Atheism requires Faith?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-03-05 12:49am

Where did this argument come from? I don't get it. People (mostly religious types) say that to be an atheist requires you to adopt an almost religious faith in the non-existence of God. I don't think this is true; the existence of God is not a given, so why does it take faith to disbelieve in something whose existence has no rational basis in the first place?

Honestly, I just want to hear some of your opinions. I've been confronted with this argument and no one is ever satisfied with my response.

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2003-03-05 12:51am

Depends whether you just lack a belief in God, or deny his existence. Everything requires a little faith...

Dorsk 81 · Post by **Dorsk 81** » 2003-03-05 12:55am

Faith is a belief in something, I am an Atheist. I hold the belief that there is no God, no almighty force controling everything. So there for I have faith that there is nothing. I think thats what they're trying to say. Does that sound right?

Archaic` · Post by **Archaic`** » 2003-03-05 12:57am

You can lack a belief in a deity and deny its existance without faith however. I honestly can't see where people get this misconception either.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-03-05 01:00am

But atheism is a perfectly rational belief. There is no real evidence to confirm the existence of God. So why is it an act of faith to act on this lack of evidence and declare that God does not exist?

I mean, there is no evidence for the existence of vampires, but it doesn't take any faith to disbelieve in their existence. Why not God?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-05 01:02am

Durran Korr wrote:But atheism is a perfectly rational belief. There is no real evidence to confirm the existence of God. So why is it an act of faith to act on this lack of evidence and declare that God does not exist?

It isn't. Without evidence, the ONLY logical conclusion is that God doesn't exist. The fact that God cannot even be satisfactorily defined is merely the icing on the cake.

I mean, there is no evidence for the existence of vampires, but it doesn't take any faith to disbelieve in their existence. Why not God?

They're engaging in blatant Golden Mean fallacy bullshit.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-03-05 01:04am

I think they believe that lacking faith in something means believing in the opposite, as opposed to just not believing something.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2003-03-05 01:06am

Theists u se this arguement as an attempt to validate their "method" of knowing of God's nature and existence, namely faith. If they can get people to believe that atheist's use faith as much as theists do, then people will begin to believe that theism is as logically valid as atheism, since both would rely, to some degree, on the irrational and unprovable nature of faith.

Dorsk 81 · Post by **Dorsk 81** » 2003-03-05 01:08am

Your right, it's like you can't prove a neagative , you don't need faith to belive in nothing, like a young child, it has no concept of God or religion and it doesn't have faith in that, it's because he hasn't been told to have faith in something.
Faith is like something your sure in and I'm sure that there is no God, but thats not the same as religious faith, they ask you, or tell you, to have faith in this or that and not to question it because if you do you loose your faith.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-05 01:24am

This basically comes from an inaccurate definition of atheism. Atheism isn't a belief in something, it is a lack of belief in something. You can't have faith if you don't have a belief to have faith in.

Dorsk 81 · Post by **Dorsk 81** » 2003-03-05 01:33am

Exactly, you can't prove a negative.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2003-03-05 01:40am

Dorsk 81 wrote:Exactly, you can't prove a negative.

Why is this the case anyway? I mean take the following "Prove that you aren'y holding the TV switch"

(HOld up empty hands)

Isnt that proving a negative? Or is there just specific instances where it is impossible?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-05 01:44am

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:
Dorsk 81 wrote:Exactly, you can't prove a negative.
Why is this the case anyway? I mean take the following "Prove that you aren'y holding the TV switch"

(HOld up empty hands)

Isnt that proving a negative? Or is there just specific instances where it is impossible?

That's a very specific request which is easily disproven. We're talking about proofs of nonexistence, for which you must show that something does not exist anywhere, not just that it can't be fond in a specific location. If someone says "prove that you don't have a TV remote anywhere", how could you do it? Even if you let him thoroughly search your house, you might have a storage unit somewhere, or you might have left it at someone's house, or the dog might have buried it in the yard.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2003-03-05 01:50am

Darth Wong wrote:
BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:
Dorsk 81 wrote:Exactly, you can't prove a negative.
Why is this the case anyway? I mean take the following "Prove that you aren'y holding the TV switch"

(HOld up empty hands)

Isnt that proving a negative? Or is there just specific instances where it is impossible?
That's a very specific request which is easily disproven. We're talking about proofs of nonexistence, for which you must show that something does not exist anywhere, not just that it can't be fond in a specific location. If someone says "prove that you don't have a TV remote anywhere", how could you do it? Even if you let him thoroughly search your house, you might have a storage unit somewhere, or you might have left it at someone's house, or the dog might have buried it in the yard.

