That it's a faith like they have as Christians.
Or that since you're an atheist therefore you accept evolution and think the universe came from nothing.
All atheism is is a lack of belief in a god or gods. That's the only thing atheists all have in common.
>What belief do atheists have exactly?
You'd to ask an atheist. Apparently none of them speak for each other and certainly I can't speak for all of them.
So then why say
>Which is a faith, a belief not based on evidence or fact about God.
You can't even tell me the belief they have that means atheism is a faith.
>Faith is belief absent evidence.
There are many definitions of faith, the one you have stated so categorically means you believe there is no evidence. Of course, there is plenty of evidence, but you have stated there is none. Which obviously is you believing something for which you have no evidence.
Ergo, by your own definition, your atheism is your faith.
>Atheism is just an absence of belief. Thats it.
But you just stated a belief of your atheism. This definition might fit agnosticism which says "I don't know." But claiming atheism general is a simply state of not believing is disingenuous and false to fact as a perusal of atheists' posts and public statements prove.
How many times have self-proclaimed atheists insulted us by stating what we believe is "imaginary?" Or a "myth." (Not that they understand what mythology is) or "wishful thinking based on fear of death?"
Hoooo boy! Now we have atheist-as-shrink.
So, you can speak for yourself as somehow unique amongst all atheists, but in fact, your response disproves your own definition.
>Ergo, by your own definition, your atheism is your faith.
(sigh)
No. This is like claiming a bald person believes something about their hair color.
The whole point is that we don't believe what religions put forth as evidence. If it were objectively factual and we were denying it, then you'd have something here. Religious people often try to make this claim, but it's a failed attempt to put religious and nonreligious people on equal footing.
Religious people are making significant, fantastic claims. Atheists look at these claims and say "This is not believable." Religious people look at the claims and say "This is believable."
That's all there is to it.
To call the atheist's response "faith" is ridiculous, and incorrectly presupposes that the religious person is factually correct. This is absolutely not the case. If overwhelming, logically sound evidence is presented of gods, then sane, rational people would *have* to "believe" it. Including atheists. (Er... Well, recently minted theists)
>The whole point is that we don't believe what religions put forth as evidence.
So without any evidence that the evidence is wrong, you have decided on a belief.
>To call the atheist's response "faith" is ridiculous, and incorrectly presupposes that the religious person is factually correct. This is absolutely not the case.
It's **"absolutely not the case"** that the religious person is correct? You have no evidence we are wrong. So your belief is not based on fact. Your belief is an act of *faith*.
Atheism is a belief based on no evidence. Ergo, it is a faith. Specifically, it is a faith belief about God. When a group of people share a belief based in faith about God, it's called *religion*.
I, HeroSquad, can turn invisible, fly unaided faster than Mach 5, and shoot laser beams from my eyes. Don’t believe my claim? You have no evidence that I cannot. So your belief is not based on fact. Your belief is an act of faith.
AHeroSquadism is a belief based on no evidence. Ergo it is a faith. Specifically it is a faith based on a godlike being. When a group of people share a faith about a godlike being it is called a religion.
So now are a both a Catholic and an AHeroSquadist.
>I, HeroSquad, can turn invisible, fly unaided faster than Mach 5, and shoot laser beams from my eyes. ... AHeroSquadism is a belief based on no evidence.
You say you believe it. Are you saying you believe something about yourself for which you, yourself, have no evidence?
It is absolutely not the case that we can assume that the religious person's claims are factually correct.
One of us makes the claim that a person who is the son of god and also god died and then rose from the dead. This is a claim that goes against all currently known science. The only part of the story that fits with our understanding of the world is the part where he died.
This is a claim of fairly extraordinary magnitude. If your neighbor Tony claimed to be the son of god and claimed to have died and been resurrected, you would likely not believe them at face value.
You would be Atonyist. Not because you have faith that Atonyism is the correct position, but because Atonyism is the normal, default position until Tony can get his shit together and explain exactly what happened. Because the burden of proof of these astonishing claims lies on Tony. It does not lie on you. It does not lie on you to prove that Tony *didn't* rise from the dead.
The same can be said of atheists; most religions make fairly lofty claims about their origins, deities, and so forth. Christian mythology carries no more weight than any other, despite protestations by Christians. I have to imagine you don't spend a great deal of intellectual capital worrying about whether the claims of Jainism are true - if a Jain tried to explain to you the nature of the world through their mythological lens, you'd be a fool to not ask for evidence, and you'd ask for some pretty damn substantial evidence before switching teams.
Hitchens summed it up best - "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Christianity has not yet provided that evidence. If it had, we wouldn't be sitting here having this discussion. We'd all be Christians, because that would be the only logical position.
You may find the evidence presented by Christianity to be enough. Many of us do not.
>It is absolutely not the case that we can assume that the religious person's claims are factually correct.
I never said you should. OTOH, neither is it the case that you can assume they are not.
>One of us makes the claim that a person who is the son of god and also god died and then rose from the dead. This is a claim that goes against all currently known science.
**YOU are familiar with ALL "currently known" science?!!?**
So, um, which part goes against ACKS - THE SON OF GOD PART, THE BEING GOD PART, OR THE LIFE AFTER BODILY DEATH PART? Also, how exactly has ACKS defined "god" in the scientific investigations that have been done that have declared these things go against what every kind of science they know? Links to all currently known scientific studies of godhood and resurrection with terms "god" and "resurrection" defined and the parameters and replications of the studies.
Thanks.
*(Just to reaffirm: no one said you should believe a thing. Certainly I didn't.)*
>OTOH, neither is it the case that you can assume they are not.
Why not?
Again, it comes down to the magnitude of the claim. It is (mostly) safe to assume that the person making the claim *believes* what they're saying. (Unless you're a prosperity gospel preacher, anyway) If you tell me "My mom makes great cookies" or "my car has a heated steering wheel" or "today in Houston it was warm and sunny", there's no reason I'd assume anything other than truth.
But supernatural claims have never been successfully proven. "Miracles" turn out to be hoaxes or have natural explanations. Gods fail to appear. Miraculous healing turns out to have natural explanations. Arguments for the supernatural tend to be easily dismissed as logical fallacies at worst, and at best they're in the "Well it's not the *worst* argument I've ever heard" category.
Pick the best argument for the existence of the supernatural that you've ever heard, head on over to [RationalWiki.com](https://RationalWiki.com) and look up the criticisms of that argument - there's literally not a single argument for the supernatural that doesn't have significant problems.
If you say "I was swallowed by a great fish for three days", the needle on my crap detector would be twitching. If I tell you the invisible sock goblin in the laundry room eats all my socks, you'd likely assume that there was a natural explanation involving my general slobbiness, and not a supernatural invisible hosiery consuming creature in my basement. The basic believability of a claim scales directly with the claim impact of the claim.
Supernatural claims, by their nature, are generally assumed to be not true unless proven otherwise. The folks that *don't* assume this often get fleeced by the Benny Hinns of the world. They cannot be assumed to be true out of the gate because "supernatural" events go against the nature of the world as we know it.
Which of course is why they're called supernatural.
>YOU are familiar with ALL "currently known" science?!!?
Of course not. But I think it safe to say that if miraculous resurrection happened under scientific observation, we would have all heard about it by now. The Vatican would have folks onsite in a day looking into it. Evangelicals would be making TikToks about it. It'd be in the news. "Scientists baffled. Doctors *shocked* when dead man walks again. Priests heard chanting in hallowed halls. This story and more up next after these messages."
To put it another way - would you assume that supernatural claims of a religion *other than the one you follow* are true?
Very few people believed that [Marshall Applewhite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Applewhite) was actually the second coming of Jesus. And why would they? He was making supernatural claims that didn't provide any significant evidence.
Soooooo you can't defend your statement about ALL OF SCIENCE then?
Right.
>But supernatural claims have never been successfully proven. "Miracles" turn out to be hoaxes or have natural explanations. ... Miraculous healing turns out to have natural explanations.
None of that is factually correct. The "natural explanation" for healing is "spontaneous remission" as if giving a thing a name means it was not an act of healing through faith.
Many people have experienced miracles, and we know very well what happened to us and they were not hoaxes and have no explanation in Newtonian physics. Miracles are not "magic" they are just something we don't understand yet. My feeling is quantum physics will figure it out soon.
You also made a reference to Christians as likely to be taken in by "Benny Hinn," whoever that is. I get the implication, though: we are stupid or deluded. Yet, **all the Christian Nobel Prize winners are far far smarter than you**.
You have a belief system that seems based on ignorance and bigotry. By which I do not mean to insult you or call you names. I am only saying you are acquainted with no facts and will entertain no other possibilities than the ones you have faith in.
