Why are they so keen to make Atheism a faith?

I sort of read it the other way around. If religion (that is, my particular religion) were shown by the evidence to much more likely and rational than other religions, then I'd have a good case for converting people to my faith.

It's more that they want faith to be an evidence-based decision than that they want atheists to have real faith. A lot of religious people are ambiguous about faith. They argue that irrational belief is a virtue, but at the same time insist that their belief system is more rational than competing systems. Therefore they have a strong interest in arguing that people who claim to have evidence against their faith are not actually making a rational decision.

If we set aside the Humanitarian Works and Life-Counselling (which are also secular services), and Explaining Stuff (which they generally do badly), the business of religion is fundamentally the business of entertainment and catastrophe.

Religion is either necessary or it's not. If it's necessary, these days it's not the humanitarian works, life-counselling or Explaining Stuff that makes it so (though perhaps in the Dark Ages things were different). And these days, George Lucas does a better line in entertainment than Joseph Ratzinger, so really all religion has left to sell is the threat of catastrophe.

And here's the problem: these pesky atheists are saying that they're not buying catastrophe. They'll buy humanitarianism, life-counselling, education and entertainment -- but they source all those things elsewhere.

'Why won't they buy our catastrophe?' the evangelist wonders. 'I bought it. They must have some serious kind of faith there.'

That's it, I think, in a nutshell.

I really don't care. I don't see the need for atheism to be "better" than religion or "argue" with religious people. And if someone wants to call their atheism a faith, that's fine with me. I don't, but that's just me.

Why are they so keen to make Atheism a faith?

Click to expand...

It's what they are comfortable with and believe they comprehend, so they see everything within that framework. It's human nature to frame things that make no sense within the confines of what makes sense. It helps keep us sane.

I'm not an atheist, but I have a religion that is not based on faith, it's based on actions. It gets the same treatment.

I just chalk it up to the way the human mind works.

Hanlon's Razor probably applies here, at least in most cases.

zornhau said:

Am I the only one who finds the atheism-as-faith trope as sinister as it's insulting?*


I think, if atheism (and with it science and rationalism) were a faith:

• Atheism would be no better than other faiths, and should share "air time".

Click to expand...

Firstly, aren't you mis-characterizing folks' sincere and straight-forward discussion here and position (or questions) as 'sinister' and 'insulting' ?

If your immediate response to a fair question were to label the questioner as 'sinister' and then feel free to respond as if they've 'insulted' you --
You'll have badly poisoned future understanding on both sides.

But as to the issue of whether atheism is faith ...


Yes, that might be the bitter truth that atheists might have to deal with.

And more bitter still might be (given YOUR scenario, not mine) that "atheism" could then be stripped and separated apart from the (possibly, imo) defensive camouflage of being included with 'science' and 'rationalism'

But if the FACTS warranted that separation, then I would never want to argue against FACTS ... would YOU? Even to protect your own position (atheist or not)?

As a Believer, I simply acknowledge that there are Facts we KNOW, and Facts as yet Unknown, and Facts perhaps Unknowable.
UNKNOWABLE and yet still FACTS .. and thus perhaps foolishly DENIED if from a position of ignorance of the Facts.

• Atheists would be no different from new-agers and diabolists, and could be treated as such.

  Click to expand...

Are YOU suggesting that 'new-agers' and 'diabolists' somehow DESERVE worse treatment?

Because that suggests a vein of Intolerance in your attitude, I think.

At my worst behaviour, I wouldn't feel any need to 'treat' atheists or new-agers or diabolists BADLY.

I'm just arguing that FAITH should be recognized for what it is, and (I suggest) ATHEISM IS FAITH.

Anything ("God/gods exist") ACCEPTED without rational evidence to the positive is accepted on Faith.

'Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.'

Scripture explains it that way, and Christians (as one example of faithful) realize and admit as much ... honestly.

Anything REJECTED without rational evidence to the negative is also rejected ON FAITH.

If the atheist believes "No God/gods exist" ... the Christian AND the Agnostic can both intelligently challenge that position. "Respectfully, intelligently ... where is your evidence?" they'd ask (but here, I do not ask that, since that gets threads locked) Devoid of evidence that God does not exist, all the atheist can hold to is that they DON'T KNOW ... but they cannot defend the "nonexistence" position.

Because -- and I admit this, happily -- logically "nonexistence" CANNOT be proved.
That is WHY an atheist (a strong position, true, "no God exists" atheist) cannot win the debate, ever.

