Misused labels of Atheist and Atheism

[Damian]

There is no such thing as “atheism” to me as an atheist.
Jury analogy: the jury member finds the defendant not guilty based on the bad reasons and evidence presented by the prosecutor. This does not mean the jury believes the defendant is actually innocent, just that the jury member doesn’t believe the prosecution made their case. The defendant may have actually performed the crime, but the reasons and evidence presented was not enough to make a justified conclusion. The jury member’s position of “not guilty” is not mean that they have a world view of “not-guilty-ism”. Same with being an atheist. It is a single position on a single question. There is no world view of “atheism” just like there is no world view of “not-guilty-ism”.

 

[Damian]

I am responding to the social issues that are brought up by these labels of atheist and theist. I believe the theists are being taught to be ignorant bigots towards atheists. So I am here to talk about these problems so that this social problem does not continue. This has nothing to do with adding validity to the idea that the supernatural actually exists because I am responding to the actions of the theists, not their beliefs. I don’t care that you believe in a deity, but I do care how this shapes your actions towards others.

 

[Damian]

If a jury member concludes the defendant is not guilty, what is their core belief system? what is their political stance? what is their world view? what is their level of education? what is their anything at all that you can conclude other than they were not convinced of X based on the prosecution’s bad reasons and evidence?

 

[Wesrock]

I am responding to the social issues that are brought up by these labels of atheist and theist. I believe the theists are being taught to be ignorant bigots towards atheists.

There is some of that out there. There is also the reverse. I saw someone make a topic very similar to yours on another non-Christian board and have other atheists accuse that guy of not understanding atheism or “superstition” (meaning religion) and that if he didn’t actually strongly deny God as an irrational concept he was a moron who also enabled the superstitious and allowing them to infect the culture.

I’m not saying the “not guilty” position is incorrect. That’s “traditional atheism”.

 

[Damian]

Yeah I agree these conversations can be just tribal fighting to reinforce either side why they should not ever meet and co-mingle. It’s tiring and unproductive.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Sure. We see evidence of dark matter/energy/other universes, but have never laid eyes on the things.

Religion isn’t the only place where I accept info on faith.

Yeah but those are theories regarding undiscovered material things…

Dark energy is a material thing?

Going to an oldie, space-time is a material thing?

I think we may differ on our fundamental understanding of “material”…

 

[joeybaggz]

Again, disbelief in the supernatural is tentative position. It is not dogmatic position to hold. It is also something that has nothing to do with morality or thinking that someone who does believe it is soft headed. What convinced you does not necessarily work for someone else. They will let you know what it would take for them to believe it and that they are open to being convinced once that new information is presented.

Okay, now you are talking agnostic. Belief in the supernatural, FAITH, is a dogmatic position. Disbelief on the other hand, is not a dogmatic position. Faith does not require proof; that’s what makes it faith. One either believes, or does not believe, or does not know. Does not believe, atheist, does not know but is open to being convinced… agnostic.

 

[Wesrock]

Would the conversation be better served by distinguishing between qualitative and quantitative?

 

[Vonsalza]

Would the conversation be better served by distinguishing between qualitative and quantitative?

Maybe. I’m unsure.

I think the biggest base-difference might boil down to knowing and believing. I believe in black holes and Jesus and Mongolia in somewhat similar ways. I’ve never experienced any of them in a material way, but I still think they’re “there”.

Telling me I know about one and only believe in another makes me think of the JW’s trying to explain their take on religion to me.

 

[Damian]

I agree that faith appears to be described as a dogmatic position to hold. Since it’s been defined to be a position to hold that requires not evidence or reasons. Evidence and Reasons are what will get you to change your mind on position X. But if your position for believing X does not require evidence or reasons, then there is nothing that will change your mind other than your choice to not profess this belief. I am fine changing my position regardless of how I personally feel about it. I understand that new conclusions that affect our core identity will require more evidence and reasons than mundane claims like telling someone you just bought a new puppy.

 

[Wesrock]

The definition of faith given here is the one used in Fideism. Fideism is rejected by the Catholic Church.

 

[Vonsalza]

I agree that faith appears to be described as a dogmatic position to hold.

I think axiomatic might be a better descriptor. Just tossing that out there.

Since it’s been defined to be a position to hold that requires not evidence or reasons.

I’m not sure that’s an accurate definition. It might not require empirical proof… But many have faith for a litany of reasons.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

Evidence and Reasons are what will get you to change your mind on position X. But if your position for believing X does not require evidence or reasons, then there is nothing that will change your mind other than your choice to not profess this belief.

In my case, I grew up Baptist and am one no longer. So in your presentation of the issue, I just spontaneously decided to not be Baptist anymore?

