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?

[KingandPriest]

-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.

It tells me you have not done your research.

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.

Or it means you lack knowledge. Just because you don't know of any data does not mean the data does not exist.

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.

So let me get this straight. If I observe something with my own senses (sight, touch, smell, hear or taste) which then supports a belief, this is not an empirical observation?

I ask you what is the definition of an empirical observation?
Is it limited to a laboratory or can it be experienced by any human anywhere?
Are all empirical evidences repeatable?

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.

This sounds more like your opinion, and not a verifiable statement. Can you verify that all religious faith is baseless and has no data at all?

Where is the evidence for your statement?

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?

Several:

The sequence of events related to the formation of our solar system
The disagreement found in the fossil record
When was the sphinx actually created
Did the water on our planet come from an another region of space outside the nebula which our solar system formed, or is there another source?

I could generate more, but I think you get the point. There are some theories which are accepted by faith.

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?

Almost everyday. You wake up in the mourning and check the weather and traffic before leaving your home. Faith is utilized as you navigate to your destination. The report may have been a clear day with light traffic. When you depart you find that the facts contradict the faith you have placed in the report you heard. If you had to spend every moment of your life verifying every claim or every fact, you would not be able to get anything done.

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.

I never stated the solar system hypothesis is pure guesswork. I merely pointed out that certain components rely on guesswork or assumptions. These assumptions must be believed to be true on the basis of faith because we have no alternative mechanism. If you disagree, please present the alternative mechanism to support the theory and then submit it for your chance to earn a nobel prize. (Dont forget to collect your million dollar prize as well)

[Zzyzx]

.

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

Almost everyday. You wake up in the mourning and check the weather and traffic before leaving your home.

OH? When I awaken I go outside. If I get wet I conclude it is raining, sweaty = hot, covered with white fluffy stuff = snowing (rare here in Arkansas), hat blown off = windy, etc. No faith required. I can provide city folk with a 'weather rock' that does much the same thing.

If I boot up the computer and check a weather site, I understand that predictions for the day are likely to be reasonably accurate -- but MAY be inaccurate. I notice that probabilities are often stated in percentages – indicating a degree of likelihood that a given event will occur -- not certainty in most cases.

Those who wish to equate 'faith' in meteorologists with their faith in Jesus are welcome to do so. However, it is possible to verify that meteorologists are real . . . Since I taught meteorology, I have reason to know or have known real live professional meteorologists. Can anyone say the same for gods?

Faith is utilized as you navigate to your destination.

I, for one, use a truck or a car and road systems. No 'faith' required. If my confidence that one of the vehicles will start is mistaken (on extremely rare occasion) – just take the other. I have reasonable confidence that the roads that were in place yesterday will still be there today (unless there has been severe flooding in the area). That is not 'faith' and I do not worship roads or vehicles.

The report may have been a clear day with light traffic. When you depart you find that the facts contradict the faith you have placed in the report you heard.

If meteorological forecasts are in error that is no great surprise. Observed conditions often differ from predictions. No one, to my knowledge, claims to have all the answers (or ultimate truth) regarding atmospheric conditions and processes.

It seems, however, that many Apologists think they DO have knowledge of ultimate truth – after reading ancient texts, listening to sermons, visiting religious websites, and pondering or emoting.

If you had to spend every moment of your life verifying every claim or every fact, you would not be able to get anything done.

I spend a great deal of time fact-checking. It doesn't seem to keep me from accomplishing quite a lot.

Perhaps that indicates that I do not check insignificant or unimportant matters. I'll take someone's word for what they had for breakfast (provided they do not claim it to have been unicorn ears or some such), but I will not take their word that they own free and clear of encumbrances real estate I might consider purchasing. The latter I WILL check diligently.

Apparently some people have difficulty distinguishing important / significant matters from the unimportant / insignificant.

[Kenisaw]

-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.

It tells me you have not done your research.

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.

Or it means you lack knowledge. Just because you don't know of any data does not mean the data does not exist.

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.

So let me get this straight. If I observe something with my own senses (sight, touch, smell, hear or taste) which then supports a belief, this is not an empirical observation?

I ask you what is the definition of an empirical observation?
Is it limited to a laboratory or can it be experienced by any human anywhere?
Are all empirical evidences repeatable?

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.

This sounds more like your opinion, and not a verifiable statement. Can you verify that all religious faith is baseless and has no data at all?

Where is the evidence for your statement?

As already explained to you, there is zero data or empirical evidence for the existence of any gods or any supernatural stories at all. None. Since religion is founded on such material, it follows that religious faith is baseless and has no data supporting it.

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?

Several:

The sequence of events related to the formation of our solar system
The disagreement found in the fossil record
When was the sphinx actually created
Did the water on our planet come from an another region of space outside the nebula which our solar system formed, or is there another source?

I could generate more, but I think you get the point. There are some theories which are accepted by faith.

None of these are accepted on JUST faith, as religious belief is. There is data available for all the things you list above (their existence alone is proof that they do indeed exist), whereas there is precisely zero for the supernatural. That's the difference.

