Happy Atheist Forum

Okay, so I am taking this anthropology class which, (needless to say lasts for four hours) covers the study of religion, shamanism and magic. This professor instructing the class is quite adamant about the aesthetic aspect of religion. In this class, we basically talk about all of the religions and their practices.

Personally, I have no problem learning about the different cultures throughout the history of humanity along with the different religions associated with it. However, there are a few statements my professor made tonight where I could not agree (I honestly believe a few were the general misconceptions on atheism). I am sure many of these points have been covered before, whether it be on this site or just in general.

She essentially says the following.

1. Atheism takes faith.

She 'backs up' this claim with this analogy. "Lets look at the speed of light. Do you actually know the speed of light? Or do you just take what scientists say to you? I highly doubt that you go out and measure this yourself, so you concede that light goes 186,000 miles per second based on what another group of people told you".

Now of course, I'm thinking to myself that that analogy doesn't hold much weight, because I don't have to be a sceintist to know that certain things are simply...true. (i.e. I do not need to be an astronomer to know that the earth is round).

2. Science vs Religion. A false dichotomy.

 She did not explain in detail...but she essentially states that most people believe that science and religion are truly seperate only because of some event  that occured that had to do with the French Revolution? Sadly, I don't have sufficient knowledge about that. Could anyone elaborate on this correlation between the french revolution and the 'misconeption' of this true dichotomy of science vs religion?

The third statement is basically my interpretation on her view on 'atheism'.

3. You BELIEVE that god doesn't exist.


Is this equivalent to saying "You believe that dragons do not exist?" Is this some type of semantic trick to insert the word believe? I don't know. However, I am curious on the community's thoughts on my professor's assessment of this

I see this all the time. First off, it seems they know that faith is not a good thing if they're trying to pin it on us. Second, no I don't have faith. I don't believe God doesn't exist (although I think it most likely) I simply don't believe any gods exist. It's the complete lack of belief. Also, believing in the absence of something does t necessarily require faith anyways. It doesn't take faith to believe that elephants don't exist in Yellowstone Park.

I've always seen religion and science as two different sides to the same coin. They are both looking to explain things but science is based on proving what you're saying by means of empirical evidence, religion is based on faith, believing without a shred of evidence. Not believing in something based on lack of evidence never requires faith.

Quote from: "Sophus"I see this all the time. First off, it seems they know that faith is not a good thing if they're trying to pin it on us. Second, no I don't have faith. I don't believe God doesn't exist (although I think it most likely) I simply don't believe any gods exist. It's the complete lack of belief. Also, believing in the absence of something does t necessarily require faith anyways. It doesn't take faith to believe that elephants don't exist in Yellowstone Park.

I've always seen religion and science as two different sides to the same coin. They are both looking to explain things but science is based on proving what you're saying by means of empirical evidence, religion is based on faith, believing without a shred of evidence. Not believing in something based on lack of evidence never requires faith.

Exactly! I do not subscribe to the faith at all.
Okay, so this is the only thing I want to clear up.

"I believe god(s) doesn't exist" =/= "I don't believe god(s) exists"??

My only 'problem' with the former, is that I can't find a flaw in the statement, but I do not like the word 'believe'. For some reason I fully concede the "I don't believe", but I find "I believe don't" tasteless. But I'm failing to see the difference.

Let me put this simply, Faith is a believe of something with no evidence or proof.

Therefore, if you only "believe" in evidence and proof, its not faith, its open-mindness.

Quote from: "Cite134"1. Atheism takes faith.

She 'backs up' this claim with this analogy. "Lets look at the speed of light. Do you actually know the speed of light? Or do you just take what scientists say to you? I highly doubt that you go out and measure this yourself, so you concede that light goes 186,000 miles per second based on what another group of people told you".

It doesn't take faith to demonstrate this; it takes instrumentation. And for those of us without instrumentation, we can read articles.  However, articles can be faked.  How do we know they're not?  Peer review.  How do we know that is not faked?  Because I'm typing this response on a website which relies on things like light-speed and QM.  Science works, and that is the final test.  Faith need not apply.

Quote2. Science vs Religion. A false dichotomy.

 She did not explain in detail...but she essentially states that most people believe that science and religion are truly seperate only because of some event  that occured that had to do with the French Revolution? Sadly, I don't have sufficient knowledge about that. Could anyone elaborate on this correlation between the french revolution and the 'misconception' of this true dichotomy of science vs religion?

