[Closed] faith, or the lack of.

Don’t be dazzled by sophisticated arguments.

So wait - you're telling me not to believe arguments that might contradict my viewpoint?
Isn't that just having faith that you're right and they're wrong? Just about the most ironic thing I've ever heard.

I'll believe well reasoned and intelligent arguments if I want, thanks! FFS

Literally the entire point of faith is choosing a viewpoint where no evidence either way is available or even possible.

Only someone who’s never bothered to really listen to been convinced by an intelligent person of faith would think that.

Now that’s just rude, so I’ve fixed it for you. Can we stay away from adhoms please?

PP - it was a question. I'd also question rational 😉

I do know I have no idea of how the mind of someone with faith works bar that I have read up a little on the science of it where they are beginning to discover some differences in structure and process and parallels with mental illness!

I do not know if you understand the secular mindset. I would suggest not but how can I know - hence making it a question

Not a believer, but underneath the smiting and miracles, the Bible is not a bad starting point for a civilised communal society, which is definitely something to be be respectful and faithful to. The ten commandments are the minimum foundation for a collective of people to live cohesively, most religions use the same if not similar tenets.

there is a great deal of content in the main religious texts on cleanliness, proper eating, creating healthy relationships and striking down those who seek to strike you.

So in short it's not about having faith it's about, being faithful to something even if it's some principles in an old book, or yourself.

Molgrips - you make my point! Faith cannot have a rational argument because its belief without evidence - the very opposite of rational thought.

Rational thought is based around evidence and facts. Faith is by definition irrational

Anyway - time for me to get out of this before it becomes too heated. religious debate on here never goes well

PP - that was not intended to be insulting btw. Please do not take it as such.

Now that’s just rude, so I’ve fixed it for you. Can we stay away from adhoms please?

You're reading my comments through the god/no god glasses. I'm not arguing about the existence of God, and I'm certainly not saying that an intelligent person would be able to or even want to convince you of the existence of God. That's no my point at all.

You made a guess as to why a believer could be a scientist. I said that you don't have to guess because scientists with faith definitely exist and they could tell you why they believe. I'm not saying they would make you agree with them, but many of them have thought about it a great deal and are happy that their beliefs are consistent with their work.

Rational thought is based around evidence and facts.

Not really.

If I were religious, I might say that I feel the presence of God. That is a real feeling, so faith derived from it is entirely rational.

Wether or not that feeling is actually God is the real question, and that is purely faith ON BOTH SIDES. No-one's ever really going to know, because God isn't even a well defined concept, so faith is all there is. That is rational.

Arguing for the truth of something that is unknowable is foolish, this is why these arguments go round in circles all the time. TBH the issue here is a philosophical one relating to people's ideas of reality and existence...

You make the assumption that these two mindsets are a binary choice

Bingo

I do not know if you understand the secular mindset. I would suggest not but how can I know – hence making it a question

The answer to your question is yes, of course I do.

Until I was in my thirties I believed nothing. I was as cynical and snarky as anyone on here, but never rude enough to publicly decry anyone else for it.

The Bible was just another boring  book in the library and I believed in God to about the same degree as I believed in Timmy the Dog from the Famous Five. They were both equally fictional characters.

There was no  big revelatory flash of inspiration  that changed my mind.

Just a growing realisation that there was something missing from my life and it couldn't be filled externally.

No one pressured me or converted me to go to Church, or do or think anything other than what I wanted. Equally I would never dream of doing that to another person. It's an entirely personal thing, driven from within. I don't really like talking about it, if i'm entirely honest.

It's not something that I can adequately explain and I'm okay with that. I don't need anyone else to understand or approve or join in. It's just for me.

I tried it for myself, liked what I found and it's made me, in my opinion, a better person for it. I have an additional set of tools and a support structure that I didn't have before.

I feel a degree of pity for those (either sceptic or true believer) who feel they need to attack others for their beliefs ( or lack thereof)

Not because they lack faith though, but because they lack the self awareness to see how they appear to others. Maybe they have something missing that even God can't fill?

