spurly

Here's a question I had while reading some of the posts on this thread. Is there anything that an atheist has to accept on faith?

For instance, since they do not believe in an intelligent creator, don't they have to accept on faith that life just happened by chance? Nobody was there to witness the beginning of life and it can not be duplicated. Isn't this something that an atheist has to accept on faith in their world view?

Also, don't they have to have faith in themselves or in society, since there is no one else for them to put faith in? That seems to be what humanism is.

Just a few thoughts.

Kevin

mike_decock

Nope. An atheist can reject every belief down to the belief in their own existence.

Let's look at the definition of faith:

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Now, I don't think it is reasonable to believe that there is a massive conspiracy going on in which people are fabricating dinosaur bones, falsifying evidence of speciation, etc.

This is material evidence for evolution.

The Theory of Evolution is a logical explanation for the material evidence.

Where is faith in accepting evolution as scientifically sound theory? Just because the origins of life weren't witnessed and haven't been duplicated (it may be duplicated in the future), doesn't mean it has to be taken on faith that it is possible. The evidence for evolution demonstrates that it is very probable.

Even so, being an atheist doesn't mean you have to accept that life happened "by chance". You can believe earth was created by mice who are actually doing a big experiment on us (Douglas Adams reference).

No, they don't have to have faith in themselves or society. Atheism doesn't force you to accept Humanism or any other philosophy.

-Mike...

Undercurrent

No more faith than it takes to conclude that a man found dead with a knife in his back was murdered (even if no one was there to witness the man's death, and the event can hardly be repeated.)

But suppose, spurly, that I said that I, and no one else, was there to witness the origin of life. You wouldn't believe me, because you know that I am human and humans don't live even to be 200 years old, and the origin of life happened more than 200 years ago.

Is your disbelief in the fact that I was present at the origin of life a result of faith then, or reasoning?

Stephen T-B

“Also, don't they have to have faith in themselves or in society, since there is no one else for them to put faith in? That seems to be what humanism is."

I’d like to explore, if I may, the differences between Belief, Faith and Trust.

I think that we express belief and act upon faith.

Hence: you visit me in my 18th-floor apartment and I express the belief that there’s an invisible staircase leading from the window down to the ground.

My belief turns into faith when I open the window and step out on to it.

The belief that a comet was following the Hale Bop comet became a matter of faith for members of the Heaven’s Gate cult when they killed themselves in order that their souls should hitch a ride on it.

Christians are in the more fortunate position of not being allowed to act upon their Faith in such a way - suicide having been decreed a mortal sin. They may, however, act upon their faith by going to dangerous and inhospitable parts of the world as missionaries, with the possibility of being stewed and eaten or otherwise - and possibly more prosaically - done in. They can embark upon building a cathedral or orphanage or hospital when all they can actually pay for is 500 bricks. Or indeed, do anything which everyone assures them will be impossible.
Less adventurous and ambitious Christians are confined to confessing their sins, having faith that they’ll be forgiven them, or simply going through life in the faith that having confessed Christ and / or taken the Sacraments, they’ll die and go to heaven.

Belief is expressed by saying prayers, singing hymns, listening to long sermons, denouncing Evolution, bombing abortion clinics, putting up signs exhorting people to go to church, and going to Bible study classes. (I’ve probably missed out a few relevant activities, but I can’t think of everything.)

Trust is quite like Faith but doesn’t involve a belief in gods.

When I cross a road, I don’t trust in god to get me safely to the other side, but in my ability to hear or see on-coming vehicles, and if that lets me down, to run fast enough to get out of the way.

When I eat a meal in a restaurant I don’t have faith in god that I won’t get food poisoning: I trust the kitchen staff to have done their job properly.

I have trust, but not faith, in a lot of things: in aeroplanes when I fly; that the wheels won’t fall off my bike when I hurtle down a steep hill on it; that I’ll still be alive by the end of the day etc etc etc.

I wonder, Spurly, if this clarifies matters?

lpetrich

Except that one can be a complete atheist and believe in a quasi-Raelian view of the origin of life.

Such as the view that the Earth had been seeded 4 billion years ago by time travelers who wanted to insure that they would come into existence.

Walross

Hi Spurly,

you wrote:

I think you are getting mixed up between confidence and faith. I have confidence in myself, in society, in certain philosophies and scientific theories. But this means I only accept them (or aspects of them) provisionally. For instance, if I accept a scientific theory, I am accepting it as the best explanation so far offered to fit the observed facts, but I am fully prepared to drop it if something of better explanatory power comes along, or if it proves wrong. So far as I've been able to tell, faith does not have this feature. Regards,

Walross

BTW, as others have pointed out, not all atheists are Humanists, nor are all Humanists atheist.

spurly

You have explained it quite well, and I think I understand where you are coming from. Thanks.

Kevin

Darth Dane

The same question goes for aliens.

1) I have seen a UFO, so I know ufo's exist, and I believe it even thoug I cannot see one now.
2) Really can you prove it?
1) No´, I didn't have recording device ready.
2) Well, I haven't seen an ufo, so based on whqat I know, Ufo's don't exist, and I will believe so until I actually see one.
1) I believe ufo's exist because I have seen one.
2) I believe ufo's don't exist, because I haven't seen one.

Now you come up

3) So what 's up?
1) I have seen a ufo, they exist
2) I haven't seen a ufo, they don't exist
3) Well what stand should I take? The one that I resemble the most 2) because I haven't seen one. Or 1) because I want to believe?
1+2) You should choose one of the two
3) I refuse to choose, but believe that everything is possible.
Just because I haven't seen, doesn't make it any less real to you 1)

Let each walk in their own light(truth) so that you can walk in yours.

I cannot determine who is saying the truth. In my eyes they both have equal but opposite beliefs.

Edit: Just because I can't see UFO's doesn't make UFO's disappear, they are still there, I just can't see them. How can I say they exist or not?




DD - Love Spliff

Amaranth

Poisoning the well.

Unsupported assertation, and ad hominem to boot. Exactly what does calling your opponent closed minded do for his side of the debate? Hoping to give himself an out, it looks like.

Poisoning the well - Forced him to respond?

Ad hominem - Even if you went and murdered a fundie for every word of his reply that annoyed you, it means absolutely nothing to whether or not your arguments were true. It should be noted that he had no issue or mention of your so-called "straw man" until his rebuttal had been conquered.

Unsupported assertation.

Call me crazy, but all these ad hominem arguments are just adding up into one very large red herring, one meant to distract you from the fact that he is no longer even defending his position.

Poisoning the well.

Ignoratio elenchi - All of this assumes the existance of god through post hoc argument. Whether or not a god could or would do any of these things has no relevance to proving it's existance.

Ad hominem - You're wrong because you are educated?

Poisoning the well, attempting to cast you, yet again, as unbending and unreasonable.

An ad hominem straw man? Poisons the well by calling you unbending, then assumes that to be true so he can knock it down, never realizing that it is still meaningless because it is all ad hominem.

Ad hominem.

Ad hominem.

What position? His position consists of what, 3 sentances in this whole reply?


Y'know, I didn't even know what the common logical fallacies were until about two weeks ago (at least, as far as formal terms). Some expert might want to reconstruct what I've said to better fit all the definitions, or hit things I've missed, but regardless of that - You've basically won, David. Just as in his original editorial he could not stop himself from attacking a person instead of an idea, he does does so again here when cornered. By refusing to support his position in the actual debate, he's admitted defeat.

Congratulations.

Amaranth

Harumi

Maybe you should give him a link of this thread and see how his arguments have been demolished.

Maybe he might even come here, where we can demolish his arguments further.

*waits in anticipation*