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?

[Zzyzx]

.
Kindly identify the source of the chart presented. It is common practice (and courtesy) in reasoned and honorable debate to properly credit one's sources.

The more information and documentation we have, the more difficult it is for a legend to spread.

Availability of information and documentation do not prevent (or even make difficult) spread of legends. Consider the case of 'Elvis Presley Lives' legends that have spread in the presence of abundant information and documentation.

Based on the amounts of documents we have been able to discover so far, the writings from Aristotle are more likely to be a legend than the New testament.

Using that criteria, accounts of Elvis being alive are LESS likely to be legend than the New Testament.
Approx date written -- 1977
Earliest copy -- 1977
Time span original to copy -- 0
Number of copies -- multiple
Accuracy -- (not sure how this is calculated -- kindly provide methodology)

A considerable number of people believe that Elvis Presley did not die in 1977, but went into hiding for various reasons and is still alive. This notion was popularized by the books of Gail Brewer-Giorgio and other authors. Several people even claim to have seen Elvis after he was supposed to have died. One rash of alleged sightings took place in Kalamazoo, Michigan, in the late 1980s. Such reports encountered much public ridicule and became fodder for humorous publications like the Weekly World News. Elvis was also rumored to have appeared in the 1990 film Home Alone. In an interview with USA Today, director Chris Columbus responded "If Elvis was on the set, I would have known". In June 2016, a video of an elderly man in Graceland was alleged to be Elvis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_sightings

Getting back to the OP:

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?

If Theists proclaim that their 'faith in god' is equivalent to a Atheist having 'faith' that trash will be picked up on schedule, I have no objection.

A major difference, however, is that the Atheist can provide evidence of the trash collector and a record of successful pickups.

A person using their credit card does not rely on 'faith' -- but on actual verifiable experiences of successful transactions. If the card did not work they would not continue expecting it to work. This contrasts with theistic 'faith' that gods will help / guide / save them – with NO verifiable evidence that any such thing has ever happened.

How many would have 'faith' in a bank that could not be shown to exist and which produced no verifiable transactions?

Likewise, if what scientists said did not work as indicated, how many would continue expecting results? If NASA says that the ISS is visible with eye or binoculars at prescribed times and places but it is never visible, how many would continue to have 'faith' in the statements?

Religionists apparently exempt their favorite religions and gods from producing anything verifiable. 'Just BELIEVE and have 'faith' so you can be 'saved' from something (whatever proposed) that has been provided by a favorite god for 'after you die'.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 121 by Zzyzx]

The chart was adapted from three sources: 1) Christian Apologetics, by Norman Geisler, 1976, p. 307; 2) the article "Archaeology and History attest to the Reliability of the Bible," by Richard M. Fales, Ph.D., in The Evidence Bible, Compiled by Ray Comfort, Bridge-Logos Publishers, Gainesville, FL, 2001, p. 163; and 3) A Ready Defense, by Josh Mcdowell, 1993, p. 45.

[Willum]

[Replying to KingandPriest]

Yes, all of these authors were indeed biased.
History as a profession had not been established very well.

HOWEVER: We would have more sources available to us if Judeo-Christians hadn't destroyed any other sources of knowledge during the Dark Ages.

And what do you think they destroyed?
Information and opinion that contradicted the Bible.

Hmmmm...
So that means...

Your argument defeats you both ways.

PS - I suppose I can't PROVE that other authors were destroyed during that time. (Chortle.)

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 119 by Rufus21]

