To atheists: Don't you need "faith" to not believe in god?

[ringmastery]

It seems the only intellectually rational position is to be agnostic. We don't know if there is a god. We can't know if there is a god.

To be an atheist and say there is no god requires the same "faith" that believers in god have.

[Goldmund]

1. Only if it takes "faith"...

...to believe that sun will rise tomorrow morning, or that you'll get wet if you go outside in the rain.

If that falls under your definition of "faith", I agree.

[Az]

2. Look at the word

Theist means someone who believes in god or gods. The prefix 'a' means without. Thus an atheist (despite what some may insist) is simply a person that is without a belief in god or gods.

Do you have to maintain faith that there are no smurfs in the world. You are certainly an asmurfist if you do not believe in smurfs. But you do not have to distinguish yourself as an asmurfist because there is not significant number of people claiming there are smurfs.

There may be atheists that do declare in a positive argument that there is no god. But they run into some logical issues that may dull their claims. Suffice to say, a person does not have to have faith in the absense of a belief.

[Zomby Woof]

5. LOL!

An "Asmurfist"!! :D You coined a timeless word, Az.

Personally, I would find the existence of smurfs more credible if there was more than one female in the species. That just doesn't help make a case for the viability of natural selection for blue-skinned anthropomorphic creatures!

[Fenris]

9. They all got their chance with the female smurf

My theory is that the smurfs only have one female for every generation, and everyone has sex with her. Eventually, after giving birth to countless male smurfs, she pushes out a female. Thus the species is propagated!

If the female smurf gets sick and dies however, smurfdom is doomed. That's why smurfs don't exist. They became extinct after two generations.

[thebaghwan]

12. Bush wants to ban Smurf marriages also.

n/t

[lazarus]

61. Why do you think they're blue?

Only one female...

[Interrobang]

45. Speaking as a semanticist and rhetorician...

I have to point out that there's a signficant semantic difference between saying:

I do NOT believe in deities

and

I BELIEVE that deities DO NOT exist.

The first claim makes no claim as to whether deities exist or not, it's simply a positive statement of personal fact. The second is a statement of faith.

Second thing: I think you're confusing Blind Faith with empirical evidence. One needs Blind Faith to believe in deities. One only needs empirical evidence to observe the world and draw conclusions therefrom.

[BurtWorm]

3. Most atheists are agnostic in the sense of not having knowledge of God

but the difference for me is that agnostics are in a sort of state of suspension, ready to believe if given sufficient evidence. Atheists merely are lacking belief in God--literally "a-theism" = without theism. I would agree that it does take faith to be a strong atheist, i.e., someone who believes there is no God. It doesn't take faith, however, to lack belief in something.

[Fenris]

6. There are a lot of dogmatic atheists

But there are an equal number of rational atheists, who have reasoned arguments against God's existence, or more precisely, against the existence of a personal deity.

I will say this: "I don't believe that God exists" is not the same as "I believe God does not exist".

[BigMcLargehuge]

7. you are correct fenris!

this is an argument I have often. TO use the first sentence "I do not believe God exists" provides a logical acceptance of God's existance, the question is one of the subject's belief. I always use the second sentence.

:)

[Zero Gravitas]

19. Right.

I suppose technically I'm an agnostic, but consider myself an atheist.

Another way to look at this is this: there are many religions on Earth and as far as the number, origins and powers of the various gods they believe in go they are completely contradictory. As far as I can see all of these variations are equally (un)likely, for instance there is no logical reason to believe that Judeo-Christan monotheism is more likely than Hindu pantheism.

So basically I see no reason to believe in any gods. Postulating the existence of god(s) does not answer any questions about the universe and there is no evidence of the existence of god(s), so I see no reason to believe in god(s).

[Az]

15. The words really speak to different issues

Theism/Atheism speak to belief and Gnostic/Agnostic speak to kowledge. Their definitions have been caught up in political/social definitions but an examination of what is intended behind each position may give more creadance to some alternate definitions.