I’d also question rational

Rationality is vastly overrated in my opinion. It's way more fun to be irrational once in a while.

I don’t have any real faith to speak of and find all religions fascinating and bizarre in equal measure. One thing religion and faith appear to have given us is some really nice architecture. Other than that, live and let live.

Life, to me, is just one big fluke. As long as you’re not being a dick just enjoy it whilst you can. If having certain beliefs or faith in something helps make life easier or better for people that can only be a good thing. I don’t have the need for it myself but wouldn’t judge others for it.

Thanks for that PP

this might pose a couple of questions to you T, and its only an hour pal 😉

Interesting reading, and for once (maybe just once) we can be objective and answer the argument put before us about “what is faith?”.

I don’t think we need to define it per se, or interpret the narrative purely for the fact that this thread has shown a diverse belief in what we term as “faith”

I’d like to think that over the years of being on here that a form of faith (whatever that is) brings us lot together on a forum in the middle of nowhere. Faith in what I really don’t know. But we do collectively come together and argue the toss about a million and one subjects. Subjects that do involve a faith of some sort or some level.

I’m not so sure Dracs posting of a thread really defined my lack of faith in humanity, more it a small example of a group of humans that have helped or assisted an-other human out at a time in need. That goes on daily at a small level, small groups dotted across the horizon reaching out across a small platform.

IMO the great Gnusmas thread settled, for a small moment, my lack of faith, but then it was gone and nothing collective replaced it.

I am obvz thinking more holistically than a few random events, and whilst being shown “events” still doesn’t bring me back to having a faith in Humanity in all its wild and courageous wonder.

Its an argument that’s as old as when Humans first stood up and threw sticks at others, and it will continue to be an important metaphysical question posed by many.

It’s reassuring to read that some have sought “faith” in a religion, or belief system. If that suits them, and they do it willingly then I applaud them.

As is, I’m sitting in my favourite pub garden drinking a pint of my favourite beer whilst watching a hot air balloon being launched..

I have a belief that it will land, but no faith in it.

Rational thought is based around evidence and facts. Faith is by definition irrational

And that is why it is ultimately pointless trying to debate religion with those who 'believe'. Its not a level playing field when one side gets to play the "you wouldn't understand because you have to have faith" card.

this might pose a couple of questions to you T, and its only an hour pal 😉

Is that a spoof video? It’s really bad if not 😳

..., the Bible is not a bad starting point for a civilised communal society, which is definitely something to be be respectful and faithful to

All of the Bible, or just the bits you want to pick as a good starting point for a "civilised communal society"? There's plenty of stuff in the Bible that I don't really want to see in a civilised society.

Religious faith ultimately boils down to do you believe or not? Everything else is just an intellectual construct to try and lend weight to that act of personal belief.
I was brought up as a practising (and voluntary) Christian, but as I got older, I became an atheist. There was no great revelation. I just gradually realised I didn't really believe any of it, and without that belief the whole thing just crumbles away, because there's no subjective evidence to contradict the absence of faith. If you decide to believe the world is flat, there's a lot of inconvenient scientific evidence you have to rationalise, but becoming an atheist was very easy for me. The world kept spinning, and if anything it actually made a bit more sense.

Pissing myself laughing at some of the atheists on this thread thinking they're more rational than the religious.

Pissing myself laughing at some of the atheists on this thread thinking they’re more rational than the religious.

Classy

Classy

I believe it was Pauline Calf who said 'Class is like the clap. Either you've got it or you haven't.'

you wouldn’t understand because you have to have faith

This is demonstrably true though, just read the thread!

Pissing myself laughing at some of the atheists on this thread thinking they’re more rational than the religious.

Can't speak for others, but I can't claim to be more rational than anyone else. I just don't believe. That's about all there is to it for me.

