Atheism requires more faith than agnosticism, but less faith than most religions. I'm curious how javizy reached the conclusion that "they are bigger douches about it," though.

JimmySeal Wrote:Atheism requires more faith than agnosticism, but less faith than most religions. I'm curious how javizy reached the conclusion that "they are bigger douches about it," though.

Your statement makes no sense, sorry. Atheism requires no faith whatsoever. Atheism deals with belief, agnosticism with knowledge. I am strictly speaking an agnostic atheist myself, though I find the likelihood of a deity's existence as high as that of the tooth fairy. I can't be morally certain, so I won't say I'm a gnostic atheist.

We sure have a problem with discussing topics like this because there are so many terms that clutter up the issue. (Beatifully satirized in a South Park episode where 2 atheist factions went to war against each other because they couldn't agree on what to call themselves.)

JimmySeal Wrote:Atheism requires more faith than agnosticism, but less faith than most religions. I'm curious how javizy reached the conclusion that "they are bigger douches about it," though.

Thanks to Internet forums. Like I was suggesting, probably not the best basis for profiling.

It's like guessing what is inside of a 1m cubic box.
-> You can argue about things that fit in the box, but you cannot argue about what won't fit in the box.

For instance: A pen could be in the box. A car could not.

Same thing about god and our universe. Does god fits in our universe?

-> If you are talking about a god that answer to prayers and heals sickness, it is easy to prove if it exists or not: Go to an hospital, find someone sick, pray and wait. Easy.
-> If you are talking a god that is some king of energy that doesn't interact with humans, it is impossible to tell something about its existence or non-existence.

Atheism is not based on faith, is based on evidence. There is a huge amount of evidence that tells that a god that answers prayers and heals the sick doesn't exist. That's why Atheist believe there is no such god. That's their faith.

One of my favourite interviews from The Colbert Report had this line from Richard Dawkins that I quite like: (In response to Colbert assuring Dawkins he can't disprove god, with Dawkins agreeing.) “You can't disprove anything. You can't disprove the flying spaghetti monster, you can't disprove Thor with his hammer, you can't disprove Zeus or Poseidon... You're an atheist about all those gods, everybody here's an atheist about all those gods... some of us just go one god further.”

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert...rd-dawkins

JimmySeal Wrote:Atheism requires more faith than agnosticism...

Does it take faith to lack belief in Santa Claus? Check your claims before spreading more misconceptions about atheism.

Interestingly, I've actually met one atheist who was somewhat of a faithful atheist. Another friend asked her why she thought there wasn't a god, and she replied that she just knows somehow--some kind of a deep feeling. This seems to me to be something like faith.

Which just goes to show the variety of atheists in the world. Nevertheless, she's probably the only atheist I ever met who held that kind of a position.

Anyway, atheism basically has is roots in empiricism and skepticism--that we should believe things that are founded on evidence, and that evidence should be empirical. So, if you want to know something about atheism and the way atheists think, you should really be learning about skepticism and empiricism. And you'll find that empiricism and skepticism are as anti-faith as you can get.

Though, of course, I'm sure there are some atheists that are atheists despite not really understanding empiricism and skepticism--just like there are Christians who don't understand or even know about any of the arguments for the existence of God, or even their religion in general.

@Tzadeck She sounds just like a lazy friend of mine who claims he's an atheist but in reality knows little about atheism or skepticism for that matter. He just can't be bothered to learn more about besides watching comedy videos or reading clever web comics.

Javizy Wrote:There's no conclusive evidence of anything, so atheists have just as much faith as any other religious types. They just tend to be bigger douches about it.

If you think there is no way to know whether gods exist or not then you are an agnostic, but you clearly misunderstand atheists if you claim that they require just as much faith as other religious people. Atheism is not a religion.

bucaran Wrote:

JimmySeal Wrote:Atheism requires more faith than agnosticism...

Does it take faith to lack belief in Santa Claus? Check your claims before spreading more misconceptions about atheism.

I think that is a fair statement. Atheism is taking a position without proof, just like religion. Agnosticism just claims that it doesn't know for sure.

bodhisamaya Wrote:Atheism is taking a position without proof, just like religion.

That's another misconception. Atheism is not the claim that there is no God but the lack of belief in any God. As an atheist I don't claim God doesn't exist, I simply assume there isn't one because I haven't been presented with evidence for one.

bodhisamaya Wrote:I think that is a fair statement. Atheism is taking a position without proof, just like religion. Agnosticism just claims that it doesn't know for sure.

Actually, atheism is not really a word that is all that specific. Recently a lot of people divide atheism into strong (postive) and weak (negative) atheism. Strong atheism is what you seem to be talking about, someone who makes the claim that "I believe that there are no Gods." Whereas, someone who simply does not believe in any God is a weak atheist (so, for example, agnostics, children, people who are apathetic, people who don't actually want to commit to the claim that there necessarily are no Gods).

Colloquially, sometimes agnostic is just used as a less aggressive term than atheism, although that usage is incorrect.