[mrow]Author[mcol]Approx Date Written [mcol]Earliest Copy[mcol]Approximate Time Span between original & copy[mcol]# of Copies[mcol] Accuracy [row]Lucretius[col]53 or 55 BC [col]---[col] 1100 years[col] 2 [col] --- [row]Pliny[col] 61-113 AD [col]850 AD[col]750 years[col]7[col]--- [row]Plato[col]427-347 B.C.[col]A.D. 900[col]1200 years[col]7[col]--- [row]Demosthenes[col]4th Cent. B.C.[col]A.D. 1100[col]800 years[col]8[col]--- [row]Herodotus[col]480-425 B.C.[col]A.D. 900[col]1300 years[col]8[col]--- [row]Suetonius[col]A.D. 75-160 [col]A.D. 950[col]800 years[col]8[col]--- [row]Thucydides[col]460-400 B.C.[col]A.D. 900[col]1300 years[col]8[col]--- [row]Euripides[col]480-406 B.C. [col]A.D. 1100[col]1300 years[col]9[col]--- [row]Aristophanes[col]450-385 B.C.[col]A.D. 900 [col]1200 years[col]10[col]--- [row]Caesar[col]100-44 B.C.[col]A.D. 900 [col]1000 years[col]10[col]--- [row]Livy[col]59 BC-AD 17[col]---[col]-?-[col]20[col]--- [row]Tacitus[col]circa A.D. 100 [col] A.D. 1100[col]1000 years[col]20[col]--- [row]Aristotle[col]384-322 B.C. [col]A.D. 1100 [col]1400 years[col]49[col]--- [row]Sophocles[col]496-406 B.C. [col]A.D. 1000 [col]1400 years[col]193[col]--- [row]Homer (Iliad)[col]900 BC[col]400 BC[col]500 years[col]643[col]95% [row]New Testament[col]1st Century AD (50-100AD)[col]2nd Century AD (130 AD - 200AD)[col]less than 100 years[col]5686[col]99.5%

The more information and documentation we have, the more difficult it is for a legend to spread. Based on the amounts of documents we have been able to discover so far, the writings from Aristotle are more likely to be a legend than the New testament.

Rufus brings up the example of Schneerson, a man who died just twenty two years ago, and who has had a legend develop about him, with followers praying to a chair that to us outsiders looks empty but according to them, he still sits in.
Given the era we live in, with the amount of documents and education one can have, according to you...such a legend shouldn't exist.
Yet it does.

[McCulloch]

[mrow]Author[mcol]Approx Date Written [mcol]Earliest Copy[mcol]Approximate Time Span between original & copy[mcol]# of Copies[mcol] Accuracy [row]Homer (Iliad)[col]900 BC[col]400 BC[col]500 years[col]643[col]95% [row]New Testament[col]1st Century AD (50-100AD)[col]2nd Century AD (130 AD - 200AD)[col]less than 100 years[col]5686[col]99.5%

This table could be misleading. All that it shows is that the New Testament that we have today is quite an accurate representation of of what the original authors wrote. It does not show that what they wrote is accurate. For example, Luke, not an eyewitness, writing more than seven decades after the events of the nativity, wrote a story so different from Matthew's that it is hard to believe that they were about the same guy. The only things in common are the names of his parents and the town where he was born. Like disagrees with Matthew even about when Jesus was born.
Even if we had he acual manuscript penned by Luke, it still would not be an accurate portrayal of the events.

[KingandPriest]

[mrow]Author[mcol]Approx Date Written [mcol]Earliest Copy[mcol]Approximate Time Span between original & copy[mcol]# of Copies[mcol] Accuracy [row]Homer (Iliad)[col]900 BC[col]400 BC[col]500 years[col]643[col]95% [row]New Testament[col]1st Century AD (50-100AD)[col]2nd Century AD (130 AD - 200AD)[col]less than 100 years[col]5686[col]99.5%

This table could be misleading. All that it shows is that the New Testament that we have today is quite an accurate representation of of what the original authors wrote. It does not show that what they wrote is accurate. For example, Luke, not an eyewitness, writing more than seven decades after the events of the nativity, wrote a story so different from Matthew's that it is hard to believe that they were about the same guy. The only things in common are the names of his parents and the town where he was born. Like disagrees with Matthew even about when Jesus was born.
Even if we had he actual manuscript penned by Luke, it still would not be an accurate portrayal of the events.

One of the most used arguments against the new testament is that the text we have today could have been altered from the original authors. Many attempt to argue that the accounts of miracles and other supernatural events were added after the originals. This refutes those arguments.

Every table, graph, or statistical analysis that is a summary can be misleading. Which is why one must always understand the purpose of the graphic representation and what information is being conveyed.

[Zzyzx]

.