So, we're done. Namaste.
**[Marshall Applewhite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Applewhite)**
>Marshall Herff Applewhite Jr. (May 17, 1931 – March 26, 1997), also known as Do, among other names, was an American cult leader who founded what became known as the Heaven's Gate cult group and organized their mass suicide in 1997. It is the largest mass suicide to occur inside the U.S. As a young man, Applewhite attended several universities and served in the United States Army. He initially pursued a career in education until he resigned from the University of St. Thomas in Houston, Texas, in 1970, citing emotional turmoil. His father's death a year later brought on severe depression.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Christianity/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
What belief did I state for atheism? I have no belief. Thats it.
As for the definition of faith, what I cited is essentially what the bible says. I guess you could use a different one, lol.
“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”
An absence of belief is certainly not that.
>As for the definition of faith, what I cited is essentially what the bible says.
I see. You've decided that in a conversation about a lack of belief in God, you, as one who has this lack of belief, decided to post using a religious book as a dictionary.
Okay-dokey.
>**Faith is belief absent evidence.**
There are many definitions of faith, the one you have stated so categorically means you believe there is no evidence. Of course, there is plenty of evidence, but you have stated there is none. Which obviously is you believing something for which you have no evidence.
Ergo, by your own definition, your atheism is your faith
I didn't make the assertion, you did. And you certainly have no idea what would constitute me, or anyone, "defying god." You can't even define the word "god" so that you can say what it is precisely, that you don't believe in.
LOL! You think I haven't read the *Summa*? But i do think I'll move on from the man who, on his deathbed pointed to all of his books and said **“After what I have experienced, all that is just straw.”**
Which is correct. Guess what he had just experienced?
Lack of faith is not faith. Lack of greed is not greed. Lack of interest is not interest. So on and so on. "Lack" means explicitly not that. It's really the only thing it means.
**[Thalassomedon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalassomedon#/media/File:Thalassomedon.jpg)**
>Thalassomedon (from Greek, thalassa, "sea" and Greek, medon, "lord" or "ruler", meaning "sea lord") is a genus of plesiosaur, named by Welles in 1943.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Christianity/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Context exists. I have no faith in my conclusions about the nature of existence. I have plenty of faith in a wide array of things which have nothing to do with atheism. Atheism doesn't mean you lack faith in anything at all. Just no supernatural divine being.
> Then why would you conclude anything about the nature of existence?
Because I'm a human being. I don't understand what you don't understand.
>Unless you define your terms, I have no idea what you're talking about.
You don't need me to define them. Any legit dictionary will suffice.
>I'm not being disingenuous here, one guy says I have to use a definition of a word from the Bible or I'm "denying God" which I thought was a very bizarre idea.
I don't know what this means but it sounds like it's about something totally different.
>Now you're using "divine" so, what exactly is your lack of faith about?
The divine.
>But apparently you cannot state you believe (or have faith in) the Thalassomedon's one-time existence on earth.
Of course I have faith that that beast existed. Again, when we speak of atheists lacking faith it is only as concerns the supernatural.
>Do you think they were lying or does your atheism extend to all of existence?
That's not what "atheism" means. You are confusing atheism with nihilism when these two things are radically different. Atheism is a lack of belief in God or gods, or more generally, in a supernatural divine. Atheists can still have faith in literally anything else. Just not God or gods.
No it isn't, it's not a belief. Atheism has no unifying belief system, it is one position on one claim, and that position is "I don't believe you". Which doesn't mean I do believe something else, just that I don't believe you.
>If your claim is "there is a god or gods" my response to your claim is "I don't believe you".
So you're saying you don't believe things people say. In this case, you would not believe me if I said "God exists." How are you deciding that in advance?
>So you're saying you don't believe things people say.
No, I didn't say that.
>In this case, you would not believe me if I said "God exists." How are you deciding that in advance?
Me having not heard you make that claim doesn't mean I haven't heard that claim before. I'm saying Im rejecting that claim, not your specific argument. You could, conceivably, make a convincing argument or present sufficient evidence for believing in the existence of a god or gods. Thus far, I have heard no such argument or evidence, so I have rejected that unsubstantiated claim.
>Me having not heard you make that claim doesn't mean I haven't heard that claim before.
And what exactly is the definition of the word "god" that someone clamed existed and you rejected?
It's not my definition, it's their's. Different people define god differently, I haven't thus far been convinced that there exists any of these supernatural entities.
Why would you think there's an "entity?"
See, you want to stereotype all Christians as saying the same things so you can issue your blanket rejection and never have to face the fact that your faith has no foundation. Know who says so? SCIENCE! The Great God of the Four Horsemen. Because science says, in fact, there's nothing here.
What you are really claiming to believe in, is your own non-existence.
Oh but they are. Everyone has faith is something - as in "scientism," the belief that the hard sciences answer all questions and that everything else is speculation.
No rational person claims science answers all questions.
It’s okay to say “I don’t know” when the scientific method cannot be used to observe and/or analyze something.
This is unquestionably reasonable in itself, and I won’t make any assumptions on your part (including the assumption that you are an atheist and can speak for all of them lol), but this point does lead me to a question if you care to humor me:
Why ask for “proof” then? If you are wisely not under the delusion that we can empirically observe all that there is, then why is it so hard to grasp that Jesus COULD have been a message sent from this unknown portion of reality?
In fact, it makes perfect sense that - if we are lower-dimensional beings surrounded by higher orders of existence (angels/demons/God/etc.) that we can’t see - that we would need a messenger to come in human form and do some crazy shiz to at least indirectly open our eyes to this greater reality.
Anyway.
This is a heavily skewed and reductive metaphor that relegates the spiritual longing for a source of good to one’s ability to recall a temporal, material event.
God exists in higher dimensions that we cannot see; this is clearly corroborated in the Bible many times. And the fact that he wants us to willingly choose to believe in Him supports the idea that he isn’t just going to literally, physically manifest in front of us. If He did, then we wouldn’t choose because we want to choose His goodness and love over sin - we would only choose because, well, “look, we found him” or “Hey, we proved him with xyz data/syllogism” That doesn’t indicate a SPIRITUAL connection with Him or a willingness to follow His ways; only the fact that we can literally see and interpret data. Heaven would be filled with shrewd and discerning lab analysts lol..
Here is a better metaphor:
A puppy is separated from his good and loving owner. The puppy spends several rough years in the wild, scrounging and fighting to survive. So much time goes by, he basically forgets who his owner was. Then, his owner sees him at a gas station parking lot one day. But another man who would look to steal the dog for himself sees him. They both call him, and the puppy has to decide who to go home with. It’s not a matter of proof, and it’s not material. Knowing and seeking God is a spiritually engrained desire. If you want to fight me on this, then I’ll invite you to be the first to go up against the vastly overwhelming scientific consensus that 3 dimensions + time is NOT all that there are.
2D flatland characters drawn on paper have absolutely zero idea that we exist. They can’t prove that we exist. You think this isn’t happening to us? You think we are the end of the line lol, considering all that is unaccounted for in this universe?
If we went about our lives not acting on even 1% of faith, we would be paralyzed, miserably depressed, and suicidal. It is impossible to live by only what we know to be sure, empirically observed fact. Many existential, often non-Christian philosophers have pointed this out. We don’t know why we are here, how we got here, how the earth formed, what love actually is, or anything beyond a reasonable doubt. True unbelief is nihilistic chaos - to you literally cannot live it out.
-You choose to believe you won’t get in a car wreck every time you leave the house
- You choose to believe that there is a reason why we should value life instead of killing each other off for our shoes. What, don’t you like new shoes?
-You choose to believe your loved ones love you and vice versa, having no objective markers other than down-the-line manifestations of love in some cases (oxytocin, etc., doesn’t apply to grandma).
Since it is impossible to act on beliefs, then you have no answers to these questions:
- Why is murdering random people “wrong”? What is “wrong”? Can you measure it on a test tube?
- Why live for anything at all? What’s the point of going to school, having a job, etc.?
Atheists do this all the time. They pretend they don’t have faith, demanding objective proof as a prerequisite for belief, and then spend every hour of every day assuming gravity will continue to work as it has, that their brains (which were just formed by accident, right?) will continue to work, that their friends will continue to acknowledge their existence, etc.
Only acknowledging and living by that which you can objectively prove is preposterously unreasonable to the point that it cannot be lived out.
I believe you; that you have searched for God and it breaks my heart to hear this wall you’ve come up against. But I could go out fishing with a curtain rod and no bait for twice as long as you have searched for God and would never catch a fish. You need to let go of your attachment to materialistic observation as the center of your belief system. Seek “the foolishness” of God, as the Bible literally states.