If molgrips did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. 🙂

However, he is a rare beast and not representative. It's all very well asking everyone to be respectful, but human nature means that's an impossibility.
Getting angry when people fail to meet such high standards is pointless and destructive.

I'm not sure I have faith in anything but love, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
We all need something irrational to believe in, as the Panther said earlier. But we all believe in different irrationalities and expecting others to respect those beliefs is futile and will only lead to anger and conflict.

Embrace your irrationality, but don't expect anything but ridicule.
It's just the way of things.

Pissing myself laughing at some of the atheists on this thread thinking they’re more rational than the religious.

Seriously though; does rationality even come into it? I don’t see anyone being ‘more rational’ than anyone else; it’s an irrelevance. Rationality doesn’t really come into the faith equation, and that’s okay.

I stand by my assertion that faith is a (strongly held) opinion, put on a pedestal, though, and it’s not meant in derogatory manner. I don’t have any problem with most opinions/faiths, until the opinion or faith impacts upon myself or my loved ones.

Rational thought is based around evidence and facts.

You mean bounded rationality? 😀

That is first year undergraduate module where "rationality" is considered something we strive to attain but constantly sidetrack by our emotion or ego.

Therefore, rationality is only in the mind of those that consider themselves "rational" but reality is that they are just another emotional views.

can someone please answer my question.

how can millions of people have faith in a magic flame that appears on the same day every year, but none of them are allowed to see this magic flame appear?

or does the chosen holy man have a lighter hidden somewhere to produce the magic flame?

The selfish, they're all standing in line
Faithing and hoping to buy themselves time
Me, I figure as each breath goes by
I only own my mind

Eddie Vedder sums it up in just over 3 minutes.

Of course – there are dicks, there are religious people, the two areas overlap of course

Sometimes they overlap a bit too much!

how can millions of people have faith in a magic flame that appears on the same day every year, but none of them are allowed to see this magic flame appear?

Life is hard.
Believing in something better makes it a bit more bearable.
It doesn't really matter if it's irrational or unprovable - sometimes it even makes it easier. Bad things that happen to us are often irrational and seemingly without reason - the good die young, horrible things happen to the nicest of people.

And shared experiences can be uplifting and life changing - being part of the crowd at sporting events, musical performances, demonstrations, rallies. It makes you realise you are not alone.
Even as an atheist, I felt properly moved at the candlelight vigil at Lourdes and on the occaisions I was part of the crowd at St Peter's in Rome and at Heaton Park when John Paul II said mass.

Also, I've had very positive experiences of receiving support from the Catholic Church when things have gone a bit runny, even though I'm not a believer myself.
I can see the attraction of belief and faith, even though I just can't have that faith myself - it's just not a part of me.
Sometimes I wish it was, life would be a little easier, I think.

In spite of some of the cringeworthy caricatures of the nature of faith and history on this thread, it’s good to see some of the old arguments again. I’ve missed this!

Anyway, apologies for my absence. I’ve been stupidly busy, but will try to address some of the more outstanding points tomorrow.

And no, ton, there is definitely no rational answer to your question.

P.S. Where is Woppit? I’ve been thinking about him recently, and since he hasn’t shown up here yet, am now worried.

Banned. He was a naughty boy.

It’s all very well asking everyone to be respectful, but human nature means that’s an impossibility.
Getting angry when people fail to meet such high standards is pointless and destructive.

That's true, and I don't feel angry. I get irritated when people don't read and think about posts properly tho. But I'm guilty of that too sometimes.

That is first year undergraduate module where “rationality” is considered something we strive to attain but constantly sidetrack by our emotion or ego.

Therefore, rationality is only in the mind of those that consider themselves “rational” but reality is that they are just another emotional views.

Genius!

My wife has had 12 miscarriages.
If there is a God deciding these things, then he is a complete C***

We also have three lovely healthy kids so this isn't a plea for sympathy.