One of the most used arguments against the new testament is that the text we have today could have been altered from the original authors. Many attempt to argue that the accounts of miracles and other supernatural events were added after the originals. This refutes those arguments.

How is any of that related to the OP?

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?

It might be appropriate to start a new thread to consider the issue of additions.

However, it makes little difference if accounts were added to originals if it cannot be determined that originals were truthful and accurate.

[Kenisaw]

Before I answer, and noting that it has already been touched on, "faith" has different meanings depending on context. Generally at this website there are two basic meanings. Faith can be acceptance of something despite no evidenciary support (what I might commonly call religious faith), and there is faith that something will happen because it: has happened before (the sun rising), is proven to exist (evolution), or there is a track record of accuracy from that area (biological studies).

My answers will be based on the assumption that you are referring to a "religious faith" meaning of the word.

1) No. The very lack of empirical data for god beings is why atheists lack belief in them. Having faith in not having faith seems rather paradoxical to me.
2) Sure. I know an atheist who swears that the moon landings never happened. There is no evidence supporting that claim, but he believes it to be true anyway. That is a baseless faith.
3) That would be the over form of faith as I described above.
4) I'd have to say no to this, after some thought about it. I say no because every single person on the planet validates scientific theories every day, even if they don't know it. Every person on Earth verifies the theory of gravity everyday, right? Anyone that uses a GPS verifies relativity. Anyone that uses certain medicines and gets flu shot or vaccines verifies evolution and germ theory. Anyone that plays a sport, swings at a playground, steps on a brake pedal, goes swimming, and countless other activities shows the universal laws of chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, etc. You don't have to believe they are true because you can prove that they are true. Even if you don't want to prove every single one, we know enough about the success of science to know the scientific method works, and therefore trust the results of the process (which is the other kind of faith I described). So I do not see a religious faith needed as it relates to science.

Is faith in something (a statement, belief, theory, explanation, etc) without empirical evidence equal to religious faith?

You miss my meaning somewhat. All religious faith is baseless. Not all faith is religious faith however. The moon landing example is non-religious belief is something despite no evidence supporting it.

Since your OP was discussing a god creature as part of it, I defined faith within those terms.

You have stated religious faith as accepting something to be true with no evidenciary support? Does the support have to be empirical? Does the evidence have to be direct?

Verifiable.

I ask these questions because most scientific theories have underlying assumptions which are not based on any evidenciary support. The formation of our solar system and composition of the earths core are two generally accepted theories being discussed. Based on how you have defined religious faith thus far, both of these theories are founded upon religious faith, ie accepting something to be true with no evidenciary support.

No evidence? http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/1010/ ... ation.html

[KingandPriest]

You miss my meaning somewhat. All religious faith is baseless. Not all faith is religious faith however. The moon landing example is non-religious belief is something despite no evidence supporting it.

Since your OP was discussing a god creature as part of it, I defined faith within those terms.

-How do you arrive at your definitive statement that all religious faith is baseless. -Have you conducted random sampling of every religion and compiled a large enough sample size to arrive at the conclusion that all religious faith is baseless? What is your confidence level in this statement?

Is the faith you place in such a statement baseless, and thus equal to what you deem as religious faith?

Do you propose that those who have faith, have absolutely no basis whatsoever, or just not basis that you choose to accept?

You have stated religious faith as accepting something to be true with no evidenciary support? Does the support have to be empirical? Does the evidence have to be direct?

Verifiable.

Verifiable by whom?

There are events which are speculated to occur thousands and millions of years ago. Without a time machine, how do you suppose we verify these events?

Are we allowed to have a certain amount of faith/trust/confidence without being able to absolutely verify every single event, or is faith only allowed in a secular setting?

I ask these questions because most scientific theories have underlying assumptions which are not based on any evidenciary support. The formation of our solar system and composition of the earths core are two generally accepted theories being discussed. Based on how you have defined religious faith thus far, both of these theories are founded upon religious faith, ie accepting something to be true with no evidenciary support.

No evidence? http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/1010/ ... ation.html

Here is a quote from the same link provided above about the scenario's used to describe solar system formation.

