The Faith of Atheism

[rwdeese]

The basic claim of an atheist is that "there is no God." Since this statement by atheists is logically indefensible, an atheist is forced to place his trust in himself. He then must either claim a faith based on the absence of any evidence, or he must claim he is either omniscient and omnipresent. In either case, he is forced to trust himself! Can an atheist claim that he operates from such an unlimited pool of knowledge that he knows that their is no God! No! Can an atheist believe that what he knows to be true is absolutely true? No! He must base his faith on arrogance -because it is a faith without evidence - making it the worst of all religions! It is a faith based upon self advancement - I am in charge of my own destiny! It is a faith that throws out basic rules of evidence used by the average rules of evidence in any court system - they wouldn't make good jurors! The reality is that an atheist would need to be God in order to say there is no God - perhaps this is the real problem! The real reason one desires to place one's faith in atheism is this places one as one's own God, hence, freeing one from any moral accountability!

[ro901]

You took the words right out o my mouth!

[liljp617]

The basic claim of an atheist is typically, "I lack the belief in a god(s), because there is no evidence yet that justifies such a belief."

Your logic is flawed from the first sentence.  A very small percentage of atheists state there absolutely is not and cannot be a god.  The overwhelming majority of atheists are agnostic atheists -- they recognize we don't have the capability to prove or disprove the existence or nonexistence of deities, but they personally lack the belief in said deities (worth noting that lacking a belief in something is not the same as believing something doesn't exist; you could be an atheist even if it was 100% absolutely true there was a god).

As for "moral accountability," all one has to do is take a look at the US prison system to see how silly it is to make a correlation between good behavior and religious belief (the overwhelming majority of prison inmates in the US proclaim themselves to be religious).  Or you could look at the dozens upon dozens of studies that have attempted to discover a correlation between morality and religious belief -- studies ranging from teen pregnancy, divorce, abortions, young offenders, drug use, you name it -- nope, none come back showing such a correlation (some even show a negative correlation between the two).  There is no correlation between religion and good behavior.

Your argument rests on a relatively unused definition of atheism, as well as on the notion that religious people are more moral than nonreligious people.  One is a shaky foundation to rest logic upon, and the other is blatantly false.

[rwdeese]

The basic claim of an atheist is typically, "I lack the belief in a god(s), because there is no evidence yet that justifies such a belief."

1. No, that is agnosticism.
2. The evidence is overwhelming, but it is ignored.
3. It is a faith based upon zero evidence - it is hence, the worst kind of faith!

Your logic is flawed from the first sentence.  A very small percentage of atheists state there absolutely is not and cannot be a god.  The overwhelming majority of atheists are agnostic atheists -- they recognize we don't have the capability to prove or disprove the existence or nonexistence of deities, but they personally lack the belief in said deities (worth noting that lacking a belief in something is not the same as believing something doesn't exist; you could be an atheist even if it was 100% absolutely true there was a god).

1. I was speaking of absolute atheists.
2. If one is not an absolute atheist, then by definition, one is an agnostic.
3. They have faith in the idea that there is not capability to prove or disprove the existence of nonexstence of a deity - it is totally faith based.
4. Yes, you could be an atehist if it is true that there is a God - that proves that it is faith based!
5. Although it is true that the lack of belief in something may not be the same as believing something doens't exist, it is also true that to make a claim that there is no evidence is to make a statement of faith, not facts - hence, it is a non evidential faith based assertion.

[liljp617]

The basic claim of an atheist is typically, "I lack the belief in a god(s), because there is no evidence yet that justifies such a belief."

1. No, that is agnosticism.
2. The evidence is overwhelming, but it is ignored.
3. It is a faith based upon zero evidence - it is hence, the worst kind of faith!

Agnosticism is the recognition that we do not (and may never) have the capabilities to prove or disprove the existence of deities or other metaphysical entities.  Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief, it is a declaration that deals with knowledge of things rather than specific beliefs.  Any legitimate definition of agnosticism will state this quite plainly.  Theism, deism, and atheism are labels of belief or lack there of; agnosticism is not, it is separate from these labels.