I went to a catholic school, church, was an alter boy. I find the whole concept of religion fascinating and utterly bizarre. I now have no belief, or faith, whatsoever. I don't think I ever really did.I regard organised religion (not faith itself) as cultish and genuinely bizarre.

I love church architecture though.

the Bible is not a bad starting point for a civilised communal society, which is definitely something to be respectful and faithful to

Really - killing homosexuals, stoning people, beating women?

Really – killing homosexuals, stoning people, beating women?

They’re the bits that we are meant to ignore, silly! The way it works is you choose the bits that you like and disregard the rest. Definitely no problem with that at all...

I must point out that faith does not equal organised religion and does not equal christianity.

It really make me laugh tho when some folk try to equate atheism with faith. Its the opposite. atheism is saying - without evidence I will NOT believe.

how can millions of people have faith in a magic flame that appears on the same day every year, but none of them are allowed to see this magic flame appear?

It doesn’t seem that different to belief in some form of god to me. If you choose to believe in the flame I suppose that’s enough and actually seeing it isn’t required. Not a concept I can understand though.

What I find the most bizarre and I genuinely don’t mean to disrespect anyone here is that most organised religions are utterly boring. The big three especially.

If I were to become religious I’d be heading for an old world religion. One with at least a half dozen gods and some stories that actually contain a bit of adventure, peril and action. I suppose it explains the popularity of super hero movies for some. A much more interesting set of characters to worship.

Over evolutionary time humans have developed the ability to see agency where none exists.

We are animals who can make noises and move things so big noises and big movements we can't explain must be made by big things like us; that we can't see.

And thats where gods came from.

Made up explanations for things we couldn't understand extrapolated from things we could.

All of the rest is just window dressing.

A turd of a mistake about how the universe works rolled in glitter and given a big pointy hat (or spire or minaret EDIT or hammer EDIT:).

And we go round in circles wondering about the "mystery" of it all, when there is literally nothing to look for.

We're now discussing what human qualities (faith) are necessary to keep fooling ourselves.

Religion.

Maybe not ruining everything but certainly confusing and obfuscating reality for a large number of people, over a long period of time.

Whether or not that's a good thing, seems to be a matter of finely nuanced opinion, rather than a ball-achingly obvious fact?

Weird.

most organised religions are utterly boring. The big three especially.

True; reminded me of this meme...

In all seriousness; I have a question for those who quietly found religion later in life; was there anything specific about (I presume) Christianity hat attracted you to it? Or was it a friendly community of decent people that attracted you, and in order to gain acceptance some from of professed belief was required? Because I would imagine that sort of thing happens all over the world, into all sorts of contradictory faiths.

Which one is the ‘true’ faith?

was there anything specific about (I presume) Christianity hat attracted you to it?

Convenience, There are a number of conveniently located branches near me. I searched on Google for the local branch of the Pastafarians, in order to be touched by the noodly appendage of the Flying Spaghetti Monster but, sadly, there wasn't one.

Or was it a friendly community of decent people that attracted you

Whilst this is undoubtedly a huge attraction,especially for the isolated and the lonely , It wasn't particularly for me. I was already  part of that community through other, non religious affiliations.

, and in order to gain acceptance some from of professed belief was required?

Nope. No profession of belief required for admission  or acceptance unless you feel   inclined to make one of your own accord. Other denominations may differ but in the good ol' Church of Scotland all are welcome. You can make a profession of faith and become a member of the Church but it's not required. There are old ladies in our Church who have been there most Sundays for 7 or 8 decades who have never formally joined.

Because I would imagine that sort of thing happens all over the world, into all sorts of contradictory faiths.

I'd imagine that you're right

Which one is the ‘true’ faith?

Either all of them or none of them.

What I believe is that it's an internal thing. Every mans God is his own to know  and any labels  applied to it are arbitrary. Could be God, or Allah or Ganesh or Gaia. Doesn't actually matter that much to me.

