Is Atheism a Faith?

This is something that I've often pondered, whether Atheists (of which I am not) proclaim or recognize that their position is one of faith? Here's why I ask this. Faith could be defined as the belief in things otherwise unseen or proven. That's a very fair way to describe it. In other words, I believe in God, but I can't prove that belief. So, if an atheist says to me, prove your God, or show me your God, my answer will always be the same...no. I don't say 'no' out of some sort of elitist mentality or a presumption that the person would not be able to understand, but rather out of the pragmatic reality that I can not. I hold belief in the existence of God, but I confess absolutely that I cannot justify that belief through proof.

Then, the atheist would (rightly) say to me, well then you simply have faith. I would agree. By definition, what I've described is faith.

Now, if I say to the atheist, you believe that there is NO God, correct? Of course, a staunch atheist (without a hint of agnosticism in them) would (typically proudly) agree, yes...there is no God. Well, prove it.

My point is that the atheist has no more ability to prove that there is no God than I have the ability to prove that there is. Either way, they are both beliefs based upon unprovable positions, ie...faith.

They believe in coincidence,all kinds of scientific theories and government...
It's an all changing faith.
Real question is does God believe in atheists

I don't believe in the Abrahamic "God". I believe We came from Energy and Return to energy. If there is a "God" We are all a little piece of it (not created from it).

a reply to: TheMirrorSelf

Atheism is an absence of faith, or belief in God(s). But an atheist can have faith in their fellow man, sciences, themselves...etc.

If you're not hedging or qualifying what has not been proven one way or another, then your position is absolutely one of faith.

a reply to: TheMirrorSelf

Perhaps a better question would be, what is faith?

Faith is a belief in an unproven concept with no proof, evidence or verifiable facts apart from the words another person uttered or wrote down. ATS seems to be filled full of believers blindly following an ancient man-made text purporting to know things with little to nothing except an agreement in a text written long ago.

People believe a person that allegedly existed long ago with no evidence to support the claim that was supposedly "The Son of God". It is called faith because verifiable proof does not exist outside the written babbling of a few self-proclaimed people in the know.

Historically there is very little evidence that a person called Jesus Christ ever existed. An organisation was formed over time to propound, promulgate and propagate certain ideas that have not travelled well through 2000 years of time.

It's a story that was concocted to control and influence people. Only in recent times has the story started to lose some but unfortunately not enough of its power on the unquestioning minds of unthinking and unquestioning impressionable minds of people searching for something to give them meaning.

Even in this age of scientific logic, proof, and theory many people gain comfort and solace from religions of various denominations which holds us back as a species. I have little problem with that but to call it real is a distortion of reality as far as most can tell. To each their own, and you are welcome to think what you want.

I would posit that it is not by coincidence that religious freedom is coded in law in many nations world-wide.

YMMV.

a reply to: TheMirrorSelf
Reacting to this as a former atheist rather than as a Christian, I would say that a typical atheist is someone who has chosen not to accept a positive claim. It's a negative approach, which still allows for a variety of world-views.

I wonder what the question is meant to achieve. I've noticed on these forums that Christians are frequently attempting to prove that atheists "believe in something" or "have faith", because they are convinced that this is a way of scoring debating points. They seem to think that if they can show that atheists are really "believers" after all, then they have proved atheists are wrong, or proved that "atheism doesn't exist" or something of that kind.

I don't reckon it works. The nit-picking work of tryng to show that atheists "really" have faith is an empty exercise.

Anti-God is, just like Anti-Racism is racism too

a reply to: Butterfinger

I've met some that it might as well be a religion to them. They go out of their way to evangelize people to there faith.

It depends on how you look at it.

Some atheists view themselves as a bulwark against faithful belief- the "freedom from religion" people. They believe as strongly as the faithful, with as much tangibility (my opinion, of course), and just about the same level of zealotry.

Most, in my view, simply do not see the evidence of God's actions in our universe and have not been convinced. These people do not seek to undermine the religious and in that regard their lack of belief can be taken at face value.

With the former you have to be as convinced of an absence of God as the faithful are convinced of it's presence. With the latter, you needn't bother with the activism or the counter-belief structure of the former. It is simply a lack of belief as natural to the individual in question as breathing. Not something they think on much out of religion's very nature.

If you ask me (and I'm well aware you haven't), the only real scientific position with respect to God (or lack thereof) is agnosticism. Seems to take the arrogance out of the equation, too.

