Arts & Literature1 min ago
Atheist Faith?
48 Answers
What constitutes atheist faith?
A belief that the universe came from nothing without a cause?
A belief that inert chemicals suddenly sprang into life?
Any others ?
A belief that the universe came from nothing without a cause?
A belief that inert chemicals suddenly sprang into life?
Any others ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. 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.
There is no such thing as atheist faith.
Atheist simply means without a belief in gods.
It's not a faith; it's an absence of faith.
On the other hand Christianity has a belief that:
a) It's not possible for a bunch of inert chemicals to spring into life.
b) Therefore an entire being must have sprung into life from nothing, in order to create them.
Atheist simply means without a belief in gods.
It's not a faith; it's an absence of faith.
On the other hand Christianity has a belief that:
a) It's not possible for a bunch of inert chemicals to spring into life.
b) Therefore an entire being must have sprung into life from nothing, in order to create them.
All of this belief in causes as necessary is rather bizarre. God, presumably by definition, had no cause except himself, so the primary difference between theists and atheists is that theists insist on taking one further step to reach the ultimate cause. The Universe is entirely capable of being its own cause.
For the "inert chemicals springing to life" question, we are rather far from being in a position to answer that definitively. It doesn't matter; we are a lot closer now for having tried to answer the question.
For the "inert chemicals springing to life" question, we are rather far from being in a position to answer that definitively. It doesn't matter; we are a lot closer now for having tried to answer the question.
@Theland
//What constitutes atheist faith? //
As per TheChair's reply: nothing. Atheism is, to faith, as 0 is to 1.
It isn't -1; it cannot negate faith, or make faith go away. It should be no threat to you.
Faith is a threat to atheism, if you're a blogger in Bangladesh but that's another story.
//A belief that the universe came from nothing without a cause? //
A hypothesis. The event itself is unrepeatable so it cannot be repeated under laboratory conditions or subjected to measurement ir analysis. It is an extrapolation from observable, measurable properties of the *current* state of the universe.
//A belief that inert chemicals suddenly sprang into life? //
A hypothesis, once more. Possibly unrepeatable, exact chemical conditions on earth still only a "best guess" and ineluctable, other than by measurements of spectra from the atmospheres of extrasolar planets.
//Any others ? //
Ask a thousand atheists, you might get dozens of answers unique to each individual.
(cue Life of Brian sketch)
//What constitutes atheist faith? //
As per TheChair's reply: nothing. Atheism is, to faith, as 0 is to 1.
It isn't -1; it cannot negate faith, or make faith go away. It should be no threat to you.
Faith is a threat to atheism, if you're a blogger in Bangladesh but that's another story.
//A belief that the universe came from nothing without a cause? //
A hypothesis. The event itself is unrepeatable so it cannot be repeated under laboratory conditions or subjected to measurement ir analysis. It is an extrapolation from observable, measurable properties of the *current* state of the universe.
//A belief that inert chemicals suddenly sprang into life? //
A hypothesis, once more. Possibly unrepeatable, exact chemical conditions on earth still only a "best guess" and ineluctable, other than by measurements of spectra from the atmospheres of extrasolar planets.
//Any others ? //
Ask a thousand atheists, you might get dozens of answers unique to each individual.
(cue Life of Brian sketch)
The examples in your post, Theland, refer only to a belief (or non-belief) in a 'Creator'. Such a belief (or absence of it) has absolutely nothing to do with whether anyone believes in 'God' or not.
For example, a man could create life in a test tube (thus becoming a 'Creator') and then simply walk away from it. The 'Creator' would NOT be (or become) immortal, neither would he become a 'moral guardian' over the life form that he'd created.
So, even if some form of intelligent being created the Universe (which I have no reason to believe in), there is no logical reason whatsoever to assume that the aforementioned intelligent being either
(a) still exists ; or
(b) has any interest in the actions and welfare of a totally insignificant life form, on a totally insignificant planet, revolving around a totally insignificant star in an extremely minor galaxy within that universe.
For example, a man could create life in a test tube (thus becoming a 'Creator') and then simply walk away from it. The 'Creator' would NOT be (or become) immortal, neither would he become a 'moral guardian' over the life form that he'd created.
So, even if some form of intelligent being created the Universe (which I have no reason to believe in), there is no logical reason whatsoever to assume that the aforementioned intelligent being either
(a) still exists ; or
(b) has any interest in the actions and welfare of a totally insignificant life form, on a totally insignificant planet, revolving around a totally insignificant star in an extremely minor galaxy within that universe.
-- answer removed --
@birdie1971
Actually, the potential danger of that idea of there being no eternal punishment for immorality getting "out there" is one of the reasons I don't particularly want atheism to spread.
"Docas you would be done by" might be an idea plagiarised from Jesus but I hold by it. Unfortunately, I didn't have the opportunity to arrive at such a way of thinking, for myself. The idea is 'injected' into you, in my case via School assembly readings (a roundabout way of saying that family never went to church but were unable to protect me from daily exposure). Thus I will never know if I would have sorted out my own "moral compass" by the power of thought, alone.
It seems such a simple concept that one cannot walk down the street without being killed, or worse, if other people aren't inhibited against doing so. Only that which inhibits *me* from causing harm to others would, via reciprocation, prevent others doing that to me.
I must be moral if I am to expect any level of kindness from others.
Jesus said to turn the other cheek. Be a doormat, let the Romans walk over you. I never really understood what he was trying to achieve, except help the Romans keep their slaves subdued.