I think, It's more a question of picking a version where the  external, human, elements suit you best. For example I don't particularly hold with the Episcopalian principle that some people hold more God-given authority than others, all the way up the line via a heirarchy to Archbish, Queens or Popes, I prefer the model where the congregation is all equal and the Minister works for them to merely facilitate the proceedings.

Having said all that, I'm no theologian.

Ineffable, innit.

Interesting perspective Perchy. A sort of 'any hole's a goal' attitude to choosing a religion - you just chose the hole most conveniently located.

Question is then - why stick your flag in any of them at all? If your faith is internalised and does not rely on being lured by the virgazl (had to keep the analogy going!) of local ritual and flag waving. Why not stay neutral? I would have thought for someone like you that thinks all of them are basically the same concept with different bells and whistles the centuries of misery caused by one clan's beef over the other would be even more distasteful. You were not indoctrinated into one of them before you were able to make a sentient decision so why do so now?

It really make me laugh tho when some folk try to equate atheism with faith. Its the opposite. atheism is saying – without evidence I will NOT believe.

No - not believing in anything is agnosticism. Atheism is positively believing that God does not exist (as I understand it although the definition varies).

The thing is though, you can't really properly prove one way or the other about the existence of God. It's not provable, and I think it's provably not provable*. Therefore, anyone who positively believes in the non-existence of God is acting on faith just as much as someone who positively does believe. I think most on here are agnostic atheists - as in, you don't [i]believe[/i] in God, but you know you cannot be sure.

* due to the existence of randomness

Question is then – why pin your flag to any of them at all?

Internal motivation is often enhanced greatly by shared experience. I enjoy a pint of beer, but I enjoy it much more in the pub with mates than sat by myself at home. Humans are social creatures. It's nice to sit quietly and listen to a well delivered sermon which might give you cause to reflect on your own actions or consider a viewpoint that you hadn't previously considered. Nobody can provide all their own answer or indeed, their own questions.  It is also not, as many on here seem to think, strict adherence to the words of the Bible. It's very much more.... "Here's a story out of a book...what  meaning can we take from this that might  help us not to be dicks"

Also, there is tea and biscuits.

the centuries of misery caused by one clan’s beef over the other would be even more distasteful.

It is distasteful.  Lots of history is.

Is it any different than  continuing to hold a British passport despite your condemnation  of the horrors perpetrated by the British Empire in days gone past? As far as I am aware, the Church of Scotland has never declared a jihad or embarked on a crusade against the infidels. If they did, i'd probably quit and get my tea and biscuits somewhere else.

I think some people are more predisposed to believe and have faith. From the very first time I was exposed to the concept of God I remember thinking this is a deeply odd concept. Despite the majesty of the buildings, the incredible charity in God’s word and all the lovely faithful people I never once thought any of it could conceivably be anything more than a cool old myth. I went to Sunday school and the whole thing seemed harmless but weird.

As a 41yr old tired adult who would like my kids to listen to me, for everyone to be nice to each other, and quite frankly, a bit of reassurance that things will all be ok in the end, I get it. It’s completely understandable that our ancestors would have weaved stories to make sense of the world.

I've often heard the phrase 'God is love'. I just thought it a bit of waffle. But if you take it literally it might give a bit of insight into faith*. If you are prepared to think about it. I'm sure some smartarse will pipe up about oxytocin in a minute though.

* it might - I am not an expert, not being a person of faith.

molgrips,
You say provability as in "can't prove it exists" and "can't prove it doesn't" like those are equal sides of a balanced argument.

Like atheism is as much of a "faith" position as theism.

How about no.

If you claim X exists its up to you to prove it.
If I claim that the lack of evidence seems to indicate that it is extremely likely that you are wrong (to an extreme that edges from agnosticism to atheism (or materialism)), its still up to you to prove it does.

I'm sure someone could build a bullshit machine that would generate unlikely, unprovable propositions about the smell of blue and width of infinity and the infallibility of the pope at a rate of a million a day.

