.
I reject your claim and every other claim that god exists. Show me where FAITH is a factor in that statement.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.