Asserting that Atheism and Theism are both faith based positionsDoes a negative claimant have a burden of proof?In what sense is atheism scientific?Why should atheists bother debating theists?What are atheism and agnosticism?Is atheism or agnosticism more rational?What is the philosophical definition for Agnosticism (compared to Atheism/Theism)?Why would philosophical agnosticism and pragmatic atheism be considered more rational than philosophical agnosticism and pragmatic theism?How does this New Atheist argument add up?How widely accepted is the “presumption of atheism” among philosophers?Agnostic theism and agnostic atheism and their validity

Do US professors/group leaders only get a salary, but no group budget?

Are dual Irish/British citizens bound by the 90/180 day rule when travelling in the EU after Brexit?

Should I use acronyms in dialogues before telling the readers what it stands for in fiction?

Suggestions on how to spend Shaabath (constructively) alone

Describing a chess game in a novel

PTIJ: Do Irish Jews have "the luck of the Irish"?

Have the tides ever turned twice on any open problem?

Does .bashrc contain syntax errors?

Generic TVP tradeoffs?

What does "mu" mean as an interjection?

Could Sinn Fein swing any Brexit vote in Parliament?

How to generate binary array whose elements with values 1 are randomly drawn

In Aliens, how many people were on LV-426 before the Marines arrived​?

How to terminate ping <dest> &

I seem to dance, I am not a dancer. Who am I?

How does 取材で訪れた integrate into this sentence?

Optimising a list searching algorithm

What is the significance behind "40 days" that often appears in the Bible?

Deletion of copy-ctor & copy-assignment - public, private or protected?

Is there a hypothetical scenario that would make Earth uninhabitable for humans, but not for (the majority of) other animals?

World War I as a war of liberals against authoritarians?

What does "Four-F." mean?

Writing in a Christian voice

Help rendering a complicated sum/product formula



Asserting that Atheism and Theism are both faith based positions


Does a negative claimant have a burden of proof?In what sense is atheism scientific?Why should atheists bother debating theists?What are atheism and agnosticism?Is atheism or agnosticism more rational?What is the philosophical definition for Agnosticism (compared to Atheism/Theism)?Why would philosophical agnosticism and pragmatic atheism be considered more rational than philosophical agnosticism and pragmatic theism?How does this New Atheist argument add up?How widely accepted is the “presumption of atheism” among philosophers?Agnostic theism and agnostic atheism and their validity













5















I am recently testing an assertion that I have concluded namely that atheism is a faith based position just like theism is a faith based position.



The reason I arrived at this conclusion is that theists have no proof that God actually exists. It's purely a matter of faith. Yes, there maybe strong implicit proof that God exists in their opinion (scriptures, history, etc) but there is no concrete proof of God's existence. In my view, atheists also suffer from the same problem of providing a proof of their position. Specifically that they cannot prove that God is non-existent.



The typical rebuttal I get is that the burden of proof is on the theists. But I view this as a cop out and they hide behind the wall of burden of proof which is just a bias in the debate.



Given the above, I claim that both atheism and theism are positions based on faith. Would it be incorrect to claim that?










share|improve this question







New contributor




Mika'il is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 4





    This seems like a false dilemma: either a position is based on conclusive proof, or it is based on faith. I believe that the train will leave at 8. I have no conclusive proof of this (it might even turn out to be false), but it's not just a matter of faith. Rather, I have reasons and evidence (even if fallible) to back me up.

    – Eliran
    12 hours ago











  • My assertion is that neither position can provide conclusive proof. Therefore both are on faith.

    – Mika'il
    11 hours ago











  • One is a belief. The other is a lack.of belief.

    – Richard
    11 hours ago






  • 4





    I believe that the planet Xincalus in the Andromeda galaxy is inhabited by dragons. Do you share that belief? If not, why not? Is denying the existence of Xincalus a faith-based position?

    – jcsahnwaldt
    9 hours ago






  • 3





    You're confusing "I believe there is no god" and "I don't believe there is a god". The former is a faith-based position, the second isn't, and I think the majority of atheists fall into the second category.

    – c..
    7 hours ago















5















I am recently testing an assertion that I have concluded namely that atheism is a faith based position just like theism is a faith based position.



The reason I arrived at this conclusion is that theists have no proof that God actually exists. It's purely a matter of faith. Yes, there maybe strong implicit proof that God exists in their opinion (scriptures, history, etc) but there is no concrete proof of God's existence. In my view, atheists also suffer from the same problem of providing a proof of their position. Specifically that they cannot prove that God is non-existent.



The typical rebuttal I get is that the burden of proof is on the theists. But I view this as a cop out and they hide behind the wall of burden of proof which is just a bias in the debate.



Given the above, I claim that both atheism and theism are positions based on faith. Would it be incorrect to claim that?










share|improve this question







New contributor




Mika'il is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 4





    This seems like a false dilemma: either a position is based on conclusive proof, or it is based on faith. I believe that the train will leave at 8. I have no conclusive proof of this (it might even turn out to be false), but it's not just a matter of faith. Rather, I have reasons and evidence (even if fallible) to back me up.

    – Eliran
    12 hours ago











  • My assertion is that neither position can provide conclusive proof. Therefore both are on faith.

    – Mika'il
    11 hours ago











  • One is a belief. The other is a lack.of belief.

    – Richard
    11 hours ago






  • 4





    I believe that the planet Xincalus in the Andromeda galaxy is inhabited by dragons. Do you share that belief? If not, why not? Is denying the existence of Xincalus a faith-based position?

    – jcsahnwaldt
    9 hours ago






  • 3





    You're confusing "I believe there is no god" and "I don't believe there is a god". The former is a faith-based position, the second isn't, and I think the majority of atheists fall into the second category.

    – c..
    7 hours ago













5












5








5


2






I am recently testing an assertion that I have concluded namely that atheism is a faith based position just like theism is a faith based position.



The reason I arrived at this conclusion is that theists have no proof that God actually exists. It's purely a matter of faith. Yes, there maybe strong implicit proof that God exists in their opinion (scriptures, history, etc) but there is no concrete proof of God's existence. In my view, atheists also suffer from the same problem of providing a proof of their position. Specifically that they cannot prove that God is non-existent.



The typical rebuttal I get is that the burden of proof is on the theists. But I view this as a cop out and they hide behind the wall of burden of proof which is just a bias in the debate.



Given the above, I claim that both atheism and theism are positions based on faith. Would it be incorrect to claim that?










share|improve this question







New contributor




Mika'il is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












I am recently testing an assertion that I have concluded namely that atheism is a faith based position just like theism is a faith based position.



The reason I arrived at this conclusion is that theists have no proof that God actually exists. It's purely a matter of faith. Yes, there maybe strong implicit proof that God exists in their opinion (scriptures, history, etc) but there is no concrete proof of God's existence. In my view, atheists also suffer from the same problem of providing a proof of their position. Specifically that they cannot prove that God is non-existent.



The typical rebuttal I get is that the burden of proof is on the theists. But I view this as a cop out and they hide behind the wall of burden of proof which is just a bias in the debate.



Given the above, I claim that both atheism and theism are positions based on faith. Would it be incorrect to claim that?







theology atheism






share|improve this question







New contributor




Mika'il is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question







New contributor




Mika'il is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question






New contributor




Mika'il is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 12 hours ago









Mika'ilMika'il

1304




1304




New contributor




Mika'il is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Mika'il is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Mika'il is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







  • 4





    This seems like a false dilemma: either a position is based on conclusive proof, or it is based on faith. I believe that the train will leave at 8. I have no conclusive proof of this (it might even turn out to be false), but it's not just a matter of faith. Rather, I have reasons and evidence (even if fallible) to back me up.

    – Eliran
    12 hours ago











  • My assertion is that neither position can provide conclusive proof. Therefore both are on faith.

    – Mika'il
    11 hours ago











  • One is a belief. The other is a lack.of belief.

    – Richard
    11 hours ago






  • 4





    I believe that the planet Xincalus in the Andromeda galaxy is inhabited by dragons. Do you share that belief? If not, why not? Is denying the existence of Xincalus a faith-based position?

    – jcsahnwaldt
    9 hours ago






  • 3





    You're confusing "I believe there is no god" and "I don't believe there is a god". The former is a faith-based position, the second isn't, and I think the majority of atheists fall into the second category.

    – c..
    7 hours ago












  • 4





    This seems like a false dilemma: either a position is based on conclusive proof, or it is based on faith. I believe that the train will leave at 8. I have no conclusive proof of this (it might even turn out to be false), but it's not just a matter of faith. Rather, I have reasons and evidence (even if fallible) to back me up.

    – Eliran
    12 hours ago











  • My assertion is that neither position can provide conclusive proof. Therefore both are on faith.

    – Mika'il
    11 hours ago











  • One is a belief. The other is a lack.of belief.

    – Richard
    11 hours ago






  • 4





    I believe that the planet Xincalus in the Andromeda galaxy is inhabited by dragons. Do you share that belief? If not, why not? Is denying the existence of Xincalus a faith-based position?

    – jcsahnwaldt
    9 hours ago






  • 3





    You're confusing "I believe there is no god" and "I don't believe there is a god". The former is a faith-based position, the second isn't, and I think the majority of atheists fall into the second category.

    – c..
    7 hours ago







4




4





This seems like a false dilemma: either a position is based on conclusive proof, or it is based on faith. I believe that the train will leave at 8. I have no conclusive proof of this (it might even turn out to be false), but it's not just a matter of faith. Rather, I have reasons and evidence (even if fallible) to back me up.

– Eliran
12 hours ago





This seems like a false dilemma: either a position is based on conclusive proof, or it is based on faith. I believe that the train will leave at 8. I have no conclusive proof of this (it might even turn out to be false), but it's not just a matter of faith. Rather, I have reasons and evidence (even if fallible) to back me up.

– Eliran
12 hours ago













My assertion is that neither position can provide conclusive proof. Therefore both are on faith.

– Mika'il
11 hours ago





My assertion is that neither position can provide conclusive proof. Therefore both are on faith.

– Mika'il
11 hours ago













One is a belief. The other is a lack.of belief.

– Richard
11 hours ago





One is a belief. The other is a lack.of belief.

– Richard
11 hours ago




4




4





I believe that the planet Xincalus in the Andromeda galaxy is inhabited by dragons. Do you share that belief? If not, why not? Is denying the existence of Xincalus a faith-based position?

– jcsahnwaldt
9 hours ago





I believe that the planet Xincalus in the Andromeda galaxy is inhabited by dragons. Do you share that belief? If not, why not? Is denying the existence of Xincalus a faith-based position?

– jcsahnwaldt
9 hours ago




3




3





You're confusing "I believe there is no god" and "I don't believe there is a god". The former is a faith-based position, the second isn't, and I think the majority of atheists fall into the second category.

– c..
7 hours ago





You're confusing "I believe there is no god" and "I don't believe there is a god". The former is a faith-based position, the second isn't, and I think the majority of atheists fall into the second category.

– c..
7 hours ago










9 Answers
9






active

oldest

votes


















10














We must draw a distinction between atheism and agnosticism. Atheism is not believing in the existence of a God (or Gods), regardless of whether conclusive evidence is available, while agnosticism is the view that conclusive evidence for whether a God or Gods exists cannot exist. There can be an agnostic atheist, a gnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, or a gnostic theist.





You seem to be claiming that because we cannot have conclusive proof that God does not exist, therefore atheists are operating out of a purely faith-based position. Here's the thing: most atheists are agnostic. They accept that we can never know for sure that God does not exist, but they think it is more likely for the default state (no God) to be true in the light of insufficient evidence by theists. There is nothing wrong with this.



For more about the distinction between atheism and agnosticism, see The Difference Between Atheists and Agnostics by ThoughtCo and the entry on Atheism and Agnsoticism in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




YiFan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • This is interesting. I never considered this before. I will look into it.

    – Mika'il
    7 hours ago






  • 1





    The fact that there are so many theists (the vast majority of the population), is sufficient evidence.

    – Bread
    6 hours ago






  • 1





    @Bread. But the fact that the theists believe in so many different gods is almost conclusive proof that they are wrong

    – Philip Roe
    5 hours ago






  • 1





    @PhilipRoe Almost isn't conclusive. Bear in mind that every member of any large family would describe a particular patriarch so variantly that one might think they're not all talking about the same person. That's because they all know him from diverging perspectives. Also bear in mind that many people 'adopt' or 'nominate' someone else to play the role of 'father' in their lives. So many theists do not worship the correctly defined God. But they still worship something very real, albeit in gross error.

    – Bread
    4 hours ago






  • 1





    @Bread Thank you for pointing out that "almost is not conclusive" That really might not have occurred to me. The rational arguments for either theism or atheism are both unbelievably weak. Our minds fail us. I choose to be agnostic. This does not however mean that the questions are uninteresting.

