Film, Media & TV6 mins ago
Is atheism a form of Faith?
16 Answers
The question came to me whilst reading 'what would religionists like to ask athiests' and I am quite interested to hear your opinions.
To begin with, there is obviously no concrete proof for or against the existance of God (and if there were this argument would have been resolved a long time ago)and most of the debates surrounding the issue are rather unproductive as one side of the argument is based in logic and rational thought whilst the other goes beyond these boundaries and is based in a higher spiritual connection.
It occurs to me that many Athiests are even more fundamental and evangelical in their views that their religeous counterparts. What interests me is the crusading spirit of people such as Richard Dawkins who is not content to let people believe what they want. Even after reading through a few posts in this section you can clearly identify numerous questions and posts that are designed to mock or ridicule any form of religeous beleif. For example 'Catholocism anyone actually beleive it?' or 'Does any normal person beleive the bible?'. How often do we see posts stating 'I don't beleive in Santa Claus so why should I beleive in God'. Their are certain members on here who devote literally hours every week trying to ridicule any form of religeous belief. I feel that in many ways this form of fundamental Atheism is very similar to Fundamental Christianity.
CS Lewis was once an Athiest and later went onto write about how his atheism was an aspect of faith. If Athiests do not beleive in God or feel any call to God where does this crusading need to deny God that many possess stem from? After all you don't see many posters putting so much time and effort into denying the existance of Santa Claus.
Look forward to hearing your answers?
To begin with, there is obviously no concrete proof for or against the existance of God (and if there were this argument would have been resolved a long time ago)and most of the debates surrounding the issue are rather unproductive as one side of the argument is based in logic and rational thought whilst the other goes beyond these boundaries and is based in a higher spiritual connection.
It occurs to me that many Athiests are even more fundamental and evangelical in their views that their religeous counterparts. What interests me is the crusading spirit of people such as Richard Dawkins who is not content to let people believe what they want. Even after reading through a few posts in this section you can clearly identify numerous questions and posts that are designed to mock or ridicule any form of religeous beleif. For example 'Catholocism anyone actually beleive it?' or 'Does any normal person beleive the bible?'. How often do we see posts stating 'I don't beleive in Santa Claus so why should I beleive in God'. Their are certain members on here who devote literally hours every week trying to ridicule any form of religeous belief. I feel that in many ways this form of fundamental Atheism is very similar to Fundamental Christianity.
CS Lewis was once an Athiest and later went onto write about how his atheism was an aspect of faith. If Athiests do not beleive in God or feel any call to God where does this crusading need to deny God that many possess stem from? After all you don't see many posters putting so much time and effort into denying the existance of Santa Claus.
Look forward to hearing your answers?
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Fingerprint. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
This is the reason I don't like the term Atheist. It has become to mean someone who belongs to a certain filosofy. I prefer non-believer.
Why are we anti religion ? Perhaps because the Religious like to tell us how to behave and tend to want to kill those who disagree with them,and sentence us to burn for eternity. Matthew 25 41 ''Depart from me ye cursed into everlasting fire''. This was taught to us,as children, nice eh ?
Why are we anti religion ? Perhaps because the Religious like to tell us how to behave and tend to want to kill those who disagree with them,and sentence us to burn for eternity. Matthew 25 41 ''Depart from me ye cursed into everlasting fire''. This was taught to us,as children, nice eh ?
Thanks for your answers. It seems that you are both saying that you don't really have a problem with people believing what they want to believe but rather the wider impacts that religeon has on society. These are good points but I'm not sure I agree.
To say that "the religeous want to kill those who disagree with them and sentance us to burn in eternity" is a very broad and inaccurate statement. I'm sure that most of the religeous members who are mocked and evangelised on this site don't hold these views and have never stoned anyone to death, committed suicide or flew aeroplanes into buildings. In terms of politics religeous groups do try to get changes in the law to suit theirt beliefs but so does every other group.
To say that "the religeous want to kill those who disagree with them and sentance us to burn in eternity" is a very broad and inaccurate statement. I'm sure that most of the religeous members who are mocked and evangelised on this site don't hold these views and have never stoned anyone to death, committed suicide or flew aeroplanes into buildings. In terms of politics religeous groups do try to get changes in the law to suit theirt beliefs but so does every other group.
If you note the thread immediately below I was asking fellow athiests what evidence they would require to accept a Intelligent creator of the universe.