Science and religion are disparate because religion demands faith and science abjures it.  One aspect of the French Revolution was that the revolutionaries rejected religion because it was cited by nobility as the reason for the king's position: divine right.  In tearing down the king, the revolutionaries had to naturally attack this concept.  Furthermore, that revolution was born out of the Enlightenment, which largely introduced the ideas of agnosticism and atheism into European culture.  Thus, the two were associated.

Quote3. You BELIEVE that god doesn't exist.

She's wrong here.  I only believe that claims ought to be supported by evidence.

As an aside, I wonder about the legality of her pronouncements.

Yeah, everything I posted is almost an exact quote. She seems to have a vibrant personality and I don't dislike her or anything. Yet, being a professor, I thought she would understand the definition of atheism and faith.

Quote from: "Cite134"Yeah, everything I posted is almost an exact quote. She seems to have a vibrant personality and I don't dislike her or anything. Yet, being a professor, I thought she would understand the definition of atheism and faith.

Especially being an anthropology professor.  As an anthropology student, I'm a little appalled.  Then again, personal bias - hers and mine - is probably a factor here as well.

Quote from: "Cite134"My only 'problem' with the former, is that I can't find a flaw in the statement, but I do not like the word 'believe'. For some reason I fully concede the "I don't believe", but I find "I believe don't" tasteless. But I'm failing to see the difference.

One is affirmative, the other denies. Think of Dawkins' Theist/Atheist scale. Most atheists rate themselves at a 6 out of 7 meaning they don't know that god does not exist, but are atheists de facto.

Quote from: "Cite134"1. Atheism takes faith.
[spoiler:1r7ro0oc]She 'backs up' this claim with this analogy. "Lets look at the speed of light. Do you actually know the speed of light? Or do you just take what scientists say to you? I highly doubt that you go out and measure this yourself, so you concede that light goes 186,000 miles per second based on what another group of people told you".

Now of course, I'm thinking to myself that that analogy doesn't hold much weight, because I don't have to be a sceintist to know that certain things are simply...true. (i.e. I do not need to be an astronomer to know that the earth is round).[/spoiler:1r7ro0oc]

Does it take faith to not believe that the speed of of light is 186,000 miles a second? No, because it doesn't take any kind of faith to not believe in something. Now if you want to take it on authority, you can, that does take faith (I would argue a far different way, but in basic terms... sure). However you can find out on your own in a way that takes no faith (sans solipsism). Any way, how the speed of light relates to atheism I don't know.

Quote from: "Cite134"2. Science vs Religion. A false dichotomy.
[spoiler:1r7ro0oc]She did not explain in detail...but she essentially states that most people believe that science and religion are truly seperate only because of some event  that occured that had to do with the French Revolution? Sadly, I don't have sufficient knowledge about that. Could anyone elaborate on this correlation between the french revolution and the 'misconeption' of this true dichotomy of science vs religion?[/spoiler:1r7ro0oc]

It depends on the context whether you can consider this a false dichotomy or not, because there are religious scientists. How they go about finding the truth is a true dichotomy: science works on following empirical evidence to the truth, religion works on pure speculation to merely assert the "truth".

Quote from: "Cite134"3. You BELIEVE that god doesn't exist.
[spoiler:1r7ro0oc]Is this equivalent to saying "You believe that dragons do not exist?" Is this some type of semantic trick to insert the word believe? I don't know. However, I am curious on the community's thoughts on my professor's assessment of this [/spoiler:1r7ro0oc]

Depends on how you word it. I think it's perfectly reasonable to say "I believe dragons don't exist" because in the time we have been alive, there has been no evidence of dragons. This works the same for god, "I believe god does not exist" is perfectly reasonable because there is no evidence for god. Now before you go on with this though, there are colloquial statements and there are technical statements, you must find out which these are. I will say that I believe there is no god, however if pressed to be as accurate as possible or to be technical, I will clarify it by saying that it's extremely unlikely that there is a god.