Let us move along the definitions as such to clear up confusions.

Theist: A person that believes in god or gods. Nothing is known beyond this. How they came to believe, what sect if any they belong to. We only know from this that they have a belief in god or gods.

Atheist: From the word Theist with the prefix 'a' meaning without. Simply someone that is without a belief in god or gods. Again we know nothing about the evolution of their particuar beliefs from this other than the simple fact that they do not have a belief in god or gods.

Gnostic: To know a thing in the absolute sense. A gnostic is someone that has direct experience of a thing. It is difficult to determine if someone is truly a gnostic or simply believes themself to be because of the indeterminit nature of subjective experience.

Agnostic: Someone that is without absolute knowledge. This is someone that has a belief but does not know absolutely that their belief is true.

We can have any combination of these terms along compatible axis.

Agnostic Atheist: Someone that does not believe in god or gods but does not have absolute knowledge of this as a fact. They simply have not yet come across an argument or evidence for god that gives them cause to believe.

Agnostic Theist: Believes in god but cannot be absolutely sure. Unswayed by refutations claimed by atheists they still maintain their belief in god.

Gnostic Atheist: Does not believe in gods and has absolute knowledge of the matter. An untenable position. Requires absolute knowledge of the universe. If you meet someone that claims this position they may simply misunderstand the nature of logic.

Gnostic Theist: Believes in god and has had direct contact/experience of god. Problematic in that they may not be able to demonstrate that their knowlegde is not derived from various neurological factors. If god does exist this would be the only valid gnostic stance but still difficult to demostrate to others.

In the flow of logical dialog an issue is stated in a positive sense. The claimant then provides evidence backing their position. The skeptic attempts to refute their evidence and if succesful is said to have disproved their claim. The claim is then discarded or restated with new supporting evidence and the cycle repeats.

Since the theist stance is the positive claim they are responsible for the proverbial burden of proof. Without a theist making a claim that there is a god the atheist has no issue to even discuss. Atheism is a purely reactionary position. They are notable only in their refutation of the theistic claims.

[Zero Gravitas]

23. Gnostic Theist

I would argue that being a Gnostic Theist is just as untenable a position as being a Gnostic Atheist.

[Az]

24. Not quite

Assume there is a god. Then a theist can actually experience knowledge of that god. Difficult to prove but possible to be within that context.

[Zero Gravitas]

26. I see your point

hmmm... "difficult" or "impossible" to prove though? Assuming the theist's experience of god is "personal" and not for instance a 300ft blue woman with 8 arms making the Sun explode with a word, how can even the theist be certain that what he or she experienced was not the effects of an inadvertently ingested hallucinogen or some other mind-altering effect?

[Az]

29. Exactly

This is why it is stuck as a subjective argument and cannot cross over. It is dependent on the nature of the universe and even their experience cannot inform them of whether they got it right. It could just be the effects of their lunch or it could be god. It is merely a factor of their belief of the situation combined with the truth of their experience. Thus no one but the presumed god can know whether a gnostic theist is right, including the individual themself.

[Pithlet]

55. Then, based on those definitions.

I'm an agnostic. I often refer to myself as atheist, or atheist/agnostic, though. But the definition of agnostic most closely fits me.

[Az]

57. Agnostic is just a qualifier

You still have or do not have a belief in god or gods. Thus you would be an agnostic atheist or theist depending on what your current belief was.

[Kolesar]

4. As a matter of a fact, my faith in atheism has been tested

A member of my family was maimed in an automobile accident and, despite being a non-believer, I found myself trying to talk to God while I sat in the hospital lounge watching a beautiful summer sky over Youngstown. It has been 15 years and I remember it like last week.

It happened to me yesterday when I was hugging this 12 year old golden retriever that loves me dearly. We are taking her to the vet in a few hours to see what this growth on her leg is. She has been limping.

