Do nonbelievers or non-theists have faith?

[KingandPriest]

In a separate thread, I suggested the following:

This is why most apologist say you need more faith to be an atheist than to believe in God

To this, an agnostic replied:

Yeah, I heard that silly slander before.. I read a book with a title like that, too.
That book was a HUGE disappointment, by the way.

Frank isn't very respected by outsiders to the faith.
Even the title of the book is messed up.

How many atheists have you EVER heard saying that they have "faith in their atheism"?

Would that be many or few?

To this I now ask:

1. Does a atheist have to proclaim faith in atheism to have faith?
2. Can a nonbeliever or non-theist have faith in anything at all?
3. When a person places money into a bank account, and then goes to a store to spend some of this money, is the action of using a debit card, check card or check book an act of faith?
4. Are generally accepted scientific theories statements of faith?

[Divine Insight]

What theists claim to have "faith" in is the existence of a God for which there is absolutely no evidence for.

Which believer in Christ do you know who came to believe in Christ
- without ever hearing of let alone reading the bible,
- without ever hearing about let alone listening to sermons about Christ and the meaning of the Bible by any priest, teacher, or parent
- Without a guilt feeling that had them ask Christ for salvation which they never heard of for sins they never heard of...

Gee, there is none? But that is what belief with absolutely no evidence means! There should be millions of Christian believers who attest to a spontaneous belief without any evidence what so ever if this is not made up in a zeal of animosity.

Every Christian you know has had an experience with the Bible, the life of Christ, the testimony of others and the feeling of a need for salvation before their conversion. Isn't that curious and doesn't it just make the claim there is absolutely no evidence for Christianity to be spurious...

Your argument doesn't make any sense Ted.

If you allow that every historical claim of a God or Demigod character is "evidence" of that God or Demigod, then you would need to concede that there exists "evidence" for every God mankind has ever claimed existed.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 9 by OnceConvinced]

I don't know what you would mean by faith in atheism though. That doesn't really make sense to me. That's like saying you have faith in not eating Brussell Sprouts or faith in not going to the movies.

That statement does not make sense to me either. If you recall from the OP, this was a part of the response presented by an agnostic to refute my claim that atheits do have faith.

To this, an agnostic replied:

Yeah, I heard that silly slander before.. I read a book with a title like that, too.
That book was a HUGE disappointment, by the way.

Frank isn't very respected by outsiders to the faith.
Even the title of the book is messed up.

How many atheists have you EVER heard saying that they have "faith in their atheism"?

Would that be many or few?

This was presented as a question to invalidate my claim that an atheist can have great faith.

Not really the same thing. You should really be asking this instead if you want it to line up with atheism:

"When a person doesn't place money into a bank account and then doesn't go to a store to spend money, is the action of NOT using a debit card, check card or check book an act of faith?

That would be atheism. And I would answer no.

I think you missed the intent of the question. Question 3 is a general question, not specific to atheism. Is the act of purchasing with a bank card or check an act of faith?

[Zzyzx]

.

Does a atheist have to proclaim faith in atheism to have faith?

Sure. To not believe in gods one has to be baptized (full immersion of course), attend weekly reinforcement meetings, pray to non-gods for favors, swear that all Atheist stories are true, and claim to converse with non-gods. Failure to do all the above results in excommunication and ostracism from the non-organization.

Many Theists seem to have a strange and distorted mental image of the dreaded Atheists. They seem unable to comprehend that some people just don't believe in gods.

Atheists are NOT the bogyman that preachers make them out to be – EXCEPT perhaps in the minds of preachers. Non-belief is a threat to the livelihood and status of preachers. When people discover that they have no need for 'religious services' provided by clergy they stop attending church and stop donating money. Churches go bankrupt and preachers are out of a job. This is happening in many or most advanced, educated, technological societies. Seminary training and a degree in theology are not adequate preparation for many alternative careers.

It is not surprising when preachers demonize (and/or fear / loathe) Atheists and Apostates who demonstrate for all to see that a good, moral, ethical life does NOT require worship of gods.

