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
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
New contributor
|
show 6 more comments
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
New contributor
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
|
show 6 more comments
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
New contributor
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
theology atheism
New contributor
New contributor
New contributor
asked 12 hours ago
Mika'ilMika'il
1304
1304
New contributor
New contributor
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
|
show 6 more comments
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
|
show 6 more comments
9 Answers
9
active
oldest
votes
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.
New contributor
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
|
show 6 more comments
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
|
show 5 more comments
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.
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
|
show 3 more comments
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!".
New contributor
add a comment |
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.
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
|
show 2 more comments
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?
New contributor
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
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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).
New contributor
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
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.
New contributor
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
|
show 6 more comments
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.
New contributor
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
|
show 6 more comments
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.
New contributor
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.
New contributor
edited 3 hours ago
Community♦
1
1
New contributor
answered 7 hours ago
YiFanYiFan
2015
2015
New contributor
New contributor
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
|
show 6 more comments
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
|
show 6 more comments
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
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
|
show 5 more comments
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.
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
|
show 5 more comments
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.
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.
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
|
show 5 more comments
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
|
show 5 more comments
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.
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
|
show 3 more comments
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.
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
|
show 3 more comments
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.
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.
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
|
show 3 more comments
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
|
show 3 more comments
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!".
New contributor
add a comment |
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!".
New contributor
add a comment |
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!".
New contributor
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!".
New contributor
New contributor
answered 6 hours ago
kubanczykkubanczyk
1134
1134
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
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
|
show 2 more comments
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.
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
|
show 2 more comments
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.
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.
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
|
show 2 more comments
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
|
show 2 more comments
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?
New contributor
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
add a comment |
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?
New contributor
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
add a comment |
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?
New contributor
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?
New contributor
New contributor
answered 4 hours ago
LichtbringerLichtbringer
101
101
New contributor
New contributor
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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.
answered 3 hours ago
Mr. KennedyMr. Kennedy
2,324725
2,324725
add a comment |
add a comment |
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).
New contributor
add a comment |
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).
New contributor
add a comment |
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).
New contributor
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).
New contributor
New contributor
answered 2 hours ago
user37821user37821
1
1
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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