    – Philip Roe
    4 hours ago



















6














Alvin Plantinga, a Christian philosopher, presents a similar question regarding an extreme form of atheism that he calls "naturalism". Rather than asking whether the atheism of naturalism is faith-based, he asks whether naturalism might be a "religion" (page 311):




Now it is not clear that naturalism, as it stands, is a religion; there is enough vagueness around the edges of the concept of religion for it to be unclear whether naturalism does or doesn't belong there. But naturalism does serve one of the main functions of a religion: it offers a master narrative, it answers deep and important human questions. Immanuel Kant identified three great human questions: Is there such a person as God? Do we human beings have significant freedom? And can we human beings expect life after death? Naturalism gives answers to these questions: there is no God, there is no immortality, and the case for genuine freedom is at best dicey. Naturalism tells us what reality is ultimately like, where we fit into the universe, how we are related to other creatures, and how it happens that we came to be. Naturalism is therefore in competition with the great theistic religions: even if it is not itself a religion, it plays one of the main roles of a religion.




If being faith-based means to believe in a master narrative that answers Kant's questions, that atheism might be considered, using Plantinga's argument, a quasi-faith-based or a quasi-religion. However, not all atheists need be labeled as believing in naturalism or any other master narrative.



There also may be good reasons not to link atheism in general, or even the atheism of naturalism, too closely with religion. In Where the Conflict Really Lies Plantinga wants to show that traditional theistic religions have at most a superficial conflict with science while naturalism has a deep conflict with science through his Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. He would likely want naturalism to stand apart from traditional religions when making such a critique of it and not consider it as a religion.



Here is the question:




Given the above, I claim that both atheism and theism are positions based on faith. Would it be incorrect to claim that?




If the atheism being considered presents a master narrative in competition with theistic religions it could be considered a quasi-religion because of that narrative. Not all atheists have such a narrative nor believe in naturalism. Some atheists may be simply indifferent to such narratives.




Plantinga, A. (2011). Where the conflict really lies: Science, religion, and naturalism. OUP USA.






share|improve this answer


















  • 2





    I think this is one of the issues which make this a tricky debate: the different shades of atheism.

    – Mika'il
    7 hours ago


















5














Both positions, the theist and the atheist made a claim: The theist claimed the existence of god, the atheist claimed the non-existence of god. History shows: Neither of them could prove his claim.



Having learned the lesson, today’s atheists make a weaker claim: The traditional god-concept - god being omnipotent, omniscient, all-good - is inconsistent. The concept leads to the problem of theodicy.



Hence atheists consider the existence of god a hypothesis. They claim that this hypothesis creates more problems than solves existing problems. Therefore atheists dismiss this hypothesis. They know: A world-model without a god-concept is less complicated but leaves open fundamental questions due to lack of reliable answers.



IMO that’s not faith but heuristics.






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    Most people would accept that the more extraordinary a claim, the more extraordinary should be the proof that it's true. Asserting that a thing doesn't exist when there's no definitive proof that that thing exists seems to be the position which has the stronger position.

    – Valorum
    8 hours ago







  • 2





    Atheism is not an affirmative belief. It is the rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or the denial of gods, it is the lack of belief in gods.

    – Alexander Gegg
    8 hours ago






  • 2





    @Alexander Gegg "Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods)." The quote is from plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#DefiAthe

    – Jo Wehler
    8 hours ago






  • 1





    @AlexanderGegg - Indeed. Many/most atheists are also naturalists, eschewing belief in any supernatural force.

    – Valorum
    8 hours ago






  • 1





    @AlexanderGegg - Indeed. God seems to crop up in all sorts of gaps. Then those gaps get smaller and farther back.

    – Valorum
    5 hours ago


















4














No, atheism is not a faith based position. This has been debunked time and time again and there are numerous resources on the internet that cover this error in logic. If theism claims the existance of a god, an atheist is one who is not convinced of that claim and rejects it.



An atheist has no responsibility to disprove the claim that god does exist because the atheist is not asserting anything. The burden of proof is on the person trying convince another with their claim. Claims require support and the thiest made the claim so the thiest must support it. Not having faith in something is not faith much like not having a hobby is not a hobby and not exercising is not a form of exercise.






share|improve this answer


















  • 2





    You are just asserting the bias in the debate which I mentioned in my post. Remove the bias. Consider the assertion in isolation. Can an atheist prove the non-existent of a God?

    – Mika'il
    11 hours ago






  • 6





    @Mika'il It's not bias; it's simply how argumentation works. Athiesm only exist because theism exists; it's right there in the name: a-theism. It makes absolutely no sense to consider atheism in isolation. You're basically saying can someone conjure up the idea of something without asserting anything and disprove it. That's absurd.

    – Cell
    11 hours ago







  • 2





    We could easily imagine a parallel world where the dominant original belief is that there is no God. Later, a group of people start questioning this and claim that this not true. Now the burden of proof is on the atheists. That's why I said, eliminate the bias. The experiment is to look at the atheistic and theistic claims in isolation and to provide proof.

    – Mika'il
    10 hours ago






  • 5





    @Mika'il I disagree that we can easily imagine this. I would find it mind-boggling to discover a world of sentient beings where the primary belief is that there is no "God" without any prior knowledge of anyone asserting what "God" means or how it's defined or any positive statement about its properties . But you're right though, in that bizarre impossible hypothetical it would be the atheists that have the burden of proof, but that is not the situation here in reality.

    – Cell
    10 hours ago







  • 5





    @Mika'il I'm not being biased, it's just that people don't generally believe in negative claims unless a positive claim was asserted first. For example people don't believe in aliens because aliens have been asserted, people have disbelief in the boogeyman because the boogeyman has been asserted. You're asking me to follow along with unreasonable premises just so your argument makes sense. If you think I'm being biased then I challenge you to give me an example of a widely recognized negative claim on the empirical existence of something that precedes belief in the positve alternative.

    – Cell
    9 hours ago


















1














The crux of the matter is neatly hidden within the definition of the word faith. Mind you, both Cambridge Dictionary and Oxford Dictionary say that the main meaning is:




Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.




‘this restores one's faith in politicians’ [...]





and




great trust or confidence in something or someone:




She has no faith in modern medicine. [...]





As you can see faith is a thing that can change on the spot. But many people define faith as something fundamental and unchangeable, that cannot be impacted by such trivial action as observing the world outside. Thus a 'loaded term' complicates the discussion. Let's resolve it by naming the latter thing an axiom (unchangeable) and the former a belief (very much changeable).



If you assume axioms, you can base proofs of them. These proofs expand your knowledge about the world created by the axioms. The proofs don't depend on observations of the world, but on observations of the axioms. This is your current worldview, as your question mentioned words 'proof' and 'proving' about six times.



On the other hand, beliefs don't enable proofs. This is scary. One day you believe electrons are small chunks of matter, tomorrow some irritating publication appears about how an electron was observed to interfere with itself and you have no authority to banish these outrageous observations. Then they build a bunch of stupid transistors and they somehow work and beautify our lives, although nobody proven that beforehand.



Atheism is overwhelmingly a belief. (Or it can be based on axioms, if something goes terribly wrong.)



Theism is overwhelmingly based on axioms. No major religion says "If this book doesn't work too well in practice and you see other theories working better - then by all means use them! Absolved! Amen!".






share|improve this answer








New contributor




kubanczyk is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.



























    1














    Answers so far have considered evidence, proof and strength of argument. There's another point to consider though - utility. What is the purpose of these claims?



    If the theist considered their god(s) to be a non-participant in the world and any hypothetical afterlife, then it would not matter whether the god(s) existed or not. The debate simply wouldn't exist. A debate only exists because theists claim knowledge about their god(s)' interaction with the world and/or actions in the afterlife; and thereafter knowledge of what must be done to ensure people gain the favour of the god(s) for this.



    This leads us to the Atheist's Wager, which proves that regardless of the existence or non-existence of any god(s), the best outcome in both the temporal and spiritual domains is to live your life as if no god exists, and live a good life as defined by humanist philosophy. Not only that, but it also provides the best outcome for other people, and hence is the best moral position. This is proven by simple logic, without the need for evidence of the truth of either case.



    Having proven that humanist philosophy is the highest moral standard and the best outcome in all cases, it's then necessary to question why we should care whether the god (s) exist or not. This is the crux of where the theist's case falls down. When the existence or non-existence of god (s) is seen as a key question for how to live your life, of course it's important. But take that away, and the theist's whole argument is no more relevant than a 5-year-old trying to get their parent to answer whether they think a ninja could beat a dinosaur.



    Of course having an opinion on the subject is based on faith. But being willing to argue on the subject is based on either being irrational or having too much free time. As such, the fact the theist even cares about it invalidates their argument.






    share|improve this answer























    • But atheists argue more about it than do theists. The argumentative atheists are persistently attempting to discredit theists' beliefs.

      – Bread
      5 hours ago






    • 2





      @Bread Theists have meetings every week to reinforce their opinions. They consider it within their remit to influence the laws of countries such that those laws follow their beliefs, regardless of the moral basis of those beliefs; and several countries specifically dedicate themselves to their adherence to their thrifty beliefs. When there is an atheist anti-pope, let us know. :)

      – Graham
      5 hours ago






    • 1





      @Bread Prominent atheists do oppose theism, of course. Without exception, every one says that if those theists did not attempt to enforce their beliefs on any other human being, or attempt to spread their beliefs by any means other than rational debate, then they would have no issue with theists. What they oppose are the theist concepts of applying their beliefs to others and of proselytising and indoctrinating young people.

      – Graham
      5 hours ago











    • Of course both theists and atheists meet together among themselves, because they have something in common: their lifestyles and attitudes. And if atheists take active issue with theism, then it's only fair to expect theists should likewise take issue with atheism.

      – Bread
      4 hours ago












    • @Bread That's fine, and it's fair, but that doesn't mean atheists care much about what you personally believe unless you choose to engage in debate. (I've got a young kid, so I'll happily debate ninjas vs dinosaurs. :) They do care if you indoctrinate your child in your belief, or vote to deny rights to others based on your belief.

      – Graham
      4 hours ago



















    0














    You already noticed, that theres different "levels" of atheism. (agnostics)
    I want to show yet another perspective, that doesn't rely on faith.



    Alot of Religions, are not worth following, even if you assume everything they say is correct.



    If you get to heaven even without following the religion / the god is allforgiving, then there is no need to follow it.



    If you don't get to heaven despite living a moral life but not believing in god, then God doesn't seem like he is worth following. What god would condem someone to hell, because he uses his mind that supposedly god gave to him.



    If God is like he is described in a lot of the big religions, then he doesn't seem worth following, just think about what the Christian god has done in the bible. (Mass extinction of innocent people with a flood, telling someone to sacrifice their son, and so on).



    You might even argue, that if God is omnipotent, then he is not very nice for letting innocent kids die horribly.



    All of these positions have nothing to do with faith. You don't believe (or disbelieve!) in anything, you just look at the possibilitys and act based on logic and reason.



    You might also reject the Idea of following a Religion, because from a pure numbers game, you are very unlikely to be right. If we assume that a religion is based on faith, then you can't choose one religion over the other. So what now? If you are in a Religion you are still an "atheist" to all the other religions. How can you reconsile with that?






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Lichtbringer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.




















    • You have done a lot of research on God, but your conclusions are all based on hearsay. So either you haven't done any firsthand research of your own, or you have chosen to give it up for some reason. Either way, it indicates a lot of bias on your part.

      – Bread
      3 hours ago











    • what?..........

      – Lichtbringer
      2 hours ago


















    0














    It's very simple. Theism is belief in deity. Atheism is lack of belief in deity.



    Neither position comments upon the ontological status of deity.



    Atheists and theists, however, may hold any variety of opinions or beliefs.






    share|improve this answer






























      0














      The only requirement of meeting the definition of "atheist" is that you do not have belief in any god(s). Computers, rocks, and newborn babies are all, by definition, atheists; because they do not believe in any god(s), notwithstanding that they do not understand what is meant by "god", nor that they have never even thought about the question, nor that they do not even have the cognitive capacity to consider the question.



      No faith is required to not subscribe to a faith-based belief, because having faith is not a default attribute of anything, human or otherwise. It is simply not part of the definition of being an atheist that you must have some kind of belief one way or the other on whether there is one or more god(s).






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      user37821 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.



















        Your Answer








        StackExchange.ready(function()
        var channelOptions =
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "265"
        ;
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
        createEditor();
        );

        else
        createEditor();

        );

        function createEditor()
        StackExchange.prepareEditor(
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
        convertImagesToLinks: false,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: null,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader:
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        ,
        noCode: true, onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        );



        );






        Mika'il is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function ()
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f61156%2fasserting-that-atheism-and-theism-are-both-faith-based-positions%23new-answer', 'question_page');

        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        9 Answers
        9






        active

        oldest

        votes








        9 Answers
        9






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        10














        We must draw a distinction between atheism and agnosticism. Atheism is not believing in the existence of a God (or Gods), regardless of whether conclusive evidence is available, while agnosticism is the view that conclusive evidence for whether a God or Gods exists cannot exist. There can be an agnostic atheist, a gnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, or a gnostic theist.





        You seem to be claiming that because we cannot have conclusive proof that God does not exist, therefore atheists are operating out of a purely faith-based position. Here's the thing: most atheists are agnostic. They accept that we can never know for sure that God does not exist, but they think it is more likely for the default state (no God) to be true in the light of insufficient evidence by theists. There is nothing wrong with this.