Depends on who I'm talking to, if I'm talking to friends I'll not feel the need to be technical because we usually are interested in honest discussions, but when talking with people I don't know, I'll be very clear. The reason why I do this is because of what this person is trying to do: compare two different kinds of statements: like you saying, "evolution selects the species that live" then this person saying, "aha, so you believe that evolution is a conscious entity picking and choosing which species survive." Analogy versus technical fail.

@Cite134
It's good that you've remained so diplomatic about it. I think I would have got really annoyed with her! Not because this is her view but because her expressing this view in class and from a position of authority is gonna affirm this nonsense to all the theists in the class.

Just out of interest are there any other atheists in your class? If so what are their views on it all?

Strong atheists DO have faith that there is no god.  Making that assertion that gods don't exist is a position of faith just as much as making the opposite assertion is.  Some atheists are atheists because they never really bothered to think about the issue.  They also have faith in no god by virtue of the fact that their position isn't based on knowledge.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"Strong atheists DO have faith that there is no god.  Making that assertion that gods don't exist is a position of faith just as much as making the opposite assertion is.  Some atheists are atheists because they never really bothered to think about the issue.  They also have faith in no god by virtue of the fact that their position isn't based on knowledge.

I agree about strong atheists/gnostic atheists having faith but they are very much a minority. The atheists who haven't really thought about it- I would have to disagree, no way do they have to have faith, faith has not even come into the equasion for them, they just haven't deemed the idea worthy of thought and therefore have no faith either way!

Quote from: "George"they just haven't deemed the idea worthy of thought and therefore have no faith either way!

They do if they hold a position based on nothing.  If they're "default atheists", then I would agree with you.

Cambridge University has a good source where you can learn about atheism:

http://www.investigatingatheism.info/history.html (http://www.investigatingatheism.info/history.html)

And here is where the faith must come in if you wish to follow the Aristotelian laws of logic:

? where is the evidence ?

QuoteThe Argument from Dearth of Evidence: the Rational Atheist Test

Virtually all Atheists demand evidence.  Bertrand Russell said:

 

 â€œAs far as I can see, the view to which we are committed, one which I have stated on a former occasion, is that we ought not to believe, and we ought not to try to cause others to believe, any proposition for which there is no evidence whatever.”

 

Russell was referring to the existence of a deity.  However, such a sentiment must be held for the Atheist position also:

 

Premise:  â€œThere is no deity”.

 

Now, one might expect Russell and the Atheists to produce evidence in support of this premise;  but they do not, because they cannot.  There is no direct evidence, empirical or otherwise that no deity exists.

 

In fact, the logical fallacy involved is that in order to prove the statement that  â€œthere exists (No X)”, data must be provided that includes all instances where (X) could exist, but was definitively determined NOT to exist.  The data must include, therefore, all places and times where a deity might have existed, but was absolutely proven not to exist.  This is clearly impossible.

 

So it is shown that the premise, “There is no deity”, produces a direct contradiction of the Atheist requirement for “evidence or proof is denied”.  The premise, then produces a paradox, in the following form:

 

Premise expansion: “As rationalists, we maintain that evidence is absolutely required for proof of a statement; yet we maintain categorically that there exists no deity despite total lack of solid, irrefutable evidence in support of that statement, and the impossibility of ever obtaining such evidence.”

 

The premise is seen to be a self-contradictory, Type 1 Paradox.

 

The premise that “there exists no deity” cannot be proven, is not empirically or forensically supportable and cannot be shown to be true.  By virtue of the paradox in the Atheist statement, perhaps Atheists are not so categorical as the expansion would indicate, and are then, Agnostics instead.

 

The term “rationalist” (requires evidence) is paradoxical when combined with “Atheist” (no evidence is possible):

 

Premise:

“The Atheist is a Rationalist.”

Premise Expansion:

The “A” ( for which no supporting evidence is possible ) is an “R” (requires evidence).

 

Atheism is by nature self â€"contradictory…a Paradox.

http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/atheismanalyzed.htm (http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/atheismanalyzed.htm)

If you are a nihilist or postmondernist who rejects the laws of logic then no rationality is needed for your view thus faith is irrelevant.

Isn't anthropology the study of past cultures....not the deconstruction of the validity of the beliefs of past cultures?

And frankly, I don't care what someone wants to label me but if their definition includes the label that I know god/deity/creator is not real (the only way not having a belief in god could potentially require faith) then they have mislabeled me.  If they feel more comfortable calling me an agnostic even though I would instead say atheist who is also agnostic then whatever.