From where I stand this distinguishes the athiest who's view is a form of faith and could never accept it from someone who's view is that there is no reasonable evidence for a God and it's therefore irrational to believe in one.
You will find both types.
Again for me the "crusade" ( An athiest crussade is very funny) is not about religion itself but the attempt to perpetute religion in our laws and customs.
State funded faith schools - madatory acts of worship in schools, bishops in the house of Lords etc. etc.
In addition to that you must remember that not all athiests are of the loud zealous types in the same way as not all Christians are to be found shouting the odds at your local shopping centre on a Saturday Morning.
There are just more zealous Athiests because there are more athiests
From where I stand this distinguishes the athiest who's view is a form of faith and could never accept it from someone who's view is that there is no reasonable evidence for a God and it's therefore irrational to believe in one.
You will find both types.
Again for me the "crusade" ( An athiest crussade is very funny) is not about religion itself but the attempt to perpetute religion in our laws and customs.
State funded faith schools - madatory acts of worship in schools, bishops in the house of Lords etc. etc.
In addition to that you must remember that not all athiests are of the loud zealous types in the same way as not all Christians are to be found shouting the odds at your local shopping centre on a Saturday Morning.
There are just more zealous Athiests because there are more athiests
Thanks Jake, you mentioned two different types of Athiest. Surely to believe that God categorically does not exist and to know that you could never accept belief in a God is a position that has no credibility.
This suggests that if someone holding this belief were to have an out of this world religeous experience tommorow, find strength in God through a difficult time or die and go to heaven they still would not be able to believe. Surely to have such a strong resistance is actually irrational and suggests that the person may subconsciously be denying their faith through their resistance.
I take the point that athiests are frustrated things such as state funded faith schools and bishops in the house of Lords. But why does this form of fundamental athiesm take the form of attacking religeons and their members rather than the establishments they are frustrated by. Answerbank has far more posts ridiculing the religeous and their beleifs than it does asking questions about issues such as Bishops in the house of Lords.
I also feel that the obsessiveness behind this form of Atheism is too powerful and passionate to be generated by these dry subjects or issues such as people being stoned to death which probably have never effected most of the Athiests.
This suggests that if someone holding this belief were to have an out of this world religeous experience tommorow, find strength in God through a difficult time or die and go to heaven they still would not be able to believe. Surely to have such a strong resistance is actually irrational and suggests that the person may subconsciously be denying their faith through their resistance.
I take the point that athiests are frustrated things such as state funded faith schools and bishops in the house of Lords. But why does this form of fundamental athiesm take the form of attacking religeons and their members rather than the establishments they are frustrated by. Answerbank has far more posts ridiculing the religeous and their beleifs than it does asking questions about issues such as Bishops in the house of Lords.
I also feel that the obsessiveness behind this form of Atheism is too powerful and passionate to be generated by these dry subjects or issues such as people being stoned to death which probably have never effected most of the Athiests.
I would suggest that it has the same credibility as a belief that God must exist and is as rational as a belief in a God. Both are positions based on faith!
There is always an obsessive issue of pride in being told you're wrong. You see this in religion in politics and even within very narrow confines such as specialist areas of science there have been some spectacular scientific tiffs if Newton could have stoned Hooke and gotten away with it I'm sure he'd have done so. No religion necessary for passionate obsession.
The thing is that there is a scientific concept that extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof and as we discover more about the way that things like space and time and the mind behave the more extra-ordinary the claims of religion seem to become.
I know there's a fashion amoungst theists to believe that science and religion are converging but that's really not true.
Many athiests then take the step that the degree of extraordinaryness (is that a word) is so high that it's reasonable to say that billions to billions to one against is the same as impossible much the way you might say the probability of the sea turning to strawberry jelly is zero.
Philisophically this is a bad move because of the principal of falsifyabilty and because they realise that people will make the argument that their position is ultimately one of faith.
I think Richard Dawkins seems to be getting the point across these days by saying that he's about as convinced in the existance of God as he is of Faries.
I'd go with that as a position - oh and as you'll imagine it'd take more than a personal experience of faries to make me think I wasn't hallucinating!
There is always an obsessive issue of pride in being told you're wrong. You see this in religion in politics and even within very narrow confines such as specialist areas of science there have been some spectacular scientific tiffs if Newton could have stoned Hooke and gotten away with it I'm sure he'd have done so. No religion necessary for passionate obsession.
