Athiesm is a Faith?

[Mark 13:13]

hey, Mark.... a word: when you click the Reply button, DO NOT DELETE anything of what appears in the text-box of the reply. Just type at the end.
It's frustrating reading your posts with the quote tags half missing.
Some mods have been covering some of your tracks, but they can't keep up with all the crap you make on that subject.
Please, pay attention to that.

quote tags are used like this:

Code:

[quote="username"  pid='post ID' dateline='some other number']
quoted text
[/quote]

Here you type your reply.

If you want to break apart someone else's post, add a [/quote] and copy the initial [quote...] tag.

[quote="same username" pid='same post ID' dateline='same number']
quoted bit
[/quote]

Your reply to this second bit.

I used the code tags so you can see everything verbatim

[/off topic] <- fictional tag

Cheers I did ask the mods wat was up and i'm trying to fix it, really i am lol

[Angrboda]

Italics on your text removed for readability.

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 you are implying 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 way, making their results epistemically equivalent, you are in error.

easy to state hard to prove

Yes, and since you are the one implying that they may be equivalent, you bear the burden of demonstrating your claim. You haven't discharged this burden yet, and reliance on vague assertions, using ambiguous and ill-defined terms like 'faith' is not working in your favor.

And I read your citation of Wisdom 2. ... 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.

I was not saying that one religion's treatment of it has any validity but rather that the debate between Athiests and Theists has remained very similar in essence for a very very long time and the concept of God is just to go away and become a myth for a large proportion of humanity just because Athiests want it to is going against the evidence of history.

This is a distortion of the historical facts, likely due to ignorance of the great variety and history of both religious and non-religious thought. This hasn't even been true during the tenure of Christianity. (I'll simply point to the Eleusinian mystery cults [~2,000 years], Confucianism, Pyhrronic Skepticism, Buddhism, Shintoism, The Heaven's Gate cult, Panspermianism, Taoism, and the Stoics, by way of counter-example.)

It's a common error, in both atheists and Abrahamanic theists, but regardless, it is an error, and invalidates your entire point. I'm sure that believers in Zeus and Oden expressed similar sentiments, and few see the end of empire on the horizon, though history warns us of its inevitability. (for political empires)

though I would suggest that what may happen is instead of the God-man society will substitute the Man-god because whatever we think is the truth is its clear that humanity is hardwired to look beyond the physical and try to reach to the spiritual.

This appears to be an oblique call to the appeal that if something is natural it is therefore likely right. Even if something is an inevitable product of thought (and I would agree that this may be largely true for theism), this does not in any sense indicate that the contents of those thoughts are either true or justifiably believable. It doesn't. (Another counter-example; people for a long time believed that people were "natural statisticians," able to judge probabilities reliably via intuitions. Kahneman and Tversky's prospect theory showed this to be untrue, and that human judgement about probability in situations of risk departs in a consistent and systematic manner from what would be expected if they were truly rational about the probabilities. What is 'natural' turned out to be reliably and predictably wrong.) Science itself shows we are capable of substituting epistemically justified beliefs in place of faulty intuitions.

[Mark 13:13]

Italics on your text removed for readability.

easy to state hard to prove

Yes, and since you are the one implying that they may be equivalent, you bear the burden of demonstrating your claim. You haven't discharged this burden yet, and reliance on vague assertions, using ambiguous and ill-defined terms like 'faith' is not working in your favor.

I was not saying that one religion's treatment of it has any validity but rather that the debate between Athiests and Theists has remained very similar in essence for a very very long time and the concept of God is just to go away and become a myth for a large proportion of humanity just because Athiests want it to is going against the evidence of history.

This is a distortion of the historical facts, likely due to ignorance of the great variety and history of both religious and non-religious thought. This hasn't even been true during the tenure of Christianity. (I'll simply point to the Eleusinian mystery cults [~2,000 years], Confucianism, Pyhrronic Skepticism, Buddhism, Shintoism, The Heaven's Gate cult, Panspermianism, Taoism, and the Stoics, by way of counter-example.)

It's a common error, in both atheists and Abrahamanic theists, but regardless, it is an error, and invalidates your entire point. I'm sure that believers in Zeus and Oden expressed similar sentiments, and few see the end of empire on the horizon, though history warns us of its inevitability. (for political empires)

though I would suggest that what may happen is instead of the God-man society will substitute the Man-god because whatever we think is the truth is its clear that humanity is hardwired to look beyond the physical and try to reach to the spiritual.

This appears to be an oblique call to the appeal that if something is natural it is therefore likely right. Even if something is an inevitable product of thought (and I would agree that this may be largely true for theism), this does not in any sense indicate that the contents of those thoughts are either true or justifiably believable. It doesn't. (Another counter-example; people for a long time believed that people were "natural statisticians," able to judge probabilities reliably via intuitions. Kahneman and Tversky's prospect theory showed this to be untrue, and that human judgement about probability in situations of risk departs in a consistent and systematic manner from what would be expected if they were truly rational about the probabilities. What is 'natural' turned out to be reliably and predictably wrong.)

