(December 30, 2012 at 7:47 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: And so far no one has really answered the question just dodged it. Of course those athiests who react strongly to the idea that its a faith already know why its an important point. It means that at some point both theist and athiests reach a point where proofs cant go any further and at that place we are both forced to a choice based on faith in the information we have at our disposal but its a faith non the less and as I've pointed out many times in our history people were conviced they were correct when they were wrong. To call athiest a faith therefore forces the athiest to confront the possability that no matter how improbable it may be but , they might just be wrong.

Ah... I see you missed the "default position" argument.
When you have to choose, you assume something based on what your experience has taught you.
If other people fail to convince you that gods exist, this experience will likely not include god as explanation for anything.... hence, the default position will never be goddidit.
On the other hand, if you become convinced that god exists, you will incorporate that belief into whatever you expect to find and, as history has shown, arrive at wrong conclusions.... fortunately, science has reduced these conclusions to a few, hence the designation god-of-the-gaps.

---

(December 30, 2012 at 7:56 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: Good point pocaracas for the sake of discussion lets assume i'm talking about position 1 then.

Well then, yes. Position 1 is a kind of faith based belief.
However, as you might have noticed by now, it does not describe the majority of atheists. So I would advise you to use this definition with care.

(December 30, 2012 at 7:58 pm)Gilgamesh Wrote:

(December 30, 2012 at 7:56 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: Good point pocaracas for the sake of discussion lets assume i'm talking about position 1 then.

In that case, it applies to almost nobody on this forum. We'd all agree, for the most part, that that position requires faith.

Let's not forget that there is ALSO faith in respect to what does and does not constitute evidence. You have to have an epistemic ''faith'' that only empiricism can provide evidence.

I have faith that my wife is telling the truth that she loves me and I would never want to ask my friends to empirically PROVE that they like me.

We have faith that human rights exist. And you cant do an autopsy on someone to see what size they are, how much they weigh...

Ah... I see you missed the "default position" argument.
When you have to choose, you assume something based on what your experience has taught you.
If other people fail to convince you that gods exist, this experience will likely not include god as explanation for anything.... hence, the default position will never be goddidit.
On the other hand, if you become convinced that god exists, you will incorporate that belief into whatever you expect to find and, as history has shown, arrive at wrong conclusions.... fortunately, science has reduced these conclusions to a few, hence the designation god-of-the-gaps.

---

pocaracas Wrote:

(December 30, 2012 at 7:56 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: Good point pocaracas for the sake of discussion lets assume i'm talking about position 1 then.

Well then, yes. Position 1 is a kind of faith based belief.
However, as you might have noticed by now, it does not describe the majority of atheists. So I would advise you to use this definition with care.

I suppose what i'm saying is the default position could be seen as a position of faith in relation to what someone has no primary experience of and is reliant on other people experience and knowledge. I have no issue with someone having a default position as in truth we all must.

Position 2 is a much more complicated position and does allow for a spiritual dimension.

What is it exactly that we are supposed to have faith in?

(December 30, 2012 at 7:47 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: so far no one has really answered the question just dodged it

I counted 3 people who answered your question prior to this.

As for the question itself, no, it does not require faith, as atheism as a word and position is precisely the opposite of having faith (in a god). Maybe simply look up the definition in a dictionary.

Ps the god of the gaps is not what Theists believe in; its an attempt by science to give the impression that if they keep exploring the gaps they can squeeze God out of existence; which makes no sense if God does exist and exists outside of the scope of human observation and only reveals what God chooses to reveal. I understand that this will get the usual flurry of well meaning confetti by some in this forum but I just wanted it to be clear this god of the gaps is not what we Monotheists believe in.

(December 30, 2012 at 8:12 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: I suppose what i'm saying is the default position could be seen as a position of faith in relation to what someone has no primary experience of and is reliant on other people experience and knowledge. I have no issue with someone having a default position as in truth we all must.

yes, it could be seen as some sort of faith.
Faith is not something exclusive of gods, you know?

(December 30, 2012 at 8:12 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: Position 2 is a much more complicated position and does allow for a spiritual dimension.

aye... eg: Buddhists.

---

(December 30, 2012 at 8:18 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: I just wanted it to be clear this god of the gaps is not what we Monotheists believe in.

Of course you don't...
But lots of monotheists try to use that argument and get the confetti you mentioned.

(December 30, 2012 at 8:18 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: Ps the god of the gaps is not what Theists believe in; its an attempt by science to give the impression that if they keep exploring the gaps they can squeeze God out of existence; which makes no sense if God does exist and exists outside of the scope of human observation and only reveals what God chooses to reveal. I understand that this will get the usual flurry of well meaning confetti by some in this forum but I just wanted it to be clear this god of the gaps is not what we Monotheists believe in.

Close. "God of the gaps" is kinda a short hand way to describe a common argument method used by theists. They say "We don't understand _______, therefore God did it." It's highly flawed on many levels; Neil Degrasse Tyson specifically said that if you believe in that, you're useless in a lab, and he explains the God of the gaps fairly well here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HooeZrC76s0

(December 30, 2012 at 8:32 pm)TaraJo Wrote:

(December 30, 2012 at 8:18 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: Ps the god of the gaps is not what Theists believe in; its an attempt by science to give the impression that if they keep exploring the gaps they can squeeze God out of existence; which makes no sense if God does exist and exists outside of the scope of human observation and only reveals what God chooses to reveal. I understand that this will get the usual flurry of well meaning confetti by some in this forum but I just wanted it to be clear this god of the gaps is not what we Monotheists believe in.

Close. "God of the gaps" is kinda a short hand way to describe a common argument method used by theists. They say "We don't understand _______, therefore God did it." It's highly flawed on many levels; Neil Degrasse Tyson specifically said that if you believe in that, you're useless in a lab, and he explains the God of the gaps fairly well here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HooeZrC76s0

I like Neil Degrasse Tyson and he comes across as a very spiritual athiest with a kind and generous nature. He does not have any problems with Theists who love science and try to explore God through his creation. Many great scientists have done this including the guy who 1st promoted the big bang theory Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître.

At the risk of derailing this thread I have to ask, what is a spiritual atheist?