Also, in general, faith is probably the wrong word. Positive atheism requires more knowledge OR faith than agnosticism. Because atheism is founded in empiricism and skepticism, it's very unlikely that you would find an atheist who made a claim based on faith--though, as I've said, I've met at least one.

An atheist could very well treat the existence of a particular God as an hypothesis, and then use evidence to determine whether or not the existence of that God is likely. Now, lets say there is not evidence to know for sure in either direction (just like often occurs in science), but the evidence seems to point towards that God not existing. Well, the atheist then doesn't know FOR SURE that the God doesn't exist (since there's not enough evidence, and we don't really know anything for sure), but still disbelieves because of the direction of the evidence. That wouldn't be faith-based belief, it would be evidence-based belief--but with imperfect evidence. (This is possible because religions make claims about their God that have to do with the physical world. Any concept of God that has nothing to do with the phyiscal world couldn't be tested by evidence)

(Note that ALL evidence is imperfect, and all science is about what is more and less likely.
As usual, here's some Richard Feynman:

)

I don't mean to distract you though. Really, most atheists are atheists because they don't think there's sufficient reason to believe in any of the Gods that people believe in. That's not a faith-based claim, it's a skeptical claim about a lack of evidence.

How would one define someone who confidently proclaims there are no gods?
The most outspoken of self-described atheists in the media seem to mock the idea that a god exists.

For me, it all depends on what you would define as god. A being like the one described in the Bible who possesses the ability to love, hate, be kind or vengeful, yet with advanced technology to create planets and life? Sounds a lot like potential future versions of ourselves in a few thousand years.

bodhisamaya Wrote:How would one define someone who confidently proclaims there are no gods?
The most outspoken of self-described atheists in the media seem to mock the idea that a god exists.

I think that has more to do with personality than anything, haha. For example, Richard Dawkins is a weak atheist, and just comes across differently because of his personality.

Dawkins talks about Bertrand Russel's idea of a Celestial teapot.

Someone makes the claim that there is a teapot in orbit around Jupiter. Now, we don't have enough evidence to determine whether or not there's a teapot in orbit around Jupiter. We don't have any telescopes that are that good. So, STRICTLY SPEAKING, we have to be agnostic about the existence of the teapot.

But, the person making the claim that there is a teapot doesn't have the evidence to show that there is a teapot either. So we reject his claim out of skepticism, and we live our lives as if there is no teapot in orbit around Jupiter.

Hence, why weak atheists sometimes describe themselves as "Teapot agnostics"--because they feel the same way about God as they do about the teapot. There doesn't seem to be good reason to believe in a God, so they go about their lives as if there is no God. I believe this is the position of Dawkins.

mentat_kgs Wrote:Same thing about god and our universe. Does god fits in our universe?

-> If you are talking about a god that answer to prayers and heals sickness, it is easy to prove if it exists or not: Go to an hospital, find someone sick, pray and wait. Easy.
-> If you are talking a god that is some king of energy that doesn't interact with humans, it is impossible to tell something about its existence or non-existence.

First test is a bit incorrect, people working at hospitals have a proven track record of making people better. Interestingly enough most religions put their sheep in position of powerlessness, obedience and inevitability of their gods bidding, so why on earth do they go to a doctor when they are sick? Isn't it their god telling them to be sick (and probably die), maybe their faith is too weak? Or just that survival instinct brings some sense into their reasoning?

Second is an argument in favor of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, which is just as absurd as any other god.

bodhisamaya Wrote:How would one define someone who confidently proclaims there are no gods?

I don't know, but certainly not atheist.

bucaran Wrote:

bodhisamaya Wrote:How would one define someone who confidently proclaims there are no gods?

I don't know, but certainly not atheist.

Perhaps antitheist would be a better fit for that.

bucaran Wrote:

JimmySeal Wrote:Atheism requires more faith than agnosticism...

Does it take faith to lack belief in Santa Claus?

Yes, it does, actually. It requires some degree faith to consider the possibilty of something and dismiss it, regardless of how implausible that possibility is. Dismissing belief systems that have hundreds of millions, or billions of devoted followers, requires quite a bit of faith in one's convictions.

I think a problem here is that half of us are using "faith" in the broad sense of "a mental assertion" and the other half are restricting it to the narrow meaning of "religious faith", which yes, obviously atheism does not require.

bucaran Wrote:Atheism is not the claim that there is no God but the lack of belief in any God. As an atheist I don't claim God doesn't exist, I simply assume there isn't one because I haven't been presented with evidence for one.

Sorry, assuming something doesn't exist is the same as claiming (at least to yourself) that it doesn't exist.
Would you assume that there isn't life on other planets merely because we haven't found any yet, or would you simply remain ambivalent?

@JimmySeal Would hypothetically extraterrestrial visitors need faith to justify their 'default' lack of belief in all the Gods humanity has came up with during their history which they have never heard about?