        For more about the distinction between atheism and agnosticism, see The Difference Between Atheists and Agnostics by ThoughtCo and the entry on Atheism and Agnsoticism in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.






        share|improve this answer










        New contributor




        YiFan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.




















        • This is interesting. I never considered this before. I will look into it.

          – Mika'il
          7 hours ago






        • 1





          The fact that there are so many theists (the vast majority of the population), is sufficient evidence.

          – Bread
          6 hours ago






        • 1





          @Bread. But the fact that the theists believe in so many different gods is almost conclusive proof that they are wrong

          – Philip Roe
          5 hours ago






        • 1





          @PhilipRoe Almost isn't conclusive. Bear in mind that every member of any large family would describe a particular patriarch so variantly that one might think they're not all talking about the same person. That's because they all know him from diverging perspectives. Also bear in mind that many people 'adopt' or 'nominate' someone else to play the role of 'father' in their lives. So many theists do not worship the correctly defined God. But they still worship something very real, albeit in gross error.

          – Bread
          4 hours ago






        • 1





          @Bread Thank you for pointing out that "almost is not conclusive" That really might not have occurred to me. The rational arguments for either theism or atheism are both unbelievably weak. Our minds fail us. I choose to be agnostic. This does not however mean that the questions are uninteresting.

          – Philip Roe
          4 hours ago
















        10














        We must draw a distinction between atheism and agnosticism. Atheism is not believing in the existence of a God (or Gods), regardless of whether conclusive evidence is available, while agnosticism is the view that conclusive evidence for whether a God or Gods exists cannot exist. There can be an agnostic atheist, a gnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, or a gnostic theist.





        You seem to be claiming that because we cannot have conclusive proof that God does not exist, therefore atheists are operating out of a purely faith-based position. Here's the thing: most atheists are agnostic. They accept that we can never know for sure that God does not exist, but they think it is more likely for the default state (no God) to be true in the light of insufficient evidence by theists. There is nothing wrong with this.



        For more about the distinction between atheism and agnosticism, see The Difference Between Atheists and Agnostics by ThoughtCo and the entry on Atheism and Agnsoticism in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.






        share|improve this answer










        New contributor




        YiFan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.




















        • This is interesting. I never considered this before. I will look into it.

          – Mika'il
          7 hours ago






        • 1





          The fact that there are so many theists (the vast majority of the population), is sufficient evidence.

          – Bread
          6 hours ago






        • 1





          @Bread. But the fact that the theists believe in so many different gods is almost conclusive proof that they are wrong

          – Philip Roe
          5 hours ago






        • 1





          @PhilipRoe Almost isn't conclusive. Bear in mind that every member of any large family would describe a particular patriarch so variantly that one might think they're not all talking about the same person. That's because they all know him from diverging perspectives. Also bear in mind that many people 'adopt' or 'nominate' someone else to play the role of 'father' in their lives. So many theists do not worship the correctly defined God. But they still worship something very real, albeit in gross error.

          – Bread
          4 hours ago






        • 1





          @Bread Thank you for pointing out that "almost is not conclusive" That really might not have occurred to me. The rational arguments for either theism or atheism are both unbelievably weak. Our minds fail us. I choose to be agnostic. This does not however mean that the questions are uninteresting.

          – Philip Roe
          4 hours ago














        10












        10








        10







        We must draw a distinction between atheism and agnosticism. Atheism is not believing in the existence of a God (or Gods), regardless of whether conclusive evidence is available, while agnosticism is the view that conclusive evidence for whether a God or Gods exists cannot exist. There can be an agnostic atheist, a gnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, or a gnostic theist.





        You seem to be claiming that because we cannot have conclusive proof that God does not exist, therefore atheists are operating out of a purely faith-based position. Here's the thing: most atheists are agnostic. They accept that we can never know for sure that God does not exist, but they think it is more likely for the default state (no God) to be true in the light of insufficient evidence by theists. There is nothing wrong with this.



        For more about the distinction between atheism and agnosticism, see The Difference Between Atheists and Agnostics by ThoughtCo and the entry on Atheism and Agnsoticism in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.






        share|improve this answer










        New contributor




        YiFan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.










        We must draw a distinction between atheism and agnosticism. Atheism is not believing in the existence of a God (or Gods), regardless of whether conclusive evidence is available, while agnosticism is the view that conclusive evidence for whether a God or Gods exists cannot exist. There can be an agnostic atheist, a gnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, or a gnostic theist.





        You seem to be claiming that because we cannot have conclusive proof that God does not exist, therefore atheists are operating out of a purely faith-based position. Here's the thing: most atheists are agnostic. They accept that we can never know for sure that God does not exist, but they think it is more likely for the default state (no God) to be true in the light of insufficient evidence by theists. There is nothing wrong with this.



        For more about the distinction between atheism and agnosticism, see The Difference Between Atheists and Agnostics by ThoughtCo and the entry on Atheism and Agnsoticism in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.







        share|improve this answer










        New contributor




        YiFan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.









        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 3 hours ago









        Community

        1




        1






        New contributor




        YiFan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.









        answered 7 hours ago









        YiFanYiFan

        2015




        2015




        New contributor




        YiFan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.





        New contributor





        YiFan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.






        YiFan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.












        • This is interesting. I never considered this before. I will look into it.

          – Mika'il
          7 hours ago






        • 1





          The fact that there are so many theists (the vast majority of the population), is sufficient evidence.

          – Bread
          6 hours ago






        • 1





          @Bread. But the fact that the theists believe in so many different gods is almost conclusive proof that they are wrong

          – Philip Roe
          5 hours ago






        • 1





          @PhilipRoe Almost isn't conclusive. Bear in mind that every member of any large family would describe a particular patriarch so variantly that one might think they're not all talking about the same person. That's because they all know him from diverging perspectives. Also bear in mind that many people 'adopt' or 'nominate' someone else to play the role of 'father' in their lives. So many theists do not worship the correctly defined God. But they still worship something very real, albeit in gross error.

          – Bread
          4 hours ago






        • 1





          @Bread Thank you for pointing out that "almost is not conclusive" That really might not have occurred to me. The rational arguments for either theism or atheism are both unbelievably weak. Our minds fail us. I choose to be agnostic. This does not however mean that the questions are uninteresting.

          – Philip Roe
          4 hours ago


















        • This is interesting. I never considered this before. I will look into it.

          – Mika'il
          7 hours ago






        • 1





          The fact that there are so many theists (the vast majority of the population), is sufficient evidence.

          – Bread
          6 hours ago






        • 1





          @Bread. But the fact that the theists believe in so many different gods is almost conclusive proof that they are wrong

          – Philip Roe
          5 hours ago






        • 1





          @PhilipRoe Almost isn't conclusive. Bear in mind that every member of any large family would describe a particular patriarch so variantly that one might think they're not all talking about the same person. That's because they all know him from diverging perspectives. Also bear in mind that many people 'adopt' or 'nominate' someone else to play the role of 'father' in their lives. So many theists do not worship the correctly defined God. But they still worship something very real, albeit in gross error.

          – Bread
          4 hours ago






        • 1





          @Bread Thank you for pointing out that "almost is not conclusive" That really might not have occurred to me. The rational arguments for either theism or atheism are both unbelievably weak. Our minds fail us. I choose to be agnostic. This does not however mean that the questions are uninteresting.

          – Philip Roe
          4 hours ago

















        This is interesting. I never considered this before. I will look into it.

        – Mika'il
        7 hours ago





        This is interesting. I never considered this before. I will look into it.

        – Mika'il
        7 hours ago




        1




        1





        The fact that there are so many theists (the vast majority of the population), is sufficient evidence.

        – Bread
        6 hours ago





        The fact that there are so many theists (the vast majority of the population), is sufficient evidence.

        – Bread
        6 hours ago




        1




        1





        @Bread. But the fact that the theists believe in so many different gods is almost conclusive proof that they are wrong

        – Philip Roe
        5 hours ago





        @Bread. But the fact that the theists believe in so many different gods is almost conclusive proof that they are wrong

        – Philip Roe
        5 hours ago




        1




        1





        @PhilipRoe Almost isn't conclusive. Bear in mind that every member of any large family would describe a particular patriarch so variantly that one might think they're not all talking about the same person. That's because they all know him from diverging perspectives. Also bear in mind that many people 'adopt' or 'nominate' someone else to play the role of 'father' in their lives. So many theists do not worship the correctly defined God. But they still worship something very real, albeit in gross error.

        – Bread
        4 hours ago





        @PhilipRoe Almost isn't conclusive. Bear in mind that every member of any large family would describe a particular patriarch so variantly that one might think they're not all talking about the same person. That's because they all know him from diverging perspectives. Also bear in mind that many people 'adopt' or 'nominate' someone else to play the role of 'father' in their lives. So many theists do not worship the correctly defined God. But they still worship something very real, albeit in gross error.

        – Bread
        4 hours ago




        1




        1





        @Bread Thank you for pointing out that "almost is not conclusive" That really might not have occurred to me. The rational arguments for either theism or atheism are both unbelievably weak. Our minds fail us. I choose to be agnostic. This does not however mean that the questions are uninteresting.

        – Philip Roe
        4 hours ago






        @Bread Thank you for pointing out that "almost is not conclusive" That really might not have occurred to me. The rational arguments for either theism or atheism are both unbelievably weak. Our minds fail us. I choose to be agnostic. This does not however mean that the questions are uninteresting.

        – Philip Roe
        4 hours ago












        6














        Alvin Plantinga, a Christian philosopher, presents a similar question regarding an extreme form of atheism that he calls "naturalism". Rather than asking whether the atheism of naturalism is faith-based, he asks whether naturalism might be a "religion" (page 311):




        Now it is not clear that naturalism, as it stands, is a religion; there is enough vagueness around the edges of the concept of religion for it to be unclear whether naturalism does or doesn't belong there. But naturalism does serve one of the main functions of a religion: it offers a master narrative, it answers deep and important human questions. Immanuel Kant identified three great human questions: Is there such a person as God? Do we human beings have significant freedom? And can we human beings expect life after death? Naturalism gives answers to these questions: there is no God, there is no immortality, and the case for genuine freedom is at best dicey. Naturalism tells us what reality is ultimately like, where we fit into the universe, how we are related to other creatures, and how it happens that we came to be. Naturalism is therefore in competition with the great theistic religions: even if it is not itself a religion, it plays one of the main roles of a religion.




        If being faith-based means to believe in a master narrative that answers Kant's questions, that atheism might be considered, using Plantinga's argument, a quasi-faith-based or a quasi-religion. However, not all atheists need be labeled as believing in naturalism or any other master narrative.



        There also may be good reasons not to link atheism in general, or even the atheism of naturalism, too closely with religion. In Where the Conflict Really Lies Plantinga wants to show that traditional theistic religions have at most a superficial conflict with science while naturalism has a deep conflict with science through his Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. He would likely want naturalism to stand apart from traditional religions when making such a critique of it and not consider it as a religion.



        Here is the question:




        Given the above, I claim that both atheism and theism are positions based on faith. Would it be incorrect to claim that?




        If the atheism being considered presents a master narrative in competition with theistic religions it could be considered a quasi-religion because of that narrative. Not all atheists have such a narrative nor believe in naturalism. Some atheists may be simply indifferent to such narratives.




        Plantinga, A. (2011). Where the conflict really lies: Science, religion, and naturalism. OUP USA.






        share|improve this answer


















        • 2





          I think this is one of the issues which make this a tricky debate: the different shades of atheism.

          – Mika'il
          7 hours ago















        6














        Alvin Plantinga, a Christian philosopher, presents a similar question regarding an extreme form of atheism that he calls "naturalism". Rather than asking whether the atheism of naturalism is faith-based, he asks whether naturalism might be a "religion" (page 311):




        Now it is not clear that naturalism, as it stands, is a religion; there is enough vagueness around the edges of the concept of religion for it to be unclear whether naturalism does or doesn't belong there. But naturalism does serve one of the main functions of a religion: it offers a master narrative, it answers deep and important human questions. Immanuel Kant identified three great human questions: Is there such a person as God? Do we human beings have significant freedom? And can we human beings expect life after death? Naturalism gives answers to these questions: there is no God, there is no immortality, and the case for genuine freedom is at best dicey. Naturalism tells us what reality is ultimately like, where we fit into the universe, how we are related to other creatures, and how it happens that we came to be. Naturalism is therefore in competition with the great theistic religions: even if it is not itself a religion, it plays one of the main roles of a religion.




        If being faith-based means to believe in a master narrative that answers Kant's questions, that atheism might be considered, using Plantinga's argument, a quasi-faith-based or a quasi-religion. However, not all atheists need be labeled as believing in naturalism or any other master narrative.



        There also may be good reasons not to link atheism in general, or even the atheism of naturalism, too closely with religion. In Where the Conflict Really Lies Plantinga wants to show that traditional theistic religions have at most a superficial conflict with science while naturalism has a deep conflict with science through his Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. He would likely want naturalism to stand apart from traditional religions when making such a critique of it and not consider it as a religion.