Your belief and my lack of belief in the existence or reasonableness of those those things does not make them equally likely to be true and untrue.

Unless you've talked yourself in circles so much that you've vanished up your own fundament. 🙂

agnosticism is not being sure - unproven. Atheism is that there is no god - proven. Whilst I understand absence of evidence is not evidence of absence to me the total lack of any evidence and the lack of attempt to provide any ie faith, shows there is no god given the huge amount of evidence there is no god.

Given that no prophecies in any religion have come true, given that despite a supposed loving god evil clearly exists and given the actions of many in the organised churches its clear and obvious to me that there is no god. thus I am an atheist. I do not believe in the existence of a god - any god

That of course is another factor - all the different christian sects and different religions monotheistic, abrahamic and multitheastic - they cannot all be right.

Scientific method shows no god.

Pudding, you're misunderstanding.

Firstly, I'm an atheist.

Secondly, I'm using logic to pursue a philosophical argument, not trying to convince anyone of anything. My post was aimed at TJ's post where he said that atheism is lack of faith (following on from other posts saying that atheism is a matter of faith). Atheism is belief in the non-existence of God.

Now, like you, I believe it extremely unlikely that God exists. But I'm trying to show that it cannot be [i]conclusively[/i] proven that God does not exist. And without that conclusive proof, atheism therefore is a matter of faith.

If I claim that the lack of evidence seems to indicate that it is extremely likely that you are wrong (to an extreme that edges from agnosticism to atheism (or materialism)), its still up to you to prove it does.

This would be true if I were trying to persuade you of the existence of God. But I'm not.

Scientific method hypothesises no god but is prepared to change this hypothesis if a better peer reviewed theory is presented.

FTFY

shows there is no god given the huge amount of evidence there is no god.

Yep, evidence that the Christian God does not exist. However, speaking as an atheist scientist, there are gigantic holes in our understanding of the universe and reality that could easily accomodate a God or even a whole Pantheon.

Edit;

Exactly. If you're believing something, that is the position. A lack of belief in something is not faith in not believing, or whatever you are trying to suggest. If you don't believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden, then that is not a belief that there are not fairies at the bottom of the garden, its just an absence of belief.

No atheism is not a faith. I do not have to believe something without evidence which is what faith is. Its quite the opposite of faith. Its not believing something without evidence.

Atheism is a rational position

Hypothesis - " God exists"
Evidence - zero
Thus the hypothesis is null. there is no god

Hypothetically, if the thing that believers call God made it abundantly clear that it really existed in a scientifically proven way then it would make faith redundant and end religion for ever. That thing would then be seen as an alien object, feared and probably hated by all of mankind. In other words if you can prove the existence of God it becomes science and ceases to be God.

given that despite a supposed loving god evil clearly exists and given the actions of many in the organised churches its clear and obvious to me that there is no god.

Ah but they (Christians) have an answer for that.

Free will, living in a 'broken' world and (of course) suffering brings people closer to god.

If there was a god and that was their 'belief' then, in human terms, they would be considered some sort of psychopath and/or a complete sadist.

Atheism is not a faith, but it IS a belief system.

How is it? there is no codified system of atheism.

Woppit must be spent by now. Surely?

molgrips,
I know you're an atheist (with an apparent interest in the anthropology of believers 🙂 So I was using "you" in the sense of "someone who believes those things" not necessarily talking about you in particular.

I do prefer "materialist" to "atheist" as a description of how I feel about this stuff, but I'm quit prepared to say that "I believe in no gods" (as a statement of atheism) requires no faith.

Its a statement about my opinion based on the available evidence. And it would change if the evidence changed.

Are you saying that an opinion based on the available evidence, and prepared to change if the evidence changes, is a "faith" position?

Doesn't sound like it to me 🙂

colournoise
"not stamp collecting" is not a hobby.

“not stamp collecting” is not a hobby

Awww well that’s crap.
I’m bloody awesome at it too 🙁

“not stamp collecting” is not a hobby

I tried it. Couldn't not get into it.