I believe in a single, universal creator. This creator did so by doing what any good artist (or experimentalist) would do first and that is setting the initial conditions, picking the colors, paints, brushes, and cavass. The laws of physics do not preclude God. I refuse to believe that the universe is a dead thing with no meaning.

I am not dead and I find meaning in my life. I am a component of this massive universe and thus far have been subject to the same laws as all other physical emanations going back to the Big Bang.

The universe is alive and has meaning to me.

To the normal atheist (the vas majority) the only unpalatable component of my beliefs is that a God had a hand in it.

To the stubborn and religiously minded atheist, everything I said (regardless of how I view science) is completely out of sorts, makes me a mentally defective fool prone to superstition, and therefore should not hold political office or be in any position of authority.

a reply to: projectvxn

Some atheists view themselves as a bulwark against faithful belief- the "freedom from religion" people. They believe as strongly as the faithful, with as much tangibility (my opinion, of course), and just about the same level of zealotry.

I know those people. They are zealous about their right to not be subject to religious indoctrination and judgement. You don't have to believe in a God to be passionate about not wanting religious people with delusions of grander because they know "god" dictating, for example, who can run for office, who can and cannot marry, who can adopt children, who can get an abortion, etc., etc.,

To the stubborn and religiously minded atheist, everything I said (regardless of how I view science) is completely out of sorts, makes me a mentally defective fool prone to superstition, and therefore should not hold political office or be in any position of authority.

The problem isn't the stubborn atheist, that refuses to believe in your God, it's the definition of God that needs clarity and agreement. I don't agree with you on the "creator" god. I say "God" is the sum total of all that has, will, does and doesn't exist, never existed and won't exist. If we can agree on that definition, I can agree that there is a God. But, I reject your creator god and every other god that has been presented to me for consideration.

I only acknowledge the existence my everything and nothing "God".

a reply to: DISRAELI

Darkness is an absence of light

a reply to: Sookiechacha

They are zealous about their right to not be subject to religious indoctrination and judgement. You don't have to believe in a God to be passionate about not wanting religious people with delusions of grander because they know "god" dictating, for example, who can run for office, who can and cannot marry, who can adopt children, who can get an abortion, etc., etc.,

Agreed. But when you're going after roadside memorial crosses I think the plot's been lost.

Edit to add:

I simply believe that those who get overzealous in eliminating any public display of religion is wrongheaded and antifreedom.

No one has a right to not be offended.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

But, I reject your creator god and every other god that has been presented to me for consideration.

That's not what this discussion is about and I wasn't asking you to consider any god. I was making an example. I don't require you or anyone else to accept my belief in God and the structure it takes to be valid.

Your relationship with God or lack thereof is your choice and always has been.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

My friend. Do you know why I started this thread? Did you know that I waited for you to come on before posting it? I started it for you...

I only acknowledge the existence my everything and nothing "God".

a reply to: TheMirrorSelf

Thank you. I guess something I posted might have triggered this thread.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Sookiechacha

But, I reject your creator god and every other god that has been presented to me for consideration.

That's not what this discussion is about and I wasn't asking you to consider any god. I was making an example. I don't require you or anyone else to accept my belief in God and the structure it takes to be valid.

Your relationship with God or lack thereof is your choice and always has been.

Good. I long ago found a definition for a God I can believe in, so I don't have to call myself an atheist and can participate in certain discussions.

I think every atheist can find some sort of definition of the universe and all its possibilities and probabilities that they can call god, without including a creator/savior personality, if they want to.

a reply to: TheMirrorSelf

A truly devout believer has no need to post silly topics challenging non believers to defend their conclusions. What reward do you expect to gain from this exercise?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You're really good Sookie...I'll bite.

I long ago found a definition for a God I can believe in, so I don't have to call myself an atheist and can participate in certain discussions.

Do you really need that though? I think you can speak on matters of faith just fine without having to put up a front, if that's what you're saying. You don't have to build an amalgamation of a deities in order to have legitimacy in a theistic debate or even a mere discussion.

Knowledge helps. Understanding the philosophies at a deep level, something that takes time and consideration, as well as speaking in good faith.

I don't require anything other than that from someone who wants to argue the legitimacy of my views.

I think every atheist can find some sort of definition of the universe and all its possibilities and probabilities that they can call god, without including a creator/savior personality, if they want to.

Why not? The Olympian Gods were preceded by the Titans and they were the real creators according to ancient Greek religion. The Olympians nothing more than squatters.