We're All Religious!

[General Zod]

But doesn't atheism include an element of faith as well:

The faith that the world as observed through empiricism and rationalism is all that exists?

No. Faith requires belief in something that probably doesn't exist. Empirical evidence requires observation of something that does exist.

[Battlehymn Republic]

But how do you determine what you receive through empiricism is all that really is? Doesn't there need to be some sort of faith in believing what you observe through empiricism actually exists?

And, with that note, as I haven't been flamed yet, I'll quit whilst I'm ahead.

[Metatwaddle]

But how do you determine what you receive through empiricism is all that really is?

Wait, let me get this straight. You're saying that it takes faith to not believe in things for which there is no empirical evidence? Last time I checked, you didn't need faith to not believe in something.

Doesn't there need to be some sort of faith in believing what you observe through empiricism actually exists?

Well, yes. Theoretically, everything I observe with my senses, all the people I know, the places I go, could be figments of my imagination, or parts of some hyper-simulated virtual reality.

I doubt it, though.

[General Zod]

But how do you determine what you receive through empiricism is all that really is? Doesn't there need to be some sort of faith in believing what you observe through empiricism actually exists?

If you need faith to realize that a baseball bat clubbing you over the head is going to cause massive internal injuries, frankly you're an imbecile.

[Battlehymn Republic]

Touché.

[Zero]

You don't need faith to accept the world as real. The world doesn't have to be real. There's no logical reason that it must exist. However, if the world isn't real, and you accept it, there is no difference in how fucked you are. You can't know the real world if this isn't it. If this world is real, and you don't believe it is, then you're just as fucked as if you had no clue at all. If this world is real, and you recognize it as such, you can live your life accordingly, and gain from life.

In essence, if you don't believe in the world, and you're right, you gain nothing. If you don't believe in the world, and you're wrong, then you're uber-fucked.

[Spyder]

But doesn't atheism include an element of faith as well:

The faith that the world as observed through empiricism and rationalism is all that exists?

No, two reasons:
1 There is no evidence to the contrary, you don't need faith when the facts speak for themselves.
2 Science isn't dogma. If God or Jesus actually made an appearance one day. Scientists, after careful observation and elimination of other likely possibilities would say "oh, alright then." Note this is the exact opposite reaction the church would have should a scientist ever devise a means to totally disprove God's existance.

[Rye]

But doesn't atheism include an element of faith as well:

The faith that the world as observed through empiricism and rationalism is all that exists?

No. Atheism doesn't even require empiricism, it only requires not believing in gods, so stick your strawman up your neomystic arse.

Empircism and rationalise don't require faith either, faith does not antecede reason, nor the senses. Faith is only defined in contradistinction from these things. To recognise a belief of faith, instead of rational belief, you need to first understand what distinguishes faith from reason. Sensory perception, and reason, the mental faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the senses are the default starting points for human knowledge, experience, and the attempt to create a logical argument. Faith is the acceptance of ideas or allegations without sensory evidence or rational demonstration.

One of the most grotesque instances of the stolen concept fallacy may be observed in the prevalent claim—made by neo-mystics and old-fashioned mystics alike—that the acceptance of reason rests ultimately on “an act of faith.”

“Faith in reason” is a contradiction in terms. “Faith” is a concept that possesses meaning only in contradistinction to reason. The concept of “faith” cannot antecede reason, it cannot provide the grounds for the acceptance of reason—it is the revolt against reason.

One will search in vain for a single instance of an attack on reason, on the senses, on the ontological status of the laws of logic, on the cognitive efficacy of man’s mind, that does not rest on the fallacy of the stolen concept.

The fallacy consists of the act of using a concept while ignoring, contradicting or denying the validity of the concepts on which it logically and genetically depends.

This fallacy must be recognized and repudiated by all thinkers, if truth and reality are their goal.

In the absence of such recognition and repudiation, the gates are left open to the most lethal form of mysticism—the mysticism that postures as “science.”

[Zero]

I don't understand why the stolen fallacy thing is a fallacy at all. If I can prove that there is no God using bible passages, that doesn't mean that all of my reasoning is invalid simply because the bible's existance rests on the existance of such a God.

For instance, when neo-mystics take the stance that logic is unprovable, and reality is unknowable, they are using concepts that they likedly stole from this reality in which they doubt, but that doesn't make it any less true that the application of logic is logically provable to be valid, and it doesn't change the fact that we're presented with fabrications of reality all the time. Movies, dreams, all that. There's no real logical contradiction in the claim that this vision of reality we all see isn't real, so long as you admit that you have no bloody idea where these ideas came from.

The only way you can prove that reality is real is by using concepts from within reality to prove your case. This is why I simply say that reality cannot be proven, but must be accepted, because we have nothing else by which to consciously base our actions on.

Either way, I don't entirely understand why the stolen concept is a fallacy, or ought to be seen as one. If someone can explain to me why I'm wrong, I'll happily give up my position.

[Alyeska]

But doesn't atheism include an element of faith as well:

The faith that the world as observed through empiricism and rationalism is all that exists?

Wrong, Atheism does not require any of that. Atheism is merely the lack of any belief in a God or Gods or some other higher power. Atheism can be active disbelieving bassed on evidence or it can merely be ignorance. Atheism is merely the total lack of belief.