There is no evidence of a deity given the plain fact that the claim is currently untestable.

You cannot have faith in something you lack belief in.  Again, lacking belief in something is not the same as believing something doesn't exist.  There could be a giant cotton candy monster in my closet -- I personally lack the belief in such a monster; that doesn't immediately imply I have faith that there isn't such a monster.  It means I lack the belief, nothing more or less.

Your logic is flawed from the first sentence.  A very small percentage of atheists state there absolutely is not and cannot be a god.  The overwhelming majority of atheists are agnostic atheists -- they recognize we don't have the capability to prove or disprove the existence or nonexistence of deities, but they personally lack the belief in said deities (worth noting that lacking a belief in something is not the same as believing something doesn't exist; you could be an atheist even if it was 100% absolutely true there was a god).

1. I was speaking of absolute atheists.
2. If one is not an absolute atheist, then by definition, one is an agnostic.
3. They have faith in the idea that there is not capability to prove or disprove the existence of nonexstence of a deity - it is totally faith based.
4. Yes, you could be an atehist if it is true that there is a God - that proves that it is faith based!
5. Although it is true that the lack of belief in something may not be the same as believing something doens't exist, it is also true that to make a claim that there is no evidence is to make a statement of faith, not facts - hence, it is a non evidential faith based assertion.

You have an incorrect understanding of the word agnostic.  I think it would clear up some confusion if you looked up the definition.  Again, agnosticism implies nothing about what specific religious beliefs a person holds, it implies a person's view of our (humans) current and potential knowledge of the metaphysical.  You can be an agnostic theist, agnostic atheist, agnostic deist, or perhaps just simply agnostic.

You're throwing the word faith around like it has four thousand meanings.  There is one definition -- belief without evidence.  There is no current technology, test, or experiment to prove the existence of deities.  If there is, please point me to it.  Until a claim on the existence of deities can be tested, it is not faith-based to say we're incapable of testing it.  How exactly do you propose we test for the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, invisible being?  If there is no suggestion on how we would go about such an action, then it is a fact of reality that we cannot test for the existence of deities.  No faith involved.

Saying there is no evidence is not faith-based.  Point me to the evidence (please don't say the Bible).  There's a reason religious belief is founded on faith...because the evidence doesn't back it up.  If there was evidence, faith would be unnecessary or, at the very least, not the primary foundation of religious belief.

[SirEroSennin]

Based on definition, I'm an agnostic atheist.
For all I know, everything in this universe, on every plane of existence, is controlled by a single entity. I, personally, do not think that there is an entity that has majority control over things. I believe that, as humans, we base our opinions, beliefs and even our existence on the physical realm and are, for the most part, oblivious to that which I/we call the spiritual realm. I also believe that it is possible for entities to interact with the universe in ways that most, even modern, people would label as god-like out of the lack of understanding of what is really going on.

Btw, yes, I have read the majority of the christian bible.
I'm not here to defend my beliefs or attack anyone else's. 
 

[rwdeese]

Agnosticism is the recognition that we do not (and may never) have the capabilities to prove or disprove the existence of deities or other metaphysical entities.

It should be noted that "to recognize" involves a trust in either a person's own intellect, or in someone else's intellect, or in the recognition process itself.  Depending upon the person, it may involve an identification of something as having been previously seen, heard, known, etc., or it may involve a perception of something as not existing, or it may be noithing more than an acknowledgment of some idea advanced by another. None the less, the person who embraces this "recognition," is required to trust this "recognition" as being true! Taking it further, to recognize that we do not have the capabilities to prove or disprove the existence of God is a statement of faith is to communicate clearly that the person has a trust in, or has faith in, the assertion that these capabilities are true - without any objective evidence that supports this statement.

Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief, it is a declaration that deals with knowledge of things rather than specific beliefs.