Writing out a "scenario" - printing it in nice type - can make it seem "real". Yet, much of this is just guesswork. We have an idea that something must have caused a particular feature (such as the initial coalescance of condensed grains) but we really have no real idea how this happened. Because the planets have evolved considerably since they formed, they are not likely to be the places where we are going to find clues about the early solar system.

http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/1010/ ... ation.html

So when I write above that the underlying assumptions or "guesswork" as written above is what many theories depend on, your link supports my statement. Faith is placed in the "guesswork" of various individuals because it makes sense and seems to fit what we have observed thus far.

[Kenisaw]

You miss my meaning somewhat. All religious faith is baseless. Not all faith is religious faith however. The moon landing example is non-religious belief is something despite no evidence supporting it.

Since your OP was discussing a god creature as part of it, I defined faith within those terms.

-How do you arrive at your definitive statement that all religious faith is baseless. -Have you conducted random sampling of every religion and compiled a large enough sample size to arrive at the conclusion that all religious faith is baseless? What is your confidence level in this statement?

100% confident at this time. I know of exactly zero data or empirical evidence for the existence of any supernatural claim, including god claims. No one at this website or any other website, or anything I have ever read, or any discussion I've had with any other person, has resulted in my learning of a piece of information that supports any religious claim. Ever. In fact, if you had something to offer you probably would have done so. Instead you wrote what you did above...what does that tell you.

Is the faith you place in such a statement baseless, and thus equal to what you deem as religious faith?

My statement is a rational conclusion, it does not require faith. I know of no data supporting the claims, which means the claims are baseless. I think you can agree with that logic.

Do you propose that those who have faith, have absolutely no basis whatsoever, or just not basis that you choose to accept?

They have no empirical basis whatsoever.

You have stated religious faith as accepting something to be true with no evidenciary support? Does the support have to be empirical? Does the evidence have to be direct?

Verifiable.

Verifiable by whom?

Anyone. Everyone. The data has to be able to be observed and collected and testable by any and all that desire to do so. The billions of facts studied that support the theory of evolution can be tested by anyone, anywhere, whenever they feel like it. Religious faith has no data. It is baseless.

There are events which are speculated to occur thousands and millions of years ago. Without a time machine, how do you suppose we verify these events?

Depends on the event, and what it affected. Do you have a specific thing in mind?

Are we allowed to have a certain amount of faith/trust/confidence without being able to absolutely verify every single event, or is faith only allowed in a secular setting?

When is faith, and faith alone, used in a "secular" setting when trying to determine the facts about something?

I ask these questions because most scientific theories have underlying assumptions which are not based on any evidenciary support. The formation of our solar system and composition of the earths core are two generally accepted theories being discussed. Based on how you have defined religious faith thus far, both of these theories are founded upon religious faith, ie accepting something to be true with no evidenciary support.

No evidence? http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/1010/ ... ation.html

Here is a quote from the same link provided above about the scenario's used to describe solar system formation.

Writing out a "scenario" - printing it in nice type - can make it seem "real". Yet, much of this is just guesswork. We have an idea that something must have caused a particular feature (such as the initial coalescance of condensed grains) but we really have no real idea how this happened. Because the planets have evolved considerably since they formed, they are not likely to be the places where we are going to find clues about the early solar system.

http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/1010/ ... ation.html

So when I write above that the underlying assumptions or "guesswork" as written above is what many theories depend on, your link supports my statement. Faith is placed in the "guesswork" of various individuals because it makes sense and seems to fit what we have observed thus far.

That quote comes from section 8, which is a "hypothesis" for the formation of the solar system. It does not claim to be true, and it notes that "This is an active area of research". As it is not a theory in the scientific hierarchy, your claim that "guesswork as written above is what many theories depend on" is inaccurate. Scientific theories are tested and verified statements that reflect the true nature about a natural phenomena. Perhaps your misunderstanding of scientific nomenclature is where your confusion is coming from.

The solar system hypothesis in section 8 of that link is not pure guesswork either, by the way. Such concepts have to pass certain litmus tests right off the bat, such as the possibility of clouds of gas collapsing due to gravity (they can), or rotational affects causing disc formation from a generally spherical cloud (the physics and math works out). The hypothesis is based on known physics and math and so forth, or it couldn't even get this far.