If they are referring to a Judeo/Chrsitian God then yes I know that one is not real, the only source we having for constructing a belief in that god is the bible and it is full of numerous reasons to question the validity of the source (meaning no faith required to decide it is false)

That said, I don't think your professor had any historical basis for teaching that atheist is a word which refers to people who knows god isn't real because not only is it only relatively recently common for people to self define as atheist it is also obvious from reading the past work of atheist philosophers that in the only agreed upon definition is that atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god and only part then take that a step further and say it is someone who knows there is no god.

Quote from: "freeservant"Cambridge University has a good source where you can learn about atheism:

http://www.investigatingatheism.info/history.html (http://www.investigatingatheism.info/history.html)

There's nothing to learn about.  Atheism is merely the rejection of belief in gods, everything else is other philosophies.

QuoteAnd here is where the faith must come in if you wish to follow the Aristotelian laws of logic:

? where is the evidence ?

Evidence for what?

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "freeservant"Cambridge University has a good source where you can learn about atheism:

http://www.investigatingatheism.info/history.html (http://www.investigatingatheism.info/history.html)

There's nothing to learn about.  Atheism is merely the rejection of belief in gods, everything else is other philosophies.

Not to mention that the university itself didn't publish that website, it seems to be the project of some theology professors.  I frankly didn't see the point in reading it because I'm already familiar with any philosophical arguments they may have included on the page.  Well, and that I don't take freeservant very seriously considering his past record here.

Quote from: "Whitney"Well, and that I don't take freeservant very seriously considering his past record here.

I don't know about his past record, but I disregarded everything he said after "premise 1: there is no god".  This kind of thinking betrays a deep ignorance of what atheism means.  Whether that ignorance is intentional or not, I don't know, but  I do know that he's posted on this forum enough times for me to reasonably doubt that he's never been corrected in this gross assumption.

 how did I do that?

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Whitney"Well, and that I don't take freeservant very seriously considering his past record here.

I don't know about his past record, but I disregarded everything he said after "premise 1: there is no god".  This kind of thinking betrays a deep ignorance of what atheism means.  Whether that ignorance is intentional or not, I don't know, but  I do know that he's posted on this forum enough times for me to reasonably doubt that he's never been corrected in this gross assumption.

What you call a gross assumption only apply if language and the meaning of words are ONLY subjective.

There is a science to language and meaning: http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem12.html (http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem12.html)

Do you know what the word asymmetry means?

It means without symmetry

Do you know of the laws of logic?

In the law of the excluded middle the question is binary

Yes or No

God

Theist = God and the belief there in.

Atheist = without god/s

You believe in A or T and in order to be A you believe.  In order to be T you believe. (hence the invocation of the excluded middle)

And Whitney I don't take your ad-hom seriously considering the evidence demanding atheist can deny they need evidence if the laws of logic are inconvenient for them or if Bertrand Russell happens to be inconvenient for them.

Oh and I get why having a non-belief vacuum of thought on the matter of God works for the atheist who can't possibly produce evidence for their faith and it works for the theist as well as you can see in my UNBEATABLE sig...

Look at my sig an tell

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "freeservant"Cambridge University has a good source where you can learn about atheism:

http://www.investigatingatheism.info/history.html (http://www.investigatingatheism.info/history.html)

There's nothing to learn about.  Atheism is merely the rejection of belief in gods, everything else is other philosophies.

QuoteAnd here is where the faith must come in if you wish to follow the Aristotelian laws of logic:

? where is the evidence ?

Evidence for what?

Evidence that you are rational and have a rational view that uses logic.

Oh an the link is about HISTORY

But please continue with your irrational contempt prior to investigation if that will keep your faith alive.

Quote from: "freeservant"Theist = God and the belief there in.

Atheist = without god/s

This is where your argument falls apart.

Theism: belief in gods
Atheism: no belief in gods.

Not believing in gods doesn't mean I believe there are no gods just as acquitting a murder suspect doesn't mean I think he's innocent.  Just as my acquittal for reasonable doubt doesn't mean I think he's innocent, my lack of belief in your god for reasonable doubt doesn't mean I assert he doesn't exist.  Before you try to school others in logic, learn some for yourself.

Quote from: "freeservant"Evidence that you are rational and have a rational view that uses logic.

