The debate "Is atheism based on blind faith" was started by
April 12, 2016, 10:22 pm.
10 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 27 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
blanco posted 7 arguments, Alex posted 3 arguments, Razor posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
PsychDave posted 4 arguments, Sosocratese posted 5 arguments, Nemiroff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
blanco, Alex, Thomas_Jefferson, Razor and 6 visitors agree.
Sosocratese, ProudAmerican888, PsychDave, SocialistForrest, allthetime, Jason9374, bearjew1984, genome, mxhsin, Pugsly, openparachute, Iran1998, rob5998, Nemiroff, truce_jttm, SueAnnMohr, Zuhayr and 10 visitors disagree.
atheism, by definition, is the denial of the existence of God.
Maybe instead of foolish, it's just people able to do something you can't.
I highly doubt that God exists. I often criticize religious people on here who just spout the same tired circular arguments over and over. but it is more a criticism of them. not an absolute statement god doesn't exist. but it is extremely unlikely and therefore having blind faith in it is foolish.
Buff you have said in other debates that you do though? So?
I don't deny the possibility that God exists. the odds are just extremely low that he exists. that is a very different argument.
See like I said, person to person basis. Buff denies G-d. You can find other atheist that don't deny G-d. It all depends on the person.
but denying God is not a part of atheism. alot of Christians are blond, being blond is not a requirement of being Christian. Alot of atheists do deny the existence of God, but that is their choice. atheism itself is not based on faith. it is the lack of it. if people want to take that further then that is their business. they don't speak for all atheists.
but beyond that, I would still argue that denying God is not based on faith. the odds that God exists are extremely low. it is not faith to decide to believe in something else. while science cannot definitively prove you wrong, it doesn't make it faith to believe the extremely unlikely is wrong.
Half of the definition of aethism is the denial of G-d, the other half is the lack of belief. It depends on the person. Most atheist however do deny there is a G-d rather then just saying they don't have the evidence to support him. Some will say they lack the evidence yet still deny G-d. So ultimately it's a person to person basis Buff.
atheism is not a denial that God exists. it is a lack of belief that God exists. by definition atheism is not based on faith, it is a lack of it. I believe in things that can be supported by evidence. since religion cannot be supported by evidence I do not believe in it. that is absolutely not a faith based belief.
Faith is believing something that can't be proved. Atheism can't be proved. Therefore Athiesm is based on faith. You can never be 100% sure that God doesn't exist. For all you know you just haven't managed to find Him. This does not by any means prove God's existence, however it does prove that Atheism is based on faith. You can not prove or disprove that with is supernatural by means of physical experimentation!
read the definition on faith buff.
it isn't really faith if it is based on facts and research. I can have faith in individual researchers because I respect their intelligence. since science is based entirely on testable results it takes faith completely out of the equation. it isn't faith if I can see all the proof.
Thank you Dave we all have faith in something regardless of what it is.
I will readily admit that I have faith in science. That still doesn't end the debate though. I don't have BLIND faith in science. When I hear something interesting or new, I look into it. I may not spend years getting a doctorate on the subject, but I learn enough to judge how reliable the information is. As such, atheists who have faith in science are still not showing blind faith. They are showing faith in a verifiable source.
You hang onto science like a person who is very religious though. You're contradicting yourself. Why not just admit you do have faith in science rather then drawing it out? We see you have faith in science.
The atheist position must be one of uncertainty even in regards to scientific theories, hypothesis, and even laws. Since science is a process, every theory that we "believe" in is constantly changing and that change is readily accepted and celebrated. In science you hunt for bad science and strip out studies that didn't follow the correct methodology and you repeat experiments all so we can rip apart that which we "believe". The only assumption that science makes is that phenomena are explainable through study. There is no other assumption or unknown needed. I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound like "complete trust and confidence is someone or something".
I agree that it's hard not to use the term believe when it comes to science, however I doubt you would argue that any atheist holds to any scientific theory like people hang on to a particular religion.
Take gravity for instance. We think we're pretty familiar with it. We think of it as a law at times. However, our entire understanding of gravity is going to change in the not so distant future. The second we see a valid unifying theory of gravity it will fundamentally change how we look at the world around us....not to mention the universe. So we believe in the phenomena of gravity, sure, but we don't know what to believe as far as how it works. We may never know, but as long as the most recent information is more useful, the it will be applied.
And that brings me to my next argument. Science must be useful. Meaning that it must produce results. So saying one believes in science is much like saying I believe that tools make things easier. For what is science but a tool to acquire knowledge?
If you take the first definition though, it will answer the debate though. It's just a different "Faith" they follow.
Faith - complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
Believe - accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.
