Athiesm is a Faith?

[Angrboda]

Let's examine the passage alluded to in your namesake, Mark 13:13:

"You will be hated by all because of My name, but the one who endures to the end, he will be saved." (NASB)

You come to an atheist forum, declaring yourself a Christian, bearing a name that alludes to confrontation and religious persecution, and present a thesis you know the majority of atheists will not accept, and then you express amazement and offense when people become confrontational in return.

What a disingenuous and dishonest little twat you are.

Yes, many of the same processes of mind are used in coming to the atheist, secular or agnostic position as are used in coming to theistic conclusions; and even where they are not the same, it's often difficult for non-specialists to differentiate between different forms of reasoning. The human mind relies on a limited bag of tricks by virtue of its limited nature, and because of the properties of those tricks. But when you imply that when atheists or others come to the conclusion that your god (or any god) does not exist, they are using the same tricks in the same ways, making their results epistemically equivalent, you are in error. This is simply not true. While there is overlap in methods used, and distinctions between various meanings of ambiguous terms like 'faith' can further blur distinctions, implying that the same process is used in both instances in the same way is simply false and unsupported. Implying that because similar processes are used in both to arrive at their conclusions, when such similar processes are used in different ways or different senses, means that your thesis is guilty of the fallacy of equivocation, and is therefore invalid. (Not necessarily false, but not justifiably true based on what you've presented.)

And I read your citation of Wisdom 2. I'm unfamiliar with its context and standing (aside from it being deuterocanonical), but what I found interesting was its structure. Up until 2:21-24 it is an unremarkable set of questions and assertions about mortality (and a few naive opinions on the nature of ethics, biased against godlessness). Then in 2:21-24, it switches modes and changes into a rant composed entirely of bare assertions, wholly unjustified by the preceding text. (see below) I suppose the passage hopes to lull the reader into complacency prior to springing the unsupported claims on them. I reject the claims in 21-24 as unjustified, and, unlike your implication, not historically common, except among religious apologists attempting to disarm people's skepticism with sophistry. Regardless, that a theme is old and perennial is no evidence that one religion's treatment of it has any validity, simply because it asks the same questions.

21 Such things they did imagine, and were deceived: for their own wickedness hath blinded them.
22 As for the mysteries of God, they knew them not: neither hoped they for the wages of righteousness, nor discerned a reward for blameless souls.
23 For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity.
24 Nevertheless through envy of the devil came death into the world: and they that do hold of his side do find it.

---

"If indeed the Prince likes good men and hates bad men, why would you try to change him? If he does not, you would be better off saying nothing; for if you do speak, the Prince will expose your weak points and win the argument. You will look confused and ashamed; you will find one excuse after another and you will seem to yield. Your mind will be molded to his way of thinking. This is putting out fire with fire, adding water to a flood; it is called adding to the excess. If you start by giving in, there will be no end to your concessions. And if you speak out strongly against him, he will not listen to you and will undoubtedly put you to death.”

“In ancient times, Chieh killed Kuan Lung Pang and Chou killed Prince Pi Kan. These two victims were virtuous men who tried hard to comfort and aid the common people. In this way they offended their superiors. Their rulers had them put to death because of their goodness. This was the result of seeking fame for their virtue.”

. . . .

“Let me tell you something else I have heard. If states have close ties, their mutual trust is demonstrated by deeds. If they are far apart, their good faith has to be renewed with words in the form of messages. But carrying messages of delight or anger between two parties is the most difficult thing in the world. When they are both pleased, there is bound to be exaggeration of flattery; when they are both angry, there is bound to be exaggeration of criticism. Exaggeration leads away from truth. Without truth, there will be no trust. When there is no trust, the messengers will be in danger. Therefore, it is said, ‘Speak the truth and do not exaggerate; then you will not be harmed.’ ”

— The Zhuangzi, excerpts, Feng/English trans.