        Here is the question:




        Given the above, I claim that both atheism and theism are positions based on faith. Would it be incorrect to claim that?




        If the atheism being considered presents a master narrative in competition with theistic religions it could be considered a quasi-religion because of that narrative. Not all atheists have such a narrative nor believe in naturalism. Some atheists may be simply indifferent to such narratives.




        Plantinga, A. (2011). Where the conflict really lies: Science, religion, and naturalism. OUP USA.






        share|improve this answer


















        • 2





          I think this is one of the issues which make this a tricky debate: the different shades of atheism.

          – Mika'il
          7 hours ago













        6












        6








        6







        Alvin Plantinga, a Christian philosopher, presents a similar question regarding an extreme form of atheism that he calls "naturalism". Rather than asking whether the atheism of naturalism is faith-based, he asks whether naturalism might be a "religion" (page 311):




        Now it is not clear that naturalism, as it stands, is a religion; there is enough vagueness around the edges of the concept of religion for it to be unclear whether naturalism does or doesn't belong there. But naturalism does serve one of the main functions of a religion: it offers a master narrative, it answers deep and important human questions. Immanuel Kant identified three great human questions: Is there such a person as God? Do we human beings have significant freedom? And can we human beings expect life after death? Naturalism gives answers to these questions: there is no God, there is no immortality, and the case for genuine freedom is at best dicey. Naturalism tells us what reality is ultimately like, where we fit into the universe, how we are related to other creatures, and how it happens that we came to be. Naturalism is therefore in competition with the great theistic religions: even if it is not itself a religion, it plays one of the main roles of a religion.




        If being faith-based means to believe in a master narrative that answers Kant's questions, that atheism might be considered, using Plantinga's argument, a quasi-faith-based or a quasi-religion. However, not all atheists need be labeled as believing in naturalism or any other master narrative.



        There also may be good reasons not to link atheism in general, or even the atheism of naturalism, too closely with religion. In Where the Conflict Really Lies Plantinga wants to show that traditional theistic religions have at most a superficial conflict with science while naturalism has a deep conflict with science through his Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. He would likely want naturalism to stand apart from traditional religions when making such a critique of it and not consider it as a religion.



        Here is the question:




        Given the above, I claim that both atheism and theism are positions based on faith. Would it be incorrect to claim that?




        If the atheism being considered presents a master narrative in competition with theistic religions it could be considered a quasi-religion because of that narrative. Not all atheists have such a narrative nor believe in naturalism. Some atheists may be simply indifferent to such narratives.




        Plantinga, A. (2011). Where the conflict really lies: Science, religion, and naturalism. OUP USA.






        share|improve this answer













        Alvin Plantinga, a Christian philosopher, presents a similar question regarding an extreme form of atheism that he calls "naturalism". Rather than asking whether the atheism of naturalism is faith-based, he asks whether naturalism might be a "religion" (page 311):




        Now it is not clear that naturalism, as it stands, is a religion; there is enough vagueness around the edges of the concept of religion for it to be unclear whether naturalism does or doesn't belong there. But naturalism does serve one of the main functions of a religion: it offers a master narrative, it answers deep and important human questions. Immanuel Kant identified three great human questions: Is there such a person as God? Do we human beings have significant freedom? And can we human beings expect life after death? Naturalism gives answers to these questions: there is no God, there is no immortality, and the case for genuine freedom is at best dicey. Naturalism tells us what reality is ultimately like, where we fit into the universe, how we are related to other creatures, and how it happens that we came to be. Naturalism is therefore in competition with the great theistic religions: even if it is not itself a religion, it plays one of the main roles of a religion.




        If being faith-based means to believe in a master narrative that answers Kant's questions, that atheism might be considered, using Plantinga's argument, a quasi-faith-based or a quasi-religion. However, not all atheists need be labeled as believing in naturalism or any other master narrative.



        There also may be good reasons not to link atheism in general, or even the atheism of naturalism, too closely with religion. In Where the Conflict Really Lies Plantinga wants to show that traditional theistic religions have at most a superficial conflict with science while naturalism has a deep conflict with science through his Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. He would likely want naturalism to stand apart from traditional religions when making such a critique of it and not consider it as a religion.



        Here is the question:




        Given the above, I claim that both atheism and theism are positions based on faith. Would it be incorrect to claim that?




        If the atheism being considered presents a master narrative in competition with theistic religions it could be considered a quasi-religion because of that narrative. Not all atheists have such a narrative nor believe in naturalism. Some atheists may be simply indifferent to such narratives.




        Plantinga, A. (2011). Where the conflict really lies: Science, religion, and naturalism. OUP USA.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 8 hours ago









        Frank HubenyFrank Hubeny

        8,84551549




        8,84551549







        • 2





          I think this is one of the issues which make this a tricky debate: the different shades of atheism.

          – Mika'il
          7 hours ago












        • 2





          I think this is one of the issues which make this a tricky debate: the different shades of atheism.

          – Mika'il
          7 hours ago







        2




        2





        I think this is one of the issues which make this a tricky debate: the different shades of atheism.

        – Mika'il
        7 hours ago





        I think this is one of the issues which make this a tricky debate: the different shades of atheism.

        – Mika'il
        7 hours ago











        5














        Both positions, the theist and the atheist made a claim: The theist claimed the existence of god, the atheist claimed the non-existence of god. History shows: Neither of them could prove his claim.



        Having learned the lesson, today’s atheists make a weaker claim: The traditional god-concept - god being omnipotent, omniscient, all-good - is inconsistent. The concept leads to the problem of theodicy.



        Hence atheists consider the existence of god a hypothesis. They claim that this hypothesis creates more problems than solves existing problems. Therefore atheists dismiss this hypothesis. They know: A world-model without a god-concept is less complicated but leaves open fundamental questions due to lack of reliable answers.



        IMO that’s not faith but heuristics.






        share|improve this answer




















        • 1





          Most people would accept that the more extraordinary a claim, the more extraordinary should be the proof that it's true. Asserting that a thing doesn't exist when there's no definitive proof that that thing exists seems to be the position which has the stronger position.

          – Valorum
          8 hours ago







        • 2





          Atheism is not an affirmative belief. It is the rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or the denial of gods, it is the lack of belief in gods.

          – Alexander Gegg
          8 hours ago






        • 2





          @Alexander Gegg "Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods)." The quote is from plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#DefiAthe

          – Jo Wehler
          8 hours ago






        • 1





          @AlexanderGegg - Indeed. Many/most atheists are also naturalists, eschewing belief in any supernatural force.

          – Valorum
          8 hours ago






        • 1





          @AlexanderGegg - Indeed. God seems to crop up in all sorts of gaps. Then those gaps get smaller and farther back.

          – Valorum
          5 hours ago















        5














        Both positions, the theist and the atheist made a claim: The theist claimed the existence of god, the atheist claimed the non-existence of god. History shows: Neither of them could prove his claim.



        Having learned the lesson, today’s atheists make a weaker claim: The traditional god-concept - god being omnipotent, omniscient, all-good - is inconsistent. The concept leads to the problem of theodicy.



        Hence atheists consider the existence of god a hypothesis. They claim that this hypothesis creates more problems than solves existing problems. Therefore atheists dismiss this hypothesis. They know: A world-model without a god-concept is less complicated but leaves open fundamental questions due to lack of reliable answers.



        IMO that’s not faith but heuristics.






        share|improve this answer




















        • 1





          Most people would accept that the more extraordinary a claim, the more extraordinary should be the proof that it's true. Asserting that a thing doesn't exist when there's no definitive proof that that thing exists seems to be the position which has the stronger position.

          – Valorum
          8 hours ago







        • 2





          Atheism is not an affirmative belief. It is the rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or the denial of gods, it is the lack of belief in gods.

          – Alexander Gegg
          8 hours ago






        • 2





          @Alexander Gegg "Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods)." The quote is from plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#DefiAthe

          – Jo Wehler
          8 hours ago






        • 1





          @AlexanderGegg - Indeed. Many/most atheists are also naturalists, eschewing belief in any supernatural force.

          – Valorum
          8 hours ago






        • 1





          @AlexanderGegg - Indeed. God seems to crop up in all sorts of gaps. Then those gaps get smaller and farther back.

          – Valorum
          5 hours ago













        5












        5








        5







        Both positions, the theist and the atheist made a claim: The theist claimed the existence of god, the atheist claimed the non-existence of god. History shows: Neither of them could prove his claim.



        Having learned the lesson, today’s atheists make a weaker claim: The traditional god-concept - god being omnipotent, omniscient, all-good - is inconsistent. The concept leads to the problem of theodicy.



        Hence atheists consider the existence of god a hypothesis. They claim that this hypothesis creates more problems than solves existing problems. Therefore atheists dismiss this hypothesis. They know: A world-model without a god-concept is less complicated but leaves open fundamental questions due to lack of reliable answers.



        IMO that’s not faith but heuristics.






        share|improve this answer















        Both positions, the theist and the atheist made a claim: The theist claimed the existence of god, the atheist claimed the non-existence of god. History shows: Neither of them could prove his claim.



        Having learned the lesson, today’s atheists make a weaker claim: The traditional god-concept - god being omnipotent, omniscient, all-good - is inconsistent. The concept leads to the problem of theodicy.



        Hence atheists consider the existence of god a hypothesis. They claim that this hypothesis creates more problems than solves existing problems. Therefore atheists dismiss this hypothesis. They know: A world-model without a god-concept is less complicated but leaves open fundamental questions due to lack of reliable answers.



        IMO that’s not faith but heuristics.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 6 hours ago

























        answered 10 hours ago









        Jo WehlerJo Wehler

        17.5k21762




        17.5k21762







        • 1





          Most people would accept that the more extraordinary a claim, the more extraordinary should be the proof that it's true. Asserting that a thing doesn't exist when there's no definitive proof that that thing exists seems to be the position which has the stronger position.

          – Valorum
          8 hours ago







        • 2





          Atheism is not an affirmative belief. It is the rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or the denial of gods, it is the lack of belief in gods.

          – Alexander Gegg
          8 hours ago






        • 2





          @Alexander Gegg "Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods)." The quote is from plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#DefiAthe

          – Jo Wehler
          8 hours ago






        • 1





          @AlexanderGegg - Indeed. Many/most atheists are also naturalists, eschewing belief in any supernatural force.

          – Valorum
          8 hours ago






        • 1





          @AlexanderGegg - Indeed. God seems to crop up in all sorts of gaps. Then those gaps get smaller and farther back.

          – Valorum
          5 hours ago












        • 1





          Most people would accept that the more extraordinary a claim, the more extraordinary should be the proof that it's true. Asserting that a thing doesn't exist when there's no definitive proof that that thing exists seems to be the position which has the stronger position.

          – Valorum
          8 hours ago







        • 2





          Atheism is not an affirmative belief. It is the rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or the denial of gods, it is the lack of belief in gods.

          – Alexander Gegg
          8 hours ago






        • 2





          @Alexander Gegg "Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods)." The quote is from plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#DefiAthe

          – Jo Wehler
          8 hours ago






        • 1





          @AlexanderGegg - Indeed. Many/most atheists are also naturalists, eschewing belief in any supernatural force.

          – Valorum
          8 hours ago






        • 1





          @AlexanderGegg - Indeed. God seems to crop up in all sorts of gaps. Then those gaps get smaller and farther back.

          – Valorum
          5 hours ago







        1




        1





        Most people would accept that the more extraordinary a claim, the more extraordinary should be the proof that it's true. Asserting that a thing doesn't exist when there's no definitive proof that that thing exists seems to be the position which has the stronger position.

        – Valorum
        8 hours ago






        Most people would accept that the more extraordinary a claim, the more extraordinary should be the proof that it's true. Asserting that a thing doesn't exist when there's no definitive proof that that thing exists seems to be the position which has the stronger position.

        – Valorum
        8 hours ago





        2




        2





        Atheism is not an affirmative belief. It is the rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or the denial of gods, it is the lack of belief in gods.

        – Alexander Gegg
        8 hours ago





        Atheism is not an affirmative belief. It is the rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or the denial of gods, it is the lack of belief in gods.

        – Alexander Gegg
        8 hours ago




        2




        2





        @Alexander Gegg "Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods)." The quote is from plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#DefiAthe

        – Jo Wehler
        8 hours ago





        @Alexander Gegg "Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods)." The quote is from plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#DefiAthe

        – Jo Wehler
        8 hours ago




        1




        1





        @AlexanderGegg - Indeed. Many/most atheists are also naturalists, eschewing belief in any supernatural force.

        – Valorum
        8 hours ago





        @AlexanderGegg - Indeed. Many/most atheists are also naturalists, eschewing belief in any supernatural force.

        – Valorum
        8 hours ago




        1




        1





        @AlexanderGegg - Indeed. God seems to crop up in all sorts of gaps. Then those gaps get smaller and farther back.

        – Valorum
        5 hours ago





        @AlexanderGegg - Indeed. God seems to crop up in all sorts of gaps. Then those gaps get smaller and farther back.