If he'd turned the other cheek to Mo, I reckon Mo would have chopped his head off. (That is, assuming he didn't recognise him for who he supposedly was).
Actually, the potential danger of that idea of there being no eternal punishment for immorality getting "out there" is one of the reasons I don't particularly want atheism to spread.
"Docas you would be done by" might be an idea plagiarised from Jesus but I hold by it. Unfortunately, I didn't have the opportunity to arrive at such a way of thinking, for myself. The idea is 'injected' into you, in my case via School assembly readings (a roundabout way of saying that family never went to church but were unable to protect me from daily exposure). Thus I will never know if I would have sorted out my own "moral compass" by the power of thought, alone.
It seems such a simple concept that one cannot walk down the street without being killed, or worse, if other people aren't inhibited against doing so. Only that which inhibits *me* from causing harm to others would, via reciprocation, prevent others doing that to me.
I must be moral if I am to expect any level of kindness from others.
Jesus said to turn the other cheek. Be a doormat, let the Romans walk over you. I never really understood what he was trying to achieve, except help the Romans keep their slaves subdued.
If he'd turned the other cheek to Mo, I reckon Mo would have chopped his head off. (That is, assuming he didn't recognise him for who he supposedly was).
@Vetuste
I'm ashamed to have to admit that I chopped out my entire opening paragraph, praising birdie for saying much of what is on my own mind, only more coherently than I could ever manage; because I felt it was too obsequious. I'd only recently read his equally superb contribution to atalanta's Koran thread, so he's on a roll, today.
I'm ashamed to have to admit that I chopped out my entire opening paragraph, praising birdie for saying much of what is on my own mind, only more coherently than I could ever manage; because I felt it was too obsequious. I'd only recently read his equally superb contribution to atalanta's Koran thread, so he's on a roll, today.
Morality is derived from (and in its codified form is a rationalisation of) our ancestral origins and habits as pack animals, Hypo. If weak creatures can't care for, co-operate with and help each other they won't eat. VE versus lion doesn't work. Get together, then we maybe have an chance.
t strength f
t strength f
Old_Geezer
Surely the only thing that constitutes atheist faith is the insistence that there is no deity.
07:10 Sun 01st Nov 2015
Particularly not One who casts Himself in His own alleged script in the role of the principal villain while demanding of His victims their unquestioning devotion and undivided worship.
Surely the only thing that constitutes atheist faith is the insistence that there is no deity.
07:10 Sun 01st Nov 2015
Particularly not One who casts Himself in His own alleged script in the role of the principal villain while demanding of His victims their unquestioning devotion and undivided worship.
//the potential danger of that idea of there being no eternal punishment for immorality getting "out there" is one of the reasons I don't particularly want atheism to spread.//
Immorality, perpetrated in the guise of morality, is already ‘out there’ in abundance. Is it ‘moral’ to impose fear of terrible punishment for any perceived misdemeanour upon a little child’s mind – or even the idea that there exists an all-seeing, invisible eye watching constantly to spot any failing? Is it ‘moral’ to preach that the use of contraception is a ‘sin’, thereby condemning millions of families to lives of poverty and misery? Is it moral to cut young girls in order to discourage them from committing someone else’s notion of sexual impropriety? Is it ‘moral’ to shroud women from the world, denying them all personal freedom, lest men should fail to control their sexual urges? Is it moral to encourage people to blow themselves and others to smithereens on the promise of great personal reward? All of that is done in the name of religion and all of it sanctioned by nothing more than an egocentric idea enthusiastically embraced by the quasi superior among us. An atheist would endorse none of it. ‘Religious morality’ is an oxymoron.
Immorality, perpetrated in the guise of morality, is already ‘out there’ in abundance. Is it ‘moral’ to impose fear of terrible punishment for any perceived misdemeanour upon a little child’s mind – or even the idea that there exists an all-seeing, invisible eye watching constantly to spot any failing? Is it ‘moral’ to preach that the use of contraception is a ‘sin’, thereby condemning millions of families to lives of poverty and misery? Is it moral to cut young girls in order to discourage them from committing someone else’s notion of sexual impropriety? Is it ‘moral’ to shroud women from the world, denying them all personal freedom, lest men should fail to control their sexual urges? Is it moral to encourage people to blow themselves and others to smithereens on the promise of great personal reward? All of that is done in the name of religion and all of it sanctioned by nothing more than an egocentric idea enthusiastically embraced by the quasi superior among us. An atheist would endorse none of it. ‘Religious morality’ is an oxymoron.
Naomi, about little children’s minds. I was once a child and did not have a fear of a terrible punishment for a misdemeanour. Also Female Genital Mutiliation is done mainly for cultural, traditional or tribal rather than religious reasons.
People write some strange things on Answerbank but your sentence
“All of that is done in the name of religion and all of it sanctioned by nothing more than an egocentric idea enthusiastically embraced by the quasi superior among us.”
Is one of the most sweeping and ridiculous statements I ever read. It makes no sense at all.
“
People write some strange things on Answerbank but your sentence
“All of that is done in the name of religion and all of it sanctioned by nothing more than an egocentric idea enthusiastically embraced by the quasi superior among us.”
Is one of the most sweeping and ridiculous statements I ever read. It makes no sense at all.
“
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles18 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles24 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles31 mins ago
Can't Access My Hard Drive On File...
Technology83 mins ago