To those devoted followers I would ask for proof to justify their claims. No one is 'discarding' their beliefs either, atheism is not a case closed and just like anything scientific, everything can change when presented with new evidence. Compare this to many theists, which pretty much are settled on their static beliefs.

JimmySeal Wrote:Dismissing belief systems that have hundreds of millions, or billions of devoted followers, requires quite a bit of faith in one's convictions.

allow me to fix that sentence for you:

hundreds of millions, or billions of devoted followers but not a speck of evidence.

JimmySeal Wrote:Would you assume that there isn't life on other planets merely because we haven't found any yet, or would you simply remain ambivalent?

Though we have no concrete evidence yet, there are plenty of logical reasons to assume there is life on other planets. This doesn't equate to having 'faith' in science fiction.

When faced with no evidence and/or no logical reasoning I assume non-existance. When faced with overwhelming evidence and/or logical reasoning I assume existance (until the evidence changes) even if the proof is not 100%. There never is 100% proof, but that doesn't mean I have faith. For these reasons I can believe in the existence of gravity and I can can be reasonably assured of the non-existence of a teapot orbiting jupiter without either of them being beliefs based on faith.

JimmySeal Wrote:Yes, it does, actually. It requires some degree faith to consider the possibilty of something and dismiss it, regardless of how implausible that possibility is. Dismissing belief systems that have hundreds of millions, or billions of devoted followers, requires quite a bit of faith in one's convictions.

(If you reject any of the major world's religions you're agreeing with far more people than you're disagreeing with, so I'm not sure the numbers are actually on the side of the faithful. If you reject Christianity you're disagreeing with about 2 billion people, but you're agreeing with more than four billion. Besides, numbers don't mean anything: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum)

Anway, you're using the word faith in a very colloquial way. Usually people who get deep in this debate start to distinguish things like belief, faith, reason, evidence. It doesn't sound like you're talking about faith in the context that it's usually used in this argument (I mean, in the quote above. I know that you know that faith has more than one connotation).

In other words, it DOESN'T mean a mental assertion in this debate. It also doesn't mean religious faith (otherwise it would be circular to argue that atheists can't be that way by faith). Rather, faith is a way of knowing something that is not empirical but based on strong conviction, and usually it is a belief that is mixed with hope and trust. Actually, it's not really the easiet concept to put into weords.

(If you mean faith as a mental assertion it's also pretty meaningless--then every belief is faith. Belief in gravity? That's just faith)

bucaran Wrote:@JimmySeal Would hypothetically extraterrestrial visitors need faith to justify their 'default' lack of belief in all the Gods humanity has came up with during their history which they have never heard about?

No, as I said, it requires faith (or whatever you want to call it) to dismiss a claim that has been presented to you. It does not require faith to not believe an idea you have never heard of.

Quote:No one is 'discarding' their beliefs either, atheism is not a case closed,

Richard Dawkins seems to think it's a case closed. The dude in your video seems pretty confident that the Abrahamic holy books are hogwash. Are you saying they're engaging in something other than atheism when they make those claims?

JimmySeal Wrote:Richard Dawkins seems to think it's a case closed.

Not true actually. He's a teapot agnostic, as I said. He thinks the existence of God is highly unlikely.

(With a quick Google search, I found Dawkins' Spectrum of Theistic Probability. He asserts that no thinking atheist would consider themselves a number 7. He considers himself as a 6, leaning towards a very low probability of existence.

Here it is:
1)Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2)De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3)Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4)Completely impartial agnostic. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5)Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6)De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7)Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one." )

JimmySeal Wrote:

bucaran Wrote:bucaran wrote:
@JimmySeal Would hypothetically extraterrestrial visitors need faith to justify their 'default' lack of belief in all the Gods humanity has came up with during their history which they have never heard about?

No, as I said, it requires faith (or whatever you want to call it) to dismiss a claim that has been presented to you. It does not require faith to not believe an idea you have never heard of.

wait wait. uno momento por favor. But the moment the aliens land, they are presented with the claim so according to you it is 'faith' if they reject it.
Suppose we (Earthlings) showed them (the aliens) electricity for the first time, would it be reasonable for them to reject its existence because they had never heard of it...?

I personally and currently don't believe in a God hypothesis because every attempt to prove it or support any of its claims has failed. I think the same about extraterrestrial life. Sure, because of my geekery I would be thrilled if alien life was discovered but no matter how strongly I believe something it will not affect the reality so why bother?.

Practically, I believe what I see / experience. I do admit however that there is a 'lot' about the universe we don't understand, our brains / minds are unexplored worlds in themselves and there are many interesting things awaiting our discovery out there.

nadiatims Wrote:wait wait. uno momento por favor. But the moment the aliens land, they are presented with the claim so according to you it is 'faith' if they reject it.

Yes...

Quote:Suppose we (Earthlings) showed them (the aliens) electricity for the first time, would it be reasonable for them to reject its existence because they had never heard of it...?

No, because as soon as we demonstrate it to them, they will have heard of it :-)