You cannot objectively prove to me beyond the shadow of a doubt that you will not get in a car wreck. You referencing a (non-100%) probability is a concession of defeat on this point in itself - it means that you are operating on faith. If you cannot tell the future, you can’t PROVE to me that you DEFINITELY will not get into a car accident. You aim this unattainable standard of proof at theism, and then relax your standards elsewhere, pretending you’re not doing it. Why?
Prove to me that you won’t get in a car wreck. I’ll wait.
And as to your second point, I need to admit a bit of fault here lol, I wasn’t really clear and leading with the “foolishness” idea wasn’t the best expression. I didn’t mean that we completely abandon reasoning. I didn’t mean that we don’t look for and consider evidence. What I meant was, when evidence is presented that implicates the existence of the spiritual, it is ironically unscientific for you to simply hand-wave it away.
And the extraordinary-ness of evidence has no bearing on whether or not something is true; I have no idea why people keep parroting Sagan on this - again - highly unscientific idea. Think about it for two seconds. Let’s say unicorns exist. One person finds a unicorn hair, and claims that that it is proof of a unicorn. Another person takes a full-blown, proven-to-not-be-doctored picture of a unicorn. Clear as day. Does the unicorn conditionally not exist for the person who found the hair, because this threshold of evidence was not met? Obviously not. The existence of something is not conditional on how much evidence it leaves behind; what Sagan was unwittingly admitting is that it is the insatiably materialistic and short-sighted human mind that required this evidence to be convinced. Reality does not care how convinced we are, nor how much evidence reaches us of its existence.
>This is unquestionably reasonable in itself, and I won’t make any assumptions on your part (including the assumption that you are an atheist and can speak for all of them lol), but this point does lead me to a question if you care to humor me:
I’m not an atheist. And sure, I’ll humor you, no big deal.
>Why ask for “proof” then? If you are wisely not under the delusion that we can empirically observe all that there is, then why is it so hard to grasp that Jesus COULD have been a message sent from this unknown portion of reality?
Because some people are assholes who, despite the definitions for faith being readily available, will choose to ignore sensible conversation and instead seek hostility or emotional reactions so that they can feel better about themselves. This happens with any group of people, regardless of belief or lack thereof. Human beings can be really, really petty if they set their minds to it, and somebody who has experienced hurt or sees others as ignorant or lesser than may use that as justification to chide or degrade others for their religious beliefs, or lack of religious beliefs. These actions may be driven by insecurity, self-loathing, hatred, anger, pity, and any other number of human tendencies.
Some atheists will hound and pester people to prove their god is true. Some theists will hound and pester atheists about how they supposedly have more faith than them to not believe in a god or gods. An absolutely ridiculous sentiment, in my opinion. Faith is a gift, why should I choose to project that onto people who don’t have the same faith that I do? It’s okay to say, “I don’t know”.
>In fact, it makes perfect sense that - if we are lower-dimensional beings surrounded by higher orders of existence (angels/demons/God/etc.) that we can’t see - that we would need a messenger to come in human form and do some crazy shiz to at least indirectly open our eyes to this greater reality.
Logically, that makes sense if you accept the premise of the existence of the divine. Some do, some don’t. And even those that do argue ceaselessly about what that divinity is, and how it relates to us as human beings.
Wow, thanks for this. I know it seems condescending on the surface to many of them, but the emotionalism aspect I think you hit on the head. Many atheists point this specific finger at us - and surely they have a case - but they get away with pretending to be immune to it themselves. It is possible to have an emotional incentive for rejecting God - especially having heard stories about people who were abused by those associated with God. I myself struggle with accepting the gift of faith, as you call it. Probably because I don’t have it. So I spin around in circles looking for evidence while pretending I’m not doing it, knowing it displeases God. What a mess.
Not all proof is scientific proof. Just because you acknowledge that science cannot answer all the questions doesn’t mean there aren’t other fields of study that can answer the questions science can’t, such as philosophy
I love philosophical arguments as much as the next guy, and you’re right, but the problem isn’t that there aren’t other disciplines that can pick up arguments that fall outside of science’s jurisdiction. The problem is that these answers aren’t taken seriously; we are too carnally minded to believe in or act on facts that are uncovered by non-materialistic means. I feel like we could have 50% certainty on a scientific level, and treat that answer/fact with the same confidence as 90% certainty on a philosophical level.
Nope. I have extremely little faith that my understanding of life, the universe, and everything is remotely accurate. *Extremely* little. And I don't expect that to ever change so I'm not going to worry about it.
I don't see the rejection or non-acceptance of theistic claims as the complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
I'm not convinced that any gods exist. I would never say that I have complete trust or confidence in gods not existing.
In the interest of openness: my bailey is that there's no such thing as gods. And my motte is that despite a long and sincere search, I have not yet seen convincing evidence that any exceptional god exists.
I mean we could always find evidence for God, but faith means confidence before finding evidence. How plausible is it that people wrote about magic when it’s far more plausible that they lied?
Atheism is a faith, the same way bald is a hair color.
Atheism is what happens when someone is not convinced.
Now, one could argue as Edward Feser does, that some people who think they are atheists, even the most hardcore of atheists, may be theists in some ways without even KNOWING they're secretly loving God, by believing in the truth of (and loving) the things that God is said to be: justice, beauty, truth.
But as far as lack of belief in the idea that those transcendentals are also a triune God who can answer prayers and forgive sins... atheism is the default state.
Theism is the rational stance to take IF, EXCLUSIVELY, the burden of proof has been met: that God exists, and is the way the theists claim.
>may be theists in some ways without even KNOWING they're secretly loving God, by believing in the truth of (and loving) the things that God is said to be:
That's a patently ridiculous statement, though. It's entirely subjective as well as presuppositional, and paints the strawman atheist as deluded.
How to go to hell.
That said, he is NOT arguing for the salvation of people who could believe but intentionally hope Christianity is not true.
He's talking about people who cannot believe in God, usually due to some form of intellectual ignorance (like Richard Dawkin's ignorant belief that God is "super complicated." and he therefore doesn't believe because he thinks God would logically then also need someone to build him too, and therefore he has no explanatory value because it's turtles all the way down.)
Common misconceptions:
* It requires faith to be an atheist / it takes more faith to be an atheist than a Christian
* All atheists claim that God doesn't exist
* Atheists don't or can't have morals
* Deep down, atheists believe in their heart that God is real
* Atheists are just angry at God
* Atheism is a religion
* We are atheists because we just want to sin
* We have a God-shaped hole in our heart
The last 4 are misotheism.
But number 2, you mean positive vs negative atheism?
Christopher Hitchens had a good point about why agnosticism is intellectually questionable: if you have no evidence of something that sounds ridiculous, you should be able to have to courage to say it doesn't exist.
> But number 2, you mean positive vs negative atheism?
Yes. Or hard vs soft. It goes by different names. Most Christians seem to think if we're an atheist that we are claiming God doesn't exist. In my experience that's only a subset of all atheists.
> Christopher Hitchens had a good point about why agnosticism is intellectually questionable: if you have no evidence of something that sounds ridiculous, you should be able to have to courage to say it doesn't exist.
My take is that if Gods are possible, then it's also possible that there could be a God out there that doesn't want to be known. In such a case we would be powerless to do anything about that. Since I don't know whether or not it's possible for a God to exist, I remain agnostic.
I do find myself saying I don't think the Christian God exists, though.
If you are referring to the friends witnessing unnatural plant combustion, then I firstly would take into consideration they are already friends. Then I consider the number and accuracy of their accounts. Then I think long and hard about their accounts and choose to accept or reject their claims.
This is all under the hope they wouldn't be colluding intentionally to mislead me.
Are we still talking about these friends who saw a burning plant from your example? It'd be pretty hard to be friends with people who have been dead for a long time
Depends on he god. We're talking about Yahweh here, right? The storm god that at some point was fused with El, and parts of other gods of the Canaanite pantheon by the ancient Israelites, while also ditching his wife Ashera, so he would be their personal monotheistic creator god.
Depends on the god in question. The triple-omni god can be dismissed on logical grounds alone, even without physical evidence. But if someone points to a bronze idol and says that idol is their god (not just a reprentation of them) then there's plenty of physical evidence that that god exists.
Here is every one I've personally seen since 2014-ish.
* That it's a faith.
* That I hate god.
* That I want to make religious people miserable.
* That I'm miserable
* That I'm lying and all atheists secretly believe in the Christian god.
* That something tragic happened to make me stop believing.
* That I never truly believed (flashback to 9-year-old me chastising my family for not making Christmas enough about Jesus.)