This declaration is a statement of faith, a trust in one's own ability to pick the correct categories of evidential proof. Having such a faith does not necessitate a specific set of beliefs - one is enough!

[queenofnines]

The basic claim of an atheist is that "there is no God."

WRONG.

He then must either claim a faith based on the absence of any evidence, or he must claim he is either omniscient and omnipresent.

You can't have a belief without evidence (definition of faith) when it comes to the FACT that there is no tangible evidence for any god.  I think a mistake a lot of atheists make is sticking to this one trump card of "there's no hard evidence for a god" and forgetting that there IS hard evidence against specific, defined gods like the god of the Bible (one quick example: the scientific fact of evolution contradicts the creation story).  The FACT that there are heaps of such points against *specific* gods makes it easy for me to be an atheist.  

This is where the "no evidence" claim really comes into play for me: I don't default to some mushy, impersonal god once the man-made ones have been ruled out because there is no observable way to demonstrate such a being.  Thus, I don't really see the point of hanging on to the idea of a god if I can have no clue what he/she/it wants or if he/she/it is really even there.  That doesn't make me omniscient, that makes me SENSIBLE.

He must base his faith on arrogance -because it is a faith without evidence - making it the worst of all religions!

Okay, you're being a troll here.  Atheism is a religion just like not playing football is a sport, not collecting stamps is a hobby, and bald is a hair color.  Do you see how silly that is??  We base our beliefs on what is TESTABLE and TRUE, the extent to which we can know reality...and that is the best possible way for a person to go about their life, holding as many true beliefs and as few false beliefs as possible.

I am in charge of my own destiny!

What's wrong with that?  Owning up to your OWN mistakes, being responsible for your OWN actions, not expecting some sky daddy to tip the scales in your favor, having to actually WORK to get good things in life...

The real reason one desires to place one's faith in atheism is this places one as one's own God, hence, freeing one from any moral accountability!

Don't play the moral card because I can clearly demonstrate how I am more moral than the god of the Bible or Koran.    And so is everyone else.  We get our morals from what we think is best for society at a given time, and you know it.  You know it because you ignore countless horrible commandments.  Fringe lunatics like Fred Phelps, on the other hand, have the courage of their convictions when it comes to actually following what the Bible says.

[queenofnines]

Nobody knows and that's why it is such a popular topic.

Nope, it's a popular topic because those who have been able to get away from religious delusions are trying to get the rest of humanity to catch up.  I find it pretty amazing (and not in a good way) that in this day and age of technological, medical, scientific, and societal advancement we still have scores of people believing in a cursed fruit tree, talking snake, rib woman, giant man-eating fish, and that god wants us to kill the infidels.  You are so privileged to be sitting here taking advantage of the Internet, for example, and yet if baffles me how your mindset of our origins is stuck in the BRONZE AGE, especially since the science you love to take advantage of for said Internet (among thousands of other things) can give you solid evidence for how it all came to be NATURALLY, without god!!

That is why it is comical for atheists to ramble on an on and on and on about all this evolution and big bang and blah, blah, blah because at the end of the day it doesn't prove there is no God and we still don't know.

It proves it is possible without a god.  Believers just can't stop sucking their thumbs when it comes to an afterlife and refuse to give up their god blankie because they fear that it would make their insignificant life very vulnerable.

[queenofnines]

Also the whole since there were dinosaurs proves there is no God is wrong because God didn't make humans first. He would of had to wipe out his creation of dinosaurs in order to make Adam because they would of ate him.

This is comical!   

I also want to know why the OP thinks he knows what an atheist is.  You have no experience or justification and are going off of logically flawed stereotypes.  I propose the real meaning behind your bullying assertions is that it makes you uncomfortable that scores of intelligent people can sincerely label your god as childish mythology.

[liljp617]

Agnosticism is the recognition that we do not (and may never) have the capabilities to prove or disprove the existence of deities or other metaphysical entities.