Dunno what I'm gonna do with all these stamps.

Hypothesis – ” God exists”
Evidence – zero
Thus the hypothesis is null. there is no god

Nonsense. Because evidence could appear. Something which has been neither proven nor disproven is 'unproven', meaning that you don't know.

Is there a marble under this cup? Well, you cannot see any evidence of it, can you? But that doesn't prove it's not there, clearly. Until the cup is lifted, the hypothesis is unproven.

Are you saying that an opinion based on the available evidence, and prepared to change if the evidence changes, is a “faith” position?

No, quite the opposite. That position you describe is agnosticism. Atheism is being absolutely sure there's no God. And since it's unproven and even unprovable (in my view) then you can only have faith in that position.

It's only a semantic argument, I admit. But I find it interesting to unpick the things people think. Mainly because I don't like the way that so many atheists feel so superior. And yes, if this forum were full of superior-sounding Christians being dicks, I definitely would be arguing on the atheist side.

if this forum were full of superior-sounding Christians being dicks,

Rule Number two of  "Jesus says don't be a dick" club......

Atheism is being absolutely sure there’s no God.

You keep asserting this position. It’s incorrect. Given the effort that you put into trying to understand the position of theists, you’d think you could spend a bit more time trying to understand atheism.

There is no common ‘belief system’ amongst atheists. Atheism is NOT a belief system. It is simply a label for ‘everyone else’. I’m an atheist; I’m not ‘absolutely sure’ that there is no God. I’m just sure I’ve seen no evidence for any supernatural deities, and I’ve not been convinced by any theists argument. It’s just an irrelevant but sometimes interesting subject.

The ‘sureness’ that you speak of is not to to with the existence or otherwise of a deity. I couldn’t care less, in the nicest possible way. It’s to do with the special privileges granted the religious on the grounds of their beliefs, and how theism impacts upon those who don’t want it to. I’m SURE that that is unjust, and I will always position myself against it, whether it be State sponsored homophobia, repression of women’s rights in the name of Christianity in Northern Ireland, or indoctrination in State schools, etc etc.

That shit is not okay, I’m sure of that.

nealglover,
don't listen to me , keep being awesome!
perchy,
you're doing it wrong

molgrips
Your definition of "atheist" us a bit strong
You say "Atheism is being absolutely sure there’s no God."
google says "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."
Thats me (the second one) I lack belief. I am a belief lacker. I dis-belief 🙂
And if the evidence changed so would I.

Definition wise I also like the description from diskworld of (paraphrasing);
"A man who would stand on the top of a mountain, in wet copper armour, in a thunderstorm, shouting "All gods are bastards!""

Molgrips - I am certain there is no god given the lack of evidence - thats atheism. I know there is no god any type, I have looked all over for him

In your playing with semantics you have lost the meaning of the words.

By your interpretation science is faith!

I know there is no god any type, I have looked all over for him

Perhaps he saw you looking for him and was hiding until you went away?

By your interpretation science is faith!

No because science is never certain, science is built on doubt.

Atheism is NOT a belief system.

No, but it is a belief. You cannot prove there is no God, therefore, you can only believe there is no God. Therefore atheism is a belief. QED.

🤩

Great thread.

molgrips,
I don't "believe there are no gods",
I "lack belief that there are any". I live my life as if they don't exist (except on internet forums and when they push their random improbabilities and into politics or society.

To put it another way if someone had been raised in a place that had no concept of religion, they would be an atheist, or "one who lacks belief". You seem to think that atheism requires a positive effort of will, or a series of philosophical assumptions, but it doesn't, its the default.

Your definition of atheist is wrong.

Molgrips - if nothing in science is certain then its faith based! YOu cannot have it both ways. My belief in science and my belief in the lack of gods are based on the same things - the evidence or lack of.

