The faith of atheism

[Guest]

I keep hearing quite often people say "It takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a Christian.

If You are an atheist, is that true, and why or why not??

If you are a theist, is that true, and why or why not?

[Cephus]

I concur, Jester's position is sophistry taken to a ridiculous level in order to give a semblence of simularity to unevidenced beliefs. The Universe is, or we are not. Since I know I exist the Universe must as well because I am part of it. You could call this an assumption if you like, but there is no other assumption possible. No amount of sophistry will change that.

Jester's problem, and the reason I stopped debating him on the subject, is that he's widening faith to the point that it encompasses absolutely everything, therefore he can feel better about the really absurd things he has faith in by pretending that everyone has the same level of faith in everything else. You're right, it is sophistry of the worst sort. He wants to presume that anything that cannot be known with absolute certainty must be a product of faith, ignoring that first, nothing can be known with absolute certainty, and second, what he claims to believe in isn't supported by a single shred of objective evidence, unlike all of the other things he wants to stick under the broad label of "faith".

[Jester]

Faith(belief without ANY evidence)is not required to accept the existence of the Universe, by breathing you have accepted that existence,

If you are merely arguing that I have personally accepted it, we could have saved ourselves a great deal of time. I've admitted that some time ago.
If, however, you were arguing that this is a valid reason for one to accept the claim, then I will point out that this is yet another rewording of the "kick a rock" argument. As such, it suffers from the same problems.

Your very consciousness is evidence(at least to you).

It would be evidence of the existence of my mind - not the universe my mind believes it is perceiving.

Drill as deep into your navel as you wish, no one seems to be buying it.

Reality is not up for a vote.

In the mean time, every successful experiment(and the unsuccessful as well)provides further evidence to support that existence. The Universe is fact!!!

This is yet another re-statement of the "kick a rock" argument. Circular logic is not valid logic.

"Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world.

So, once again, do you agree with my initial statement that all positions require some degree of faith?
I continue to point out that this was the entire reason why I mentioned the matter of the existence of the physical universe, and continue to ask if comments such as these are as much in agreement with me as they seem. Thus far, I haven't gotten a response to such questions.

Your attempt to put faith in unevidenced things on a par with acceptance of the evidence for the Universe's existence is an example of the disconnect between reality and logic. Logic is a tool, not an end in itself.

I don't remember claiming, implying, or remotely believing that logic is an end in itself. Nor do I remember trying to put the universe "on par" with anything; I've pointed out, more than once, that I'm not arguing theism on this point.
Generally, I don't like to speak personally, but, as this last assumption continues to be read into my comments, perhaps it is worth mentioning that I've held this position about the universe since long before adopting a religious position. While others may have difficulty separating this point from religious ideas, I do not, and would like that I not continue to be accused of making a claim that I have not only not made, but expressly denied making.
Rather, I'd like us to stop shifting points away from my initial claim, and discuss whether or not it is possible to hold any position without faith.

[Grumpy]

Jester

So, once again, do you agree with my initial statement that all positions require some degree of faith?

Not for any valid meaning of the word "faith", no.

Generally, I don't like to speak personally, but, as this last assumption continues to be read into my comments, perhaps it is worth mentioning that I've held this position about the universe since long before adopting a religious position.

That seems a long time to continue in error.

Rather, I'd like us to stop shifting points away from my initial claim, and discuss whether or not it is possible to hold any position without faith.

Your claim is in error, science requires no faith to accept, the scientific method is designed to eliminate the need for faith by providing support and correction of ideas, NO FAITH REQUIRED.

Grumpy

[McCulloch]

Moderator Caution

[...] therefore he can feel better about the really absurd things he has faith in by pretending that everyone has the same level of faith in everything else.

Try not to speculate about other debater's feelings.


When the moderators feel the rules have been violated, a notice will frequently occur within the thread where the violation occurred, pointing out the violation and perhaps providing other moderator comments. Moderator warnings and comments are made publicly, within the thread, so that all members may see when and how the rules are being interpreted and enforced. However, note that any challenges or replies to moderator comments or warnings should be made via Private Message. This is so that threads do not get derailed into discussions about the rules.

[Jester]

So, once again, do you agree with my initial statement that all positions require some degree of faith?

Not for any valid meaning of the word "faith", no.

What meaning would you accept as valid?
Why are others not valid?
How does this meaning exclude your position that things can be treated as true in spite of a lack of absolute certainty about them?