It should be noted that "to recognize" involves a trust in either a person's own intellect, or in someone else's intellect, or in the recognition process itself.  Depending upon the person, it may involve an identification of something as having been previously seen, heard, known, etc., or it may involve a perception of something as not existing, or it may be noithing more than an acknowledgment of some idea advanced by another. None the less, the person who embraces this "recognition," is required to trust this "recognition" as being true! Taking it further, to recognize that we do not have the capabilities to prove or disprove the existence of God is a statement of faith is to communicate clearly that the person has a trust in, or has faith in, the assertion that these capabilities are true - without any objective evidence that supports this statement.

Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief, it is a declaration that deals with knowledge of things rather than specific beliefs.

This declaration is a statement of faith, a trust in one's own ability to pick the correct categories of evidential proof. Having such a faith does not necessitate a specific set of beliefs - one is enough!

You're using the term faith quite loosely.

By the meaning you've given it, every single iota of knowledge of our reality is faith-based.  Is your head really attached to your neck?  Are you actually typing these posts?  Are you awake?  Are you alive?

This is a fruitless point to base a discussion on.  If you're going to found a discussion on the idea that we know absolutely nothing and that this reality only exists in our minds, what do you hope to achieve by the end of said discussion?  Nothing useful will arise out of this discussion if that is your foundation.

As for the meat of what you say, simply point me to the test or experiment mankind can utilize right this second that can prove or disprove the existence of deities.  If you cannot point me to such a test or experiment, then there is nothing faith-based about agnosticism (this is precisely what agnosticism is -- we lack the ability to prove or disprove the metaphysical).  It is a mere recognition of the reality that we lack the technology or senses to prove or disprove the metaphysical.  Unless of course you're going to continue on the tirade that we really know nothing at all of this universe and everything rests solely on belief without evidence, which is, again, a foundation that does nothing for the discussion.


*If you don't point me to the test or experiment in your next reply, I'll have to naturally assume it doesn't exist and you've folded your hand on that point*

[jordandog]

@rwdeese;
I have no idea who you are, you definitely sound like another poster on here with your circular and ill founded 'reasoning', but that is not worth bothering with. queenofnine's reply #9 covers much of what I think about your OP. Your own arrogance comes through quite clearly as you do NOT seem to grasp what atheism is in total. It is not a black and white declaration of no God or gods. I know no other atheists who, as you put it, "claim he is either omniscient and omnipresent". That is nothing more than an inciteful statement (not INSIGHTFUL) as I, and no others I know, have never remotely claimed any omniscience or omnipotence. As for scientific proof that explains many, if not all, phenomena religious people claim is 'prood of God', the scientists behind the proof do not claim to be omnipotent either. They state what they find, end of.

As for "He must base his faith on arrogance -because it is a faith without evidence - making it the worst of all religions!" No, that does NOT play out. As already said by queenofnines, is is not a faith. I base my actions and their consequences on fact. I have worked hard my entire life, therefore I have taken care of myself, my children, own my home, and have a decent enough amount of money to live on. Not being a Christian (any religion you care to insert) I DO NOT pray to an unseen, untouchable deity and then sit back and wait for results. Christian reasoning - If the results don't come, I then say it is because God has decided I am not ready and/or I have sinned and am not deserving of it. Doesn't the Bible state "Faith without works is dead."?

You said "It is a faith based upon self advancement - I am in charge of my own destiny". Again, NOT a faith, but my example illustrates that yes, I am in charge of my own destiny. I certainly hope that you realize the Jimmy Swaggarts, Billy Grahams, Jerry Falwells, and all the other millionaire preachers and ministries certainly took charge of their destinies. They also took charge of their followers' destinies - they wiped many of them out financially and all in the name of God. You speak of morality? What did many of those godly men do with their money they raked in? Spent it to partake in just about every aberration spoken of in your Bible. Back to the "self advancement". Am I to garner from your words that you live the life of a pauper with no modern conveniences science and technology has given us? I highly doubt that, you are on a computer, so you have obviously decided "self advancement" is all right. Or maybe you prayed the right way and God dropped it all into your lap.

