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?

[Grumpy]

Flail

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'...

Actually, that is confidence, not faith. Faith is only required when no reason for a belief exists.

Jester

Perhaps you define faith differently. If so, let me know what you definition is.

Faith=belief despite having no reason to do so. Acceptance without evidence.

Faith is required for the jump from "it will probably happen" to "I will behave as if it is going to happen".

No, it is not. Our reason can lead us to behave in that way.

In the case of the physical universe, "I have no idea" is our jumping point.

No, it is not. We have mountains of evidence that informs our acceptance of it's existence. It is not conclusive evidence, but it is beyond a reasonable doubt.

And we are back to the "kick a rock" argument.

A perfectly valid argument, kicking a rock is experimental confirmation of the rock's existence and sore toes are valid, repeatable evidence. Faith is not required.

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.

Belief is not required, the Universe's existence is supported by ALL of your experience and ANY evidence there ever was. Being extremely confident in the Universe's existence requires no faith at all.

Grumpy

[sineporf]

it does take faith to believe that there is a god, and it does take faith to believe that there isn't a god. As for more faith than the other, that's complete BS. it takes the same amount of faith to believe either because you cannot possibly prove the other. That is the only fact. You cannot use "because the bible said so" either, because it was written by men who supposedly had "divine inspiration". BS.

[otseng]

That seems a long time to continue in error.

Moderator comment:

This could be considered to more of a personal comment, rather than addressing any argument. Please avoid expressing opinions about others.

[Jester]

Perhaps you define faith differently. If so, let me know what you definition is.

Faith=belief despite having no reason to do so. Acceptance without evidence.

In the case of this definition, I would argue that neither theism nor atheism necessarily require faith.
I'm willing to accept it for this particular discussion, but will point out that this is hardly a universally accepted definition, and won't be using it elsewhere.

Faith is required for the jump from "it will probably happen" to "I will behave as if it is going to happen".

No, it is not. Our reason can lead us to behave in that way.

The secular term might be "judgment call".
Perhaps you should offer your definition of "reason" as well. I had been thinking of it as something which shows us what we can know, rather than what we should decide after our knowledge reaches its end. I'm fully willing to admit this latter. I simply want to know how you mean the term.

In the case of the physical universe, "I have no idea" is our jumping point.

No, it is not. We have mountains of evidence that informs our acceptance of it's existence. It is not conclusive evidence, but it is beyond a reasonable doubt.

This clam has been repeated many times, divorced from any valid evidence.

And we are back to the "kick a rock" argument.

A perfectly valid argument, kicking a rock is experimental confirmation of the rock's existence and sore toes are valid,

Any data which cannot be gathered without pre-assuming the hypothesis to be correct is not scientifically valid.

“Reality is merely an illusion, although a very persistent one."

[Goat]

No, it is not. We have mountains of evidence that informs our acceptance of it's existence. It is not conclusive evidence, but it is beyond a reasonable doubt.

This clam has been repeated many times, divorced from any valid evidence.

It seems to me that with your position of 'you can not prove the existence of the universe', you are rejecting the concept of evidence all together. You have experiences, and those experiences are evidence of existence. Since you reject that concept, you reject the entire concept of evidence.

You have yet to show how having experiences is not 'valid evidence' of existence, except with sophomoric hand waving rejection based on a metaphysical claim that you can not show has any validity.

[Jester]

It seems to me that with your position of 'you can not prove the existence of the universe', you are rejecting the concept of evidence all together. You have experiences, and those experiences are evidence of existence.

They are circular, as has been pointed out many times. We have not seen any valid response to that concern.

Since you reject that concept, you reject the entire concept of evidence.

I reject the concept of circular evidence, yes.

You have yet to show how having experiences is not 'valid evidence' of existence

Any evidence that requires pre-assumption of the conclusion in order to be gathered is not not valid. This is a staple of logical discourse.

except with sophomoric hand waving rejection based on a metaphysical claim that you can not show has any validity.

I'm not sure what 'metaphysical claim' you feel I am making. My only claim on this topic is that it takes trust beyond what we can logically establish as certain to take any position.

[Goat]

It seems to me that with your position of 'you can not prove the existence of the universe', you are rejecting the concept of evidence all together. You have experiences, and those experiences are evidence of existence.

They are circular, as has been pointed out many times. We have not seen any valid response to that concern.

That's the point, now isn't it. It's not circular, since you have the experience. The experience in and of itself is evidence, even if you reject it for some bizarre metaphysical reason so you can believe in the supernatural. You reject it with your mind.. yet.. you look both ways when you cross the road.

[Jester]

It seems to me that with your position of 'you can not prove the existence of the universe', you are rejecting the concept of evidence all together. You have experiences, and those experiences are evidence of existence.

They are circular, as has been pointed out many times. We have not seen any valid response to that concern.

That's the point, now isn't it. It's not circular, since you have the experience. The experience in and of itself is evidence, even if you reject it for some bizarre metaphysical reason

This is a claim that your reasoning isn't circular, but nothing is offered as support.

[Goat]

It seems to me that with your position of 'you can not prove the existence of the universe', you are rejecting the concept of evidence all together. You have experiences, and those experiences are evidence of existence.

They are circular, as has been pointed out many times. We have not seen any valid response to that concern.

That's the point, now isn't it. It's not circular, since you have the experience. The experience in and of itself is evidence, even if you reject it for some bizarre metaphysical reason

This is a claim that your reasoning isn't circular, but nothing is offered as support.

How many years of philosophy and logic does it take so that you can learn NOT to touch a hot stove?

[McCulloch]

How many years of philosophy and logic does it take so that you can learn NOT to touch a hot stove?

Learning to not touch a hot stove comes naturally. What takes years of philosophy and theology is learning to touch a hot stove and fool yourself that it is a noble experience.