In any debate, once the opponent is forced into an illogical, impossible position ... it's over. And the Atheist cannot put the Christian in that "impossible" position BECAUSE the Atheist cannot prove God's existence is impossible.

Now ... remember above when I said:

Scripture explains it that way, and Christians (as one example of faithful) realize and admit as much ... honestly.

Click to expand...

That's something that many believers, in debates like these, often point to the atheists and say: "You're either not 'realizing' that your own criteria of proofs have abandoned your atheist position ... or you're simply not 'admitting as much, honestly."

Another way to win a debate is to reveal the opponent's level (I won't say 'lack' of honesty ... but it's on the spectrum of honesty, from 100% to 0%, and searching your own souls we can all determine ours) of honesty.

Anyway ... I'm repeating myself until it bores even myself. But the TRUTH (if it's the truth, BUT locked threads before they're done seldom reveals truth) bears repeating.

• Assaults on Atheism could focus on rhetoric and emotional appeals (we all remember the watchmaker argument).

  Click to expand...

Like assaults on Faith and religion do NOW?

• Theists could ignore our rational arguments, since evidence and rationalism would just be part of our faith.

  Click to expand...

No, here's my point of distinction: if atheism HAS evidence ... then that's your valid counterpoint against calling atheism a 'faith"

I cannot (I guess) ask for that evidence to be shown here.

That's contrary to both the rules of Evidence, if not contrary to the common idea of rationalism.

*Relevance to writing: many of us on this forum use writing as a way of defending or spreading our non-theist world view. Therefore it's useful to discuss shady tactics and traps set by the opposition.

Click to expand...

That's called "evangelism" in other circles. My circle certainly enjoys it ... I enjoy the challenge of a good debate ... But sometimes Atheists seem to RESENT folks 'spreading' their worldviews though.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@


So, let's see how this works ... my thread got locked elsewhere (possibly) because it's against forum rules to:

Broader discussions will naturally arise and will not be considered off topic so long as:
--they do not directly, or by implication, required atheists or non-theists to defend the rationality or virtue of their beleifs

Click to expand...

??? (That's me asking the question) ???

But ... it's okay for OTHER commentators and threads to make statements like the above I've quoted ... or to call the suggestion that "atheism is a faith" one of the 'MYTHS' about atheism ???

Well, the way to determine whether a thing is a 'myth' (as claimed) or is a 'fact'
is EITHER :

1) to ask to see EVIDENCE proving it's a myth or a fact
or
2) to explore it as FAITH.

#1 seems to be forbidden here.

So the rational, evidence approach is rendered moot in the discussion of atheism?

Which leaves the issue as ... #2

I'm comfortable there, and I dare say it strengthens my point. #2 doesn't support some of your positions though, I'd guess.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

That's pretty much all I need (or care) to say on the issue, guys.

I wanted to join in the FIRST thread, got asked to start a SEPARATE thread ... and even though I respectfully went to that one to ask my fair questions (which ... I'll still suggest weren't answered, imo, imo just side-stepped) ... THAT GOT LOCKED.

Fine.

Shine the light of Reason, is what I say.

If folks won't let us do that ...

Well, I came HERE to the thread where I hoped Reason and Free Thought and fair questions didn't get locked.

I'm NOT saying anyone's a censor, or a thought-nazi, or any of the other nonsense or labels or accusations a troll would fling.

But jeez ... it's forum where a very central question is out-of-bounds?

That's ... well ... that's just intellectually disappointing.

I'm only 'keen' to discuss the viewpoint that if Atheism IS a form of faith, in that it is ACCEPTED by the atheist ON FAITH ... that the truth be presented.

It is in DEFENSE of Science and Reason and Rationality that NOTHING masquerade as being supported by them, IF it's not supported by them.

I reject defective "creationism-as-science" too, by the way, just as I challenge anything else that hypocritically over-reaches its limits.

And yes, I won't start up another thread-kampf over it here, fear not!

I'm done. Offered my views, none of it news (some of it snooze!)

I was going to wrap up my OWN thread, except it was already locked; but this NEW one's appearance invited the same comments, so ... 'nuff said ... said and done! see ya on the flipside!

Axe, I'm posting this after my PM to you. If I'd read your comment above before I PMed, I'd have sent you a different one.

