M
mathematician
Guest
Atheism is a faith like trusting that you are right, but without being able to prove it. A bit like theism really (inspite of an atheist’s caricature of the latter).
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
L
liquidpele
Guest
Atheism is quite literally the absence of faith because in it’s essence it is defined as not believing in something. The reasons or logic behind why you wouldn’t believe doesn’t even matter. Being an atheist is like being the color blue, you don’t have to have faith that you’re the color blue to be blue.Atheism is a faith like trusting that you are right, but without being able to prove it. A bit like theism really (inspite of an atheist’s caricature of the latter).
That said, I understand the misconception, as many atheists can assert things, champion science, or challenge other beliefs, but keep in mind that that’s not not what makes them atheist.
B
buffalo
Guest
I would like to know why they take great pains to mock the religious and argue in favor of it.Atheism is quite literally the absence of faith because in it’s essence it is defined as not believing in something. The reasons or logic behind why you wouldn’t believe doesn’t even matter. Being an atheist is like being the color blue, you don’t have to have faith that you’re the color blue to be blue.
That said, I understand the misconception, as many atheists can assert things, champion science, or challenge other beliefs, but keep in mind that that’s not not what makes them atheist.
By your definition you shouldn’t even argue for it.
L
liquidpele
Guest
By its definition, I am atheist whether I choose to argue against religion or not. Actually, I don’t mind religion at all, especially the community aspects of it, as long as people aren’t using it to deny reality or twist it to support something it shouldn’t.I would like to know why they take great pains to mock the religious and argue in favor of it.
By your definition you shouldn’t even argue for it.
M
mathematician
Guest
“I do not believe in God.”Atheism is quite literally the absence of faith because in it’s essence it is defined as not believing in something.
“I believe there is no God.”
The two sentences are equivalent. It only takes a rearrangement of the grammar to turn an absence of belief into a belief (or vice versa).
B
buffalo
Guest
They have faith there is no question and they don’t fool anyone. It is a strategy so they do not have to defend a positive claim and thus put believers into an unfavorable position.“I do not believe in God.”
“I believe no God exists.”
The two sentences are equivalent. It only takes a rearrangement of the grammar to turn an absence of belief into a belief (or vice versa).
R
reggieM
Guest
You’re trying to define-away the problem. As others have pointed out, a claim that gods do not exist is a positive assertion. Additionally, to claim that a non-belief in God is the same as not being a stamp collector trivializes God and belief. That’s a tell-tale sign of insincerity and escape from the depth of the issue. Atheists must deny that God exists – it’s not enough to quietly not-believe. The reason for that is because billions believe in God – so, its a denial of all of that collective experience (and spiritual and religious wisdom, etc).That said, I understand the misconception, as many atheists can assert things, champion science, or challenge other beliefs, but keep in mind that that’s not not what makes them atheist.
A simpler analogy would be like someone saying that he is an amoralist.
For him, all that means is that he does not believe that morals exist. Then he claims that there is nothing more to it than that. He doesn’t believe in morals, the way a person doesn’t collect stamps. So, by saying he is amoral, he claims that there is no positive assertion in that position.
But that is a ruse. Obviously, a person who is amoral is making a positive statement of belief against the common, universal understanding of the human race. To simply claim that being amoral merely means a non-belief in something is just using semantics and assertions – and its ignoring the major implications of amoral thinking.
L
liquidpele
Guest
They’re not equivalent if one denotes a belief and the other does not.“I do not believe in God.”
“I believe there is no God.”
The two sentences are equivalent. It only takes a rearrangement of the grammar to turn an absence of belief into a belief (or vice versa).
That said, you’re mostly right that they are equivalent in every day language. My point though is that you should not view atheism as a faith. I realize that’s hard, as many religious people view everything in terms of faith since that is what is important to them, but you have to look at it through a different lens here.
L
liquidpele
Guest
No, I’m correcting misconceptions. It’s not a positive assertion if I say I don’t believe in God. You only see it as trivializing God, it was just a simple analogy and that was not it’s intent, let it go. Everyone also thought the Earth was flat at one point, you’re using argument by popularity.You’re trying to define-away the problem. As others have pointed out, a claim that gods do not exist is a positive assertion. Additionally, to claim that a non-belief in God is the same as not being a stamp collector trivializes God and belief. The reason for that is because billions believe in God – so, its a denial of all of that collective experience (and spiritual and religious wisdom, etc).