My requirement that you have evidencee in order for me to accept your claims is evidence that I'm a rational person and hold a ration view based on logic.

QuoteOh an the link is about HISTORY

Yes.  History of a non-"ism".  "The history of atheism" is shorthand for "some people who lack belief in gods have said/done things that make me want to try and lump modern people who also lack a belief in gods with them".  It's the same fallacy as trying to say that I think something merely because Dawkins or Hitchens wrote it in a book.  please try to make that argument, please oh please

QuoteBut please continue with your irrational contempt prior to investigation if that will keep your faith alive.

My contempt isn't irrational, it's based on a futility of looking into something that is admittedly based on ignorant assumptions about a non-position.  As for keeping my faith alive: it's too late for that, my faith died years ago, that's why I'm not a Christian anymore.

If god was real...wouldn't we be born believing in him? Would an all powerful god be so selfish as to demand your blind affection? Doesn't make much sense does it.  
Religion was the first form of capitalist infomercial.  "Hey wow...these people buy this crap! Roll with it!"
Sadly, Atheist came before Theist, but thanks to the overwhelming amount of believers, we have to take the "anti" side.  Non-believer is a better description I suppose.

Quote from: "freeservant"And Whitney I don't take your ad-hom seriously considering the evidence demanding atheist can deny they need evidence if the laws of logic are inconvenient for them or if Bertrand Russell happens to be inconvenient for them.

Define ad-hom for those of us who don't understand it  

(btw, it's important that you figure it out because ad-hom is against the forum rules and you are guilty of it already in the short time you have returned to HAF; in fact repeat offenses of that is why you were banned for a week the last time...btw, this is your warning.)

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "freeservant"Evidence that you are rational and have a rational view that uses logic.

My requirement that you have evidence in order for me to accept your claims is evidence that I'm a rational person and hold a ration view based on logic.

Wait?  So you need no evidence but only I do?  

QuotePremise expansion: “As rationalists, we maintain that evidence is absolutely required for proof of a statement; yet we maintain categorically that there exists no deity despite total lack of solid, irrefutable evidence in support of that statement, and the impossibility of ever obtaining such evidence.”

Ah... so you are not a rationalists when it comes to yourself... Yeah.. the bankruptsy of having a non-position has eluded you.  And you think to school me on logic.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

QuoteOh an the link is about HISTORY

Yes.  History of a non-"ism".  "The history of atheism" is shorthand for "some people who lack belief in gods have said/done things that make me want to try and lump modern people who also lack a belief in gods with them".  It's the same fallacy as trying to say that I think something merely because Dawkins or Hitchens wrote it in a book.  --please try to make that argument, please oh please

What are you trying to say?  I get that non-ism is not rational as it makes a constant special pleading case that the non-believer can't have any rational position for their non-position what they argue in circles about.

Premise: Atheism is rational

A non-belief and non-position is logical as it needs nothing as it is only a nothing that has no burden.

B an assertion that atheism is a non-assertion absence of any needed evidence or faith in rational cognitive ablities that require any belief statement

= C The undefeatable tautology that makes atheists so incredibly bankrupt in their faithless devotion to the idea that they are rational or use logic.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

QuoteBut please continue with your irrational contempt prior to investigation if that will keep your faith alive.

My contempt isn't irrational, it's based on a futility of looking into something that is admittedly based on ignorant assumptions about a non-position.  As for keeping my faith alive: it's too late for that, my faith died years ago, that's why I'm not a Christian anymore.

I was once an atheist and my personal experience is that God has not abandoned you even if you abandon God.  He did not abandon me.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "freeservant"And Whitney I don't take your ad-hom seriously considering the evidence demanding atheist can deny they need evidence if the laws of logic are inconvenient for them or if Bertrand Russell happens to be inconvenient for them.

Define ad-hom for those of us who don't understand it  

(btw, it's important that you figure it out because ad-hom is against the forum rules and you are guilty of it already in the short time you have returned to HAF; in fact repeat offenses of that is why you were banned for a week the last time...btw, this is your warning.)