I found Zornhau's question interesting in its own right. Atheism is badly misunderstood and a lot of the reason for that is misinformation spread by religious leaders and theistic publications. The question 'why pick on atheists' is one that I think atheists have long pondered, since the atheists who live within religious societies seldom initiate violence against that society or do anything other than exercise their own free judgement.

I can't see why the religious need to care whether atheism is or is not a faith unless they want to attack atheism. Most religious folk freely admit that their beliefs are faiths, while some atheists think their beliefs are faiths and some don't. I don't think you're really in any position to comment Axe, until you can understand that atheists have very different reasons to be atheists, and may have quite different ideas of what truth and evidence look like. You seem to think that all atheists hold exactly the same position and if you do then I'd say that you don't understand enough yet to hold a sensible conversation on this topic.

My suggestion: don't post any more debate here for a while. Rather, ask some questions until you can discover for yourself why some atheists think their belief is a faith, and some are convinced that it's not.

Ruv Draba said:

If we set aside the Humanitarian Works and Life-Counselling (which are also secular services), and Explaining Stuff (which they generally do badly), the business of religion is fundamentally the business of entertainment and catastrophe.

Religion is either necessary or it's not. If it's necessary, these days it's not the humanitarian works, life-counselling or Explaining Stuff that makes it so (though perhaps in the Dark Ages things were different). And these days, George Lucas does a better line in entertainment than Joseph Ratzinger, so really all religion has left to sell is the threat of catastrophe.

And here's the problem: these pesky atheists are saying that they're not buying catastrophe. They'll buy humanitarianism, life-counselling, education and entertainment -- but they source all those things elsewhere.

'Why won't they buy our catastrophe?' the evangelist wonders. 'I bought it. They must have some serious kind of faith there.'

That's it, I think, in a nutshell.

Click to expand...

Well, I would say that religion also offers the irrational idea of an afterlife. So many people are just terrified of the idea that this life right here is IT, and that once they die they are just gone. They like to cling to the hope that they can 'live on'.

small axe said:

[/LIST]
As a Believer, I simply acknowledge that there are Facts we KNOW, and Facts as yet Unknown, and Facts perhaps Unknowable.
UNKNOWABLE and yet still FACTS .. and thus perhaps foolishly DENIED if from a position of ignorance of the Facts.

Click to expand...

This to me was the really important part of what you wrote. It is absolutely true, and should be obvious to anyone, that there exist facts about the universe that we simply do not know about yet. Obvious, right?

How should one logically treat such unknown facts? To the agnostic it is also obvious; we don't think about them other than to continue to pursue science which will then reveal some of these unknown facts. Or, we write sci-fi.

What has always troubled me is that theists fail to simply admit that such unknown facts are actually unknown, but instead assert that they do know some of these facts. They assert that they know about god, even though whether god is a fact or not is completely unknown as of yet. It makes no sense whatsoever to be positing the existence of a god until one has some evidence of the fact. Theists cover up this illogic by wrapping it in the word 'faith', which means nothing more than the ability to decide to call something a 'fact' even though it is just completely invented and has no evidence.

From your quote you appear to me to understand that 'unknown facts' should simply be admitted as such, yet by being a theist you completely contradict this. One cannot deny an unknown fact, but neither can one believe in an unknown fact - one can only speculate about them.

To over-simplify... if one jumps to a conclusion of atheism, without a scientific approach (say, by parental conditioning), then the act is, by definition, a 'belief'. It is faith-based. It is a faith.

If atheism is reached by careful analysis of observed data, it is science-based.

knight_tour said:

It makes no sense whatsoever to be positing the existence of a god until one has some evidence of the fact.

Click to expand...

I see your main point, but I have to disagree with the wording. Scientifically, it is acceptable to posit an explanation without evidence, so long as it does not contradict proven facts. It is the first stage of experimentation. It is simply not a credible stage.

Scoates said:

I see your main point, but I have to disagree with the wording. Scientifically, it is acceptable to posit an explanation without evidence, so long as it does not contradict proven facts. It is the first stage of experimentation. It is simply not a credible stage.

Click to expand...

I agree that it is interesting and fun to speculate about potential unknown facts, as long as one remains honest about it. Once someone decides that an unknown is actually real then the problems start, and it only gets worse when someone pushes such unknowns on other people.

Awww. You didn't quote me. Here it is again.

Theists believe that the only balm for doubt and fear is faith, because that's what they've been told their faith is for. So if atheists can live their lives without doubt or paralysing fear (and we clearly do), they must have faith.