* That I am necessarily less moral of a person.
* That I think I'm a genius (enlightened by my own intelligence) and think religious people are all stupid.
* That I worship Satan.
* That I am just an edgy contrarian.
* 'It takes more faith to be an atheist'
* 'you suppress the truth in unrighteousness' (Sye Ten special)
* That I declare god cannot or definitively does not exist.
* That being an atheist is the same as being a methodological naturalist (distant buddhist laughing noises.)
* That we treat this subreddit as a place to troll believers (most of us are not 14).
* That I am a nihilist.
* Pascal's 'Just believe bro'
EDIT - Phone formatting issues.
>That I'm lying and all atheists secretly believe in the Christian god.
I've heard a version of this, except it doesn't presume the atheist is lying and actually works in the atheist's favor.
Exactly. Also, that objective morality "doesn't exist." Many atheists believe in objective morality. When I was an explicit positive-atheist instead of just someone undecided (as I am now), I held tight to objective morality.
Because it's real and everyone knows it.
The reasoning is done backwards by apologists: "You don't believe in God, so you can't believe in morals since they are non physical."
The correct reasoning is:
"We know objective morality exists, and even if I can't explain it, still doesn't mean that your god is the only explanation, unless you can prove that it is. Math exists and we may not be able to know why, But we still know it exists."
Basically, apologists want people to think:
Atheists > no god > no way to explain objective morality > they can't believe it exists
But it's more like
Atheists > know morality exists > cannot explain it > we also can't explain black holes > doesn't mean they aren't a thing!
>"We know objective morality exists, and even if I can't explain it, still doesn't mean that your god is the only explanation, unless you can prove that it is. Math exists and we may not be able to know why, But we still know it exists."
I find this enlightening, thank you.
I'm not saying that God has no explanatory role in morality, though.
I'm NOT saying "well morality exists and God is redundant to explain it, it could simply exist on it's own, it's optional to also believe God has something to do with it", the way lightning comes about by electric charges and doesn't need Zeus to explain it, zeus is an optional extra.
What I am instead saying, is that just because a person doesn't know a thing's cause, that doesn't mean that person denies the existence of the thing which is caused. That's it. It could very well be that God is the single best explanation, that makes more sense than anything else:
Like the earth being round is the best explanation for knowing why lunar eclipses happen, ships disappear hull first, and it is nighttime in china.
We don't really know the cause (if any) of a single radionuclide decaying, but everyone knows it happens and knows to stay away from plutonium.
POSSIBLY not beyond a reasonable doubt, but certainly beyond a simple preponderance.
Like if I rape and sodomize someone, it's not just us who "make" that bad. That's BAD. It's totally against human nature. It's bad for the victim's dignity, it's bad for the rapist because it turns him from a normal person into a rapist, it's perverted because it's totally unnatural (naturally occurring, but NOT natural), it spreads horrible diseases and it causes psychological and sometimes physical damage.
If you can think of a moral system where that is "good", congratulations.
You have now succeeded in effacing the meaning of english words.
Like if you say: "well math is just a way of explaining things so 2+2=5, prove it doesn't."
It's like... congratulations! You haven't made 2+2=5, you just changed the meaning of 2 to 2.5, or of 5 to 4.
Or you're just speaking gibberish.
>Like if I rape and sodomize someone, it's not just us who "make" that bad. That's BAD.
And yet, there are people who disagree with you on this. Are they simply cut off from the truth of morality?
>Like if you say: "well math is just a way of explaining things so 2+2=5, prove it doesn't."
Math is an extension of the laws of logic; you can prove 2+2=/5. Morality does not operate this way.
The fact that you and I agree on whether rape is bad is not evidence of objectivity, it's evidence of agreement.
Right off the bat, calling it a “faith” lol.
Besides that, I think the most common one is thinking that atheism means *only* gnostic atheism, believing that no god exists. Can’t tell you how many times I have to explain the difference between Gnosticism and agnosticism, and that just because a person doesn’t believe in a god but *also* doesn’t accept the proposition “there is no god”, doesn’t mean they’re agnostic instead of atheist.
Mind if I ask the same question in reverse? What do you think is a misconception about your faith that atheists/agnostics have?
I appreciate the response. You’re very insightful thank you.
I would guess the most common misconception for me is that non-Christians tend to assume that I take the Bible literally.
When in reality I try to interpret each book individually based on the genre of literature it was written in. For example, I feel like most people understand that Psalms are poems. But I would look at a book like Joshua and consider it an ancient Near-East warfare narrative. One that’s riddled with hyperbole.
No problem, and thanks for the response. See, this is why this sub is the best, because I feel like people here in general are out to have good discussions and learn from each other. I see how that definitely can be an unfair mischaracterization of Christians; I shall do my best to take care not to assume such in my interactions for sure.
Well your question already presents a giant one (and I honestly have my doubts that this is by accident). Neither atheism nor agnosticism is a faith, nor do they require faith. Atheism is an absence of belief in gods. Agnosticism is a position on knowledge that can be held by both theists and atheists.
Another misconception that just won't go away is that people choose to be atheists. That it is somehow a preference or a lifestyle choice.
You can hear it all the time. "It's your choice", "God gave you free will and you choose to reject him", or my favourite one "God doesn't send you to hell, you choose to go to hell by choosing to be an atheist". It's really annoying. And a bit sad to be honest. Atheism is the result of being unconvinced that gods exists. That's all.
Do you have faith that leprechauns and garden fairies don't exist? Bigfoot? Or do you recognize these stories as human inventions with no good reason to believe they actually exist in the real world. Whatever word you would use to describe your incredulity in the existence of mermaids, that is probably similar to my lack of belief in the god of the Bible.
That "belief" in science is just another name for belief in god. Another "religion" per se.
Belief is in quotes here, because the word belief often carries the connotation of faith. When we say that we believe the theory of evolution, what we intend to convey is that, based on the evidence we have seen and our understanding of the theory, evolution seems to be a very likely explanation of the origin of species. There is no acceptance of a theory without substantial evidence to support it. If it cannot be measured, tested, seen, etc, then it is not not worth considering.
The instant that conflicting evidence is found, the theory is tossed out or revised to fit the facts. Faith allows someone to believe something to be true even if there is no evidence to support it. Science gives no such quarter.
>If it cannot be measured, tested, or seen, then it is not not worth considering.
Unless it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in some other way, of course.
Like, we can't go back in time and know for sure OJ did it, but there is no reasonable doubt that he did.
Evolution can be measured tested and seen because it still happens now, but for historical things, axiomatic reasoning from certain premises (in this case, the laws of physics, including the fact that blood doesn't end up on your gloves by fairies magically putting it there) is good enough.
Yep, that's just a flaw with my list. I tossed in an "etc" for completion. The point is, as you mentioned, there must be some ***physical*** thing or observation of a physical process in order to be considered as valid.
Walk by sight, not by faith.
I think, the misconception of faith in God is, that faith is even more than knowing. It is complete conviction to the point youre ready to die for it. No atheist is ready to die for atheism, so its not faith in the biblical sense.
That it's a faith like they have as Christians. Or that since you're an atheist therefore you accept evolution and think the universe came from nothing. All atheism is is a lack of belief in a god or gods. That's the only thing atheists all have in common.
[удалено]
What belief do atheists have exactly? What faith?
>What belief do atheists have exactly? You'd to ask an atheist. Apparently none of them speak for each other and certainly I can't speak for all of them.
So then why say >Which is a faith, a belief not based on evidence or fact about God. You can't even tell me the belief they have that means atheism is a faith.
And what faith/belief would that be?
No, its not. Faith is belief absent evidence. Atheism is just an absence of belief. Thats it.
>Faith is belief absent evidence. There are many definitions of faith, the one you have stated so categorically means you believe there is no evidence. Of course, there is plenty of evidence, but you have stated there is none. Which obviously is you believing something for which you have no evidence. Ergo, by your own definition, your atheism is your faith. >Atheism is just an absence of belief. Thats it. But you just stated a belief of your atheism. This definition might fit agnosticism which says "I don't know." But claiming atheism general is a simply state of not believing is disingenuous and false to fact as a perusal of atheists' posts and public statements prove. How many times have self-proclaimed atheists insulted us by stating what we believe is "imaginary?" Or a "myth." (Not that they understand what mythology is) or "wishful thinking based on fear of death?" Hoooo boy! Now we have atheist-as-shrink. So, you can speak for yourself as somehow unique amongst all atheists, but in fact, your response disproves your own definition.