1) I continue to refuse the premise that I carry the burden of proof just because i express a belief and repeating the point wont change this. If however I make the claim that I am correct and can prove it or you are wrong and I can prove it then I would accept said burden but I challenge you to show where I made any statements like the two I have just written.

2) regarding ignorance of historical facts; my fault for not being clear I was not talking purely about The Judeo-Christian idea about God but on all the attempts by all societies in history to define God as best they could.

3) the last point was not a call to call something correct because it is natural but a statement of what I believe is a growing trend in the body of humanity that won't accept the removal of spirituality from their existence it is not something I endorse but rather predict based on the flurry of books and videos that endorse the idea of the Man-god as opposed to the Christian Jesus God-man. Of course as a gentle tilt to the old spagetti western the Athiests will still be saying " We don't need no stinking gods".

[Norfolk And Chance]

In reality I don't have a mental block, I can accept that my position is faith based but for some reason my acceptance of this seems to be taken is by default by a lot of athiest I have discussion with to mean anything else I have to say is worthless. I am just trying to level the playing field a little by asking athiest to accept that to Theists, an athiests position at its core has to be faith based (even if they word play faith by saying non faith or belief as non belief). So I believe its not Theists that have a block about the word faith.

You can "try and level the playing field" all you want by claiming that atheism is a faith based position, but I will tell you now, you will get NOWHERE on here if you can't get past that.

It simply isn't faith based.

[Mister Agenda]

Gosh. So little credit for all those people of many faiths who have taken science so far. Its feels like the spoilt grandchild who despises their elders but is happy to live of the sweat of their brows and they wealth thats passed on to them. There wouldn't be enough room in this forum pages for all the Theistic scientists and thinkers who built this society to what it is now. I think if Neil would agree.

It's not the religous belief that's the problem. It's proposing God as an explanation for the unknown. For starters, saying 'God did it' doesn't really explain anything.

Tyson certainly wasn't suggesting that theists can't be good scientists. He was just talking about the 'god of the gaps' mentality.

If you think we have a ridiculous position, your next thought should be that maybe you're not understanding us.

---

Wisdom 2:1-24

Everything after verse 9 is a baseless insult, so I gues the conversation hasn't changed in thousands of years.

[Ryantology]

My atheism has nothing to do with faith. It has to do with the fact that the odds of any specific claims of a theist is so asymptotically close to zero (and theists always willing to move the goalposts anyway) that I choose to ignore the asymptote and go with what, by all indications, appears to be far closer to correct.

It's not a measure of faith because I know science lacks a total understanding and I'm prepared to re-assess my worldview based upon new, contradictory discoveries if they hold up under scrutiny.

[Mister Agenda]

Rolf prove he doesn't and I will nananananah

That's the heart of the poverty of the theist position. You can't prove an imaginary being that has been defined as unfalsifiable doesn't exist. From that fact, you can't get to 'therefore, God exists' anymore than you can get to 'therefore, leprechauns exist'. And it is still your VERY best argument.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

1) I continue to refuse the premise that I carry the burden of proof just because i express a belief and repeating the point wont change this. If however I make the claim that I am correct and can prove it or you are wrong and I can prove it then I would accept said burden but I challenge you to show where I made any statements like the two I have just written.

Do you claim that your god exists?

*magic*

Burden of proof.

[Mister Agenda]

That much is correct.

But

A lot of atheists, especially the kind that join atheist forums™ have a belief that God doesn't exist. That's different to not having a belief. Faith is another word for "belief", esp. where said belief cannot be proven.

Anyone here who has a belief that God doesn't exist, please speak up. I don't even have a belief that leprechauns don't exist, although I admit I would be very surprised if they turn out to be real.

---

By what authority do you claim this rule regarding burden of proof is on the claimant. And does the inability to prove something mean that you are wrong? how many innocent people are dead because the could not prove themselves innocent. I will concede that there is a logic in saying that should I want to convince you of something i believe to be true I should be leading the conversation with some evidence but in reality i'm not trying to prove anything to you so there is no burden, rather I hope to stimulate thought and discussion. As far as proofs you have already constrained the proofs by relegating spiritual and emotional intelligence to a non acceptable proof so i respect your position on this and don't bother to bring this dimension to the discussion. To sum up , I am not going to prove anything I claim and have no need to, but that does not make what i say false.

The burden of proof is on the claimant for exactly the same reason a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. It's not the defendant who has to prove they're not guilty, and it's not the one witholding belief that has to prove that what is claimed to exist does not.

[GurrenLagann]

I don't really see how NOT believing in something can be called a faith. If that's the case, then theists are approximately as faithful as atheists. As is often said, we just go one god further, or rather, we're consistent atheists.