Rather, I'd like us to stop shifting points away from my initial claim, and discuss whether or not it is possible to hold any position without faith.

Your claim is in error, science requires no faith to accept, the scientific method is designed to eliminate the need for faith by providing support and correction of ideas, NO FAITH REQUIRED.

Please provide support for this position.

[Jester]

pretending that everyone has the same level of faith in everything else.

I don't recall ever making that claim.

He wants to presume that anything that cannot be known with absolute certainty must be a product of faith, ignoring that first, nothing can be known with absolute certainty,

The fact that nothing can be known with absolute certainty is the reason why we have to have trust beyond what we can prove (i.e. faith) in order to take any position.
So, quite apart from ignoring that fact, my argument is based on it.

what he claims to believe in isn't supported by a single shred of objective evidence,

Your opinion is noted, but we aren't debating "what claim to believe" unless its the idea that all positions take a bit of faith.

unlike all of the other things he wants to stick under the broad label of "faith".

The other things which I "stick under" that label have been discussed. Thus far no evidence has been presented in defense of them. If you feel you have any, feel free to present it. Until then, however, we have absolutely no evidence whatsoever in support of the existence of the physical universe. Given this, I fail to see how accepting it isn't a matter of faith.

[Grumpy]

Jester

The fact that nothing can be known with absolute certainty is the reason why we have to have trust beyond what we can prove (i.e. faith) in order to take any position.

Quite the contrary, all positions that we take are uncertain to one degree or another, we just have to accept that as part of the real world. The sun is not certain to appear in the East tommorrow, but the evidence can give us great certainty(confidence)that it will and faith is not required, in fact our premise(the sun will appear in the East tommorrow)is based on the evidence(it has done so every time before)not on faith(acceptence without evidence).

we have absolutely no evidence whatsoever in support of the existence of the physical universe.

Absurd! From when we become concious to now it is nothing but evidence of the Universe's existence. Before you were even capable of understanding the concept of faith(and before you could even have faith)you already had conceeded that the Universe existed because of the evidence of your senses.

Grumpy

[Jester]

The fact that nothing can be known with absolute certainty is the reason why we have to have trust beyond what we can prove (i.e. faith) in order to take any position.

Quite the contrary, all positions that we take are uncertain to one degree or another, we just have to accept that as part of the real world.

Exactly. Faith.
Perhaps you define faith differently. If so, let me know what you definition is.
As for now, would you at least agree that all people have to accept that the positions they take on any given subject are not really proved; that we are always arguing in favor of something we don't really know to be true for certain?

The sun is not certain to appear in the East tommorrow, but the evidence can give us great certainty(confidence)that it will and faith is not required,

Faith is required for the jump from "it will probably happen" to "I will behave as if it is going to happen". In the case of the sun, it is a very small jump. In the case of the physical universe, "I have no idea" is our jumping point.

we have absolutely no evidence whatsoever in support of the existence of the physical universe.

Absurd! From when we become concious to now it is nothing but evidence of the Universe's existence.

And we are back to the "kick a rock" argument. Yes, I am aware that I personally seem to perceive the physical. How can I evidence that without first assuming it exists?

Before you were even capable of understanding the concept of faith(and before you could even have faith)you already had conceeded that the Universe existed because of the evidence of your senses.

Pointing out that I have reached a conclusion well before my ability to reason was developed is not much of an argument in favor of it. This is essentially a "believe this because you've always believed it" argument.
And, again, the "evidence of your senses" is another variation on the "kick a rock" argument.

[Cathar1950]

Pistis or faith could be better undersood as faithfulness when refering to Christian faith rather then belief. It was the faithfulness of Jesus.

[Flail]

Pistis or faith could be better undersood as faithfulness when refering to Christian faith rather then belief. It was the faithfulness of Jesus.

Logically, the term faith should be applied only to those things with enough circumstantial and experiential evidence to remove all but a modicum of doubt....we could call this ...'logical faith'...


Logical Faith is akin to an all abiding specified trust in an event or an idea or a cause without direct evidence and for which we have verifiable experiences but weak proofs...for which we can apply at least some degree of factual analysis, reason and common sense. An example would be 'I have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow'. It is, of course, possible the the 'sun will not come up tomorrow', but we trust that it will based upon our collective and shared experiences, logic and reason and analysis of known and scientific facts...but their remains a modicum of doubt nevertheless.

It would only become absurd to have 'faith in the rising of the sun', if you were indoctrinated to believe that predawn prayer and ritual were required to make it rise.