[smirkymonkey]

60. Dog is God spelled backward!!

[BlueEyedSon]

8. Quote o' the week

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
-- Stephen Roberts

[Az]

16. Hey, thats a friend of mine

We used to be SOPs together in Dalnet #atheism debate. Great guy. Great quote. Ok, name dropping done.

[Blue-Jay]

22. That's brilliant!

I'm gonna use that one.

<yoink>

[BlueEyedSon]

28. Hey Jay, great minds think alike

WAAASSSAAAAA DOOOD?!?!
From one "Blue" to another...
:)

[BiggJawn]

10. No, actually.

We're not talking intellect here, we're talking proofs.
As of yet, nobody has deleivered a verifiable proof as to the exisitence of God.
Therefore, God does not exist. No "faith" required.

Do Tautauns exist? Have you any other proof to offer other than "I saw Luke Skywalker riding one in 'Star Wars'..."? No?
Then Tauntauns do not exist.

I do not believe in God's exisitence because nobody (God included) has proven such an existence to me.

If God did exist, surely he could take time out of his busy schedule advising Dumbya on who's allowed to get married or not to lean over and go "Psst! BiggJawn! Watch me set this bush on fire..."

[Az]

17. To be fair

Belief does not hinge on absolute proof. Belief is swayed by the mind recieving and accepting enough information to sway its current balance. Some may base this balance on logic and reason while others may be swayed by unexplained experential incidents.

[BiggJawn]

36. It does to me.

I require proof.
All I've ever been offered is a book of murky dubious origin and a frustrated throwing up of the hands and "You just HAVE to BELIEVE!!!"
Don't forget, I'm the most cynical man alive. My girlfriend says she loves me, but does she really? All I have is her word on it.

[Az]

37. That is the criteria

by which your mind sets its balance. Different minds develop different criteria.

It is not ignorance that causes some to discard logical arguments and reasoning. It is a lifetime of experience within the belief they have. Their life of experience is far more real to them than the mere words behind the logic and rational though you espouse.

[BiggJawn]

54. But don''t I have a "lifetime of experience", too?

I didn't just fall out of a test tube yesterday, y'know...:-)

I'm in a technical vocation. My whole life revolves around Proofs and quantifying things, not "faith" and "feelings". I've "put faith" in enough things and gotten my ass handed to me enough times to learn to rely on proofs.

This is starting to remind me of Pascal's Wager...

[Az]

58. Yes, your life does revolve around proofs

Thus you place greater value in them and can more easily override beliefs instilled in your during earlier times.

Remeber we are talking about two different things here. Belief and logical arguments are not the same thing. The validity of a logic argument has greater value to your emotional belief of a matter than to a true believer of mystical solutions. Belief does not equal accuracy. It is merely an observation of how an individual sees the world.

Imagine how you would react if you were suddenly made aware that there were little demons holding everything in place and that there was no such thing as close nuclear bonds. You would reject it. You would not believe it. Even if it was argued very accurately it would take a great deal to shake your position based on reason and logic.

[BiggJawn]

59. But if I were to actually SEE one of those little demons....

Then that would change everything. That would be the proof I require.

[Ready4Change]

32. I disagree.

Lack of evidence cannot disprove the existance of something unless you can first establish that evidence MUST exist where you can access it. For example, you cannot prove OR disprove the existance of life on a planet orbiting a a distant G type star, because you cannot access the evidence.

Therefore, you cannot say factually that Tautans do not exist, for you do not have knowlege of all the conditions that exist in our nearly infinite universe.

You can only express a belief that they do not exist. Tautan atheism, so to speak. And a Star Wars junkie may express Tautaun theism by saying that, since the universe is so nearly infinite, odds are creatures identical to Tautauns are BOUND to exist somewhere.

[TXlib]

35. Further complication when discussing religion

There is a nuance of difference between a scientific hypothesis which is currently untestable due to lack of technology, and the theistic hypothesis that there is a god - there is no experiment devisable on this plane of existence that can provide evidence one way or the other.

For example, the various hypothesies about the nature of the stars were always testable, given the proper technology.

