Gl3nn
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Posts
- 1,411
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 12
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Somewhere in the universe
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Is atheism a faith? Is agnostism naive/ignorant?
- Thread starter galaxus
- Start date
Dolfette, with 'anything' I obviously mean believing in science, nature, yourself, money, ....
(I too am atheist in case it wasn't clear)
...are you denying the unicorn?
I am a skeptic (see Home - The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe) and I believe things that are scientifically viable. So to say that something DOESN'T exist when there is no proof to support that would be foolish.
If the existance of a deity can be proven, then I'll change my view of the world accordingly. But right now, I am extremely skeptical about an existance of a deity, so I'm leaning towards not believing in it. But I'll never blindly believe in anything, either god or anything else without proof.
Atheism is believing that there is no god as an absolute fact. And doing that is in my opinion just as ignorant as the people who do believe in god.
I'm therefore considering myself an agnostic.
But seriously people, everyone should find their own faith, and respect others.
If the existance of a deity can be proven, then I'll change my view of the world accordingly. But right now, I am extremely skeptical about an existance of a deity, so I'm leaning towards not believing in it. But I'll never blindly believe in anything, either god or anything else without proof.
Atheism is believing that there is no god as an absolute fact. And doing that is in my opinion just as ignorant as the people who do believe in god.
I'm therefore considering myself an agnostic.
But seriously people, everyone should find their own faith, and respect others.
Gl3nn
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Posts
- 1,411
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 12
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Somewhere in the universe
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Oh, I was poking fun at an error in logic present, but yeah, okay. Let's be friends!
Daisy
Loved Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2009
- Posts
- 4,742
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 554
- Points
- 258
- Location
- California (United States)
- Sexuality
- No Response
- Gender
- Female
I can summarize my beliefs this way...I used to call myself an Atheist until I lived in one of the most beautiful places in the country. I absolutely cannot look at certain places in nature and believe in NOTHING. I do believe that spiritual people are happier, however from having been dragged to church most of my life I can safely say Christianity will never work for me. I have read and studied a lot about astronomy which is science and yet there is definitely a spiritual element there. So to compare the bible or other radical religions to 3 headed unicorns, I can possibly see the comparison (fantasy based on blind faith) but I cannot argue with what I see in front of me, the beauty of the universe or even people in general (most people) so I do believe in something, and since I can't label it, or fit it neatly into a box, I relate most to Pantheism (god is everything). So being Agnostic, to me is not naive at all.
Incocknito
Sexy Member
mitchymo
Expert Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2008
- Posts
- 4,131
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 100
- Points
- 133
- Location
- England (United Kingdom)
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
I think you like many have come to a wise conclusion and yes we should respect everybody but i stop at respecting those who spread lies based on their theistic religions....i will never respect 'the phelps', you know the Godhatessweden com and Godhatesamerica com and Godhatesfags com and soon to be Godhatesmitchymo com sites
Principessa
Expert Member
That is because the title of the thread is straight forward and easy to understand. Whereas your initial post meanders through definitions and examples which have no relation to each other or the title. Ideally the titel should rflect the content of your post. Yours might, but it's really hard to see even after reading more than once.
Drifterwood
Superior Member
I am pre theist. My atheist and agnostic friends have followed the cul de sac of being reltaive to the modern concept of Abrahamic "god".
Your OP is stuck within this definition.
Our knowledge of reality is so much more interesting than the dogma of your gods.
Your OP is stuck within this definition.
Our knowledge of reality is so much more interesting than the dogma of your gods.
JustAsking
Sexy Member
No, Atheism is not a faith, nor is it naive/ignorant.
Consider Bertrand Russell's teapot example. Russell asserts that there is a tiny undetectable teapot in orbit around Jupiter. He says that to believe in the celestial teapot takes pure faith. But he asks if to disbelieve in the teapot also takes faith. His conclusion is no, since the teapot is simply a proxy for anything that we can imagine but we have no evidence for. His question is how does the celestial teapot differ from the God of Abraham in that respect.
Or as Richard Dawkins says, "We are all atheists for one god or another. For example, probably none of us believe in Zeus. He simply claims to believe in one less god than Christians do. Is that faith or simply the lack of faith?
Richard Harris was on Real Time this week and he said to Bill Maher that atheism is contentless. I can understand his point. My disbelief in the celestial teapot is also contentless. Since there is no celestial teapot, I have no dogma or doctrine about my disbelief in it.
As for me, I am a Christian, however, my belief is pure faith. Since there is no empirical evidence of the God of Abraham, I don't insist that those who don't believe in God have a different kind of faith. To say so pre-supposes that I am right about my faith and they are not. It is a kind of faith bigotry.