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?

Almost everyday. You wake up in the mourning and check the weather and traffic before leaving your home. Faith is utilized as you navigate to your destination. The report may have been a clear day with light traffic. When you depart you find that the facts contradict the faith you have placed in the report you heard. If you had to spend every moment of your life verifying every claim or every fact, you would not be able to get anything done.

Again, not purely faith. Weather forecasts are based on previous data combined with real time information from weather stations across the country to make a prediction about what will occur. The fact that they can be wrong doesn't mean I had pure faith in what they said. Traffic is not a scientific endeavor at all, I fail to see why you think that pertinent.

I agree you cannot verify everything in your life, which is why we learn to trust the scientific process. This is not faith however. It is based on previous experience where you know the scientific method has worked, and therefore trust that it is working in areas you don't personally verify for yourself.

None of these things are BASELESS FAITH, devoid of even one scrap of empirical data. Nice try though...

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.

I never stated the solar system hypothesis is pure guesswork. I merely pointed out that certain components rely on guesswork or assumptions. These assumptions must be believed to be true on the basis of faith because we have no alternative mechanism. If you disagree, please present the alternative mechanism to support the theory and then submit it for your chance to earn a nobel prize. (Dont forget to collect your million dollar prize as well)

But religious belief is pure guesswork. Hence the difference, and hence my point...

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 1 by KingandPriest]

To me, faith is believing in something you have no experiencing in. Trust is believing in something you have experience in:
You have trust your car will start in the morning because you've seen it start before.
You would have faith if you expect your car to turn into a unicorn and fly away.
Once that happens, going forward you'd trust your car would do this.


Rather or not one espouses their faith (in whatever) or not shouldn't matter to anyone else.
Sometimes people tend to place a lot more worth in what others think of them than they should.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

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

I have a lack of faith in folks who tell God's there, and he don't like how I act.

That's where my faith is rooted.

Roam around the site. See such debates as this site has presented. We can't talk about gods and ghosts and demons and Hell without we right then realize we got off the elevator at speculation and soil amendments.

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

Shrodinger's Nonbeliever? I can have faith in he's him a nonbeliever. That ain't like thinking it's the -ahem- faithful, literal truth a three day old dead guy is gonna be hopped up and fetched on out if we go to check on him again tomorrow.

It just don't happen. It don't. Now quit it with the literalist claims.

And let the speculators have their say

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?

Faith.

If I'm dealing with bank accounts and money and such, debit cards and check cards and books of checks, I better have me the unwavering and undying faith the pretty thing had me to do it. I'm on kinda house arrest, I just ain't gotta wear no ankle talkie. She'd hafta come bond me out, and then I'd get fussed at the whole way back home. With cops, you get a lawyer. With the pretty thing, you get the judge!

4. Are generally accepted scientific theories statements of faith?

I personally, and with own two eyes, confirmed that the theory, notion, or even inkling of some gravity, if you ain't careful, you may fall out you a tree or two. I have the fullest faith that gravity's faithful as an ugly bride.

I have faith there's this planet I'm on that a good many'll call Earth.

I have little faith that if I climb me in the mouth of a whale, he'll swim me around for three days, then drop me off at the next dock coming by.

(edit for clarity)

[William]

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?

I think the confusion here is that theism is - for the most part - faith based and atheism is the opposite.

Theism is also segregated into lots of variables to which the different religious organisations prioritize differently, depending on their particular focus in relation to their belief their particular idea of GOD.

Generally faith has something to do with promises being made. People place their faith in these promises.

Atheism isn't about having faith in any promise(s) made by any GODs. Atheism is simply lacking belief in any GODs.

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

Sure. If promises are involved, then faith is having the belief in those promises, whether they come from political, financial, cultural, and scientific sectors of human community.
However, an atheist (non believer) is not an atheist in relation to belief in such promises.

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?

Only in as far as any promise on the banks part is involved. One does not have to be atheist in order to have faith in such things - otherwise theists would not use banks.
Thus, the question itself is not directly about atheists and faith.

4. Are generally accepted scientific theories statements of faith?

It depends upon the promises being made in relation to the scientific theories and whether people place faith in those promises. Again, it is not something which is restricted to atheists alone.

Since it is established that atheism is just a lack in belief in the existence of GODs, when theists debate with atheists, it should be understood that they are not debating atheism/atheists - they are debating with people calling themselves atheists who have particular positions and opinions about theism. Their opinions and positions have nothing to do with being 'atheists' because (as they say more often than not) atheism isn't about opinions and positions against theism. It is simply about lacking belief in GODs - not WHY they lack belief in the existence of GODs.

Once a theist understands this, they can drop the need to question atheism and atheists and focus on the position of the atheist, be that anti-theist or whatever position they individually espouse.

Indeed, the same may be said of the theist and theism. Theism is the belief in the existence of GOD(s) and that is all. Theist positions are variable as well.