"Saying I don't BELIEVE in x, is not the same as saying I have FAITH that x doesn?t exist."
Or you could have said. I don't accept X as true. is not the same as saying I dont completely trust X"
Which means you do have some belief in a divine being or, you are unclear on what faith and beliefs are.
Faith includes your beliefs though.
Exactly, a lack of believe is not equivocal to a belief.... Saying I don't believe in x, is not the same as saying I have faith that x doesn?t exist.
The former leaves the option for x open, however, it's a claim about the evidence for x. Let's look at abiogenesis. Alex may say I don't believe abiogenesis is possible. Now, that is not the same as saying I believe abiogenesis is impossible. The former would leave him open to considering new evidence on the subject and if we ever find a valid theory of abiogenesis he could still accept that theory. If however, he claimed that he had faith that abiogenesis is impossible, then he is essentially saying that even in the face of evidence for it he would deny it because he believes the contrary.
That is the atheist position in short. Just because I don't believe in the current big bang models (I think we'll see a modification to the concept of the singularity when we figure out gravity) doesn't mean that I have faith that this is the case. If the evidence comes back and we figure out that there definitely was a singularity, then I'd have no conflicting believe system that would make me deny that fact. I would be able to accept it based on th evidence.
Atheist- person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. Per Websters Dictionary
atheism is a belief, and faith that god doesn't exist, to argue that will never make sense, it just ignorance.
Alex, you are still claiming that atheists believe there is no God in spite of the fact that you have repeatedly been told by several different people that this is not always the case. There are atheists who believe God cannot exist, and that is a form of faith against God. This is not descriptive of most of the atheists I have met, but since I don't have any numbers of how many believe God doesn't exist compared to just not believing in God I can't say which group is larger.
For the second group, it is not a belief in "blind science" it is a lack of belief in religion.
You don't seem to really grasp how science works, which is probably why you are so skeptical of things like evolution and climate change. You seem to think that unless you are an expert in the subject and doing the research yourself you cannot know for sure. This isn't accurate since with a bit of effort anyone can learn about the topics. The papers, research and proof are all available to teach us. I will readily admit that I, and scientists, do not fully understand gravity. Gravity waves have only very recently been shown to exist though they were predicted by Einstein. I do trust that if I drop something it will fall though. I don't consider that blind faith in science, I consider it faith that the universe follows a set of rules that we are gradually learning about.
If you didn't understand the rules to a sport, watching it would be almost incomprehensible. But by watching it you could learn the rules. That is what science is trying to do. Scientists watch how the universe behaves and try to work out the rules. They have sometimes gotten things wrong, and they have oversimplified sometimes, but they keep looking to get a better idea of how everything works.
Atheists often don't have faith that God cannot exist. They simply don't believe that what they have seen of the world shows that he does. They could be right or wrong, but does it take much faith for you to believe that a ball will fall toward the ground?
This is one of the reasons the Middle East hates the Western Civilizations.
exactly bind science since you can't disprove God. your blindly believing in science without considering God could be true
you can't prove big foot didn't create all human life. maybe we can't exist without big foot. it is the exact same argument. you cannot prove big foot didn't create the universe. we can't prove (yet) that God didn't create the world, but that doesn't provide any evidence that you are right. only that it can't be definitively disproven.
you might respond to me with the same thing you said to Blanco.
so the Bigfoot thing. Do we need Bigfoot to exist? no. Does Bigfoot matter in anything we do? no. do we have 100% hard evidence we can survive without Bigfoot? yes. is there any proof of Bigfoot? no, other then a lost guy in the woods.
ask these same questions about God we get Do we need God to exist? either blind science says "I'll have faith in science, so no" or deeper studies arise at the Idk and back to blind science. the seconed question relies on the first being true so the answer is the same. Do we have hard 100% evidence we can survive without God? no, only theories and opinions, even you guys believe God could be true, but take science to be able to survive without God. Is there any proof of God? yes, a lot more then a random stranger or too have seen Jesus, mary, many miracles have tacken place.
atheists a lot of times rest on "blind science" they believe that God doesn't need to be real cause science said so, without understanding the science.
like in religion where someone can believe in God without studying him. that's ok if the person is satisfied with that.
in science one can study more and become am expert on life without God theory, and atemp to move beyond blind science. the problem is scientists always come to the "idk" conclusion some way or another so blind science remains. you could call it blind faith, since one is having faith that science is right, and faith the unknown questions can be answered by science.
in religion one cam study theology, and move beyond blind faith, but there are a lot of things one must have to wait till death to find out, so faith is required, and since we can't see all of the mystery, it's blind faith.
