In practice, atheists do tend to adopt some similar values, I would call that movement atheism, which emphasizes social justice, and religious freedom among other things. But none of that is a necessary aspect of atheism.
Religious proofs are nonsensical
- Thread starter Dinosaur
- Start date
Faith is necessarily the opposite of reason. It's an equivocation fallacy. And a common one many theists make which is easily dismissed.
"Faith, as the Bible describes it, is not a matter of empirical observation, even though some like to present it as if it were. In fact, the Bible praises a man’s faith to whatever extent he ignores the empirical data. The more contrary to the observable facts a man’s belief is, the greater faith he is said to have. It praised Noah for building a boat before there was even any rain. It praised Abraham for expecting children even though he was (as the story goes) over 100 years old and was apparently infertile. It praised Gideon for expecting a military victory despite what appeared to be the worst tactical plan in history. On and on it goes, celebrating those whose beliefs flew directly in the face of their observable circumstances. This is not a mode of perception or decision-making which follows empirical data. It is not a matter of forming hypotheses based on what you see and experience. In fact, it is explicitly and expressly the opposite idea. To have faith, in the biblical sense, is hold onto a belief which is unsupported by what you see or experience. The more at odds the former is with the latter, the greater faith you have."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/2014/12/01/do-atheists-have-faith-2/
Last edited:
I know.
I am one.
Agnostic variety, but atheist nonetheless.
My point is that those who place trust in evidence, such as scientists, are open to being wrong in their interpretation of it.
Thus their trust is tentative - although grows stronger the more the theory is supported by the evidence.
Indeed - hence our trust is tentative... i.e. open to being shown that we are wrong.Can't speak for other atheist but here is a convert just for the taking - show me the evidence
The key here is the "staunch" atheism.Michael 345 said:
I took that to mean the strong variety, i.e. the "there is no God" variety.
I think this takes more than mere tentative trust.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Agree.
Alister McGrath argues - quite persuasively it seems to me - that what you call "staunch" atheism requires faith just as much as belief in God does!
Not really. If the idea of God is nonsensical, and/or all evidence of God is flawed or non-existent, it's rational to believe that the premise is false.
From Exchemist Post 46
Lack of belief in the existence of something & atheism are default positions, not requiring proof.
Note the following.
From Musika Post 3
The above in response to my Post 1
The Posts by Exchemist & Musika seem to consider both atheism & theism as matters of faith, implying that their logical validity is equivalent.
Lack of belief in the existence of something & atheism are default positions, not requiring proof.
The person claiming existence has a burden of proof, which in many instances requires merely pointing to the object claimed to exist.
If a person believes in the existence of the flying spaghetti monster, that person has a burden of proof, not the person who denies its existence.
World wide there are many gods believed to exist & to be worthy of worship. Must the atheist disprove the existence of each?
If a person believes in the existence of the flying spaghetti monster, that person has a burden of proof, not the person who denies its existence.
World wide there are many gods believed to exist & to be worthy of worship. Must the atheist disprove the existence of each?
Note the following.
I am a theist requires a definition of the god or gods believed in. In modern America it implies belief in some Christian version of god. In other places & other times it implies belief in another god or gods.
An atheist does not require a definition of any particular god. The word atheist would not exist in a culture which did not have believers in some god.
There are Posters here you do not seem to recognize the above.
An atheist does not require a definition of any particular god. The word atheist would not exist in a culture which did not have believers in some god.
There are Posters here you do not seem to recognize the above.
If an atheist proposes that there is no God, that is not the default position. That is a positive assertion. But I don't think it's a matter of faith. Just as I may assert there are no unicorns. Not because I searched the entire universe for single-horned quadrupeds and came up negative, but because part of its definition includes the supernatural element of magic.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Right. But that's "strong" atheism.
Moderate atheism is more a matter of I don't believe it (unless I see it).
Indeed. As I have argued with Jan multiple times, I don't need to know the details of a given God to be skeptical of their existence. I need ask only one question: are they sueprnatural?
From Spidergoat Post 49
The theist proposes that there is a god or gods. That is also a positive assertion.
As I understand your above Post, you consider Unicorns to be supernatural or magical, while considering god to natural.
I am curious: What do you consider to be the default position relating to the existence of god?
In both modern & many historical eras, there are many who believe/believed in the existence of gods other than the Christian god.
Belief in the Christian god is surely a minority view. Belief in a single god is likely to be historically a minority view. Belief in a single god might be a minority view in modern times.
The theist proposes that there is a god or gods. That is also a positive assertion.
What is the default position? Is it agnosticism? Is it the majority view?
As I understand your above Post, you consider Unicorns to be supernatural or magical, while considering god to natural.
Note that the rhinoceros is probably the reason for the unicorn myth.
While I do not believe in the existence of horse-like unicorns, I would not consider them to be supernatural or magical if they did exist.
While I do not believe in the existence of horse-like unicorns, I would not consider them to be supernatural or magical if they did exist.
I am curious: What do you consider to be the default position relating to the existence of god?
In both modern & many historical eras, there are many who believe/believed in the existence of gods other than the Christian god.
Belief in the Christian god is surely a minority view. Belief in a single god is likely to be historically a minority view. Belief in a single god might be a minority view in modern times.
Not being convinced of the argument in favor of the existence of god. So non-belief. But non-belief is different than belief in something's absence.
You bring up a good point. But gods aren't always defined as supernatural. Some definitions of god can't be dismissed so easily, but for the sake of argument, we are talking about typical monotheism.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Example?
It seems to me that it is a prerequisite. Any use of the god label that isn't, I would expect will be metaphorical or hyperbolic.
Got it ✓
Which is incorrect - nice sentiment - but wrong
Wrong - unalienable - Rights are taken away every day
And if you don't believe in the creator? no Rights for you laddy
Agree about the nonsensical part for lots of situations
If Arnie told me he had won the Miss Universe Pageant I would consider that so nonsensical and for it to be very rational not to believe
Tell me there is a Sky Daddy I would consider that so nonsensical and for it to be very rational not to believe
So your position is that it is possible to maintain a functioning world view based on nothing more than tentative trust?
Does referencing an atheist website for a definition of faith strike you as a reasonsble act?
Last edited:
So if I do not feel hungry, and you say you don't believe me, where do we go from there?
Can I make this claim evident to you? Does your lack of belief somehow diminish the reality of my feeling?
Yes.
Hey, I didn't say I agreed with it, only that it is a famous example of that understanding of the term in use.