The thing is that there is a scientific concept that extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof and as we discover more about the way that things like space and time and the mind behave the more extra-ordinary the claims of religion seem to become.
I know there's a fashion amoungst theists to believe that science and religion are converging but that's really not true.
Many athiests then take the step that the degree of extraordinaryness (is that a word) is so high that it's reasonable to say that billions to billions to one against is the same as impossible much the way you might say the probability of the sea turning to strawberry jelly is zero.
Philisophically this is a bad move because of the principal of falsifyabilty and because they realise that people will make the argument that their position is ultimately one of faith.
I think Richard Dawkins seems to be getting the point across these days by saying that he's about as convinced in the existance of God as he is of Faries.
I'd go with that as a position - oh and as you'll imagine it'd take more than a personal experience of faries to make me think I wasn't hallucinating!
Fingerprint - I rarely mock or ridicule peoples beliefs... but nor do I believe that we should automatically give those beliefs undue and undeserved respect.
It is also necessary to distinguish between an agnostic, an athiest and an antitheist... they are different, but often conflated, particularly the last two.
I for one want a true church/state separation... no bishops with automatic rights to sit in the House of Lords, Humanist thoughts of the day on Radio 4, faith based explanations of life, the universe and everything confined to Religious Education rather than the science curriculum, and a recognition that having a faith in a supernatural supreme being does not confer on the holder some sort of moral or spiritual high ground.
No true scientist could possibly state with absolute certainty that there is no God... but they are quite at liberty to say that the probability is so remote and unlikely as to place God in the same category as fairies at the bottom of the garden.
Dawkins, in his book the God Delusion, talks about different degrees of faith, or the lack of it. Paraphrasing, it goes like this
1. Strong Theiest 100% certainty of god
2.High probability, but short of 100%
3. Higher than 50%. Technically Agnostic, but leaning towards Theism
4.Exactly 50%. Impartial Agnosticism
5.Lower than 50%..... agnostic, leaning towards atheism
6.Very low probability, but short of zero. Atheist.
7.Strong Athiest. I know there is no God, with as much conviction as a strong Theist knows there is a God.
I would put myself into Category 6 on this scale.
I only feel the need to adopt a crusading approach to religion when i see what in my opinion are bigoted or fanciful posts proselytising on behalf of theism, or ignoring or dismissing scientific fact.
It is also necessary to distinguish between an agnostic, an athiest and an antitheist... they are different, but often conflated, particularly the last two.
I for one want a true church/state separation... no bishops with automatic rights to sit in the House of Lords, Humanist thoughts of the day on Radio 4, faith based explanations of life, the universe and everything confined to Religious Education rather than the science curriculum, and a recognition that having a faith in a supernatural supreme being does not confer on the holder some sort of moral or spiritual high ground.
No true scientist could possibly state with absolute certainty that there is no God... but they are quite at liberty to say that the probability is so remote and unlikely as to place God in the same category as fairies at the bottom of the garden.
Dawkins, in his book the God Delusion, talks about different degrees of faith, or the lack of it. Paraphrasing, it goes like this
1. Strong Theiest 100% certainty of god
2.High probability, but short of 100%
3. Higher than 50%. Technically Agnostic, but leaning towards Theism
4.Exactly 50%. Impartial Agnosticism
5.Lower than 50%..... agnostic, leaning towards atheism
6.Very low probability, but short of zero. Atheist.
7.Strong Athiest. I know there is no God, with as much conviction as a strong Theist knows there is a God.
I would put myself into Category 6 on this scale.
I only feel the need to adopt a crusading approach to religion when i see what in my opinion are bigoted or fanciful posts proselytising on behalf of theism, or ignoring or dismissing scientific fact.
Wizard69 - I don't hate reason and logic. How could I, and claim to remain sane? But I accept that reason and logic do not answer all of my questions regards God. The God I believe in is so suprememely powerful and majestic, that he is above being examined like a laboratory specimen. If you could apply reason and logic to an examination of God, then He would not be the Supreme Being that He is.
Even in nature, reason and logic break down at the micro and macro level of science, and we accept this in good faith, as that is the world as we find it, even though at these levels it does not behave in a manner that we are accustomed to. There is also such a thing as subjective knowledge, which is known but cannot be proven.
