The Realist

Love is an emotion, a repsonse triggered by a chemical reaction in our brain to stimulate us to mate and carry on the species.

WJ

Realist!

Interesting! For one, tell us how these chemical reactions translate into taking risks?

Walrus

NialScorva

It's argument's like your's, The Apologist, that have convinced me that I'm a smurf. You see, I have a tendency torward the melancoly, and also have this tendency of belittling myself for the amusement of others. Quite often I get in moods were I feel less of a person. Well, since I'm less than a whole person, blue, and little, I must be a smurf.

This is a fallacy known as equivocation, and when it is claimed that atheists have faith, they commit it in spades. You're first statement:

is a good summary of your argument. You are arguing that atheists have faith in the sense that we hold a position without proof. I have no issue with that, however, you are not merely attempting to show we don't have proof, you're attempting to put us on the same footing theistic faith, which is a completely different definition. This is why most atheists will vehemently deny having faith, because it's an unnecessary confusion of two possible definitions of the word, when "belief" is a better word for what you're claiming.

The problem with dictionaries is that they are a starting point, not an ending point. The definition provided is only part of the story. Libraries have been written trying to define faith, it's rather presumptuous to think that a half-sentence can give a meaning that can be argued over. I think the biggest aspect of theistic faith that makes me reluctant to apply the word anywhere else is an epistemelogic one. Religious faith is a *replacement* for evidence, not a belief without evidence. The faith you accuse us of is a conclusion based upon empirical and logical evidence, though not a proven conclusion. The faith we accuse you of is not a conclusion, it is a supporting statement to acheive your conclusion of "god exists".

Once one gets over the notion that belief is evidence, it quickly becomes apparent that all conclusions are provisional, there are no absolutely proven facts that are non-tautological. Setting a conclusion that is absolutely binding, always and forever is simply not going to happen. However, we surround ourselves with provisional conclusions that work just fine. Disbelief is accepted as a default position, a ground point.

You are calling our position faith because you wish to establish *your* position as the ground point. As has been pointed out, this is an inconsistent and hypocritical position, as you do not consider the existence of invisible sprites and Allah as the ground point. You make a single exception to disbelief as the default without justification, and we're calling you on it.

Jamie_L

I do not have "faith" that there is no God, any more than I have "faith" in the fact that magical pixies do not exist.

In my experience, I have never encountered real magical pixies. I have never seen evidence that leads me to believe magical pixies exist elsewhere. The entire notion of magical pixies goes against the knowledge I have of the world, as obtained through reliable sources that have shown a good track record when it comes to describing the world. Thus, I conclude there are no magical pixies. This is not based on unfounded faith.

Now, substitute "God" for "magical pixies" in the above paragraph.

Jamie

The Realist

Without risk, we would not survive as a species. If no one took a risk you wouldn't ever have sex, drive, or do just about anything. But then again, most of those risks are calculated aren't they?
Want to have a kid, but don't want AIDS? Well, you're going to get to know a girl and probably even marry her and get a STD test before your dip your wick.
Risk is inherent in everything we do, with every letter I type I run the risk of popping a blood vessel in my finger,having it clot, then having it go to my heart and kill me.
Im not sure what your point with risk is regarding faith. Only way I can see it is faith is the biggest gamble of all with absolutley no supporting evidence or even knowledge of the pot you would win.

Devilnaut

WJ, why don't you tell us something, for once. Preferrably something clear and readable that explains your position.

MaxMainspring

If it can be said that the non-theist has faith in anything it is faith in the methodology of thought that she used to arrive at her worldview.

Of course you could just as correctly substitute "confidence" for the word "faith" but that won't do becuase then it tends to lose much of its metaphysical baggage. And, the truth of the matter is that this confidence arises from past experience in which her use of this methodology has allowed her to arrive at a more coherent and intellectually satisfying worldview.

And finding that it results in an ever increasing degree of coherence in her interpretation of the reality she inhabits, she embraces this methodology because it allows her to more deeply and consistently integrate her experiences in the world and she loses the need to accept the imposition of unreliable, extraneous "recieved" or "revealed" wisdom on her view of the world.

The sad fact is that "faith" has come into such intellectual disrepute that theistic apologists have been forced to make the bizarre claim that non-theism requires faith also. The problem is that one never hears atheist philosophers or essayists exhorting their following to have faith in the ideas being presented. But pick up any Christian tract or listen to any sermon and the preacher and prosthelytizers are constantly extolling the wondrous virtue of "faith". Odd isn't it.

Of course the reason is that non-theism has no need of it, while doctrinal theism could scarcely survive without it.

Vorkosigan

With respect, I do, seebs. Embedding moral axioms in authority claims has certain social fallout. There's a reason that people with authority beliefs -- Communists, Christians, Muslims -- do so much killing.

Vorkosigan