B
buffalo
Guest
Source?N. Everyone also thought the Earth was flat at one point, .
E
edwest2
Guest
Some parts are OK because they sanction? No. God’s word acts. Dead earth has no power of itself.Genesis already sanctions abiogenesis: “let tne earth bring forth…”
Peace,
Ed
L
liquidpele
Guest
Oh come on, stop being silly. Just view the citation list here if you really want.Source?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
B
buffalo
Guest
The Myth of the Flat EarthOh come on, stop being silly. Just view the citation list here if you really want.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
M
mathematician
Guest
If you believe there is no God, then you are likely to act on it - for example by not worshipping him, or by not giving two hoots for the ten commandments. Should it turn out that God is in fact there he is unlikely to be too happy about that. Therefore you need to have faith that he is not there.They’re not equivalent if one denotes a belief and the other does not.
That said, you’re mostly right that they are equivalent in every day language. My point though is that you should not view atheism as a faith. I realize that’s hard, as many religious people view everything in terms of faith since that is what is important to them, but you have to look at it through a different lens here.
Both theism and atheism are world views, and world views are not just academic exercises; they are things you believe in and live by.
E
edwest2
Guest
Your information is incomplete. Pope John Paul II spoke of theories of evolution, not just one. See Parts 64 and 69 of this document for clarification. His statement should not be viewed as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenence that deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.John Paul II
What is noticable in the above is the way “evolutionism” is put in quotes (a creationist would leave it out of quotes) and the word theory is left out of quotes (a creationist would put it in quotes).
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html
Pope Benedict, in reference to that statement, had this to add: “But it is also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”
romancatholicblog.typepad.com/roman_catholic_blog/2007/04/pope_benedict_x.html
timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1645453.ece
Peace,
Ed
M
mathematician
Guest
If he had known that a creationist would be quoting him he might have been more careful with his language. If I recall rightly, just a sentence or two later he talks about different interpretations rather than different theories, and the latter is certainly closer to the reality of the situation.Your information is incomplete. Pope John Paul II spoke of theories of evolution, not just one.
Evolution describes something which happened in the history of the earth, and it is not intrinsically either theistis or atheistic; it is just a description of what happened. What can be theistic or atheistic is the interpretation which gets put upon what happened.
Would I expect the Pope, or the Archbishop of Canterbury, to endorse an atheistic interpretation of Evolution? No, not really. But neither would I expect them to debate its truth given the near unanimous scientific consensus in its favour.
E
edwest2
Guest
You are incorrect. Do not rely on your memory since the information is easy to find. Catholics are not allowed to believe in atheistic evolution. That is in the Library on this site.If he had known that a creationist would be quoting him he might have been more careful with his language. If I recall rightly, just a sentence or two later he talks about different interpretations rather than different theories, and the latter is certainly closer to the reality of the situation.
Evolution describes something which happened in the history of the earth, and it is not intrinsically either theistis or atheistic; it is just a description of what happened. What can be theistic or atheistic is the interpretation which gets put upon what happened.
Would I expect the Pope, or the Archbishop of Canterbury, to endorse an atheistic interpretation of Evolution? No, not really. But neither would I expect them to debate its truth given the near unanimous scientific consensus in its favour.
Peace,
Ed
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Not all atheists believe there is no god, yes that group belongs to atheist’s but it is a subset.“I do not believe in God.”
“I believe there is no God.”
The two sentences are equivalent. It only takes a rearrangement of the grammar to turn an absence of belief into a belief (or vice versa).
An atheist is anyone without a theistic believe. I am an agnostic atheist, i lack a theistic believe dude to the fact there is zero evidence to support any theistic beliefs. In essence i reject your claim god exists because you have not provided sufficient evidence… how on earth is that a position of faith? I assert nothing…
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
The burden of proof is on the one MAKING the claim. Do you need to have “faith” to reject every unfounded claim?? If i claim i am god, do you need to have faith to reject my claim?If you believe there is no God, then you are likely to act on it - for example by not worshipping him, or by not giving two hoots for the ten commandments. Should it turn out that God is in fact there he is unlikely to be too happy about that. Therefore you need to have faith that he is not there.
Both theism and atheism are world views, and world views are not just academic exercises; they are things you believe in and live by.
Also your god must be a petty chap. Why would he care what i believe?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I quite agree!No. God’s word acts. Dead earth has no power of itself.
Ed
- Status
- Not open for further replies.