But until the last few centuries, the technology did not exist, and whether one accepted one hypothesis over another was a matter of faith.

Some current physics theories fall into this category now. I have faith (pun intended) that one day, we will have the technology to resolve theses scientific questions.

But the religious debate will never be settled, at least, not in this universe.

[Az]

40. There certainly is no means to refute the unclaimed

But religions make claims about gods. Claims can be tested. Thus over time we have found our way to the least testible claim for god possible. The god of the gaps.

If god has any effect on the universe it can be seen. If he/she/it can affect anything we can measure that. In so measuring we can see evidence for god. But our ability to discern the nature of what transpires around us continues to press the claims for god into increasingly insignificant rolls.

This is the reason science is such a threat to so many religions. It keeps closing the gaps in which they place god. Instead of showing the universe to be the realm of god they keep finding places where god's touch is unnecissary. With the removal of god to explain an ever increasing range of things the claims for his/her/its existance become increasingly muted.

In the end if the only claim for god is an unclaimed possibility then it carries little social weight. As we answer more and more questions about the universe and ourselves we do not have to postulate an enigmatic solution for riddles.

[Ready4Change]

46. I don't think science limits g(G)od.

You wrote "But our ability to discern the nature of what transpires around us continues to press the claims for god into increasingly insignificant rolls."

It often seems that as soon as we gain a new understanding of the universe, that understanding opens many more questions, more paths for exploration.

It used to be we lived on the one and only world, flat, circled by "heavenly" bodies and surmounted by a dome or globe to which the stars were attached.

But through science we now know we are an just one of a countless number of worlds, circling a countless number of gigantic stars, all nearly lost in the immensity of an expanding universe.

If anything the old beliefs limited god, because the holders of those beliefs were limited in their understanding of the universe. Some people today are still bound by those limitations. But people who follow science without ruling out god are witness to a true and expanding grandeur. Or, if there is no God, they are witness to something no less miraculous.

[Az]

48. Different tact

People once believed that a god made the sun rise and set. People once believed that lightning was the might of an angry god. As we discovered what these things were we dismantled the beliefs associated with them.

This does not mean that we did not create new questions. But it does suggest that there may be an answer to these questions that can be solved through investigation and science. Thus the lack of understanding that lead to the supposition of divine influence is forced back from the wide gap and into an increasingly fractured and diminishing gap.

Gods once walked the earth in people's minds. Our understanding of the world around us continues to push the notion of god into increasingly more remote explanations. Until we have an entity that is claimed to be responsible for a nudge in an equation. Zeus and the current argument for god bear little resemblance but they are related and connected by an unbroken thread of retreats on the part of claims for god.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

11. There are verious nuances of atheism. Mine is:

The gods and other supernatural beings, as described in the various sacred books, do not exist. Antinatural events described did not happen. This I believe out of common sense, for the same reasons I no longer believe in Santa Claus. It doesn't add up. It contradicts knowledge acquired later.

Now, IF there is "something" that set in motion the Universe, it has to be in a similar fashion to how we run a Mandelbrot set plotter in our computers -- we define the rules and let the playing field unfold. No more than that. And that "something" has to be more dissimilar to the conventional "god" than Albert Einstein is to a neutrino.

Edit: forgot the bottom line -- no, no need for faith, just common sense.

[Beetwasher]

13. As An Atheist I DO Have Faith

I have faith that there is an objective universe that exists outside of my perception of it and that can be explained through obervation, examination and experimentation. I also have faith that the universe will continue to exist even after I cease existing.

I also have faith that "'I' think, therefore SOMETHING exists" and that that "something" can be explored and understood to some degree.

[arcane1]

14. agnostic = atheist, same thing

and the answer is no. I don't worship a god, thus I am an atheist. Do I claim to have all the answers to the universe? No.

[Blue-Jay]

18. Not really the same thing, as I understand:

An agnostic isn't totally willing to discount the possibility on a higher being, whereas an atheist usually is.