In your own words

You cannot prove that evolution is true, therefore, you can only believe that evolution is trues. Therefore evolution is a belief. QED

Or - you cannot prove many accepted things in science. However you can weigh the evidence.

To answer Ton’s question, with a quote from Wiki..

The ceremony was marred in 2002 when a disagreement between the Armenian and Greek bishops over who should emerge first with the Holy Fire led to a struggle between the factions. In the course of the scuffle the Armenian's candle was blown out, forcing him to reignite his "Holy Fire" using a cigarette lighter, while the Greek Patriarch was despoiled of one of his shoes. In the end the Israeli Police entered the premises to restore order

So, yes. A cigarette lighter was used to re-light the flame.

The quote doesn’t however go on to explain whether there has always been a method of ignition, or subsequent quote to prove whether a cigarette lighter is always carried into the “tomb”

However, due to the importance of the “event” and the fact that billions of believers wait with baited breath on this particular incident/event that who ever entered the tomb would be foolish to not take in ... and maybe use ... a method of re-ignition should it be required.

Which makes me now wonder what would happen if this flame were not to ignite, ever. And the subsequent consequences thereafter ...

Woppit is getting his second wind now.....

perchypanther

I know there is no god any type, I have looked all over for him

Perhaps he saw you looking for him and was hiding until you went away?

A revelation! Thats the answer! I believe!

Brought up RC Catholic, but not been to church for many years. It's about being a decent person, that's all, and it's what any religion is about, but not taking it to extremes. It's about respecting yourself and respecting other folk. Simple.

“No, but it is a belief. You cannot prove there is no God, therefore, you can only believe there is no God. Therefore atheism is a belief. QED.“
As an atheist, I do not believe there is sufficient evidence which proves the existence of a god or gods. This is not a belief in something. I do not believe there is sufficient evidence which proves the existence of the Loch Ness monster either. This is not a belief. The starting point is not believing in everything and then slowly disprove things. The starting point is , there is not god or gods, as there is not any evidence, if a believer thinks there is, then it’s up to them to prove.

It’s about being a decent person, that’s all, and it’s what any religion is about, but not taking it to extremes. It’s about respecting yourself and respecting other folk.

That’s a lovely sentiment, but you can do all of that without religion or a belief in an all powerful deity; Wheaton’s law has it pretty much covered. Some religious types (not the lovely ones on STW, obviously) seem to assume that morality originates from religion, when actually morality probably predates religion, and CERTAINLY predates the Abrahamic big three.

v8ninety

Subscriber

There is no common ‘belief system’ amongst atheists. Atheism is NOT a belief system.

Yup. Atheism is not a belief, it's the absence of belief. There's not a religion-shaped hole in the head that has to be filled with faith in something- the absence of belief is just nothing at all.

It's like insisting that everyone is a cyclist, and it's just that some people have an unbike.

Brought up RC Catholic

Sweet! Is the R for remote or radio?

I don’t believe in god or gods of any kind. I also don’t consider myself to be an atheist or agnostic. Putting specific terms on just not getting involved in something is just silly. Why does religion seem to differ in this respect?

I don’t like football, is there a term for that? Soap operas? Deep sea diving? I’m just somebody that thinks religion or deity worship is a bit silly. Pretty much how I view football and love island too. Does that make me an atheist? I don’t have faith that a god of any kind doesn’t exist, I just assume it doesn’t. Might be wrong, but I don’t really care either way.

Molgrips – if nothing in science is certain then its faith based!

But science is a completely different concept. The scientific method has theories and evidence. That's it. You can't 'believe' in it because it is a demonstrably real thing. You can 'believe' that it will solve humanity's problems, because that's in the future and it's not yet known. Having faith in science means that you think one day it will solve problems.

Faith is about things that are un-knowable. And as I've shown, the existence of some kind of God is actually un-knowable, which is why it's a matter of faith [i]either way[/i]. Wether or not you call that atheism is up to you. I'm just trying to point out your conceit.