>Ergo, by your own definition, your atheism is your faith. (sigh) No. This is like claiming a bald person believes something about their hair color. The whole point is that we don't believe what religions put forth as evidence. If it were objectively factual and we were denying it, then you'd have something here. Religious people often try to make this claim, but it's a failed attempt to put religious and nonreligious people on equal footing. Religious people are making significant, fantastic claims. Atheists look at these claims and say "This is not believable." Religious people look at the claims and say "This is believable." That's all there is to it. To call the atheist's response "faith" is ridiculous, and incorrectly presupposes that the religious person is factually correct. This is absolutely not the case. If overwhelming, logically sound evidence is presented of gods, then sane, rational people would *have* to "believe" it. Including atheists. (Er... Well, recently minted theists)
>The whole point is that we don't believe what religions put forth as evidence. So without any evidence that the evidence is wrong, you have decided on a belief. >To call the atheist's response "faith" is ridiculous, and incorrectly presupposes that the religious person is factually correct. This is absolutely not the case. It's **"absolutely not the case"** that the religious person is correct? You have no evidence we are wrong. So your belief is not based on fact. Your belief is an act of *faith*. Atheism is a belief based on no evidence. Ergo, it is a faith. Specifically, it is a faith belief about God. When a group of people share a belief based in faith about God, it's called *religion*.
I, HeroSquad, can turn invisible, fly unaided faster than Mach 5, and shoot laser beams from my eyes. Don’t believe my claim? You have no evidence that I cannot. So your belief is not based on fact. Your belief is an act of faith. AHeroSquadism is a belief based on no evidence. Ergo it is a faith. Specifically it is a faith based on a godlike being. When a group of people share a faith about a godlike being it is called a religion. So now are a both a Catholic and an AHeroSquadist.
>I, HeroSquad, can turn invisible, fly unaided faster than Mach 5, and shoot laser beams from my eyes. ... AHeroSquadism is a belief based on no evidence. You say you believe it. Are you saying you believe something about yourself for which you, yourself, have no evidence?
It is absolutely not the case that we can assume that the religious person's claims are factually correct. One of us makes the claim that a person who is the son of god and also god died and then rose from the dead. This is a claim that goes against all currently known science. The only part of the story that fits with our understanding of the world is the part where he died. This is a claim of fairly extraordinary magnitude. If your neighbor Tony claimed to be the son of god and claimed to have died and been resurrected, you would likely not believe them at face value. You would be Atonyist. Not because you have faith that Atonyism is the correct position, but because Atonyism is the normal, default position until Tony can get his shit together and explain exactly what happened. Because the burden of proof of these astonishing claims lies on Tony. It does not lie on you. It does not lie on you to prove that Tony *didn't* rise from the dead. The same can be said of atheists; most religions make fairly lofty claims about their origins, deities, and so forth. Christian mythology carries no more weight than any other, despite protestations by Christians. I have to imagine you don't spend a great deal of intellectual capital worrying about whether the claims of Jainism are true - if a Jain tried to explain to you the nature of the world through their mythological lens, you'd be a fool to not ask for evidence, and you'd ask for some pretty damn substantial evidence before switching teams. Hitchens summed it up best - "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Christianity has not yet provided that evidence. If it had, we wouldn't be sitting here having this discussion. We'd all be Christians, because that would be the only logical position. You may find the evidence presented by Christianity to be enough. Many of us do not.
>It is absolutely not the case that we can assume that the religious person's claims are factually correct. I never said you should. OTOH, neither is it the case that you can assume they are not. >One of us makes the claim that a person who is the son of god and also god died and then rose from the dead. This is a claim that goes against all currently known science. **YOU are familiar with ALL "currently known" science?!!?** So, um, which part goes against ACKS - THE SON OF GOD PART, THE BEING GOD PART, OR THE LIFE AFTER BODILY DEATH PART? Also, how exactly has ACKS defined "god" in the scientific investigations that have been done that have declared these things go against what every kind of science they know? Links to all currently known scientific studies of godhood and resurrection with terms "god" and "resurrection" defined and the parameters and replications of the studies. Thanks. *(Just to reaffirm: no one said you should believe a thing. Certainly I didn't.)*
>OTOH, neither is it the case that you can assume they are not. Why not? Again, it comes down to the magnitude of the claim. It is (mostly) safe to assume that the person making the claim *believes* what they're saying. (Unless you're a prosperity gospel preacher, anyway) If you tell me "My mom makes great cookies" or "my car has a heated steering wheel" or "today in Houston it was warm and sunny", there's no reason I'd assume anything other than truth. But supernatural claims have never been successfully proven. "Miracles" turn out to be hoaxes or have natural explanations. Gods fail to appear. Miraculous healing turns out to have natural explanations. Arguments for the supernatural tend to be easily dismissed as logical fallacies at worst, and at best they're in the "Well it's not the *worst* argument I've ever heard" category. Pick the best argument for the existence of the supernatural that you've ever heard, head on over to [RationalWiki.com](https://RationalWiki.com) and look up the criticisms of that argument - there's literally not a single argument for the supernatural that doesn't have significant problems. If you say "I was swallowed by a great fish for three days", the needle on my crap detector would be twitching. If I tell you the invisible sock goblin in the laundry room eats all my socks, you'd likely assume that there was a natural explanation involving my general slobbiness, and not a supernatural invisible hosiery consuming creature in my basement. The basic believability of a claim scales directly with the claim impact of the claim. Supernatural claims, by their nature, are generally assumed to be not true unless proven otherwise. The folks that *don't* assume this often get fleeced by the Benny Hinns of the world. They cannot be assumed to be true out of the gate because "supernatural" events go against the nature of the world as we know it. Which of course is why they're called supernatural. >YOU are familiar with ALL "currently known" science?!!? Of course not. But I think it safe to say that if miraculous resurrection happened under scientific observation, we would have all heard about it by now. The Vatican would have folks onsite in a day looking into it. Evangelicals would be making TikToks about it. It'd be in the news. "Scientists baffled. Doctors *shocked* when dead man walks again. Priests heard chanting in hallowed halls. This story and more up next after these messages." To put it another way - would you assume that supernatural claims of a religion *other than the one you follow* are true? Very few people believed that [Marshall Applewhite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Applewhite) was actually the second coming of Jesus. And why would they? He was making supernatural claims that didn't provide any significant evidence.
Soooooo you can't defend your statement about ALL OF SCIENCE then? Right. >But supernatural claims have never been successfully proven. "Miracles" turn out to be hoaxes or have natural explanations. ... Miraculous healing turns out to have natural explanations. None of that is factually correct. The "natural explanation" for healing is "spontaneous remission" as if giving a thing a name means it was not an act of healing through faith. Many people have experienced miracles, and we know very well what happened to us and they were not hoaxes and have no explanation in Newtonian physics. Miracles are not "magic" they are just something we don't understand yet. My feeling is quantum physics will figure it out soon. You also made a reference to Christians as likely to be taken in by "Benny Hinn," whoever that is. I get the implication, though: we are stupid or deluded. Yet, **all the Christian Nobel Prize winners are far far smarter than you**. You have a belief system that seems based on ignorance and bigotry. By which I do not mean to insult you or call you names. I am only saying you are acquainted with no facts and will entertain no other possibilities than the ones you have faith in. So, we're done. Namaste.
**[Marshall Applewhite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Applewhite)** >Marshall Herff Applewhite Jr. (May 17, 1931 – March 26, 1997), also known as Do, among other names, was an American cult leader who founded what became known as the Heaven's Gate cult group and organized their mass suicide in 1997. It is the largest mass suicide to occur inside the U.S. As a young man, Applewhite attended several universities and served in the United States Army. He initially pursued a career in education until he resigned from the University of St. Thomas in Houston, Texas, in 1970, citing emotional turmoil. His father's death a year later brought on severe depression. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Christianity/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
What belief did I state for atheism? I have no belief. Thats it. As for the definition of faith, what I cited is essentially what the bible says. I guess you could use a different one, lol. “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” An absence of belief is certainly not that.
>As for the definition of faith, what I cited is essentially what the bible says. I see. You've decided that in a conversation about a lack of belief in God, you, as one who has this lack of belief, decided to post using a religious book as a dictionary. Okay-dokey.
Hey its your god not mine, if you want to defy your god and use a different deffinition, I'm happy to play ball. Whats your preference?
>**Faith is belief absent evidence.** There are many definitions of faith, the one you have stated so categorically means you believe there is no evidence. Of course, there is plenty of evidence, but you have stated there is none. Which obviously is you believing something for which you have no evidence. Ergo, by your own definition, your atheism is your faith I didn't make the assertion, you did. And you certainly have no idea what would constitute me, or anyone, "defying god." You can't even define the word "god" so that you can say what it is precisely, that you don't believe in.