 

[Damian]

How does the catholic church define faith then?
This is how I understand the difference between hope and belief
Belief is the what we understand about the possible outcomes of an event. Such as flipping a coin. It’s either heads or tails. I believe that heads or tails will be the result.
Hope is the desire for a specific outcome of the known outcomes, regardless of how rare it is. Like with cancer, I hope that the cancer goes into remission. It is rare that this does it on its own, its less rare with treatment, but all this is a known possibility.
Where does “faith” fall in here? So far it’s been presented as just desiring an idea of reality to be the case when reality has not presented any good evidence and/or reason to hold that position. That is why it seems it is impossible to use faith as a pathway to truth of reality since two people can hold exact opposite claims about reality on faith and we could not have a method to determine who is correct or if both are wrong.

 

[Damian]

Someone previous defined faith as a held position that does not require reasons or evidence, so that is why I had to conclude that the only way to change a held position on faith is a choice you make since you don’t even need reasons to hold that position.
How would you define faith and what did you use to change your position on this?

 

[Vonsalza]

Someone previous defined faith as a held position that does not require reasons or evidence, so that is why I had to conclude that the only way to change a held position on faith is a choice you make since you don’t even need reasons to hold that position.
How would you define faith and what did you use to change your position on this?

I prefer standard definitions as an academic matter and I try to use Oxford as much as I can to provide those. So I’d define it as;

• Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
• Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
• A particular religion.
• A strongly held belief.

The second definition closely resembles your working definition, but it uses “proof” rather than “evidence” (as they’re slightly different concepts) and makes no mention of an absence of reason.

As it pertains to my abandonment of the Baptist faith, I found the religion of my youth to have more logical problems than alternatives, ergo I abandoned it.
I’m a theist, first and foremost because I axiomatically concede the existence of the metaphysical, which requires a driver of some sort - a la “god”.
I’m a Christian because the metaphysical culture that surrounds me is Christian (and conforming allows me to better interface with it meaningfully). And I’m somewhere between Catholicism and Orthodoxy because I think they’re the best representatives of Christianity that make the fewest existential assumptions.

 

[Wesrock]

Here’s a Wikipedia entry on Fideism: Fideism - Wikipedia

Faith is a matter of trust. One should not have faith without good reason. If I have good reason first to believe that monotheism is true (say, by standard cosmological arguments, Principle of Sufficient Reason, an argument from universals, etc…), I then may find good reason to believe that a particular revelation is true (first, that any revelation is true and then that one is true over others). The idea of the Resurrection becomes more palatable if we have good reason to believe there exists a being capable of such a feet who would have reason for connecting with humans, for example. Anyway, Faith isn’t accepting all of this without good reason, but trust in the relationship with God that His promises are true because we have good reasons to hold such belief.

I might know my friend Bob exists. I might not have reason to trust him or put my faith in him. If I don’t have good reasons for that, best not to. If I do, then i can put my faith in him and what he says he’s going to do, even if I’m anxious or afraid for myself.

 

[joeybaggz]

From Merriam Webster - fideism, : reliance on faith rather than reason in pursuit of religious truth

The definition of faith given here is the one used in Fideism. Fideism is rejected by the Catholic Church.

The Catholic church constantly preaches that one should pray earnestly for an increase in faith.
Whose definition of faith are you referring to? Faith in one sense is static. Through faith, I believe in God. As to pursuing religious truth, I don’t rely on faith, I engage reason, logic and critical thinking. The problem is, the existence of God and His interface with His creation, cannot be proved by empirical, scientific means. With God, there is no “beyond the shadow of doubt.” That is the purview of faith.

If you are contending that one who states that “The actual existence of Adam and Eve as told in Genesis is absolutely true, because I have faith” then your contention re the Catholic Church and its rejection of fideism rings true. That is what you mean?

 

[Wesrock]

Some people are less inclined towards scholarly discussion than others. Most people are comfortable trusting what physicists say on authority. So it is with many laypeople and their ministers. They may go with feeling, or authority, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with that, and many of the people you have discussed this with fall into that group.

That doesn’t mean curious (in that regard) people haven’t studied more or that they lack reasoned and well-formed positions.

(This was not in response to Joey)

 

[Wesrock]

From Merriam Webster - fideism, : reliance on faith rather than reason in pursuit of religious truth

Wesrock:

The definition of faith given here is the one used in Fideism. Fideism is rejected by the Catholic Church.

The Catholic church constantly preaches that one should pray earnestly for an increase in faith.
Whose definition of faith are you referring to?

I don’t see how this is incompatible with what I wrote. We should all have greater trust, especially in times of struggle. I might know something is true in my head but when push comes to shove I might hold my tongue to avoid being shunned by my peers. And certainly the trials one might face can get worse than that. Increase my faith Lord, so that I may trust in your care for me more and be steadfast when my convictions are opposed.

 

[joeybaggz]

Wesrock:
I don’t see how this is incompatible with what I wrote.
[/quote]

Not incompatible, just slightly unclear as to whom your response was aimed. The OP or a subsequent poster?