Can a nonbeliever or non-theist have faith in anything at all?

Sure. A Non-Theist can have 'faith' that the trash will be picked up on schedule. That is quite comparable to Theist religious beliefs – almost the same thing EXCEPT that the trash collectors can be actually observed at work and the results of their work can be seen. Gods evidently cannot be seen or detected and results attributed to them cannot be shown to be anything more than imagination.

When a person places money into a bank account, and then goes to a store to spend some of this money, is the action of using a debit card, check card or check book an act of faith?

Sure. That is exactly the same as religious faith – EXCEPT that the bank can be verified to exist (seen / visited by anyone interested and motivated) AND the debit card actually WORKS. None of that is imaginary.

Are generally accepted scientific theories statements of faith?

Of course – all scientific theories are based on unverifiable ancient tales and testimonials. They are not supported by any actual observations, measurements, experiments, etc. It is all a big conspiracy against religion.

[Divine Insight]

Not really the same thing. You should really be asking this instead if you want it to line up with atheism:

"When a person doesn't place money into a bank account and then doesn't go to a store to spend money, is the action of NOT using a debit card, check card or check book an act of faith?

That would be atheism. And I would answer no.

I think you missed the intent of the question. Question 3 is a general question, not specific to atheism. Is the act of purchasing with a bank card or check an act of faith?

The act of using a monetary system that was designed and implemented by humans is not an act of "faith". It's an act of expectation that a particular system that humans have agreed upon will be honored.

If there is any "faith" involved it would be "faith" in the idea that people will honor the system. In fact, some people won't honor the system of a bank card and will demand cash instead.

[rikuoamero]

Not really the same thing. You should really be asking this instead if you want it to line up with atheism:

"When a person doesn't place money into a bank account and then doesn't go to a store to spend money, is the action of NOT using a debit card, check card or check book an act of faith?

That would be atheism. And I would answer no.

I think you missed the intent of the question. Question 3 is a general question, not specific to atheism. Is the act of purchasing with a bank card or check an act of faith?

The act of using a monetary system that was designed and implemented by humans is not an act of "faith". It's an act of expectation that a particular system that humans have agreed upon will be honored.

If there is any "faith" involved it would be "faith" in the idea that people will honor the system. In fact, some people won't honor the system of a bank card and will demand cash instead.

I just bought my breakfast a short while ago with my bank card. I put the card in the reader, punched in my pin and paid. I was then allowed to have possession of my goods. Compare that with the theological system where there is no card, no pin, no sign at all of the 'goods' and in fact the goods promised are only deliverable after death. If the seller/priest is selling me false goods, I have no recourse against him, there's no law against priests selling something in bad faith.

[Bust Nak]

1. Does a atheist have to proclaim faith in atheism to have faith?

No. It just doesn't really make sense to say one have faith in a negation.

2. Can a nonbeliever or non-theist have faith in anything at all?

Of course, I have faith in some stuff, namely the existence of an external world, the good-enough accuracy of my senses, as well as the rationality of my mind.

3. When a person places money into a bank account, and then goes to a store to spend some of this money, is the action of using a debit card, check card or check book an act of faith?

No, it's an act of confidence. There is solid evidence that my bank would work as expected.

4. Are generally accepted scientific theories statements of faith?

No, they are proven beyond reasonable doubt with empirical evidence.

[KingandPriest]

3. When a person places money into a bank account, and then goes to a store to spend some of this money, is the action of using a debit card, check card or check book an act of faith?

No, it's an act of confidence. There is solid evidence that my bank would work as expected.

Is and act of faith or an act of confidence similar in any way?
Could it be said that an act of confidence = act of faith?

Why are the terms faith and confidence synonymous?

4. Are generally accepted scientific theories statements of faith?

No, they are proven beyond reasonable doubt with empirical evidence.

Really, can you provide the empirical evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt the composition of the earths core is mostly iron.

Do you have empirical evidence that can prove this beyond reasonable doubt?