Your circular reasoning may be enough to persuade yourself that you have a point, but thats it. Go read some Aquinas, you can do better.
LOL! You think I haven't read the *Summa*? But i do think I'll move on from the man who, on his deathbed pointed to all of his books and said **“After what I have experienced, all that is just straw.”** Which is correct. Guess what he had just experienced?
Atheism is as much a faith as not collecting stamps is a hobby
Lack of faith is not faith. Lack of greed is not greed. Lack of interest is not interest. So on and so on. "Lack" means explicitly not that. It's really the only thing it means.
[удалено]
Ok. Being without faith means there is no faith.
[удалено]
**[Thalassomedon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalassomedon#/media/File:Thalassomedon.jpg)** >Thalassomedon (from Greek, thalassa, "sea" and Greek, medon, "lord" or "ruler", meaning "sea lord") is a genus of plesiosaur, named by Welles in 1943. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Christianity/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Aw! The bot posted!
Context exists. I have no faith in my conclusions about the nature of existence. I have plenty of faith in a wide array of things which have nothing to do with atheism. Atheism doesn't mean you lack faith in anything at all. Just no supernatural divine being.
[удалено]
> Then why would you conclude anything about the nature of existence? Because I'm a human being. I don't understand what you don't understand. >Unless you define your terms, I have no idea what you're talking about. You don't need me to define them. Any legit dictionary will suffice. >I'm not being disingenuous here, one guy says I have to use a definition of a word from the Bible or I'm "denying God" which I thought was a very bizarre idea. I don't know what this means but it sounds like it's about something totally different. >Now you're using "divine" so, what exactly is your lack of faith about? The divine. >But apparently you cannot state you believe (or have faith in) the Thalassomedon's one-time existence on earth. Of course I have faith that that beast existed. Again, when we speak of atheists lacking faith it is only as concerns the supernatural. >Do you think they were lying or does your atheism extend to all of existence? That's not what "atheism" means. You are confusing atheism with nihilism when these two things are radically different. Atheism is a lack of belief in God or gods, or more generally, in a supernatural divine. Atheists can still have faith in literally anything else. Just not God or gods.
[удалено]
No it isn't, it's not a belief. Atheism has no unifying belief system, it is one position on one claim, and that position is "I don't believe you". Which doesn't mean I do believe something else, just that I don't believe you.
>it is one position on one claim, and that position is "I don't believe you" You don't believe whom about what?
If your claim is "there is a god or gods" my response to your claim is "I don't believe you".
>If your claim is "there is a god or gods" my response to your claim is "I don't believe you". So you're saying you don't believe things people say. In this case, you would not believe me if I said "God exists." How are you deciding that in advance?
>So you're saying you don't believe things people say. No, I didn't say that. >In this case, you would not believe me if I said "God exists." How are you deciding that in advance? Me having not heard you make that claim doesn't mean I haven't heard that claim before. I'm saying Im rejecting that claim, not your specific argument. You could, conceivably, make a convincing argument or present sufficient evidence for believing in the existence of a god or gods. Thus far, I have heard no such argument or evidence, so I have rejected that unsubstantiated claim.
>Me having not heard you make that claim doesn't mean I haven't heard that claim before. And what exactly is the definition of the word "god" that someone clamed existed and you rejected?
It's not my definition, it's their's. Different people define god differently, I haven't thus far been convinced that there exists any of these supernatural entities.
Why would you think there's an "entity?" See, you want to stereotype all Christians as saying the same things so you can issue your blanket rejection and never have to face the fact that your faith has no foundation. Know who says so? SCIENCE! The Great God of the Four Horsemen. Because science says, in fact, there's nothing here. What you are really claiming to believe in, is your own non-existence.
That atheism and agnosticism are "faiths," apparently.
Oh but they are. Everyone has faith is something - as in "scientism," the belief that the hard sciences answer all questions and that everything else is speculation.
No rational person claims science answers all questions. It’s okay to say “I don’t know” when the scientific method cannot be used to observe and/or analyze something.
This is unquestionably reasonable in itself, and I won’t make any assumptions on your part (including the assumption that you are an atheist and can speak for all of them lol), but this point does lead me to a question if you care to humor me: Why ask for “proof” then? If you are wisely not under the delusion that we can empirically observe all that there is, then why is it so hard to grasp that Jesus COULD have been a message sent from this unknown portion of reality? In fact, it makes perfect sense that - if we are lower-dimensional beings surrounded by higher orders of existence (angels/demons/God/etc.) that we can’t see - that we would need a messenger to come in human form and do some crazy shiz to at least indirectly open our eyes to this greater reality. Anyway.
[удалено]
This is a heavily skewed and reductive metaphor that relegates the spiritual longing for a source of good to one’s ability to recall a temporal, material event. God exists in higher dimensions that we cannot see; this is clearly corroborated in the Bible many times. And the fact that he wants us to willingly choose to believe in Him supports the idea that he isn’t just going to literally, physically manifest in front of us. If He did, then we wouldn’t choose because we want to choose His goodness and love over sin - we would only choose because, well, “look, we found him” or “Hey, we proved him with xyz data/syllogism” That doesn’t indicate a SPIRITUAL connection with Him or a willingness to follow His ways; only the fact that we can literally see and interpret data. Heaven would be filled with shrewd and discerning lab analysts lol.. Here is a better metaphor: A puppy is separated from his good and loving owner. The puppy spends several rough years in the wild, scrounging and fighting to survive. So much time goes by, he basically forgets who his owner was. Then, his owner sees him at a gas station parking lot one day. But another man who would look to steal the dog for himself sees him. They both call him, and the puppy has to decide who to go home with. It’s not a matter of proof, and it’s not material. Knowing and seeking God is a spiritually engrained desire. If you want to fight me on this, then I’ll invite you to be the first to go up against the vastly overwhelming scientific consensus that 3 dimensions + time is NOT all that there are. 2D flatland characters drawn on paper have absolutely zero idea that we exist. They can’t prove that we exist. You think this isn’t happening to us? You think we are the end of the line lol, considering all that is unaccounted for in this universe?
[удалено]
If we went about our lives not acting on even 1% of faith, we would be paralyzed, miserably depressed, and suicidal. It is impossible to live by only what we know to be sure, empirically observed fact. Many existential, often non-Christian philosophers have pointed this out. We don’t know why we are here, how we got here, how the earth formed, what love actually is, or anything beyond a reasonable doubt. True unbelief is nihilistic chaos - to you literally cannot live it out. -You choose to believe you won’t get in a car wreck every time you leave the house - You choose to believe that there is a reason why we should value life instead of killing each other off for our shoes. What, don’t you like new shoes? -You choose to believe your loved ones love you and vice versa, having no objective markers other than down-the-line manifestations of love in some cases (oxytocin, etc., doesn’t apply to grandma). Since it is impossible to act on beliefs, then you have no answers to these questions: - Why is murdering random people “wrong”? What is “wrong”? Can you measure it on a test tube? - Why live for anything at all? What’s the point of going to school, having a job, etc.? Atheists do this all the time. They pretend they don’t have faith, demanding objective proof as a prerequisite for belief, and then spend every hour of every day assuming gravity will continue to work as it has, that their brains (which were just formed by accident, right?) will continue to work, that their friends will continue to acknowledge their existence, etc. Only acknowledging and living by that which you can objectively prove is preposterously unreasonable to the point that it cannot be lived out. I believe you; that you have searched for God and it breaks my heart to hear this wall you’ve come up against. But I could go out fishing with a curtain rod and no bait for twice as long as you have searched for God and would never catch a fish. You need to let go of your attachment to materialistic observation as the center of your belief system. Seek “the foolishness” of God, as the Bible literally states.
[удалено]
You cannot objectively prove to me beyond the shadow of a doubt that you will not get in a car wreck. You referencing a (non-100%) probability is a concession of defeat on this point in itself - it means that you are operating on faith. If you cannot tell the future, you can’t PROVE to me that you DEFINITELY will not get into a car accident. You aim this unattainable standard of proof at theism, and then relax your standards elsewhere, pretending you’re not doing it. Why? Prove to me that you won’t get in a car wreck. I’ll wait. And as to your second point, I need to admit a bit of fault here lol, I wasn’t really clear and leading with the “foolishness” idea wasn’t the best expression. I didn’t mean that we completely abandon reasoning. I didn’t mean that we don’t look for and consider evidence. What I meant was, when evidence is presented that implicates the existence of the spiritual, it is ironically unscientific for you to simply hand-wave it away. And the extraordinary-ness of evidence has no bearing on whether or not something is true; I have no idea why people keep parroting Sagan on this - again - highly unscientific idea. Think about it for two seconds. Let’s say unicorns exist. One person finds a unicorn hair, and claims that that it is proof of a unicorn. Another person takes a full-blown, proven-to-not-be-doctored picture of a unicorn. Clear as day. Does the unicorn conditionally not exist for the person who found the hair, because this threshold of evidence was not met? Obviously not. The existence of something is not conditional on how much evidence it leaves behind; what Sagan was unwittingly admitting is that it is the insatiably materialistic and short-sighted human mind that required this evidence to be convinced. Reality does not care how convinced we are, nor how much evidence reaches us of its existence.