        – Valorum
        5 hours ago











        4














        No, atheism is not a faith based position. This has been debunked time and time again and there are numerous resources on the internet that cover this error in logic. If theism claims the existance of a god, an atheist is one who is not convinced of that claim and rejects it.



        An atheist has no responsibility to disprove the claim that god does exist because the atheist is not asserting anything. The burden of proof is on the person trying convince another with their claim. Claims require support and the thiest made the claim so the thiest must support it. Not having faith in something is not faith much like not having a hobby is not a hobby and not exercising is not a form of exercise.






        share|improve this answer


















        • 2





          You are just asserting the bias in the debate which I mentioned in my post. Remove the bias. Consider the assertion in isolation. Can an atheist prove the non-existent of a God?

          – Mika'il
          11 hours ago






        • 6





          @Mika'il It's not bias; it's simply how argumentation works. Athiesm only exist because theism exists; it's right there in the name: a-theism. It makes absolutely no sense to consider atheism in isolation. You're basically saying can someone conjure up the idea of something without asserting anything and disprove it. That's absurd.

          – Cell
          11 hours ago







        • 2





          We could easily imagine a parallel world where the dominant original belief is that there is no God. Later, a group of people start questioning this and claim that this not true. Now the burden of proof is on the atheists. That's why I said, eliminate the bias. The experiment is to look at the atheistic and theistic claims in isolation and to provide proof.

          – Mika'il
          10 hours ago






        • 5





          @Mika'il I disagree that we can easily imagine this. I would find it mind-boggling to discover a world of sentient beings where the primary belief is that there is no "God" without any prior knowledge of anyone asserting what "God" means or how it's defined or any positive statement about its properties . But you're right though, in that bizarre impossible hypothetical it would be the atheists that have the burden of proof, but that is not the situation here in reality.

          – Cell
          10 hours ago







        • 5





          @Mika'il I'm not being biased, it's just that people don't generally believe in negative claims unless a positive claim was asserted first. For example people don't believe in aliens because aliens have been asserted, people have disbelief in the boogeyman because the boogeyman has been asserted. You're asking me to follow along with unreasonable premises just so your argument makes sense. If you think I'm being biased then I challenge you to give me an example of a widely recognized negative claim on the empirical existence of something that precedes belief in the positve alternative.

          – Cell
          9 hours ago















        4














        No, atheism is not a faith based position. This has been debunked time and time again and there are numerous resources on the internet that cover this error in logic. If theism claims the existance of a god, an atheist is one who is not convinced of that claim and rejects it.



        An atheist has no responsibility to disprove the claim that god does exist because the atheist is not asserting anything. The burden of proof is on the person trying convince another with their claim. Claims require support and the thiest made the claim so the thiest must support it. Not having faith in something is not faith much like not having a hobby is not a hobby and not exercising is not a form of exercise.






        share|improve this answer


















        • 2





          You are just asserting the bias in the debate which I mentioned in my post. Remove the bias. Consider the assertion in isolation. Can an atheist prove the non-existent of a God?

          – Mika'il
          11 hours ago






        • 6





          @Mika'il It's not bias; it's simply how argumentation works. Athiesm only exist because theism exists; it's right there in the name: a-theism. It makes absolutely no sense to consider atheism in isolation. You're basically saying can someone conjure up the idea of something without asserting anything and disprove it. That's absurd.

          – Cell
          11 hours ago







        • 2





          We could easily imagine a parallel world where the dominant original belief is that there is no God. Later, a group of people start questioning this and claim that this not true. Now the burden of proof is on the atheists. That's why I said, eliminate the bias. The experiment is to look at the atheistic and theistic claims in isolation and to provide proof.

          – Mika'il
          10 hours ago






        • 5





          @Mika'il I disagree that we can easily imagine this. I would find it mind-boggling to discover a world of sentient beings where the primary belief is that there is no "God" without any prior knowledge of anyone asserting what "God" means or how it's defined or any positive statement about its properties . But you're right though, in that bizarre impossible hypothetical it would be the atheists that have the burden of proof, but that is not the situation here in reality.

          – Cell
          10 hours ago







        • 5





          @Mika'il I'm not being biased, it's just that people don't generally believe in negative claims unless a positive claim was asserted first. For example people don't believe in aliens because aliens have been asserted, people have disbelief in the boogeyman because the boogeyman has been asserted. You're asking me to follow along with unreasonable premises just so your argument makes sense. If you think I'm being biased then I challenge you to give me an example of a widely recognized negative claim on the empirical existence of something that precedes belief in the positve alternative.

          – Cell
          9 hours ago













        4












        4








        4







        No, atheism is not a faith based position. This has been debunked time and time again and there are numerous resources on the internet that cover this error in logic. If theism claims the existance of a god, an atheist is one who is not convinced of that claim and rejects it.



        An atheist has no responsibility to disprove the claim that god does exist because the atheist is not asserting anything. The burden of proof is on the person trying convince another with their claim. Claims require support and the thiest made the claim so the thiest must support it. Not having faith in something is not faith much like not having a hobby is not a hobby and not exercising is not a form of exercise.






        share|improve this answer













        No, atheism is not a faith based position. This has been debunked time and time again and there are numerous resources on the internet that cover this error in logic. If theism claims the existance of a god, an atheist is one who is not convinced of that claim and rejects it.



        An atheist has no responsibility to disprove the claim that god does exist because the atheist is not asserting anything. The burden of proof is on the person trying convince another with their claim. Claims require support and the thiest made the claim so the thiest must support it. Not having faith in something is not faith much like not having a hobby is not a hobby and not exercising is not a form of exercise.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 12 hours ago









        CellCell

        256116




        256116







        • 2





          You are just asserting the bias in the debate which I mentioned in my post. Remove the bias. Consider the assertion in isolation. Can an atheist prove the non-existent of a God?

          – Mika'il
          11 hours ago






        • 6





          @Mika'il It's not bias; it's simply how argumentation works. Athiesm only exist because theism exists; it's right there in the name: a-theism. It makes absolutely no sense to consider atheism in isolation. You're basically saying can someone conjure up the idea of something without asserting anything and disprove it. That's absurd.

          – Cell
          11 hours ago







        • 2





          We could easily imagine a parallel world where the dominant original belief is that there is no God. Later, a group of people start questioning this and claim that this not true. Now the burden of proof is on the atheists. That's why I said, eliminate the bias. The experiment is to look at the atheistic and theistic claims in isolation and to provide proof.

          – Mika'il
          10 hours ago






        • 5





          @Mika'il I disagree that we can easily imagine this. I would find it mind-boggling to discover a world of sentient beings where the primary belief is that there is no "God" without any prior knowledge of anyone asserting what "God" means or how it's defined or any positive statement about its properties . But you're right though, in that bizarre impossible hypothetical it would be the atheists that have the burden of proof, but that is not the situation here in reality.

          – Cell
          10 hours ago







        • 5





          @Mika'il I'm not being biased, it's just that people don't generally believe in negative claims unless a positive claim was asserted first. For example people don't believe in aliens because aliens have been asserted, people have disbelief in the boogeyman because the boogeyman has been asserted. You're asking me to follow along with unreasonable premises just so your argument makes sense. If you think I'm being biased then I challenge you to give me an example of a widely recognized negative claim on the empirical existence of something that precedes belief in the positve alternative.

          – Cell
          9 hours ago












        • 2





          You are just asserting the bias in the debate which I mentioned in my post. Remove the bias. Consider the assertion in isolation. Can an atheist prove the non-existent of a God?

          – Mika'il
          11 hours ago






        • 6





          @Mika'il It's not bias; it's simply how argumentation works. Athiesm only exist because theism exists; it's right there in the name: a-theism. It makes absolutely no sense to consider atheism in isolation. You're basically saying can someone conjure up the idea of something without asserting anything and disprove it. That's absurd.

          – Cell
          11 hours ago







        • 2





          We could easily imagine a parallel world where the dominant original belief is that there is no God. Later, a group of people start questioning this and claim that this not true. Now the burden of proof is on the atheists. That's why I said, eliminate the bias. The experiment is to look at the atheistic and theistic claims in isolation and to provide proof.

          – Mika'il
          10 hours ago






        • 5





          @Mika'il I disagree that we can easily imagine this. I would find it mind-boggling to discover a world of sentient beings where the primary belief is that there is no "God" without any prior knowledge of anyone asserting what "God" means or how it's defined or any positive statement about its properties . But you're right though, in that bizarre impossible hypothetical it would be the atheists that have the burden of proof, but that is not the situation here in reality.

          – Cell
          10 hours ago







        • 5





          @Mika'il I'm not being biased, it's just that people don't generally believe in negative claims unless a positive claim was asserted first. For example people don't believe in aliens because aliens have been asserted, people have disbelief in the boogeyman because the boogeyman has been asserted. You're asking me to follow along with unreasonable premises just so your argument makes sense. If you think I'm being biased then I challenge you to give me an example of a widely recognized negative claim on the empirical existence of something that precedes belief in the positve alternative.

          – Cell
          9 hours ago







        2




        2





        You are just asserting the bias in the debate which I mentioned in my post. Remove the bias. Consider the assertion in isolation. Can an atheist prove the non-existent of a God?

        – Mika'il
        11 hours ago





        You are just asserting the bias in the debate which I mentioned in my post. Remove the bias. Consider the assertion in isolation. Can an atheist prove the non-existent of a God?

        – Mika'il
        11 hours ago




        6




        6





        @Mika'il It's not bias; it's simply how argumentation works. Athiesm only exist because theism exists; it's right there in the name: a-theism. It makes absolutely no sense to consider atheism in isolation. You're basically saying can someone conjure up the idea of something without asserting anything and disprove it. That's absurd.

        – Cell
        11 hours ago






        @Mika'il It's not bias; it's simply how argumentation works. Athiesm only exist because theism exists; it's right there in the name: a-theism. It makes absolutely no sense to consider atheism in isolation. You're basically saying can someone conjure up the idea of something without asserting anything and disprove it. That's absurd.

        – Cell
        11 hours ago





        2




        2





        We could easily imagine a parallel world where the dominant original belief is that there is no God. Later, a group of people start questioning this and claim that this not true. Now the burden of proof is on the atheists. That's why I said, eliminate the bias. The experiment is to look at the atheistic and theistic claims in isolation and to provide proof.

        – Mika'il
        10 hours ago





        We could easily imagine a parallel world where the dominant original belief is that there is no God. Later, a group of people start questioning this and claim that this not true. Now the burden of proof is on the atheists. That's why I said, eliminate the bias. The experiment is to look at the atheistic and theistic claims in isolation and to provide proof.

        – Mika'il
        10 hours ago




        5




        5





        @Mika'il I disagree that we can easily imagine this. I would find it mind-boggling to discover a world of sentient beings where the primary belief is that there is no "God" without any prior knowledge of anyone asserting what "God" means or how it's defined or any positive statement about its properties . But you're right though, in that bizarre impossible hypothetical it would be the atheists that have the burden of proof, but that is not the situation here in reality.

        – Cell
        10 hours ago






        @Mika'il I disagree that we can easily imagine this. I would find it mind-boggling to discover a world of sentient beings where the primary belief is that there is no "God" without any prior knowledge of anyone asserting what "God" means or how it's defined or any positive statement about its properties . But you're right though, in that bizarre impossible hypothetical it would be the atheists that have the burden of proof, but that is not the situation here in reality.

        – Cell
        10 hours ago





        5




        5





        @Mika'il I'm not being biased, it's just that people don't generally believe in negative claims unless a positive claim was asserted first. For example people don't believe in aliens because aliens have been asserted, people have disbelief in the boogeyman because the boogeyman has been asserted. You're asking me to follow along with unreasonable premises just so your argument makes sense. If you think I'm being biased then I challenge you to give me an example of a widely recognized negative claim on the empirical existence of something that precedes belief in the positve alternative.

        – Cell
        9 hours ago





        @Mika'il I'm not being biased, it's just that people don't generally believe in negative claims unless a positive claim was asserted first. For example people don't believe in aliens because aliens have been asserted, people have disbelief in the boogeyman because the boogeyman has been asserted. You're asking me to follow along with unreasonable premises just so your argument makes sense. If you think I'm being biased then I challenge you to give me an example of a widely recognized negative claim on the empirical existence of something that precedes belief in the positve alternative.

        – Cell
        9 hours ago











        1














        The crux of the matter is neatly hidden within the definition of the word faith. Mind you, both Cambridge Dictionary and Oxford Dictionary say that the main meaning is:




        Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.




        ‘this restores one's faith in politicians’ [...]





        and




        great trust or confidence in something or someone:




        She has no faith in modern medicine. [...]





        As you can see faith is a thing that can change on the spot. But many people define faith as something fundamental and unchangeable, that cannot be impacted by such trivial action as observing the world outside. Thus a 'loaded term' complicates the discussion. Let's resolve it by naming the latter thing an axiom (unchangeable) and the former a belief (very much changeable).