Agnostic: "Could be. Probably not. I don't know"
Atheist: "No way."

Might not be the textbook definitions, but it seems to be the way that the two terms are understood.

[Az]

21. See post #15 above

There is a great deal of consternation of this matter due to a historical presense of some dogmatic atheists. Like the word Christian being hijacked by the religious right the definition of atheist has been effectively changed by those that would insist that it means someone that insists there are no gods. This definition fails on several counts. Particularly the structure of the very word itself.

[arcane1]

30. they are, neither worships a diety

which is the definition of atheist. Non-theist

'agnostic' is just for those who don't want to own up to being atheist, or are still hanging on to their former beliefs :evilgrin:

if you worship a god you are a theist

if you do not, you are an atheist

[truthspeaker]

62. not quite, because you could believe a god exists but not worship it

If I found out Jerry Falwell's God really did exist, I wouldn't worship it, but I would not longer be an atheist.

[Ready4Change]

20. Depends on why one is an athiest.

Such a question comes from confusing these three conditions:

- Believing or disbelieving something due to analysis of evidence.

- Withholding belief until evidence is obtained.

- Believing something DESPITE the lack of evidence. (This would be faith)

One might be an athiest after having examined evidence and determining that it either disproves Gods existance, or the lack of such evidence disproves that existance. (First case)

Or one may believe that insufficient evidence exists to prove Gods existance. Therefore it would be irrational to believe in God until enough evidence is revealed to prove or disprove that existance. (Second case)

Neither of those athiestic stances hinges upon faith.

(Unless you want to drag us down into the realm where all sensory input involves faith. If so, ANY discourse becomes pointless.)

[RebelOne]

25. Yes, I have faith

I am a devout atheist.

[bowens43]

27. No, it doesn't take faith to not believe in something.

We can't KNOW that the easter bunny, santa claus and the great cosmic muffin don't exist, however , like god, there is no evidence that they do exist. You seem to be implying that in order for something not to exist we must have faith that it doesn't exist.

[TXlib]

31. Agnosticism vs Atheism

From http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathq_athorag.htm

Many people who adopt the label of agnostic reject the label of atheist - there is a common perception that agnosticism is a more "reasonable" position while atheism is more "dogmatic," ultimately indistinguishable from theism except in the details. Is this a valid position to take?

Unfortunately, no - agnostics may sincerely believe it and theists may sincerely reinforce it, but it relies upon more than one misunderstanding about both atheism and agnosticism. These misunderstandings are only exacerbated by continual social pressure and prejudice against atheism and atheists. People who are unafraid of stating that they indeed do not believe in any gods are still despised in many places, whereas "agnostic" is perceived as more respectable.

Atheists are thought to be closed-minded because they deny the existence of gods, whereas agnostics appear to be open-minded because they do not know for sure. This is a mistake because atheists do not necessarily deny any gods and may indeed be an atheist because they do not know for sure - in other words, they may be an agnostic as well.

Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a "third way" between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge - it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.

Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism.

It is also worth noting that there is a vicious double standard involved when theists claim that agnosticism is "better" than atheism because it is less dogmatic. If atheists are closed-minded because they are not agnostic, then so are theists. On the other hand, if theism can be open-minded then so can atheism.

In the end, the fact of the matter is a person isn't faced with the necessity of only being either an atheist or an agnostic. Quite the contrary, not only can a person be both, but it is in fact common for people to be both agnostics and atheists. An agnostic atheist won't claim to know for sure that nothing warranting the label "god" exists or that such cannot exist, but they also don't actively believe that such an entity does indeed exist.

---

Check out About.com's indexed Guide to Atheism. It's quite informative.

[SOteric]

33. My OED offers that an Agnostic

is an individual who is noncommittal. So, summing up your eloquent quote above, neither the Theist nor the Atheist can be absolute in their certainty of knowledge or belief in their respective positions about dieties. Similarly, neither can the Agnostic. The difference being that the Atheist and the Theist have each made a personal commitment to their perceptions in the matter.