"The real reason one desires to place one's faith in atheism is this places one as one's own God, hence, freeing one from any moral accountability!' There you go with the 'faith' again, but please do not be so arrogant as to question my, or anyone else's morality! I would guess that MY moral compass points true North a hell of a lot more often than most of the religious sycophants in the world.

I think your post was intended to stir the waters, take your place behind the Queen Troll on here. Maybe you really are that arrogant and self righteous, who knows. I am just thankful, once again, to know religious women and men open-minded enough to admit there are indeed flaws in any narrow minded belief.

[jordandog]

Also the whole since there were dinosaurs proves there is no God is wrong because God didn't make humans first. He would of had to wipe out his creation of dinosaurs in order to make Adam because they would of ate him. Anyways dinosaurs are still around...what it your favorite? I like the chicken.

(shaking head in utter disbelief while laughing uncontrollably)
I missed this one. Did you actually write this or am I hallucinating?!

[queenofnines]

I've lived with an atheist with an IQ of over 160 for 18 years...he is my step-dad.

Cool, maybe you should take some cues from him.     There are statistics on the more intelligent/educated a person is, the less likely they are to believe in god.  Have you talked to him about it?

Possible but there are still questions left unanswered.

Why do believers cling to this need for absolute certainty?!  You are aware that the more and more we discover, the smaller and smaller your "god of the gaps" becomes!

P.S.  Your reply #15 came across as rambling and didn't make sense.

[rwdeese]

RW: The basic claim of an atheist is that "there is no God."

WRONG.

1. There is so much irony is this statement. Since when does an atheist claim an absolutes, yet, here, you make an absolute declaration! What is this based upon? This absolute statement is based upon you own definition. This doesn't make it wrong - just amusing!

2. ATHEISM: The doctrine or belief that there is no god: (Dictionary.com)
RW: He then must either claim a faith based on the absence of any evidence, or he must claim he is either omniscient and omnipresent.

You can't have a belief without evidence (definition of faith) when it comes to the FACT that there is no tangible evidence for any god.

1. I do not know where you came up with the idea "you can't have a belief without evidence." People believe in many things without evidence!

2. "belief without evidence" is only one definition of faith, btw.

3. This so called "FACT that there is no tangible evidence for any god" is certainly a statement about something "believed" to be true by you based upon your own "fact" criteria. This makes your view based upon faith! Why? Because the only way you can say this is a fact is by either being omniscient (which I doubt you are), or by placing your trust in your knowledge base, which cannot even hold 1% of the known knowledge in the State you live in, let alone the universe. Therefore, your conviction can only be based upon faith - period! This faith is a argument from silence, which, in and of itself, is considered the weakest of all argumentation! So, what if your criteria is wrong?

I think a mistake a lot of atheists make is sticking to this one trump card of "there's no hard evidence for a god" and forgetting that there IS hard evidence against specific, defined gods like the god of the Bible (one quick example: the scientific fact of evolution contradicts the creation story).  The FACT that there are heaps of such points against *specific* gods makes it easy for me to be an atheist.

So, there IS hard evidence against specific defined gods like the god of the Bible? Interesting philosophy, but it is really nothing more than a philosophical statement. It has no substance, nor does it offer concrete evidence. Even the so-called quick example "the scientific fact of evolution contradicts the creation story" isn't evidence. Anyone who has taken a few basic science courses in college knows how the "evolutionary theory" changes, morphs, and contradicts itself every five years. In fact, evolutionary scientists so disagree with themselves now that some would argue that there is no such theory anymore. If you are basing your atheism foundation on the crumbling contradictions within the evolutionary scientific community, I would say it is time to get out of the house! Believe me when I say that I am not even including the creation science community in my analysis! 

This is where the "no evidence" claim really comes into play for me: I don't default to some mushy, impersonal god once the man-made ones have been ruled out because there is no observable way to demonstrate such a being.