        If you assume axioms, you can base proofs of them. These proofs expand your knowledge about the world created by the axioms. The proofs don't depend on observations of the world, but on observations of the axioms. This is your current worldview, as your question mentioned words 'proof' and 'proving' about six times.



        On the other hand, beliefs don't enable proofs. This is scary. One day you believe electrons are small chunks of matter, tomorrow some irritating publication appears about how an electron was observed to interfere with itself and you have no authority to banish these outrageous observations. Then they build a bunch of stupid transistors and they somehow work and beautify our lives, although nobody proven that beforehand.



        Atheism is overwhelmingly a belief. (Or it can be based on axioms, if something goes terribly wrong.)



        Theism is overwhelmingly based on axioms. No major religion says "If this book doesn't work too well in practice and you see other theories working better - then by all means use them! Absolved! Amen!".






        share|improve this answer








        New contributor




        kubanczyk is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.
























          1














          The crux of the matter is neatly hidden within the definition of the word faith. Mind you, both Cambridge Dictionary and Oxford Dictionary say that the main meaning is:




          Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.




          ‘this restores one's faith in politicians’ [...]





          and




          great trust or confidence in something or someone:




          She has no faith in modern medicine. [...]





          As you can see faith is a thing that can change on the spot. But many people define faith as something fundamental and unchangeable, that cannot be impacted by such trivial action as observing the world outside. Thus a 'loaded term' complicates the discussion. Let's resolve it by naming the latter thing an axiom (unchangeable) and the former a belief (very much changeable).



          If you assume axioms, you can base proofs of them. These proofs expand your knowledge about the world created by the axioms. The proofs don't depend on observations of the world, but on observations of the axioms. This is your current worldview, as your question mentioned words 'proof' and 'proving' about six times.



          On the other hand, beliefs don't enable proofs. This is scary. One day you believe electrons are small chunks of matter, tomorrow some irritating publication appears about how an electron was observed to interfere with itself and you have no authority to banish these outrageous observations. Then they build a bunch of stupid transistors and they somehow work and beautify our lives, although nobody proven that beforehand.



          Atheism is overwhelmingly a belief. (Or it can be based on axioms, if something goes terribly wrong.)



          Theism is overwhelmingly based on axioms. No major religion says "If this book doesn't work too well in practice and you see other theories working better - then by all means use them! Absolved! Amen!".






          share|improve this answer








          New contributor




          kubanczyk is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.






















            1












            1








            1







            The crux of the matter is neatly hidden within the definition of the word faith. Mind you, both Cambridge Dictionary and Oxford Dictionary say that the main meaning is:




            Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.




            ‘this restores one's faith in politicians’ [...]





            and




            great trust or confidence in something or someone:




            She has no faith in modern medicine. [...]





            As you can see faith is a thing that can change on the spot. But many people define faith as something fundamental and unchangeable, that cannot be impacted by such trivial action as observing the world outside. Thus a 'loaded term' complicates the discussion. Let's resolve it by naming the latter thing an axiom (unchangeable) and the former a belief (very much changeable).



            If you assume axioms, you can base proofs of them. These proofs expand your knowledge about the world created by the axioms. The proofs don't depend on observations of the world, but on observations of the axioms. This is your current worldview, as your question mentioned words 'proof' and 'proving' about six times.



            On the other hand, beliefs don't enable proofs. This is scary. One day you believe electrons are small chunks of matter, tomorrow some irritating publication appears about how an electron was observed to interfere with itself and you have no authority to banish these outrageous observations. Then they build a bunch of stupid transistors and they somehow work and beautify our lives, although nobody proven that beforehand.



            Atheism is overwhelmingly a belief. (Or it can be based on axioms, if something goes terribly wrong.)



            Theism is overwhelmingly based on axioms. No major religion says "If this book doesn't work too well in practice and you see other theories working better - then by all means use them! Absolved! Amen!".






            share|improve this answer








            New contributor




            kubanczyk is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.










            The crux of the matter is neatly hidden within the definition of the word faith. Mind you, both Cambridge Dictionary and Oxford Dictionary say that the main meaning is:




            Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.




            ‘this restores one's faith in politicians’ [...]





            and




            great trust or confidence in something or someone:




            She has no faith in modern medicine. [...]





            As you can see faith is a thing that can change on the spot. But many people define faith as something fundamental and unchangeable, that cannot be impacted by such trivial action as observing the world outside. Thus a 'loaded term' complicates the discussion. Let's resolve it by naming the latter thing an axiom (unchangeable) and the former a belief (very much changeable).



            If you assume axioms, you can base proofs of them. These proofs expand your knowledge about the world created by the axioms. The proofs don't depend on observations of the world, but on observations of the axioms. This is your current worldview, as your question mentioned words 'proof' and 'proving' about six times.



            On the other hand, beliefs don't enable proofs. This is scary. One day you believe electrons are small chunks of matter, tomorrow some irritating publication appears about how an electron was observed to interfere with itself and you have no authority to banish these outrageous observations. Then they build a bunch of stupid transistors and they somehow work and beautify our lives, although nobody proven that beforehand.



            Atheism is overwhelmingly a belief. (Or it can be based on axioms, if something goes terribly wrong.)



            Theism is overwhelmingly based on axioms. No major religion says "If this book doesn't work too well in practice and you see other theories working better - then by all means use them! Absolved! Amen!".







            share|improve this answer








            New contributor




            kubanczyk is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.









            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer






            New contributor




            kubanczyk is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.









            answered 6 hours ago









            kubanczykkubanczyk

            1134




            1134




            New contributor




            kubanczyk is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.





            New contributor





            kubanczyk is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.






            kubanczyk is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.





















                1














                Answers so far have considered evidence, proof and strength of argument. There's another point to consider though - utility. What is the purpose of these claims?



                If the theist considered their god(s) to be a non-participant in the world and any hypothetical afterlife, then it would not matter whether the god(s) existed or not. The debate simply wouldn't exist. A debate only exists because theists claim knowledge about their god(s)' interaction with the world and/or actions in the afterlife; and thereafter knowledge of what must be done to ensure people gain the favour of the god(s) for this.



                This leads us to the Atheist's Wager, which proves that regardless of the existence or non-existence of any god(s), the best outcome in both the temporal and spiritual domains is to live your life as if no god exists, and live a good life as defined by humanist philosophy. Not only that, but it also provides the best outcome for other people, and hence is the best moral position. This is proven by simple logic, without the need for evidence of the truth of either case.



                Having proven that humanist philosophy is the highest moral standard and the best outcome in all cases, it's then necessary to question why we should care whether the god (s) exist or not. This is the crux of where the theist's case falls down. When the existence or non-existence of god (s) is seen as a key question for how to live your life, of course it's important. But take that away, and the theist's whole argument is no more relevant than a 5-year-old trying to get their parent to answer whether they think a ninja could beat a dinosaur.



                Of course having an opinion on the subject is based on faith. But being willing to argue on the subject is based on either being irrational or having too much free time. As such, the fact the theist even cares about it invalidates their argument.






                share|improve this answer























                • But atheists argue more about it than do theists. The argumentative atheists are persistently attempting to discredit theists' beliefs.

                  – Bread
                  5 hours ago






                • 2





                  @Bread Theists have meetings every week to reinforce their opinions. They consider it within their remit to influence the laws of countries such that those laws follow their beliefs, regardless of the moral basis of those beliefs; and several countries specifically dedicate themselves to their adherence to their thrifty beliefs. When there is an atheist anti-pope, let us know. :)

                  – Graham
                  5 hours ago






                • 1





                  @Bread Prominent atheists do oppose theism, of course. Without exception, every one says that if those theists did not attempt to enforce their beliefs on any other human being, or attempt to spread their beliefs by any means other than rational debate, then they would have no issue with theists. What they oppose are the theist concepts of applying their beliefs to others and of proselytising and indoctrinating young people.

                  – Graham
                  5 hours ago











                • Of course both theists and atheists meet together among themselves, because they have something in common: their lifestyles and attitudes. And if atheists take active issue with theism, then it's only fair to expect theists should likewise take issue with atheism.

                  – Bread
                  4 hours ago












                • @Bread That's fine, and it's fair, but that doesn't mean atheists care much about what you personally believe unless you choose to engage in debate. (I've got a young kid, so I'll happily debate ninjas vs dinosaurs. :) They do care if you indoctrinate your child in your belief, or vote to deny rights to others based on your belief.

                  – Graham
                  4 hours ago
















                1














                Answers so far have considered evidence, proof and strength of argument. There's another point to consider though - utility. What is the purpose of these claims?



                If the theist considered their god(s) to be a non-participant in the world and any hypothetical afterlife, then it would not matter whether the god(s) existed or not. The debate simply wouldn't exist. A debate only exists because theists claim knowledge about their god(s)' interaction with the world and/or actions in the afterlife; and thereafter knowledge of what must be done to ensure people gain the favour of the god(s) for this.



                This leads us to the Atheist's Wager, which proves that regardless of the existence or non-existence of any god(s), the best outcome in both the temporal and spiritual domains is to live your life as if no god exists, and live a good life as defined by humanist philosophy. Not only that, but it also provides the best outcome for other people, and hence is the best moral position. This is proven by simple logic, without the need for evidence of the truth of either case.



                Having proven that humanist philosophy is the highest moral standard and the best outcome in all cases, it's then necessary to question why we should care whether the god (s) exist or not. This is the crux of where the theist's case falls down. When the existence or non-existence of god (s) is seen as a key question for how to live your life, of course it's important. But take that away, and the theist's whole argument is no more relevant than a 5-year-old trying to get their parent to answer whether they think a ninja could beat a dinosaur.



                Of course having an opinion on the subject is based on faith. But being willing to argue on the subject is based on either being irrational or having too much free time. As such, the fact the theist even cares about it invalidates their argument.






                share|improve this answer























                • But atheists argue more about it than do theists. The argumentative atheists are persistently attempting to discredit theists' beliefs.

                  – Bread
                  5 hours ago






                • 2





                  @Bread Theists have meetings every week to reinforce their opinions. They consider it within their remit to influence the laws of countries such that those laws follow their beliefs, regardless of the moral basis of those beliefs; and several countries specifically dedicate themselves to their adherence to their thrifty beliefs. When there is an atheist anti-pope, let us know. :)

                  – Graham
                  5 hours ago






                • 1





                  @Bread Prominent atheists do oppose theism, of course. Without exception, every one says that if those theists did not attempt to enforce their beliefs on any other human being, or attempt to spread their beliefs by any means other than rational debate, then they would have no issue with theists. What they oppose are the theist concepts of applying their beliefs to others and of proselytising and indoctrinating young people.

                  – Graham
                  5 hours ago











                • Of course both theists and atheists meet together among themselves, because they have something in common: their lifestyles and attitudes. And if atheists take active issue with theism, then it's only fair to expect theists should likewise take issue with atheism.

                  – Bread
                  4 hours ago












                • @Bread That's fine, and it's fair, but that doesn't mean atheists care much about what you personally believe unless you choose to engage in debate. (I've got a young kid, so I'll happily debate ninjas vs dinosaurs. :) They do care if you indoctrinate your child in your belief, or vote to deny rights to others based on your belief.

                  – Graham
                  4 hours ago














                1












                1








                1







                Answers so far have considered evidence, proof and strength of argument. There's another point to consider though - utility. What is the purpose of these claims?



                If the theist considered their god(s) to be a non-participant in the world and any hypothetical afterlife, then it would not matter whether the god(s) existed or not. The debate simply wouldn't exist. A debate only exists because theists claim knowledge about their god(s)' interaction with the world and/or actions in the afterlife; and thereafter knowledge of what must be done to ensure people gain the favour of the god(s) for this.



                This leads us to the Atheist's Wager, which proves that regardless of the existence or non-existence of any god(s), the best outcome in both the temporal and spiritual domains is to live your life as if no god exists, and live a good life as defined by humanist philosophy. Not only that, but it also provides the best outcome for other people, and hence is the best moral position. This is proven by simple logic, without the need for evidence of the truth of either case.



                Having proven that humanist philosophy is the highest moral standard and the best outcome in all cases, it's then necessary to question why we should care whether the god (s) exist or not. This is the crux of where the theist's case falls down. When the existence or non-existence of god (s) is seen as a key question for how to live your life, of course it's important. But take that away, and the theist's whole argument is no more relevant than a 5-year-old trying to get their parent to answer whether they think a ninja could beat a dinosaur.



                Of course having an opinion on the subject is based on faith. But being willing to argue on the subject is based on either being irrational or having too much free time. As such, the fact the theist even cares about it invalidates their argument.






                share|improve this answer













                Answers so far have considered evidence, proof and strength of argument. There's another point to consider though - utility. What is the purpose of these claims?



                If the theist considered their god(s) to be a non-participant in the world and any hypothetical afterlife, then it would not matter whether the god(s) existed or not. The debate simply wouldn't exist. A debate only exists because theists claim knowledge about their god(s)' interaction with the world and/or actions in the afterlife; and thereafter knowledge of what must be done to ensure people gain the favour of the god(s) for this.