You have spent a lot of time and effort trying to convince me of your atheism, and you have done this in a most polite and scholarly manner, which is greatly appreciated, but I still maintain my faith as it simply makes more sense to me to believe than to not.
Even in nature, reason and logic break down at the micro and macro level of science, and we accept this in good faith, as that is the world as we find it, even though at these levels it does not behave in a manner that we are accustomed to. There is also such a thing as subjective knowledge, which is known but cannot be proven.
You have spent a lot of time and effort trying to convince me of your atheism, and you have done this in a most polite and scholarly manner, which is greatly appreciated, but I still maintain my faith as it simply makes more sense to me to believe than to not.
(continued)
There are millions of us on both sides of this great divide, belief or non belief. That doesn't make one side mad and the other sane, does it not?
There is also experience, that an unbeliever may shrug off as coincidence. The same way you shrug off Bible prophecy.
The purpose of Bible prophecy is not to tell us when something will happen, but that it will indeed happen. When it happens, it proves to the believer, further evidence of divine intervention in the affairs of Mankind.
There are millions of us on both sides of this great divide, belief or non belief. That doesn't make one side mad and the other sane, does it not?
There is also experience, that an unbeliever may shrug off as coincidence. The same way you shrug off Bible prophecy.
The purpose of Bible prophecy is not to tell us when something will happen, but that it will indeed happen. When it happens, it proves to the believer, further evidence of divine intervention in the affairs of Mankind.
Oh! So it�s sermon time again? . . .
There is perhaps no greater sin than the belief in Biblical prophecy for it is the belief itself which leads to its fulfillment within the range of possibility.
Fortunately Heaven & Hell are not within the range of possibility albeit the state of the world we now witness that is the consequence of such unjustifiable and depraved desire that it should come to pass, �hallelujah!�.
We are not born with the belief in a being of perfect and total knowledge of how we are to live. Such knowledge we must obtain for ourselves as best we can through the development of our limited but actual ability to learn to reason and thereby distinguish between the understanding of reality we are able to acquire and the self-delusion of fear driven wishful thinking.
Knowledge of �God� (or of reality in many cases) we are taught is not even within the realm of human possibility. We are taught not to question but to simply obey as our rulers so desire of us and so according to their whim.
By accepting the existence of �God� as they see fit to describe it, we are presenting ourselves as willing victims and sacrificial fodder to their �God given authority�. This sanction thus given to their control is their justification to rule us as they see fit. The guilt you feel is not earned by your transgressions but in the surrender of yourself and the efficacy of your own mind to the unquestioned dictates of a �supreme being� as handed to you by your morally inferior intercessors.
Does �God� exist? You bet he does and if you allow his self-proclaimed associates to give their �God� complete access to your heart and soul than do not expect your mind to come to your defense or in denying what your reason tells you, to alert you to the error of your ways.
There is perhaps no greater sin than the belief in Biblical prophecy for it is the belief itself which leads to its fulfillment within the range of possibility.
Fortunately Heaven & Hell are not within the range of possibility albeit the state of the world we now witness that is the consequence of such unjustifiable and depraved desire that it should come to pass, �hallelujah!�.
We are not born with the belief in a being of perfect and total knowledge of how we are to live. Such knowledge we must obtain for ourselves as best we can through the development of our limited but actual ability to learn to reason and thereby distinguish between the understanding of reality we are able to acquire and the self-delusion of fear driven wishful thinking.
Knowledge of �God� (or of reality in many cases) we are taught is not even within the realm of human possibility. We are taught not to question but to simply obey as our rulers so desire of us and so according to their whim.
By accepting the existence of �God� as they see fit to describe it, we are presenting ourselves as willing victims and sacrificial fodder to their �God given authority�. This sanction thus given to their control is their justification to rule us as they see fit. The guilt you feel is not earned by your transgressions but in the surrender of yourself and the efficacy of your own mind to the unquestioned dictates of a �supreme being� as handed to you by your morally inferior intercessors.
Does �God� exist? You bet he does and if you allow his self-proclaimed associates to give their �God� complete access to your heart and soul than do not expect your mind to come to your defense or in denying what your reason tells you, to alert you to the error of your ways.