What about empirical evidence that proves the age of the sun is exactly 4.6 billion years old? There is empirical evidence that supports the age of the sun being 4.6 billion years old ± 1-5% margin of error depending on the method used. Using the most conservative margin of error, this means the sun could be as old as 4.646 billion years old or as young as 4.554 years old. This date range has a problem because it includes the possibility that the Earth is older than the sun. The date range of the earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).

Age of Sun between 4.554 - 4.646 billion years old
Age of Earth between 4.49 - 4.59 billion years old

There is overlap between these two dates. The older date for the sun was chosen because it was assumed that the sun came first. There is no empirical evidence to support that the sun was formed first. Just an assumption made by cosmologist.

Is there any empirical evidence to support this assumption?
Is it possible that the sun is 4.554 billion years old and the Earth is 4.59 billion years old? Yes, our own empirical evidence supports the bible could be right in that the earth was formed before the sun. It is a fact that this is possible.

This fact is never presented to students when they are told how the solar system was formed. We are told to take scientist word for it that the sun formed first, even though there is a possibility that this did not occur.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 15 by rikuoamero]

I just bought my breakfast a short while ago with my bank card. I put the card in the reader, punched in my pin and paid. I was then allowed to have possession of my goods. Compare that with the theological system where there is no card, no pin, no sign at all of the 'goods' and in fact the goods promised are only deliverable after death. If the seller/priest is selling me false goods, I have no recourse against him, there's no law against priests selling something in bad faith.

It seems you do not fully understand the authorization and transfer process associated with using your bank card. At the moment you go to use your bank card, you are doing so with an expectation that your bank will honor the agreement made to let you access your money. That moment is based on faith. You have no way of knowing for sure whether or not that transaction will be successful. There are many genuine cases where a persons expectations were met with different results because unbenounced to them, a freeze was placed on their account. The bank does not need to notify a consumer when a freeze is placed on their account. The action of swiping a bank card is done by faith, with the expectation that you will be able to access your funds.

There are many documented cases of individuals not being able to access their own money.

Do you confuse the speed at which the authorization process is confirmed, with it not being based on faith? In the past a person could write a check and walk away with goods. The check may have bounced, but the individual still got the goods they desired. Did the store accept the check by faith? Are corporations religious in their desire to operate by faith?

Do you ignore the fact that millions of corporations around the world have an asset on their balance sheet called accounts receivable. This is an account based on faith. They have an account of faith based promises from customers. Is a credit card built on the premise of faith?

Why is faith so ingrained in our thinking and living? It seems faith is not limited to a religious context.

[KingandPriest]

.

Does a atheist have to proclaim faith in atheism to have faith?

Sure. To not believe in gods one has to be baptized (full immersion of course), attend weekly reinforcement meetings, pray to non-gods for favors, swear that all Atheist stories are true, and claim to converse with non-gods. Failure to do all the above results in excommunication and ostracism from the non-organization.

Many Theists seem to have a strange and distorted mental image of the dreaded Atheists. They seem unable to comprehend that some people just don't believe in gods.

Atheists are NOT the bogyman that preachers make them out to be – EXCEPT perhaps in the minds of preachers. Non-belief is a threat to the livelihood and status of preachers. When people discover that they have no need for 'religious services' provided by clergy they stop attending church and stop donating money. Churches go bankrupt and preachers are out of a job. This is happening in many or most advanced, educated, technological societies. Seminary training and a degree in theology are not adequate preparation for many alternative careers.

It is not surprising when preachers demonize (and/or fear / loathe) Atheists and Apostates who demonstrate for all to see that a good, moral, ethical life does NOT require worship of gods.

Can a nonbeliever or non-theist have faith in anything at all?

Sure. A Non-Theist can have 'faith' that the trash will be picked up on schedule. That is quite comparable to Theist religious beliefs – almost the same thing EXCEPT that the trash collectors can be actually observed at work and the results of their work can be seen. Gods evidently cannot be seen or detected and results attributed to them cannot be shown to be anything more than imagination.

When a person places money into a bank account, and then goes to a store to spend some of this money, is the action of using a debit card, check card or check book an act of faith?

