Is atheism ever a faith?

[Edwardo Piet]

If, for example someone believes there is no God 100% and he has no (does not know any) evidence to support or dismiss his claim, isn't his atheism based on faith? And if this is true, despite the fact he believes 100% there is no God; isn't it possible that that is in fact quite a weak stance because if his belief is based on faith; which is based on preference and 'intuitive predictons' rather than evidence; couldn't he quite easily, atleast over time be converted to another faith? And therefore isn't his belief less strong than the 99% recurring belief - of the De Facto Atheist -against God because of evidence?

I believe I once had a faith in atheism for the sake of atheism and the sake of the vague intuitive likely hood I had of evolution, and for the sake of an anti-religious attitude. Also my belief was based on say the hatred of the God of the Old Testement and the Wars caused and finished by religion.

Now I have a belief (not a faith) in atheism that is entirely based on my belief in evidence. Also I still for moral reasons - that I thank for my genes and have developed through my memes and the conscious thought processes I have and the goals I have set -disagree on religion and hope to continue to argue against it in a verbal manner.

[Meatball]

The end doesn't define the means. If you believe something that happens to be true, using faith, of course it's still faith. If I believe no God exists because my Mom tells me, that's faith. If you make a logical decision based on knowledge of the world around you and evidence, that's reason.

I agree that an atheist basing his stance on faith would be a weaker atheist and more likely to adopt a religion, because they do not grasp logic. One who understands and applies logic would not be easily swayed in their belief.

Personally, it would take nothing short of God himself appearing before me and pulling some crazy miracle shit for me to convert.

[Edwardo Piet]

Personally, it would take nothing short of God himself appearing before me and pulling some crazy miracle shit for me to convert.

I would certainly convert if I experienced that too.

Then I would most likely wake up. "Oh stupid me it was all a dream".

Joking aside, I couldn't agree more with your reply. Nicely put too. I sometimes have trouble getting my point across and ramble a lot; maybe I'll learn?

[Ace Otana]

You don't need faith to dis-believe something.

If god was to appear in front of me and do some funny shit, I'd still ignore him.

I don't do worship.

[Edwardo Piet]

Depends on your definition of faith....

you don't need faith to dis-believe something but you must need SOME faith to dis-believe it 100% because theres still a possibility (an incredibly incredibly incredibly recurring tiny possibility) that something supernatural, or a God of any sort exists.

If God appeared and threw me into space I'd either believe it or assume its a dream...and If I did believe it I would most likely wake up afterwards...

My point is if God actually showed up, asuming its not a dream that would be at least SOME evidence of his existence so if you still dis-believed 100% you must have some faith against God's existence not just evidence....

You could easily believe God exists if he showed up; but not believe 'in' him in the sense despite his existence you still wouldn't worship him..(most likely because you think he's a total s**t).

Futhermore if God didn't do anything to you physically (like throw you into space) and merely did miracles in front of you; and you're not dreaming - it's probably more likely you are hallucinating than that there is a God despite the fact that hallucinating for no known reason 'out of the blue' is very unlikely. Dawkins talks about the argument of belief in God because of personal experience in TGD; and gives some examples of arguments against such an argument.

I guess there's a difference between the definition of faith as in believing 'in', as in worshiping and the definition of faith as in believing in or not believing in God 100% either way. Because God's always a possibility he can't be disproved like Russels teapot, and to believe 100% against the possibility of God must therefore contain atleast enough faith against God to fill the gap of the very very tiny possibilty of his existence.

To conclude, technically I do believe in God...but only to the extent I believe in Russels Teapot or pink unicorns (which obviously is an incredibly incredibly tiny extent).

However I 100% do not believe 'in' God in the sense I don't worship him at all.

There is difference between believing 'in' in the sense of worship; and believing in the POSSIBILITY, however small, of God's existence. That's the misunderstanding I think.
In the case of this poll I'm talking about believing in the possibility of his existence - however small - or not. I'm not talking about belief as in worship. I mean faith as in belief not ENTIRELY based on evidence. Or faith for the sake of faith and preference and 'intuitive observations or predictions'. I don't mean worship.

[chatpilot]

I would never consider atheism either a faith or a religion for the following reasons.I personally do not have faith in any way shape or form that god does not exist.I am thoroughly convinced that he or she or it does not exist.I don't go to meetings or prostests or join atheists groups.But I do love the occasional debate.

[Edwardo Piet]

I would never consider atheism either a faith or a religion for the following reasons.I personally do not have faith in any way shape or form that god does not exist.I am thoroughly convinced that he or she or it does not exist.I don't go to meetings or prostests or join atheists groups.But I do love the occasional debate.

What I mean is since God can't be disproved just like Russels teapot can't.... you can be 99% recurring sure that God doesn't exist because of evidence...but to fill up the gap and say his existence is impossible must take atleast some form of faith however small because there isn't enough evidence to disprove god or to be 100% "thoroughly convinced" as you put it that he doesn't exist. So however small the amount of faith my point is I think Atheism can be based on faith....

I am pretty certain that my Atheism used to be based on faith because I didn't really know any of the evidence (as I explained on my first post of this topic). And if Atheism based not on evidence but on intution and faith is not Atheism then what was my label if it wasn't Atheism? I was 100% against God and the supernatural yet I didn't know of any of the evidence, I only had my intuitive observations and predictions. I think this is an example of an Atheistic faith. Of course now my Atheism is based on evidence, not faith.

[Tiberius]

you don't need faith to dis-believe something but you must need SOME faith to dis-believe it 100% because theres still a possibility (an incredibly incredibly incredibly recurring tiny possibility) that something supernatural, or a God of any sort exists.

I disagree. Disbelief is either rejecting or not believing a claim. The claim that God exists is the one put forward, and it has absolutely 0% evidence behind it that can be verified. Thus it takes 0% faith to disbelieve it, seeing as there is nothing we are ignoring or simply discarding.

If there was evidence, the disbelief would be based on some form of faith. For example, the vast majority of the scientific community claim Evolution explains how we got here. The evidence for this is absolutely massive. Do deny / disbelieve Evolution requires a giant leap of faith, because you have to ignore all the scientific evidence.

[Edwardo Piet]

Hmmm....I think that even though there's no evidence for God he's still a tiny possiblity and if you deny that possibility, surely that denial of possibility is faith because evidence suggests anything is possible due to the fact that many things have been discovered which before it was discovered we had no evidence for it, but due to the amount and strength of evidence some things are more possible than others. There is no evidence for eternal impossibility of any sort; if you think otherwise surely that is a form of faith to some extent.

[starbucks]

A big stereotype about atheists is that "they don't understand" and that's why they don't believe. One can perfectly understand the logic and the reasons of a religious faith yet reject it. It's like an archaeologists who completely understands the mentality of an ancient culture and quite frankly is enthusiastic about studying them YET, would he, himself, ever practice their customs? No.

Having said that though....I do believe there are some atheists who are still very RELIGIOUS. Meaning, they're about to make atheism a "faith" of sorts. Not exactly in the same way as other well-known religious faiths but they're still looking to "organize" it. Take for example the increasing followers of Richard Dawkins. I even read an article about atheist parents in California who have begun sending their children to "atheist Sunday school" - so to speak.

Take every single username in this forum. The fact that we're all on here means we're looking to communicate with each other about "atheism". Sooner or later, there will be a need to set "standards", "definitions", "terms", etc. I've already seen discussions back and forth about the true definition of "atheism".

Sounds like the beginning of an "organized" religion - in this case, "no" religion.