This sounds like a statement of omniscience. So, one little finite person among the 6 billion people on this planet, has determined the only criteria that proves that there is a god or not? Quite profound indeed! Is it possible that since you have decided what the only criteria is that demonstrates a deity, you have left out the criteria that really will? Is it possible that your own pride has limited the possibilities? Your faith in your reasoning ability, which boils down to your faith in yourself, is quite amazing! One thing that studies have proven is this: all five senses can be deceived - that makes it quite unbelievable that one would place one's faith in them!

Thus, I don't really see the point of hanging on to the idea of a god if I can have no clue what he/she/it wants or if he/she/it is really even there.  That doesn't make me omniscient, that makes me SENSIBLE.

Placing faith in self is really not sensible at all. This is certainly a shallow faith! It is a faith that pretends that it is based upon profound knowledge, yet, the knowledge base is so small that to base one's life on such a miniscule morsel of knowledge is like taking a class on sailing and going out the next day to sail around the world.
RW: He must base his faith on arrogance - because it is a faith without evidence - making it the worst of all religions.

Okay, you're being a troll here.

I notice you make this claim about everyone who disagrees with you. Ok, we get it - now, let's go on!

Atheism is a religion just like not playing football is a sport, not collecting stamps is a hobby, and bald is a hair color.  Do you see how silly that is??

Is it that silly? Some of the most intelligent minds in America have declared atheism a religion - protected under the first amendment, in fact. Here are a few court cases that make this very clear: Kaufaman v. McCaughtry; Torcaso v. Watkins.

You may need to think about this deeper! The irony to me is that this is the same kind of mind that is relied upon to reason, think, declare a faith, establish a "god proving/disproving criteria," and believes it actually has enough knowledge to make a solid determination - wow! Do you really want to place your faith in your own reasoning abilities?

We base our beliefs on what is TESTABLE and TRUE, the extent to which we can know reality...and that is the best possible way for a person to go about their life, holding as many true beliefs and as few false beliefs as possible.

I think this is really a half truth. I do not believe for a moment that everything an atheist believes is based upon what is "TESTABLE and TRUE." There is a book you should read. It will help you not say things so flippant "What We Believe but Cannot Prove: Today's Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty" by John Brockman.

Moreover, atheists believe many things based upon their presuppositions more than objective facts. They choose only those evidences that support their presuppositions, so even if one were to present other evidence, it wouldn't matter - their faith is too strong in their presuppositions to consider any alternatives! 

RW: I am in charge of my own destiny.

What's wrong with that?  Owning up to your OWN mistakes, being responsible for your OWN actions, not expecting some sky daddy to tip the scales in your favor, having to actually WORK to get good things in life...

Nice deflection, however, the fact of the matter is that atheists do not determine when or how they are going to die, so they are under an illusion that they are in charge of their own destiny. In fact, even if they write out their ten year plan, they will discover that all the details of the plan will not be what they thought they would be at all in 99% of the cases. Therefore, this faith is full of illusions that seem like facts.

RW: The real reason one desires to place one's faith in atheism is this places one as one's own God, hence, freeing one from any moral accountability.

Don't play the moral card because I can clearly demonstrate how I am more moral than the god of the Bible or Koran.

Of course you can - after all, if one defines what morality is (like a God), one can declare their own righteousness based upon their own criteria. This proves my point. You see, when one places his faith in himself, one can declare what is moral or not. This is called "self-righteousness!"

We get our morals from what we think is best for society at a given time, and you know it.

Not everyone believes in situation ethics - sorry!

You know it because you ignore countless horrible commandments.

Yes, I have ignored countless commandments. In fact, I have broken most, if not all of them. The difference though is this - 1. I know that I am accountable for my actions which means I deserve to be punished, 2. I am thankful that Jesus Christ took my punishment on the cross

Fringe lunatics like Fred Phelps, on the other hand, have the courage of their convictions when it comes to actually following what the Bible says.

I would agree he has courage, but I would disagree that he is actually following what the Bible says - at least from an hermeneutical perspective!