Sure. That is exactly the same as religious faith – EXCEPT that the bank can be verified to exist (seen / visited by anyone interested and motivated) AND the debit card actually WORKS. None of that is imaginary.

Are generally accepted scientific theories statements of faith?

Of course – all scientific theories are based on unverifiable ancient tales and testimonials. They are not supported by any actual observations, measurements, experiments, etc. It is all a big conspiracy against religion.

I detect sarcasm in your response.

Many have claimed a debit card is not based on faith because it can be seen or verified to exist. The money you deposit is converted into digital currency. Can you see the digital currency or just an output of what is supposed to be there. Unlike the past, you cannot go into a bank and ask to see your money (gold). The bank does not separate your money from the next guys money. You are shown a figure on a screen, but you actually give up a claim to your money. Unless you have a safety deposit box, the bank does not hold your money in a separate vault.

As technology continues to advance, there will come a time where individuals operate commerce using bio-signatures such as your own voice. No bank card or check book. Apparently, God has been using this system (prayer) for a long time. Now that we may be able to mimic this system, will this system of conducting business still not be based on faith?

Lastly, you assert a conspiracy. I do not. What I assert is that information is with held in some cases to make certain claims appear as facts. Textbooks portray that we know the composition of the earths core. It is presented as if we know for a fact that the earths core is mostly iron. Rather than presenting it as our best guess based on available information, it is presented as a fact. There are many other 'facts' which are questionable.

Do we have good reason to accept these best guesses, yes. But that doesn't make them a indisputable fact. We know the sun is hot. This is an indisputable fact. Do we know as an indisputable fact that the sun was formed before the earth? No, we have a pretty good approximation which tells us it is very likely that the sun was formed before the earth, but this same approximation also shows it is possible that the earth could have been formed before the sun. Less likely and impossible are two different assertions. All I argue is that we present scientific claims as they are, just a best guess based on available evidence.

This does not mean that all knowledge gained by scientific means is a best guess. We know for a fact that a water molecule is the composition of 2 Hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom. This is a fact that we know. We do not know for a fact many other claims which are presented as facts. Many claims in cosmology which we claim to know are true, are just best guesses based on available evidence. We are told to assume these guesses are correct. I argue this is the same as having faith in a claim.

[Bust Nak]

Is an act of faith or an act of confidence similar in any way?
Could it be said that an act of confidence = act of faith?

I would say the distinction between them is whether the amount of evidence justify the act.

Why are the terms faith and confidence synonymous?

In some context they can mean the same thing, something along the lines of trust.

Really, can you provide the empirical evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt the composition of the earths core is mostly iron.

Do you have empirical evidence that can prove this beyond reasonable doubt?

Sure, seismic waves is how we figured that one out.

What about empirical evidence that proves the age of the sun is exactly 4.6 billion years old? There is empirical evidence that supports the age of the sun being 4.6 billion years old ± 1-5% margin of error depending on the method used. Using the most conservative margin of error, this means the sun could be as old as 4.646 billion years old or as young as 4.554 years old. This date range has a problem because it includes the possibility that the Earth is older than the sun. The date range of the earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).

There is overlap between these two dates. The older date for the sun was chosen because it was assumed that the sun came first. There is no empirical evidence to support that the sun was formed first. Just an assumption made by cosmologist.

Well, I am not familiar with the formation of solar systems to tell you exactly. But a quick google search says there is no rule that a sun must be older than its planet, it is just that solar systems forms from inside out, if indeed the sun and the Earth formed form the same dust cloud, then the sun has to be older.

Is there any empirical evidence to support this assumption?

We have models for the formation of solar systems.

Is it possible that the sun is 4.554 billion years old and the Earth is 4.59 billion years old?

Not really, no. For that to happen the Earth would have to have to have formed in another solar system and later picked up by this sun's gravity well. And if that was the case, the Earth would have to be far older than 5-ish billion years old.

This fact is never presented to students when they are told how the solar system was formed. We are told to take scientist word for it that the sun formed first, even though there is a possibility that this did not occur.

As with all science, things should be taken as tentatively true, until something better comes along.