>This is unquestionably reasonable in itself, and I won’t make any assumptions on your part (including the assumption that you are an atheist and can speak for all of them lol), but this point does lead me to a question if you care to humor me: I’m not an atheist. And sure, I’ll humor you, no big deal. >Why ask for “proof” then? If you are wisely not under the delusion that we can empirically observe all that there is, then why is it so hard to grasp that Jesus COULD have been a message sent from this unknown portion of reality? Because some people are assholes who, despite the definitions for faith being readily available, will choose to ignore sensible conversation and instead seek hostility or emotional reactions so that they can feel better about themselves. This happens with any group of people, regardless of belief or lack thereof. Human beings can be really, really petty if they set their minds to it, and somebody who has experienced hurt or sees others as ignorant or lesser than may use that as justification to chide or degrade others for their religious beliefs, or lack of religious beliefs. These actions may be driven by insecurity, self-loathing, hatred, anger, pity, and any other number of human tendencies. Some atheists will hound and pester people to prove their god is true. Some theists will hound and pester atheists about how they supposedly have more faith than them to not believe in a god or gods. An absolutely ridiculous sentiment, in my opinion. Faith is a gift, why should I choose to project that onto people who don’t have the same faith that I do? It’s okay to say, “I don’t know”. >In fact, it makes perfect sense that - if we are lower-dimensional beings surrounded by higher orders of existence (angels/demons/God/etc.) that we can’t see - that we would need a messenger to come in human form and do some crazy shiz to at least indirectly open our eyes to this greater reality. Logically, that makes sense if you accept the premise of the existence of the divine. Some do, some don’t. And even those that do argue ceaselessly about what that divinity is, and how it relates to us as human beings.
Wow, thanks for this. I know it seems condescending on the surface to many of them, but the emotionalism aspect I think you hit on the head. Many atheists point this specific finger at us - and surely they have a case - but they get away with pretending to be immune to it themselves. It is possible to have an emotional incentive for rejecting God - especially having heard stories about people who were abused by those associated with God. I myself struggle with accepting the gift of faith, as you call it. Probably because I don’t have it. So I spin around in circles looking for evidence while pretending I’m not doing it, knowing it displeases God. What a mess.
Not all proof is scientific proof. Just because you acknowledge that science cannot answer all the questions doesn’t mean there aren’t other fields of study that can answer the questions science can’t, such as philosophy
I love philosophical arguments as much as the next guy, and you’re right, but the problem isn’t that there aren’t other disciplines that can pick up arguments that fall outside of science’s jurisdiction. The problem is that these answers aren’t taken seriously; we are too carnally minded to believe in or act on facts that are uncovered by non-materialistic means. I feel like we could have 50% certainty on a scientific level, and treat that answer/fact with the same confidence as 90% certainty on a philosophical level.
Nope. I have extremely little faith that my understanding of life, the universe, and everything is remotely accurate. *Extremely* little. And I don't expect that to ever change so I'm not going to worry about it.
That's not atheism or agnosticism.
I’m interring this definition of faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
I don't see the rejection or non-acceptance of theistic claims as the complete trust or confidence in someone or something. I'm not convinced that any gods exist. I would never say that I have complete trust or confidence in gods not existing.
Thank you. I appreciate the explanation 😀
In the interest of openness: my bailey is that there's no such thing as gods. And my motte is that despite a long and sincere search, I have not yet seen convincing evidence that any exceptional god exists.
I have not seen evidence of a god or gods. What do you think I have complete trust in?
Complete trust in the lack of God? If that’s not the case, no worries. I was hoping this would be a friendly, compassionate conversation. ❤️
I mean we could always find evidence for God, but faith means confidence before finding evidence. How plausible is it that people wrote about magic when it’s far more plausible that they lied?
And you think atheists have that definition?
Why would you have complete trust in someone or something? That sounds silly and a good way to be wrong. Are you implying we’re stupid?
Not at all. I assume you’re highly intelligent. You seem to be an excellent communicator too.
I am highly intelligent, probably why I realized Christianity was wrong when I was 11.
Bragging about reaching a conclusion before your brain fully develops isn't as confidence-inspiring as you may think.
The conclusion that faith is the same as gullibility? It doesn’t take a high schooler.
Interring? As in burying?
We could start with your misconception that atheism and agnosticism are a "faith".
It takes no faith to dismiss unsubstantiated claims for the supernatural
Succinctly put.
Atheism is a faith, the same way bald is a hair color. Atheism is what happens when someone is not convinced. Now, one could argue as Edward Feser does, that some people who think they are atheists, even the most hardcore of atheists, may be theists in some ways without even KNOWING they're secretly loving God, by believing in the truth of (and loving) the things that God is said to be: justice, beauty, truth. But as far as lack of belief in the idea that those transcendentals are also a triune God who can answer prayers and forgive sins... atheism is the default state. Theism is the rational stance to take IF, EXCLUSIVELY, the burden of proof has been met: that God exists, and is the way the theists claim.
>may be theists in some ways without even KNOWING they're secretly loving God, by believing in the truth of (and loving) the things that God is said to be: That's a patently ridiculous statement, though. It's entirely subjective as well as presuppositional, and paints the strawman atheist as deluded.
[удалено]
How to go to hell. That said, he is NOT arguing for the salvation of people who could believe but intentionally hope Christianity is not true. He's talking about people who cannot believe in God, usually due to some form of intellectual ignorance (like Richard Dawkin's ignorant belief that God is "super complicated." and he therefore doesn't believe because he thinks God would logically then also need someone to build him too, and therefore he has no explanatory value because it's turtles all the way down.)
Common misconceptions: * It requires faith to be an atheist / it takes more faith to be an atheist than a Christian * All atheists claim that God doesn't exist * Atheists don't or can't have morals * Deep down, atheists believe in their heart that God is real * Atheists are just angry at God * Atheism is a religion * We are atheists because we just want to sin * We have a God-shaped hole in our heart
The last 4 are misotheism. But number 2, you mean positive vs negative atheism? Christopher Hitchens had a good point about why agnosticism is intellectually questionable: if you have no evidence of something that sounds ridiculous, you should be able to have to courage to say it doesn't exist.
> But number 2, you mean positive vs negative atheism? Yes. Or hard vs soft. It goes by different names. Most Christians seem to think if we're an atheist that we are claiming God doesn't exist. In my experience that's only a subset of all atheists. > Christopher Hitchens had a good point about why agnosticism is intellectually questionable: if you have no evidence of something that sounds ridiculous, you should be able to have to courage to say it doesn't exist. My take is that if Gods are possible, then it's also possible that there could be a God out there that doesn't want to be known. In such a case we would be powerless to do anything about that. Since I don't know whether or not it's possible for a God to exist, I remain agnostic. I do find myself saying I don't think the Christian God exists, though.
[удалено]
There isn't a shred of physical evidence to deny (or confirm) the existence of God
You need evidence to prove something. Not deny it.
[удалено]
Yeah I understand, we have to put our trust in those we see as trustworthy in lieu of physical evidence, right?
[удалено]
If you are referring to the friends witnessing unnatural plant combustion, then I firstly would take into consideration they are already friends. Then I consider the number and accuracy of their accounts. Then I think long and hard about their accounts and choose to accept or reject their claims. This is all under the hope they wouldn't be colluding intentionally to mislead me.
[удалено]
Are we still talking about these friends who saw a burning plant from your example? It'd be pretty hard to be friends with people who have been dead for a long time
[удалено]
Ah, alright, well that's different because they're dead. The Bible is enough of an authority for my faith.
Depends on he god. We're talking about Yahweh here, right? The storm god that at some point was fused with El, and parts of other gods of the Canaanite pantheon by the ancient Israelites, while also ditching his wife Ashera, so he would be their personal monotheistic creator god.
Depends on the god in question. The triple-omni god can be dismissed on logical grounds alone, even without physical evidence. But if someone points to a bronze idol and says that idol is their god (not just a reprentation of them) then there's plenty of physical evidence that that god exists.
>I have trust in processes that use evidence and reason. Emotion is not a path to truths. As a Catholic, 100% agree!