                This leads us to the Atheist's Wager, which proves that regardless of the existence or non-existence of any god(s), the best outcome in both the temporal and spiritual domains is to live your life as if no god exists, and live a good life as defined by humanist philosophy. Not only that, but it also provides the best outcome for other people, and hence is the best moral position. This is proven by simple logic, without the need for evidence of the truth of either case.



                Having proven that humanist philosophy is the highest moral standard and the best outcome in all cases, it's then necessary to question why we should care whether the god (s) exist or not. This is the crux of where the theist's case falls down. When the existence or non-existence of god (s) is seen as a key question for how to live your life, of course it's important. But take that away, and the theist's whole argument is no more relevant than a 5-year-old trying to get their parent to answer whether they think a ninja could beat a dinosaur.



                Of course having an opinion on the subject is based on faith. But being willing to argue on the subject is based on either being irrational or having too much free time. As such, the fact the theist even cares about it invalidates their argument.







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered 5 hours ago









                GrahamGraham

                79847




                79847












                • But atheists argue more about it than do theists. The argumentative atheists are persistently attempting to discredit theists' beliefs.

                  – Bread
                  5 hours ago






                • 2





                  @Bread Theists have meetings every week to reinforce their opinions. They consider it within their remit to influence the laws of countries such that those laws follow their beliefs, regardless of the moral basis of those beliefs; and several countries specifically dedicate themselves to their adherence to their thrifty beliefs. When there is an atheist anti-pope, let us know. :)

                  – Graham
                  5 hours ago






                • 1





                  @Bread Prominent atheists do oppose theism, of course. Without exception, every one says that if those theists did not attempt to enforce their beliefs on any other human being, or attempt to spread their beliefs by any means other than rational debate, then they would have no issue with theists. What they oppose are the theist concepts of applying their beliefs to others and of proselytising and indoctrinating young people.

                  – Graham
                  5 hours ago











                • Of course both theists and atheists meet together among themselves, because they have something in common: their lifestyles and attitudes. And if atheists take active issue with theism, then it's only fair to expect theists should likewise take issue with atheism.

                  – Bread
                  4 hours ago












                • @Bread That's fine, and it's fair, but that doesn't mean atheists care much about what you personally believe unless you choose to engage in debate. (I've got a young kid, so I'll happily debate ninjas vs dinosaurs. :) They do care if you indoctrinate your child in your belief, or vote to deny rights to others based on your belief.

                  – Graham
                  4 hours ago


















                • But atheists argue more about it than do theists. The argumentative atheists are persistently attempting to discredit theists' beliefs.

                  – Bread
                  5 hours ago






                • 2





                  @Bread Theists have meetings every week to reinforce their opinions. They consider it within their remit to influence the laws of countries such that those laws follow their beliefs, regardless of the moral basis of those beliefs; and several countries specifically dedicate themselves to their adherence to their thrifty beliefs. When there is an atheist anti-pope, let us know. :)

                  – Graham
                  5 hours ago






                • 1





                  @Bread Prominent atheists do oppose theism, of course. Without exception, every one says that if those theists did not attempt to enforce their beliefs on any other human being, or attempt to spread their beliefs by any means other than rational debate, then they would have no issue with theists. What they oppose are the theist concepts of applying their beliefs to others and of proselytising and indoctrinating young people.

                  – Graham
                  5 hours ago











                • Of course both theists and atheists meet together among themselves, because they have something in common: their lifestyles and attitudes. And if atheists take active issue with theism, then it's only fair to expect theists should likewise take issue with atheism.

                  – Bread
                  4 hours ago












                • @Bread That's fine, and it's fair, but that doesn't mean atheists care much about what you personally believe unless you choose to engage in debate. (I've got a young kid, so I'll happily debate ninjas vs dinosaurs. :) They do care if you indoctrinate your child in your belief, or vote to deny rights to others based on your belief.

                  – Graham
                  4 hours ago

















                But atheists argue more about it than do theists. The argumentative atheists are persistently attempting to discredit theists' beliefs.

                – Bread
                5 hours ago





                But atheists argue more about it than do theists. The argumentative atheists are persistently attempting to discredit theists' beliefs.

                – Bread
                5 hours ago




                2




                2





                @Bread Theists have meetings every week to reinforce their opinions. They consider it within their remit to influence the laws of countries such that those laws follow their beliefs, regardless of the moral basis of those beliefs; and several countries specifically dedicate themselves to their adherence to their thrifty beliefs. When there is an atheist anti-pope, let us know. :)

                – Graham
                5 hours ago





                @Bread Theists have meetings every week to reinforce their opinions. They consider it within their remit to influence the laws of countries such that those laws follow their beliefs, regardless of the moral basis of those beliefs; and several countries specifically dedicate themselves to their adherence to their thrifty beliefs. When there is an atheist anti-pope, let us know. :)

                – Graham
                5 hours ago




                1




                1





                @Bread Prominent atheists do oppose theism, of course. Without exception, every one says that if those theists did not attempt to enforce their beliefs on any other human being, or attempt to spread their beliefs by any means other than rational debate, then they would have no issue with theists. What they oppose are the theist concepts of applying their beliefs to others and of proselytising and indoctrinating young people.

                – Graham
                5 hours ago





                @Bread Prominent atheists do oppose theism, of course. Without exception, every one says that if those theists did not attempt to enforce their beliefs on any other human being, or attempt to spread their beliefs by any means other than rational debate, then they would have no issue with theists. What they oppose are the theist concepts of applying their beliefs to others and of proselytising and indoctrinating young people.

                – Graham
                5 hours ago













                Of course both theists and atheists meet together among themselves, because they have something in common: their lifestyles and attitudes. And if atheists take active issue with theism, then it's only fair to expect theists should likewise take issue with atheism.

                – Bread
                4 hours ago






                Of course both theists and atheists meet together among themselves, because they have something in common: their lifestyles and attitudes. And if atheists take active issue with theism, then it's only fair to expect theists should likewise take issue with atheism.

                – Bread
                4 hours ago














                @Bread That's fine, and it's fair, but that doesn't mean atheists care much about what you personally believe unless you choose to engage in debate. (I've got a young kid, so I'll happily debate ninjas vs dinosaurs. :) They do care if you indoctrinate your child in your belief, or vote to deny rights to others based on your belief.

                – Graham
                4 hours ago






                @Bread That's fine, and it's fair, but that doesn't mean atheists care much about what you personally believe unless you choose to engage in debate. (I've got a young kid, so I'll happily debate ninjas vs dinosaurs. :) They do care if you indoctrinate your child in your belief, or vote to deny rights to others based on your belief.

                – Graham
                4 hours ago












                0














                You already noticed, that theres different "levels" of atheism. (agnostics)
                I want to show yet another perspective, that doesn't rely on faith.



                Alot of Religions, are not worth following, even if you assume everything they say is correct.



                If you get to heaven even without following the religion / the god is allforgiving, then there is no need to follow it.



                If you don't get to heaven despite living a moral life but not believing in god, then God doesn't seem like he is worth following. What god would condem someone to hell, because he uses his mind that supposedly god gave to him.



                If God is like he is described in a lot of the big religions, then he doesn't seem worth following, just think about what the Christian god has done in the bible. (Mass extinction of innocent people with a flood, telling someone to sacrifice their son, and so on).



                You might even argue, that if God is omnipotent, then he is not very nice for letting innocent kids die horribly.



                All of these positions have nothing to do with faith. You don't believe (or disbelieve!) in anything, you just look at the possibilitys and act based on logic and reason.



                You might also reject the Idea of following a Religion, because from a pure numbers game, you are very unlikely to be right. If we assume that a religion is based on faith, then you can't choose one religion over the other. So what now? If you are in a Religion you are still an "atheist" to all the other religions. How can you reconsile with that?






                share|improve this answer








                New contributor




                Lichtbringer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.




















                • You have done a lot of research on God, but your conclusions are all based on hearsay. So either you haven't done any firsthand research of your own, or you have chosen to give it up for some reason. Either way, it indicates a lot of bias on your part.

                  – Bread
                  3 hours ago











                • what?..........

                  – Lichtbringer
                  2 hours ago















                0














                You already noticed, that theres different "levels" of atheism. (agnostics)
                I want to show yet another perspective, that doesn't rely on faith.



                Alot of Religions, are not worth following, even if you assume everything they say is correct.



                If you get to heaven even without following the religion / the god is allforgiving, then there is no need to follow it.



                If you don't get to heaven despite living a moral life but not believing in god, then God doesn't seem like he is worth following. What god would condem someone to hell, because he uses his mind that supposedly god gave to him.



                If God is like he is described in a lot of the big religions, then he doesn't seem worth following, just think about what the Christian god has done in the bible. (Mass extinction of innocent people with a flood, telling someone to sacrifice their son, and so on).



                You might even argue, that if God is omnipotent, then he is not very nice for letting innocent kids die horribly.



                All of these positions have nothing to do with faith. You don't believe (or disbelieve!) in anything, you just look at the possibilitys and act based on logic and reason.



                You might also reject the Idea of following a Religion, because from a pure numbers game, you are very unlikely to be right. If we assume that a religion is based on faith, then you can't choose one religion over the other. So what now? If you are in a Religion you are still an "atheist" to all the other religions. How can you reconsile with that?






                share|improve this answer








                New contributor




                Lichtbringer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.




















                • You have done a lot of research on God, but your conclusions are all based on hearsay. So either you haven't done any firsthand research of your own, or you have chosen to give it up for some reason. Either way, it indicates a lot of bias on your part.

                  – Bread
                  3 hours ago











                • what?..........

                  – Lichtbringer
                  2 hours ago













                0












                0








                0







                You already noticed, that theres different "levels" of atheism. (agnostics)
                I want to show yet another perspective, that doesn't rely on faith.



                Alot of Religions, are not worth following, even if you assume everything they say is correct.



                If you get to heaven even without following the religion / the god is allforgiving, then there is no need to follow it.



                If you don't get to heaven despite living a moral life but not believing in god, then God doesn't seem like he is worth following. What god would condem someone to hell, because he uses his mind that supposedly god gave to him.



                If God is like he is described in a lot of the big religions, then he doesn't seem worth following, just think about what the Christian god has done in the bible. (Mass extinction of innocent people with a flood, telling someone to sacrifice their son, and so on).



                You might even argue, that if God is omnipotent, then he is not very nice for letting innocent kids die horribly.



                All of these positions have nothing to do with faith. You don't believe (or disbelieve!) in anything, you just look at the possibilitys and act based on logic and reason.



                You might also reject the Idea of following a Religion, because from a pure numbers game, you are very unlikely to be right. If we assume that a religion is based on faith, then you can't choose one religion over the other. So what now? If you are in a Religion you are still an "atheist" to all the other religions. How can you reconsile with that?






                share|improve this answer








                New contributor




                Lichtbringer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.










                You already noticed, that theres different "levels" of atheism. (agnostics)
                I want to show yet another perspective, that doesn't rely on faith.



                Alot of Religions, are not worth following, even if you assume everything they say is correct.



                If you get to heaven even without following the religion / the god is allforgiving, then there is no need to follow it.



                If you don't get to heaven despite living a moral life but not believing in god, then God doesn't seem like he is worth following. What god would condem someone to hell, because he uses his mind that supposedly god gave to him.



                If God is like he is described in a lot of the big religions, then he doesn't seem worth following, just think about what the Christian god has done in the bible. (Mass extinction of innocent people with a flood, telling someone to sacrifice their son, and so on).



                You might even argue, that if God is omnipotent, then he is not very nice for letting innocent kids die horribly.



                All of these positions have nothing to do with faith. You don't believe (or disbelieve!) in anything, you just look at the possibilitys and act based on logic and reason.



                You might also reject the Idea of following a Religion, because from a pure numbers game, you are very unlikely to be right. If we assume that a religion is based on faith, then you can't choose one religion over the other. So what now? If you are in a Religion you are still an "atheist" to all the other religions. How can you reconsile with that?







                share|improve this answer








                New contributor




                Lichtbringer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.









                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer






                New contributor




                Lichtbringer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.









                answered 4 hours ago









                LichtbringerLichtbringer

                101




                101




                New contributor




                Lichtbringer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.





                New contributor





                Lichtbringer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.






                Lichtbringer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.












                • You have done a lot of research on God, but your conclusions are all based on hearsay. So either you haven't done any firsthand research of your own, or you have chosen to give it up for some reason. Either way, it indicates a lot of bias on your part.

                  – Bread
                  3 hours ago











                • what?..........

                  – Lichtbringer
                  2 hours ago

















                • You have done a lot of research on God, but your conclusions are all based on hearsay. So either you haven't done any firsthand research of your own, or you have chosen to give it up for some reason. Either way, it indicates a lot of bias on your part.

                  – Bread
                  3 hours ago











                • what?..........

                  – Lichtbringer
                  2 hours ago
















                You have done a lot of research on God, but your conclusions are all based on hearsay. So either you haven't done any firsthand research of your own, or you have chosen to give it up for some reason. Either way, it indicates a lot of bias on your part.

                – Bread
                3 hours ago





                You have done a lot of research on God, but your conclusions are all based on hearsay. So either you haven't done any firsthand research of your own, or you have chosen to give it up for some reason. Either way, it indicates a lot of bias on your part.