[Az]

34. Belief and knowledge

are two different things. The societal wrangling over the terms the beliefs has left our society with shattered definitions for these terms.

Belief is a binary condition. You either do or do not believe a thing. Knowledge and certainty are analog and thus can posess a wide range of degrees.

Atheism and Theism address matters of belief. Being binary one is either one or the other.

Agnosticism and Gnosticism are declarations of whether the individual is at the extreme or somewhere in the middle of the gradient of certainty. The clear majority of individuals finding themself somewhere in the middle with a few believing themself to be at the extreme.

[TXlib]

39. It sounds like you're taking the position

that agnosticism is a middle ground between theism and atheism, but the point of the quote was that belief is a binary state (believe = theist, disbelieve = atheist), whereas certainty in the belief (gnostic/agnostic) was analog. Moreover, the label of agnostic is a modifier to theist of atheist.

Many, if not most, theists I know seem to prefer to define atheism as what I would call gnostic atheism, and agnosticism as what I would call agnostic atheism.

Did I understand your reply correctly?

BTW, what is "OED"?

[Az]

41. OED = Oxford English Dictionary n/t

[SOteric]

47. No. That is not my position. The OED is The Oxford English Dictionary.

I suggest that all states discussed: Atheism, Theism, Agnosticism represent a state where absolute, objective truth is unobtainable. But that per the definition offered in the OED, Agnosticism implies more a lack of commitment to a belief rather than a level of knowledge of it's truth.

So, the Theist cannot know with certainty the absolute truth of whether there is a god(s). But the Theist is committed to the belief that there is a god(s) despite any intellectual knowledge that the existence of a supreme being is objectively unknowable.

The Atheist is, according the OED, the American Heritage and Webster's Unabridged: One who denies or disbelieves the existence of God or gods. Regardless of the esoteric philosophic definitions individuals may wish to attribute to the word, these are the defitions our English-speaking culture attaches to it.

So an Atheist is one who is committed to their disbelief, despite any intellectual acknowledgement that the existence of a supreme being is objectively unknowable.

The Agnostic acknowledges they cannot know with certainty and is not committed to either a belief or disbelief.

Agnostic is often used as a modifier to Theist or Atheist. That is not incorrect usage from a linguistic point of view. But it is not absolute. The term can be used in any number of circumstance where the subject matter is intellectual knowledge or intellectual belief outside the topic of dieties.

But the primary defintion of 'Agnostic' is not as an adjective, that is secondary. It's primary definition and most frequent usage is that of a noun.

So, intellectualise all you like, that's still what the word means, at least at this time.

:hi:

[TXlib]

49. Here's an interesting page

It shows the nuances in the definition over time, and spanning different dictionaries.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathd_dict.htm

:hi:

[SOteric]

52. Yes. *L* I remind you what it is that I do for a living, and agree

that it is interesting in the same way that an article in Omni might be interesting to a physicist.

[TXlib]

53. Bah. Omni.

I see your point.

:bounce:

[DrWeird]

38. Do you need faith to not believe in Santa Claus?

nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

42. God is omnipotent, omnipresent and beneficient........

so where the fuck does evil come from? He is atleast not one of those things...that is my contention...

[ComerPerro]

43. I don't think it takes faith to not believe in something

Is it a leap of faith for someone to believe that there isn't a physical force called klogar that acts opposite to gravity and turns things yellow?

[MrBenchley]

44. Not any more than you need incontinence

to not crap your pants.

[TXlib]

50. I think this was a drive-by thread...

ringmastery has been conspicuously absent in his own thread, since starting the debate...

[Az]

51. Could have been a question too

Sometimes people do not know what goes on in the thinking of others and ask questions. I approve.

[NNadir]

56. Do I need faith to deny the existence of the Easter Bunny?

Santa Claus?

The tooth fairy?

Dick Cheney's Patriotism?

I think extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof, rather than that extraordinary claims that come with no proof need to be disproved.