As a trained scientist and engineer, I do have to add that to insist that empiricism is a path to ultimate truth is indeed a kind of faith, since there is no evidence that this is true. Scientific theories are astonishingly useful, and their massive predictive powers imply that they are "on to something". In fact, I insist that there is nothing known with any more certainty than our well established theories.
However, the fact that even well established theories are always considered provisional, implies an endless succession of theories getting replaced by ones with more predictive power. As Thomas Kuhn says in The Structure of a Scientific Revolution, that theories are ultimately replaced by new theories which seem to bear no resemblance to the ones they replaced. He sees this as evidence that there is no convergence on universal truth. There is only an improvement in depth, range, and accuracy of prediction.
Even though empiricism has been the most successful intellectual achievement in the history of man, one has to wonder if one can base all one's knowledge of the universe on it alone. But then one has to answer the question, that without empiricism, how does one discern anything about a non-empirical notion? Since there is no verification, which notion is valid and which is not?
Not very satisfying, is it? Epistemology is a bitch.
Consider Bertrand Russell's teapot example. Russell asserts that there is a tiny undetectable teapot in orbit around Jupiter. He says that to believe in the celestial teapot takes pure faith. But he asks if to disbelieve in the teapot also takes faith. His conclusion is no, since the teapot is simply a proxy for anything that we can imagine but we have no evidence for. His question is how does the celestial teapot differ from the God of Abraham in that respect.
Or as Richard Dawkins says, "We are all atheists for one god or another. For example, probably none of us believe in Zeus. He simply claims to believe in one less god than Christians do. Is that faith or simply the lack of faith?
Richard Harris was on Real Time this week and he said to Bill Maher that atheism is contentless. I can understand his point. My disbelief in the celestial teapot is also contentless. Since there is no celestial teapot, I have no dogma or doctrine about my disbelief in it.
As for me, I am a Christian, however, my belief is pure faith. Since there is no empirical evidence of the God of Abraham, I don't insist that those who don't believe in God have a different kind of faith. To say so pre-supposes that I am right about my faith and they are not. It is a kind of faith bigotry.
As a trained scientist and engineer, I do have to add that to insist that empiricism is a path to ultimate truth is indeed a kind of faith, since there is no evidence that this is true. Scientific theories are astonishingly useful, and their massive predictive powers imply that they are "on to something". In fact, I insist that there is nothing known with any more certainty than our well established theories.
However, the fact that even well established theories are always considered provisional, implies an endless succession of theories getting replaced by ones with more predictive power. As Thomas Kuhn says in The Structure of a Scientific Revolution, that theories are ultimately replaced by new theories which seem to bear no resemblance to the ones they replaced. He sees this as evidence that there is no convergence on universal truth. There is only an improvement in depth, range, and accuracy of prediction.
Even though empiricism has been the most successful intellectual achievement in the history of man, one has to wonder if one can base all one's knowledge of the universe on it alone. But then one has to answer the question, that without empiricism, how does one discern anything about a non-empirical notion? Since there is no verification, which notion is valid and which is not?
Not very satisfying, is it? Epistemology is a bitch.
Drifterwood
Superior Member
Gods are ten a penny List of deities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I particularly like the irony of this list List of deities in fiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I particularly like the irony of this list List of deities in fiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
MarkLondon
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2008
- Posts
- 1,911
- Media
- 21
- Likes
- 97
- Points
- 193
- Location
- London, UK
- Sexuality
- 99% Gay, 1% Straight
- Gender
- Male
From Buddhism, an atheistic religion that arose in a polytheistic context:
Gods, by their very nature, are fixed and absolute; and therefore incapable of enlightenment.
Gods, by their very nature, are fixed and absolute; and therefore incapable of enlightenment.
Last edited:
False. One cannot affirm or disaffirm that which they have no knowledge of; you can't disbelieve in a thing you've never heard of. Likewise, you cannot affirm or disaffirm that which is not defined (or not well enough defined). In short, lack of a positive affirmation is not an implicit negative affirmation.
As has been said, atheism is 'contentless;' perhaps we ought to have a separate word for 'affirmative atheists'...
Again, false. Empirical investiation is not a necessary component of atheism, as hinted above; an 'undefined deity' is a non-starter, for example.
It's true, though, that every worldview has presuppositional foundations, but this does not render every worldview a 'faith.' That's a word, too, that could use better definition in this context.....
mitchymo
Expert Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2008
- Posts
- 4,131
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 100
- Points
- 133
- Location
- England (United Kingdom)
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Similar threads