                – Bread
                3 hours ago













                what?..........

                – Lichtbringer
                2 hours ago





                what?..........

                – Lichtbringer
                2 hours ago











                0














                It's very simple. Theism is belief in deity. Atheism is lack of belief in deity.



                Neither position comments upon the ontological status of deity.



                Atheists and theists, however, may hold any variety of opinions or beliefs.






                share|improve this answer



























                  0














                  It's very simple. Theism is belief in deity. Atheism is lack of belief in deity.



                  Neither position comments upon the ontological status of deity.



                  Atheists and theists, however, may hold any variety of opinions or beliefs.






                  share|improve this answer

























                    0












                    0








                    0







                    It's very simple. Theism is belief in deity. Atheism is lack of belief in deity.



                    Neither position comments upon the ontological status of deity.



                    Atheists and theists, however, may hold any variety of opinions or beliefs.






                    share|improve this answer













                    It's very simple. Theism is belief in deity. Atheism is lack of belief in deity.



                    Neither position comments upon the ontological status of deity.



                    Atheists and theists, however, may hold any variety of opinions or beliefs.







                    share|improve this answer












                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer










                    answered 3 hours ago









                    Mr. KennedyMr. Kennedy

                    2,324725




                    2,324725





















                        0














                        The only requirement of meeting the definition of "atheist" is that you do not have belief in any god(s). Computers, rocks, and newborn babies are all, by definition, atheists; because they do not believe in any god(s), notwithstanding that they do not understand what is meant by "god", nor that they have never even thought about the question, nor that they do not even have the cognitive capacity to consider the question.



                        No faith is required to not subscribe to a faith-based belief, because having faith is not a default attribute of anything, human or otherwise. It is simply not part of the definition of being an atheist that you must have some kind of belief one way or the other on whether there is one or more god(s).






                        share|improve this answer








                        New contributor




                        user37821 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.
























                          0














                          The only requirement of meeting the definition of "atheist" is that you do not have belief in any god(s). Computers, rocks, and newborn babies are all, by definition, atheists; because they do not believe in any god(s), notwithstanding that they do not understand what is meant by "god", nor that they have never even thought about the question, nor that they do not even have the cognitive capacity to consider the question.



                          No faith is required to not subscribe to a faith-based belief, because having faith is not a default attribute of anything, human or otherwise. It is simply not part of the definition of being an atheist that you must have some kind of belief one way or the other on whether there is one or more god(s).






                          share|improve this answer








                          New contributor




                          user37821 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.






















                            0












                            0








                            0







                            The only requirement of meeting the definition of "atheist" is that you do not have belief in any god(s). Computers, rocks, and newborn babies are all, by definition, atheists; because they do not believe in any god(s), notwithstanding that they do not understand what is meant by "god", nor that they have never even thought about the question, nor that they do not even have the cognitive capacity to consider the question.



                            No faith is required to not subscribe to a faith-based belief, because having faith is not a default attribute of anything, human or otherwise. It is simply not part of the definition of being an atheist that you must have some kind of belief one way or the other on whether there is one or more god(s).






                            share|improve this answer








                            New contributor




                            user37821 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                            Check out our Code of Conduct.










                            The only requirement of meeting the definition of "atheist" is that you do not have belief in any god(s). Computers, rocks, and newborn babies are all, by definition, atheists; because they do not believe in any god(s), notwithstanding that they do not understand what is meant by "god", nor that they have never even thought about the question, nor that they do not even have the cognitive capacity to consider the question.



                            No faith is required to not subscribe to a faith-based belief, because having faith is not a default attribute of anything, human or otherwise. It is simply not part of the definition of being an atheist that you must have some kind of belief one way or the other on whether there is one or more god(s).







                            share|improve this answer








                            New contributor




                            user37821 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                            Check out our Code of Conduct.









                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer






                            New contributor




                            user37821 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                            Check out our Code of Conduct.









                            answered 2 hours ago









                            user37821user37821

                            1




                            1




                            New contributor




                            user37821 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                            Check out our Code of Conduct.





                            New contributor





                            user37821 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                            Check out our Code of Conduct.






                            user37821 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                            Check out our Code of Conduct.




















                                Mika'il is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









                                draft saved

                                draft discarded


















                                Mika'il is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                                Mika'il is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











                                Mika'il is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














                                Thanks for contributing an answer to Philosophy Stack Exchange!


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid


                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function ()
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f61156%2fasserting-that-atheism-and-theism-are-both-faith-based-positions%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                                );

                                Post as a guest















                                Required, but never shown





















































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown

































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                Францішак Багушэвіч Змест Сям'я | Біяграфія | Творчасць | Мова Багушэвіча | Ацэнкі дзейнасці | Цікавыя факты | Спадчына | Выбраная бібліяграфія | Ушанаванне памяці | У філатэліі | Зноскі | Літаратура | Спасылкі | НавігацыяЛяхоўскі У. Рупіўся дзеля Бога і людзей: Жыццёвы шлях Лявона Вітан-Дубейкаўскага // Вольскі і Памідораў з песняй пра немца Адвакат, паэт, народны заступнік Ашмянскі веснікВ Минске появится площадь Богушевича и улица Сырокомли, Белорусская деловая газета, 19 июля 2001 г.Айцец беларускай нацыянальнай ідэі паўстаў у бронзе Сяргей Аляксандравіч Адашкевіч (1918, Мінск). 80-я гады. Бюст «Францішак Багушэвіч».Яўген Мікалаевіч Ціхановіч. «Партрэт Францішка Багушэвіча»Мікола Мікалаевіч Купава. «Партрэт зачынальніка новай беларускай літаратуры Францішка Багушэвіча»Уладзімір Іванавіч Мелехаў. На помніку «Змагарам за родную мову» Барэльеф «Францішак Багушэвіч»Памяць пра Багушэвіча на Віленшчыне Страчаная сталіца. Беларускія шыльды на вуліцах Вільні«Krynica». Ideologia i przywódcy białoruskiego katolicyzmuФранцішак БагушэвічТворы на knihi.comТворы Францішка Багушэвіча на bellib.byСодаль Уладзімір. Францішак Багушэвіч на Лідчыне;Луцкевіч Антон. Жыцьцё і творчасьць Фр. Багушэвіча ў успамінах ягоных сучасьнікаў // Запісы Беларускага Навуковага таварыства. Вільня, 1938. Сшытак 1. С. 16-34.Большая российская1188761710000 0000 5537 633Xn9209310021619551927869394п

                                Беларусь Змест Назва Гісторыя Геаграфія Сімволіка Дзяржаўны лад Палітычныя партыі Міжнароднае становішча і знешняя палітыка Адміністрацыйны падзел Насельніцтва Эканоміка Культура і грамадства Сацыяльная сфера Узброеныя сілы Заўвагі Літаратура Спасылкі НавігацыяHGЯOiТоп-2011 г. (па версіі ej.by)Топ-2013 г. (па версіі ej.by)Топ-2016 г. (па версіі ej.by)Топ-2017 г. (па версіі ej.by)Нацыянальны статыстычны камітэт Рэспублікі БеларусьШчыльнасць насельніцтва па краінахhttp://naviny.by/rubrics/society/2011/09/16/ic_articles_116_175144/А. Калечыц, У. Ксяндзоў. Спробы засялення краю неандэртальскім чалавекам.І ў Менску былі мамантыА. Калечыц, У. Ксяндзоў. Старажытны каменны век (палеаліт). Першапачатковае засяленне тэрыторыіГ. Штыхаў. Балты і славяне ў VI—VIII стст.М. Клімаў. Полацкае княства ў IX—XI стст.Г. Штыхаў, В. Ляўко. Палітычная гісторыя Полацкай зямліГ. Штыхаў. Дзяржаўны лад у землях-княствахГ. Штыхаў. Дзяржаўны лад у землях-княствахБеларускія землі ў складзе Вялікага Княства ЛітоўскагаЛюблінская унія 1569 г."The Early Stages of Independence"Zapomniane prawdy25 гадоў таму было аб'яўлена, што Язэп Пілсудскі — беларус (фота)Наша вадаДакументы ЧАЭС: Забруджванне тэрыторыі Беларусі « ЧАЭС Зона адчужэнняСведения о политических партиях, зарегистрированных в Республике Беларусь // Министерство юстиции Республики БеларусьСтатыстычны бюлетэнь „Полаўзроставая структура насельніцтва Рэспублікі Беларусь на 1 студзеня 2012 года і сярэднегадовая колькасць насельніцтва за 2011 год“Индекс человеческого развития Беларуси — не было бы нижеБеларусь занимает первое место в СНГ по индексу развития с учетом гендерного факцёраНацыянальны статыстычны камітэт Рэспублікі БеларусьКанстытуцыя РБ. Артыкул 17Трансфармацыйныя задачы БеларусіВыйсце з крызісу — далейшае рэфармаванне Беларускі рубель — сусветны лідар па дэвальвацыяхПра змену коштаў у кастрычніку 2011 г.Бядней за беларусаў у СНД толькі таджыкіСярэдні заробак у верасні дасягнуў 2,26 мільёна рублёўЭканомікаГаласуем за ТОП-100 беларускай прозыСучасныя беларускія мастакіАрхитектура Беларуси BELARUS.BYА. Каханоўскі. Культура Беларусі ўсярэдзіне XVII—XVIII ст.Анталогія беларускай народнай песні, гуказапісы спеваўБеларускія Музычныя IнструментыБеларускі рок, які мы страцілі. Топ-10 гуртоў«Мясцовы час» — нязгаслая легенда беларускай рок-музыкіСЯРГЕЙ БУДКІН. МЫ НЯ ЗНАЕМ СВАЁЙ МУЗЫКІМ. А. Каладзінскі. НАРОДНЫ ТЭАТРМагнацкія культурныя цэнтрыПублічная дыскусія «Беларуская новая пьеса: без беларускай мовы ці беларуская?»Беларускія драматургі па-ранейшаму лепш ставяцца за мяжой, чым на радзіме«Працэс незалежнага кіно пайшоў, і дзяржаву турбуе яго непадкантрольнасць»Беларускія філосафы ў пошуках прасторыВсе идём в библиотекуАрхіваванаАб Нацыянальнай праграме даследавання і выкарыстання касмічнай прасторы ў мірных мэтах на 2008—2012 гадыУ космас — разам.У суседнім з Барысаўскім раёне пабудуюць Камандна-вымяральны пунктСвяты і абрады беларусаў«Мірныя бульбашы з малой краіны» — 5 непраўдзівых стэрэатыпаў пра БеларусьМ. Раманюк. Беларускае народнае адзеннеУ Беларусі скарачаецца колькасць злачынстваўЛукашэнка незадаволены мінскімі ўладамі Крадзяжы складаюць у Мінску каля 70% злачынстваў Узровень злачыннасці ў Мінскай вобласці — адзін з самых высокіх у краіне Генпракуратура аналізуе стан са злачыннасцю ў Беларусі па каэфіцыенце злачыннасці У Беларусі стабілізавалася крымінагеннае становішча, лічыць генпракурорЗамежнікі сталі здзяйсняць у Беларусі больш злачынстваўМУС Беларусі турбуе рост рэцыдыўнай злачыннасціЯ з ЖЭСа. Дазволіце вас абкрасці! Рэйтынг усіх службаў і падраздзяленняў ГУУС Мінгарвыканкама вырасАб КДБ РБГісторыя Аператыўна-аналітычнага цэнтра РБГісторыя ДКФРТаможняagentura.ruБеларусьBelarus.by — Афіцыйны сайт Рэспублікі БеларусьСайт урада БеларусіRadzima.org — Збор архітэктурных помнікаў, гісторыя Беларусі«Глобус Беларуси»Гербы и флаги БеларусиАсаблівасці каменнага веку на БеларусіА. Калечыц, У. Ксяндзоў. Старажытны каменны век (палеаліт). Першапачатковае засяленне тэрыторыіУ. Ксяндзоў. Сярэдні каменны век (мезаліт). Засяленне краю плямёнамі паляўнічых, рыбакоў і збіральнікаўА. Калечыц, М. Чарняўскі. Плямёны на тэрыторыі Беларусі ў новым каменным веку (неаліце)А. Калечыц, У. Ксяндзоў, М. Чарняўскі. Гаспадарчыя заняткі ў каменным векуЭ. Зайкоўскі. Духоўная культура ў каменным векуАсаблівасці бронзавага веку на БеларусіФарміраванне супольнасцей ранняга перыяду бронзавага векуФотографии БеларусиРоля беларускіх зямель ва ўтварэнні і ўмацаванні ВКЛВ. Фадзеева. З гісторыі развіцця беларускай народнай вышыўкіDMOZGran catalanaБольшая российскаяBritannica (анлайн)Швейцарскі гістарычны15325917611952699xDA123282154079143-90000 0001 2171 2080n9112870100577502ge128882171858027501086026362074122714179пппппп

                                Герб Смалявічаў Апісанне | Спасылкі | НавігацыяГерб города Смолевичип