Ah, alright the statement makes more sense in taht context. Its just you often hear the statement stated as a sort of divine truth that is applicatble towards all situations. Thanks for the clarification.

Dorsk 81 · Post by **Dorsk 81** » 2003-03-05 02:38am

No, the theory to that you can't prove a negative is that you don't prove that the remote or whatever isn't in your hand, you prove that it's somewhere else. Or thats the theory to it anyway, alot of times it sounds stupid, like "I'm not holding the mug" "Prove it" "Well its over there" and so your proving it IS somewhere else, not that it ISN'T in your hand, thats the theory.

von Neufeld · Post by **von Neufeld** » 2003-03-05 05:14am

As I see it the reasoning behind this statement is the following:
1. There are Atheists that behaves like fundies, hence Atheism is a religion.
2. If Atheism is a religion then it requires faith.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2003-03-05 05:37am

Atheism embraces a negative claim. The burdon of proof lies on the person making a POSITVE claim, i.e. there is a god.

Ted C · Post by **Ted C** » 2003-03-05 10:03am

If you are a "weak atheist", they have no case. A "weak" atheist does not believe in any god due to the lack of evidence for one. Legitimate evidence could easily change a weak atheist's mind.

If you are a "strong atheist", they have a bit of a case. A "strong" atheist believes that there are no gods.

The distinction is the weak atheist's passive lack of belief versus the strong atheist's active belief in the negative.

Larz · Post by **Larz** » 2003-03-05 10:21am

I think this misconception arises because many atheists are at one time or another forced to stand up for their disbelief in a god. Other people read this as having faith in nothing, when its really just defense of logic that arose due to a dispute in personal opinions. I'd say I'm an atheist and I don't have faith that their is no big friend in the sky, I just assume such because their is no evidence for one and go along my life. Many times people confuse beliefs with faith, its a sad situation...

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-05 12:10pm

Ted C wrote:If you are a "weak atheist", they have no case. A "weak" atheist does not believe in any god due to the lack of evidence for one. Legitimate evidence could easily change a weak atheist's mind.

If you are a "strong atheist", they have a bit of a case. A "strong" atheist believes that there are no gods.

The distinction is the weak atheist's passive lack of belief versus the strong atheist's active belief in the negative.

The strong atheist is just taking his disbelief to the logical extension of, "There's no evidence for them, therefore, they are not there." This is no different from saying that there is no evidence that there are invisible, intangible aliens observing us every second of every day, therefore they do not exist.

The two are really the same. The distinction is made because some atheists are insecure.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-05 12:12pm

Is it a religion not to believe in Santa Claus? Should we call people who don't believe in Santa Claus asantas? If you're an asanta, are you a strong asanta (ie- you believe there is no Santa) or a weak Asanta (ie- you just don't hold a belief in Santa)? Does it take just as much faith to deny Santa's existence as to believe in it?

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-03-05 12:16pm

Durran Korr wrote:Where did this argument come from? I don't get it. People (mostly religious types) say that to be an atheist requires you to adopt an almost religious faith in the non-existence of God. I don't think this is true; the existence of God is not a given, so why does it take faith to disbelieve in something whose existence has no rational basis in the first place?

The argument stems from a desperate desire to equate atheism with religion, legitimizing their irrational beliefs.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-03-05 12:36pm

By extension, you must also have faith to believe there is no fire breathing dragon living in my garage.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-03-05 12:50pm

The problem I often see, is that religous types often equate "trust" in the peer review system, with "faith".

I would differentiate between the two words:

Trust: Belief in the credentials of someone/thing, usually based on past experience

Faith: Belief in something without any need for proof.

I think the problem is: they can't begin to understand what was observed and why it supports a particular theory, so they just label it "mumbo-jumbo" that you either choose to believe or not.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-03-05 03:48pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:By extension, you must also have faith to believe there is no fire breathing dragon living in my garage.

I'm a strong adraco. I belive you're full of shit when you say there's a fire breathing dragon in your garage. A weak adraco, on the other hand, would only say that there's no evidence that there's a fire breathing dragon in your garage, and therefore he doesn't believe you have one.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Atheism requires Faith?

Atheism requires Faith?

Re: Atheism requires Faith?