As to answering the question that captions this thread:
The hallmark of reason is the understanding that we acquire knowledge of reality through the faculty of perception of the world out there. When we begin to believe that the construction of our view of reality no longer requires that facts correlate to what we witness in the form of those perceptions, we have ceased to reason and bypass the only route to knowledge that exists.
Faith is the fabrication of �facts� devoid of proof and divorced from the justification that comes with the confirmation of verification. The consequence of equating what we feel is true with actual knowledge is the destruction of our ability to validate the knowledge we once possessed as it joins and mixes with our feelings within the crucible of uncertainty.
All humans and creatures born and objects with or without life are by default atheists. It is not required of a rock that it choose not to believe in a god or gods for such a belief not to exist within its compounds. Without a mind and the ability to suspend judgment, faith is not possible. The belief in the existence of a god or gods is a choice as is the choice necessary to believe in such an existent, the adoption of faith as a valid parent to knowledge.
Thanks for asking!
The hallmark of reason is the understanding that we acquire knowledge of reality through the faculty of perception of the world out there. When we begin to believe that the construction of our view of reality no longer requires that facts correlate to what we witness in the form of those perceptions, we have ceased to reason and bypass the only route to knowledge that exists.
Faith is the fabrication of �facts� devoid of proof and divorced from the justification that comes with the confirmation of verification. The consequence of equating what we feel is true with actual knowledge is the destruction of our ability to validate the knowledge we once possessed as it joins and mixes with our feelings within the crucible of uncertainty.
All humans and creatures born and objects with or without life are by default atheists. It is not required of a rock that it choose not to believe in a god or gods for such a belief not to exist within its compounds. Without a mind and the ability to suspend judgment, faith is not possible. The belief in the existence of a god or gods is a choice as is the choice necessary to believe in such an existent, the adoption of faith as a valid parent to knowledge.
Thanks for asking!
mibn2cweus - I wonder .... did you write that post for me or for you? "Sermon time ..." and the gloves are off! I think you are less interested in debate than in scoring points. Well O.K. then, you shoot straight and fast and it would take me a week to answer all of your points, which I won't, except to say this.
All of your knowledge is based on what you get through your five senses, if you had ten senses, you would undoubtedly double your knowledge. But you rely solely on this source of knowledge, without considering the fact that a spiritual dimension would not necessarily be revealed to you through your five senses. There is expereience and revelation and subjective knowledge. Also , you dismiss Bible prophecy far too quickly. To suggest that there is nothing in it?
If the God that you do not believe in exists, would He allow Himself to be examined like a laboratory specimen to have His morals appraised and compared to the moral code of His creation?
You are lacking some important information, and I think you can be very patronising.
All of your knowledge is based on what you get through your five senses, if you had ten senses, you would undoubtedly double your knowledge. But you rely solely on this source of knowledge, without considering the fact that a spiritual dimension would not necessarily be revealed to you through your five senses. There is expereience and revelation and subjective knowledge. Also , you dismiss Bible prophecy far too quickly. To suggest that there is nothing in it?
If the God that you do not believe in exists, would He allow Himself to be examined like a laboratory specimen to have His morals appraised and compared to the moral code of His creation?
You are lacking some important information, and I think you can be very patronising.
Theland...I take it that you didnt bother looking up this...
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/lo ng.html
You keep banging on about bible prophecy when there is no more truth in it than the prophecies of nostradamas.And why cant we question YOUR gods morals when you are so quick to question the morals of the muslim god? Seems like a childish case of "my god's better than yourrrr god, nah, nah, na, nah, na". And why do you consider revelation and subjective knowledge to be of any value in determining the existance of god? The Yorkshire ripper considered that he was doing gods work because he had "revelations" and subjectively believed it.That didnt make it 'real' or true, because revelations or subjective knowledge are not reliable guide lines for seeking out what is true.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/lo ng.html
You keep banging on about bible prophecy when there is no more truth in it than the prophecies of nostradamas.And why cant we question YOUR gods morals when you are so quick to question the morals of the muslim god? Seems like a childish case of "my god's better than yourrrr god, nah, nah, na, nah, na". And why do you consider revelation and subjective knowledge to be of any value in determining the existance of god? The Yorkshire ripper considered that he was doing gods work because he had "revelations" and subjectively believed it.That didnt make it 'real' or true, because revelations or subjective knowledge are not reliable guide lines for seeking out what is true.
1 to 16 of 16
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.