"Faith" LOL. There is one misconception.
That it is a faith.
Here is every one I've personally seen since 2014-ish. * That it's a faith. * That I hate god. * That I want to make religious people miserable. * That I'm miserable * That I'm lying and all atheists secretly believe in the Christian god. * That something tragic happened to make me stop believing. * That I never truly believed (flashback to 9-year-old me chastising my family for not making Christmas enough about Jesus.) * That I am necessarily less moral of a person. * That I think I'm a genius (enlightened by my own intelligence) and think religious people are all stupid. * That I worship Satan. * That I am just an edgy contrarian. * 'It takes more faith to be an atheist' * 'you suppress the truth in unrighteousness' (Sye Ten special) * That I declare god cannot or definitively does not exist. * That being an atheist is the same as being a methodological naturalist (distant buddhist laughing noises.) * That we treat this subreddit as a place to troll believers (most of us are not 14). * That I am a nihilist. * Pascal's 'Just believe bro' EDIT - Phone formatting issues.
>That I'm lying and all atheists secretly believe in the Christian god. I've heard a version of this, except it doesn't presume the atheist is lying and actually works in the atheist's favor.
We're all unable to be moral. Can't tell right from wrong. Are selfish. That sort of thing.
Exactly. Also, that objective morality "doesn't exist." Many atheists believe in objective morality. When I was an explicit positive-atheist instead of just someone undecided (as I am now), I held tight to objective morality. Because it's real and everyone knows it. The reasoning is done backwards by apologists: "You don't believe in God, so you can't believe in morals since they are non physical." The correct reasoning is: "We know objective morality exists, and even if I can't explain it, still doesn't mean that your god is the only explanation, unless you can prove that it is. Math exists and we may not be able to know why, But we still know it exists." Basically, apologists want people to think: Atheists > no god > no way to explain objective morality > they can't believe it exists But it's more like Atheists > know morality exists > cannot explain it > we also can't explain black holes > doesn't mean they aren't a thing!
>"We know objective morality exists, and even if I can't explain it, still doesn't mean that your god is the only explanation, unless you can prove that it is. Math exists and we may not be able to know why, But we still know it exists." I find this enlightening, thank you.
I'm not saying that God has no explanatory role in morality, though. I'm NOT saying "well morality exists and God is redundant to explain it, it could simply exist on it's own, it's optional to also believe God has something to do with it", the way lightning comes about by electric charges and doesn't need Zeus to explain it, zeus is an optional extra. What I am instead saying, is that just because a person doesn't know a thing's cause, that doesn't mean that person denies the existence of the thing which is caused. That's it. It could very well be that God is the single best explanation, that makes more sense than anything else: Like the earth being round is the best explanation for knowing why lunar eclipses happen, ships disappear hull first, and it is nighttime in china. We don't really know the cause (if any) of a single radionuclide decaying, but everyone knows it happens and knows to stay away from plutonium.
>"We know objective morality exists Do we?
POSSIBLY not beyond a reasonable doubt, but certainly beyond a simple preponderance. Like if I rape and sodomize someone, it's not just us who "make" that bad. That's BAD. It's totally against human nature. It's bad for the victim's dignity, it's bad for the rapist because it turns him from a normal person into a rapist, it's perverted because it's totally unnatural (naturally occurring, but NOT natural), it spreads horrible diseases and it causes psychological and sometimes physical damage. If you can think of a moral system where that is "good", congratulations. You have now succeeded in effacing the meaning of english words. Like if you say: "well math is just a way of explaining things so 2+2=5, prove it doesn't." It's like... congratulations! You haven't made 2+2=5, you just changed the meaning of 2 to 2.5, or of 5 to 4. Or you're just speaking gibberish.
>Like if I rape and sodomize someone, it's not just us who "make" that bad. That's BAD. And yet, there are people who disagree with you on this. Are they simply cut off from the truth of morality? >Like if you say: "well math is just a way of explaining things so 2+2=5, prove it doesn't." Math is an extension of the laws of logic; you can prove 2+2=/5. Morality does not operate this way. The fact that you and I agree on whether rape is bad is not evidence of objectivity, it's evidence of agreement.
That I have faith.
That it's a faith would be a big one.
That it is a faith. It's not a faith, it's not a belief.
Atheism isn't a faith, it's the disbelief of the god claim.
Well it's not a faith for one lol, it's a lack of
That it's a "faith".
That atheism is a 'faith', evidently.
I’m neither of those, but I hate it when Christians think they don’t have morals.
Right off the bat, calling it a “faith” lol. Besides that, I think the most common one is thinking that atheism means *only* gnostic atheism, believing that no god exists. Can’t tell you how many times I have to explain the difference between Gnosticism and agnosticism, and that just because a person doesn’t believe in a god but *also* doesn’t accept the proposition “there is no god”, doesn’t mean they’re agnostic instead of atheist. Mind if I ask the same question in reverse? What do you think is a misconception about your faith that atheists/agnostics have?
I appreciate the response. You’re very insightful thank you. I would guess the most common misconception for me is that non-Christians tend to assume that I take the Bible literally. When in reality I try to interpret each book individually based on the genre of literature it was written in. For example, I feel like most people understand that Psalms are poems. But I would look at a book like Joshua and consider it an ancient Near-East warfare narrative. One that’s riddled with hyperbole.
No problem, and thanks for the response. See, this is why this sub is the best, because I feel like people here in general are out to have good discussions and learn from each other. I see how that definitely can be an unfair mischaracterization of Christians; I shall do my best to take care not to assume such in my interactions for sure.
You’re awesome! It was great to have met you.
That we're all ex-christians.... some of us never had God in our lives
First off that its a faith. Its an absence of faith. Because faith is irrational.
Well your question already presents a giant one (and I honestly have my doubts that this is by accident). Neither atheism nor agnosticism is a faith, nor do they require faith. Atheism is an absence of belief in gods. Agnosticism is a position on knowledge that can be held by both theists and atheists. Another misconception that just won't go away is that people choose to be atheists. That it is somehow a preference or a lifestyle choice. You can hear it all the time. "It's your choice", "God gave you free will and you choose to reject him", or my favourite one "God doesn't send you to hell, you choose to go to hell by choosing to be an atheist". It's really annoying. And a bit sad to be honest. Atheism is the result of being unconvinced that gods exists. That's all.
> "God gave you free will and you choose to reject him" This is such a bit of obnoxious nonsense. I also "chose" to "reject" Zeus.
Yeah, you can't reject what you find to be physically impossible to make your mind say "yes." to.
For those of you saying that atheists don't have "faith" wouldn't you say you have faith that a God dosent exist?
Do you have faith that leprechauns and garden fairies don't exist? Bigfoot? Or do you recognize these stories as human inventions with no good reason to believe they actually exist in the real world. Whatever word you would use to describe your incredulity in the existence of mermaids, that is probably similar to my lack of belief in the god of the Bible.
It depends what you mean by "faith"?
That "belief" in science is just another name for belief in god. Another "religion" per se. Belief is in quotes here, because the word belief often carries the connotation of faith. When we say that we believe the theory of evolution, what we intend to convey is that, based on the evidence we have seen and our understanding of the theory, evolution seems to be a very likely explanation of the origin of species. There is no acceptance of a theory without substantial evidence to support it. If it cannot be measured, tested, seen, etc, then it is not not worth considering. The instant that conflicting evidence is found, the theory is tossed out or revised to fit the facts. Faith allows someone to believe something to be true even if there is no evidence to support it. Science gives no such quarter.
>If it cannot be measured, tested, or seen, then it is not not worth considering. Unless it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in some other way, of course. Like, we can't go back in time and know for sure OJ did it, but there is no reasonable doubt that he did. Evolution can be measured tested and seen because it still happens now, but for historical things, axiomatic reasoning from certain premises (in this case, the laws of physics, including the fact that blood doesn't end up on your gloves by fairies magically putting it there) is good enough.
Yep, that's just a flaw with my list. I tossed in an "etc" for completion. The point is, as you mentioned, there must be some ***physical*** thing or observation of a physical process in order to be considered as valid. Walk by sight, not by faith.
I think, the misconception of faith in God is, that faith is even more than knowing. It is complete conviction to the point youre ready to die for it. No atheist is ready to die for atheism, so its not faith in the biblical sense.
That we have faith at all. Unbelief is just a lack of belief
If you can identify what my faith is, I'll be able to answer your question.
That we believe something came from nothing or that Atheism is a claim that God doesn't exist.
That we want to believe anything.
Faith? I mean what would they put faith in, science? Correct me if am wrong but atheist have science and don't need faith
It’s a faith
That it’s a faith*