Because is easier to classify among the others. See, for example, how black and white aren't actually colours but absence of colours and yet, they are bumped together with yellow, blue, red and all their bastard children.

If a theist posits a singular cause and reason for all existence and all that still exists, then their arguments will always be framed from that point of reference. (The questions we ask determine the answers we can get, and the presumptions underlying those questions determine the questions themselves).

Positive atheist positions (god does not exist for anyone) are probably more comfortable for a theist to address, as they are couched in the same kind of language, make a similar type of epistemological assertion, and are therefore easily rebuffed as just wrong, or misguided. And in these cases, their understanding of god is not modified by the argument one iota.

More negative atheist positions (god is not necessary to understand the Universe, absence of belief of god does not change our reality) are, I am guessing, a lot more troublesome, both because they involve imagining a void where an understanding of god stood before (which is likely terrifying), and because they involve understanding a lot more information about the nature of the world in general.

The coercive elements of religion probably aren't keen on people understanding more of the world, and people aren't usually fond of contemplating genuinely frightening concepts, so all inertia leads back to classifying atheism in terms of faith as it then becomes both a comfort and trivial to knock.

This is not helped by certain positions of atheism actually being positions of faith (god is not true for anyone), which then give powers with a vested interest (theistic religions, etc.) the ability to leverage certain elements of atheism against all others and generally disseminate and deploy positions of ignorance to motivate the troops.

As SPMiller said, I think Hanlon's Razor is applicable in most cases, though there have surely been, and continue to be, people who understand the dynamic and harness it to their own ends.

small axe said:

Anything ("God/gods exist") ACCEPTED without rational evidence to the positive is accepted on Faith.

'Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.'

Scripture explains it that way, and Christians (as one example of faithful) realize and admit as much ... honestly.

Anything REJECTED without rational evidence to the negative is also rejected ON FAITH.

Click to expand...

I dream of the day that everyone understands the difference between strong atheism (I believe there is no god) and weak atheism (I do not believe there is a god).

Ruv Draba said:

Awww. You didn't quote me. Here it is again.

Theists believe that the only balm for doubt and fear is faith, because that's what they've been told their faith is for. So if atheists can live their lives without doubt or paralysing fear (and we clearly do), they must have faith.

Click to expand...

This is a very self-flattering view. Along with faith being a prerequisite for happiness. From my experience, I don't believe that theists generallly view atheists as happy and fulfilled.

I mean only to say that I don't think the argument successfully gets into the mindset of the theist, as it claims to do.

JimmyB27 said:

I dream of the day that everyone understands the difference between strong atheism (I believe there is no god) and weak atheism (I do not believe there is a god).

Click to expand...

I think a big part of the problem is that, from a theist point of view, both statements deny what they believe to be true.

zornhau said:

Maxmordon - isn't that the same as DeleyanLee's point?

Click to expand...

Yes, sorry.

Ninjas Love Nixon said:

I think a big part of the problem is that, from a theist point of view, both statements deny what they believe to be true.

Click to expand...

I think the distinction is easy to grasp, but unimportant.

Scoates said:

I mean only to say that I don't think the argument successfully gets into the mindset of the theist, as it claims to do.

Click to expand...

To a theist, religion is often a panacea -- a balm for fear and doubt.

Why wouldn't an atheist want the panacea?
Answer: they have to be shielded somehow from 'natural' fear and doubt.

What shields them from the fear and doubt of the world?
Answer: their own faith (in humanity, in science, in themselves)

My own view as an atheist is quite different. A lot of fear and doubt can be dealt with by secular means. Some fear and doubt are just part of being human, and to be endured. And a lot of the fear and doubt religion claims to cure, it put there in the first place. If you set aside good works, explaining stuff and entertainment, religion is principally the art of catastrophising the faithful into submission.

I also don't think that some faith in humanity, enquiry and oneself is a bad thing.

JimmyB27 said:

I dream of the day that everyone understands the difference between strong atheism (I believe there is no god) and weak atheism (I do not believe there is a god).

Click to expand...

To me the issue is that you use the word 'believe' here for both cases, which is a far weaker statement than to use the word 'know'. If you use the word 'believe' to say that you don't believe there is a god, that still leaves open the possibility that you may be wrong. You would have to say that you 'know' there is no god in order to be one of the standard variety atheists that I always seem to meet.