Blanco, instead of restating your opinion, please read our posts. Atheists are not inherently saying "There is no God". They are saying that they haven't seen evidence that God exists. That is not blind faith, it is a lack of it. We have made various analogies that should have made it easier to understand.
Blanco, you're misunderstanding the position of the atheist here. The atheist position is that there is insufficient reason to believe in a God. Disbelief is simply the absence of convincing evidence to foster belief. To call that faith in its own right is simply not true.
Here is the definition of faith:
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof
Here is the biblical definition:
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen
The atheist position doesn't match with either of those definitions so how can you call it faith? You may call it a belief system sure, but faith is absolutely the wrong word to use.
I don't believe in big foot, but that doesn't take faith, I simply haven't seen any evidence that would make me think that there is a big foot. There is however, no need for me to have faith that no evidence will ever be found in support of big foot because if it ever is, there is nothing preventing me from believing big foot exists.
There is also nothing stopping me from accepting God should I ever see evidence that would substantiate God's existence....so I don't have "faith" in science, I simply don't have reason to believe in a God.
To say its the absence of belief, yet it's a belief that there isn't a creator for the universe based on no evidence makes no sense, and for that atheism is the strongest belief system that isn't a belief system in the world! LOL
The arguments in the link you provided have all been addressed before. Arguments of fine tuning, design etc.... Have all been addressed and have nothing to do with the atheist position. Furthermore, many of the probability numbers are completely arbitrarily thrown in there. There is no way to arrive at the "human genome probability" with any sort of certainty. Since we don't even know the number of "chances" evolutionary processes had, how can you possibly calculate an actual probability.....
There is another problem with the fine tuning arguments; they all presume the existence of God rather than derive God from them thus they're based on circular reasoning. While fallacies may not in themselves prove that a position is wrong, we can safely dismiss the line of reasoning by which you come to your conclusion. So since the fine tuning argument isn't sound or valid it's not a good argument to base a belief system on. If it's not a good argument for basing a belief system, then it takes no faith to dismiss it, it simply takes reason....
atheist have faith
they blindly believe!
Dave, what's the difference between faith and belief? atheists have faith, confidence that god doesn't exist, they believe God doesn't exist based on no evidence.
Atheism isn't a denial of a deity it is simply the absence of belief in one. To say I don't believe in God is different than saying "there is no God".
The existence of God is a probability argument. So we measure the probability of whether or not there is likely or unlikely a supernatural entity.... To me this is just unlikely. I've never witnessed anything supernatural, nor can I think of any documented case of the supernatural.
It seems more likely to me that we, as people, invented creation stories to satisfy our thirst to know; to know how we came to be, to know how all of this "stuff" came to be, to know why we are.... We're starting to see that all but one of those questions can be answered through natural processes and require no supernatural entity whatsoever.
Quantum field theory gives us the origin of matter and energy, the big bang gives us space-time, evolution gives us speciation. A zero net energy universe gives us the properties needed to not be in violation of any natural law when discussing a natural universe. We're missing a theory of abiogenesis, but there is a lot of work being done and we've already found processes which can naturally produce the organic chemistry required for early life, found some ways to simplify cells even further, found self replicating proteins, etc.... We also still need a unifying theory of gravity in order to truly understand the very small and the very large (since our current theory of gravity breaks down at the two extremes).
I'll grant you, none of this is proof that the we or the universe came about through natural means. However, it has become a much more reasonable to look at us and the universe as natural phenomena. If you apply occams razor to the question, you must make many more assumptions in order to arrive at "God created this" than you do at "everything is natural". So if you think occams razor a good tool for setting up belief systems, then God is not the answer you'll come to by necessity.
Atheism is simply not believing in God. Do you believe that Odin is watching over you? Probably not. Do you believe the sun is Apollo's golden chariot going across the sky? Again probably not. Do you feel that this takes faith on your part? That is the point sosocratese was trying to make and it seems you missed it.
that was banned during obamas regime.
I honestly think they just claimed it was banned, but they still using that method, plus there's much other ways that is way worst then waterboarding
It was actually about waterboarding lol we both agreed it was wrong but I said there has been some cases of it working and he went on a tangent of no there hasn't ever been all long and drawn out.
Yeah, I know lol , I left a comment
Or anyone with a different belief than his. Even ones with the same. He's trying to debate the exact same thing I'm saying in another debate.
Socrates hates people who believe in religion it's a waste of time Blanco.
atheism is a belief that there isn't a creator even without evidence to support that claim, so hence they just have Faith, booyakah just killed your argument dude!
No, atheism would be the absence of faith based belifs.
Does it take faith for you not to believe in Zeus, Mars, mythra, or any of the other thousands of gods that have existed throughout humanity? You're atheistic in regards to all those gods, atheists simply take it one God further.