BTW, what your getting at isn't Faith. Its Confidence bassed on evidence and logic.

[Rye]

But doesn't atheism include an element of faith as well:

The faith that the world as observed through empiricism and rationalism is all that exists?

Wrong, Atheism does not require any of that. Atheism is merely the lack of any belief in a God or Gods or some other higher power. Atheism can be active disbelieving bassed on evidence or it can merely be ignorance. Atheism is merely the total lack of belief.

BTW, what your getting at isn't Faith. Its Confidence bassed on evidence and logic.

Uh, rationalism (the use of logic and reason) and empiricism (experience through the senses as a source of knowledge (which I would put before rationalism, since the concept of reason can only come AFTER sensory perception)) create confidence based on themselves? Well, that's just nutty. I accept them because they're where we get knowledge from, and we need them to construct arguments against them. You can't apply evidentiary examining methods to the fundamental acceptence of evidence itself.

[Alyeska]

I was trying to point out that confidence comes from observation, evidence, and logic. Faith requires none of that and is often blind to reality (many religious people openly state this).

[Rye]

Yeah, but you said that empiricism was based on evidence which is like saying "time is based on the passage of time".

[Alyeska]

I said no such thing. What I did point out is that the person was trying to use Faith when he should have been using Confidence in his descriptions of why some people become Atheists.

[Rye]

I said no such thing. What I did point out is that the person was trying to use Faith when he should have been using Confidence in his descriptions of why some people become Atheists.

You said that "what he was getting at" (what you quoted was him talking about the epistemological foundation for empiricism and rationalism) was "confidence" (trust) based on evidence (empiricism) and logic (rationalism). We don't take those epistemologies on faith or confidence, we take them because they're the default.

[Alyeska]

Why are you still arguing the point with me? I did not say that and you made the wrong assumption as to what I was saying. He was trying to say that faith is something that atheists have. I was pointing out he used the wrong word. It should be confidence. You should be arguing this with him because HE made the bad arguments on the issue. I merely corrected him on the word he was searching for.

[Rye]

Because you're wrong, because he wrote:

But doesn't atheism include an element of faith as well:

The faith that the world as observed through empiricism and rationalism is all that exists?

^ That is CLEARLY about the foundation of acceptence/belief in sensory perception and reason, he is saying that it is faith based because reason cannot extend beyond itself, whereas I was saying faith does not apply there because faith does not go beyond reason either. You were trying to equivocate on the term "faith" (an irrational belief in something without or contrary to evidence to an ambiguous reason-neutral term like trust/confidence) asserting that your equivocation was what he meant, when the surrounding context implies nothing of the sort.

[CoyoteNature]

Suppose it could be looked at as belief if you look at it from the beginning of a atheist, that decision perhaps being belief initially because quite simply you didn't know at least initially. Then perhaps it becomes confidence when you become more certain in your idea of reality.

An atheist then would be self referencing, respective to the data and conclusions that follows, but would change if that data and conclusions themselves changed.

[Alyeska]

Because you're wrong, because he wrote:

But doesn't atheism include an element of faith as well:

The faith that the world as observed through empiricism and rationalism is all that exists?

^ That is CLEARLY about the foundation of acceptence/belief in sensory perception and reason, he is saying that it is faith based because reason cannot extend beyond itself, whereas I was saying faith does not apply there because faith does not go beyond reason either. You were trying to equivocate on the term "faith" (an irrational belief in something without or contrary to evidence to an ambiguous reason-neutral term like trust/confidence) asserting that your equivocation was what he meant, when the surrounding context implies nothing of the sort.

He was talking about Atheism and equating faith as part of how Atheism works. Or rather, thats how I interpreted it. I was pointing out Atheists don't have faith in things, but rather then have confidence.

[Rye]

Okay, another try:

1) He conflated the concepts of atheism and empiricism + rationalism, as I pointed out was wrong initially.

2) He also tried to equate acceptence of those to faith, which was also wrong, which I addressed.

3) You responded to the conflated statement, rather than the seperate parts, you responded to faith in the conclusion (atheism) should be equivocated to trust/confidence, since faith under the definition it was being used does not fit.

This is actually wrong, atheism can be purely irrational and faith based (e.g. I don't believe in gods because the leprechaun told me not to, because the aliens will save us, etc), however, I was responding to you since you were responding to the wrong thing. You were responding to purely atheism, whereas the "faith" part of his statement applies specifically to the empiricism+rationalism bit, since he's not using the term "atheism" correctly.

In other words, you were responding to the true concept of atheism, he was talking about a conflated concept. You were also wrong, but still, slightly more accurate.

Make sense, now?

[Kurgan]

Atheism itself is not a religion, but a category. An atheist can have a religion, of course.

Some try to make the distinction between "organized religion" and belief or faith. They would say that we all have some unproven or unprovable "belief" somewhere, and some would say that even morality itself is a religious concept (don't get the wrong idea here, I'm saying it's not something that proceeds naturally somehow, you've "made it up" or "think it feels right" and that's close enough to faith I'd say).

The traditional definition of religion as "worship of the supernatural" is not all encompassing, but then the definition that is too loose isn't very helpful.

Is Football a religion? For some people, it might as well be. An alien visiting us might think so!

I don't have definitive answers for you, but those are my 2 cents...