Athiesm is a Faith?

[Mark 13:13]

1complete trust or confidence in someone or something:

2belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof:

This is the oxford dictionary definition of faith. The second does not apply to atheism obviously.
The first one could apply to somone who has complete confidence in the concept of there being no god. But then this would directly contradict the second definition.
I dont see what the big deal is myself about this argument, i personally as an atheist dont have faith there 100 percent is no god, but the evidence points towards all the religions that say there is a god being wrong. But i can see that some atheists might have complete trust and confidence there is no god, im sure thats possible.

Yep I find your position reasonable even if I disagree.

---

absolutely true. I wish I hadn't asked that question in this thread but started another instead. Because then it would be fair for me to say you haven't answered the question as its gone completely of the topic. and its my fault for being drawn of the topic through other posters responses and me responding. So I'm gonna drop it for now and start a new thread soon instead. Hope your ok with that.

That's ok with me. As long as you sincerely believe to be posting stuff that is rational and reasoned, then I'm willing to listen. If what I responded to came out wrong and you meant something else, then I understand that too.

I decided not to start a new thread as I keep answering in this one so yes our desires do not create our reality is my take too. though there are some who I could not categorise as Theists who do believe something similar to what you allude to and that being that our thoughts create our reality and if we want to escape this illusion we need to recognise this and take a variety of actions as outlined by whatever video I happened to be watching.

[mr.atheist]

Not its not a faith.
Not believing in something, isn't a faith.
Its more like the opposite actually.

[Mark 13:13]

Not its not a faith.
Not believing in something, isn't a faith.
Its more like the opposite actually.

I contend that if you cant prove the position you take even if you express such a position as a negative then you are still accepting some part on faith regardless of who has the burden of proof.

[Zen Badger]

Not its not a faith.
Not believing in something, isn't a faith.
Its more like the opposite actually.

I contend that if you cant prove the position you take even if you express such a position as a negative then you are still accepting some part on faith regardless of who has the burden of proof.

So you take it on faith then that Odin doesn't exist, given that you can't prove that he doesn't.

[downbeatplumb]

Not its not a faith.
Not believing in something, isn't a faith.
Its more like the opposite actually.

I contend that if you cant prove the position you take even if you express such a position as a negative then you are still accepting some part on faith regardless of who has the burden of proof.

That is a silly way to look at it.

Is it your "faith" that you don't believe in an alien overlord like the scientologists do?

You must have hundreds of faiths...including lots that you haven't even heard of. It must be, because not believing in something is a faith according to you.

[Mark 13:13]

I contend that if you cant prove the position you take even if you express such a position as a negative then you are still accepting some part on faith regardless of who has the burden of proof.

That is a silly way to look at it.

Is it your "faith" that you don't believe in an alien overlord like the scientologists do?

You must have hundreds of faiths...including lots that you haven't even heard of. It must be, because not believing in something is a faith according to you.

Silly it may be but it is how I look at it.

[Brian37]

I contend that if you cant prove the position you take even if you express such a position as a negative then you are still accepting some part on faith regardless of who has the burden of proof.

So you take it on faith then that Odin doesn't exist, given that you can't prove that he doesn't.

Thats what he doesn't get. He assumed that he doesn't do that but he does with all the other god claims he rejects.

It does not take "faith" to reject claims of Santa. It does not take faith to reject invisible pink unicorns. It does not take faith to reject claims of little boys flying around on brooms. It does not take faith to reject Allah or Vishnu as claims.

But he simply cannot see, or his ego wont allow him to see, that the only difference between the atheist and the believer is we lack "faith" in one more god claim than they do.

Shifting the burden of proof is simply psychologically protecting one's ego. Good logic however, forces one to examine a claim before they present it to others. And on top of that, good logic allows others to try to poke holes in a claim. If it stands up to that poking, then the claimant is onto something. If it does not, the claimant gets to learn where they went wrong and values that learning experience.

The concepts of god are merely an unfortunate evolutionary side affect projecting our real evolutionary drive to spread our genes(desire to continue), and conflates it to fictional comic book levels.

[Zen Badger]

Proof that Thor exists.

Thor is the god of thunder and lightning.

Thunder and lightning exist.

Therefore Thor exists.

TAH DAAH!!!!!

[Whateverist]

It does not take "faith" to reject claims of Santa. It does not take faith to reject invisible pink unicorns. It does not take faith to reject claims of little boys flying around on brooms. It does not take faith to reject Allah or Vishnu as claims.

Well, maybe it takes a little faith .. that the world is a bit predictable .. that what was true yesterday will still be true today. We can't really prove that the world isn't wildly chaotic. All we can do is demonstrate that, yet again, that faith seems to have been justified when we opened our eyes in the morning.

We really are not and cannot operate as 100% rational, conscious beings at all times. Some assumptions are required. I suppose Mark has faith that when he wakes up in the morning there will still be no knockdown proof that his deity does not exist. I have faith that my operational assumption will still be a good one, that no heed need be paid to these 'gods' so many people will be nattering on about.

[KichigaiNeko]

Proof that Thor exists.

Thor is the god of thunder and lightning.

Thunder and lightning exist.

Therefore Thor exists.

TAH DAAH!!!!!