QuoteHenry Coppee, page 147, says: "The argumentum ad hominem is not a fallacy when the design it to teach pure [p. 66] truth, and when no unholy passion or emotion is appealed to. In this application it was used by our Savior himself to the Jews on many occasions with great force and beauty. His touching and yet searching appeal to them for the woman taken in adultery sent them out one by one before his power. Each one felt the argument and admitted the conclusion." But some one may say: "To charge her accusers with the same crime did not prove her to be innocent." Certainly not; neither did the Savior intend that it should. But he intended to stop the unholy mouth of her hypocritical accusers. He knew these men cared nothing about the woman's guilt. He knew they were after him, and not her, and were using her in an effort to get him to commit himself in such a way that they could make out a case against him. The woman's guilt was a mere pretext. And the fact stands out clearly that Jesus stopped their mouths by charging they were as guilty as she.

http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/rw ... e/TAHA.HTM (http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/rwhiteside/TAHA.HTM)

Did you not attack my person with the following:  

Quote from: "Whitey"I frankly didn't see the point in reading it because I'm already familiar with any philosophical arguments they may have included on the page. Well, and that I don't take freeservant very seriously considering his past record here.

This was an attack on my character to try and evade and not address the validity of the scholarly work done on that website.

You would have a valid ad hominem if you can rightly show that there is any valid linkage to my behavior that shows that website as invalid by reason of my personal character that you feel makes any philosophical argument that by contempt prior to investigation is prepositionally invalid because you are familiar with them.

So I say that She that is without guilt can cast the first stone...

Quote from: "freeservant"I was once an atheist and my personal experience is that God has not abandoned you even if you abandon God.  He did not abandon me.

HOW. DO. YOU. KNOW?

Quote from: "freeservant"Wait?  So you need no evidence but only I do?  

Of course I need evidence when I make an assertion.  What assertion are you asking I support?

Quote

QuotePremise expansion: “As rationalists, we maintain that evidence is absolutely required for proof of a statement; yet we maintain categorically that there exists no deity despite total lack of solid, irrefutable evidence in support of that statement, and the impossibility of ever obtaining such evidence.”

Ah... so you are not a rationalists when it comes to yourself... Yeah.. the bankruptsy of having a non-position has eluded you.  And you think to school me on logic.

Putting words in my mouth and then attributing that position to me is a strawman argument.  Yes, you need some schooling on logic.

QuoteWhat are you trying to say?  

I'm saying that your equate the writings of past philosophers with my beliefs (that you never asked me about) is a strawman.  Unlike religious churches, I'm not obligated to accept the ideas of a past philosopher merely because we share the same moniker.

QuoteI get that non-ism is not rational as it makes a constant special pleading case that the non-believer can't have any rational position for their non-position what they argue in circles about.

What?  English, please.

QuotePremise: Atheism is rational

Are you still trying to attribute premises to me?

Let me know when you you're ready to discuss instead of attribute.

Quote from: "freeservant"This was an attack on my character to try and evade and not address the validity of the scholarly work done on that website.

Negative.  It was personal reasoning as to why she wasn't addressing your post.  An ad hom requires that she address your post by flasely claiming something against you personally.

I suppose I've got a certain amount of faith in science. I understand a reasonable amount of it, but will be the first to admit maths and physics leaves me flabbergasted when I get up close and personal. But what I do know makes so much sense, that I do have to make that leap of faith to accept the stuff I don't understand to be true if it seems validated by scientific consensus. If that makes sense?

I'm not sure if there is a better word than 'faith' to describe acceptance in the scientific method.  I take peer reviewed theories at their word I suppose.  Certain scientific facts are accepted by the entire scientific community, though eternal skeptics always argue everything.  In some ways they have a point...at one point in time everyone KNEW that the world was flat, etc.
The most important part is to always keep an open mind, and know that sometimes everyone can be wrong.  To prove that everyone was wrong takes MOUNTAINS of evidence though, and the evidence is what I trust.

Quote from: "necrobitsch"If that makes sense?

A bit.  For me it's not unfounded faith in science as much as it is trust in the scientist.  Faith is based on nothing whereas trust is based on a track record of honesty.

Quote from: "George"Just out of interest are there any other atheists in your class? If so what are their views on it all?

I'm not sure. She didn't actually ask the class what their paticular worldview was, nor did anyone express them. I simply disagreed on her assesment of faith in relation to 'atheism'.I did not confront her because I did not want to sit there all night debating a professor on definitions. Yet, from her persepctive, atheists hinge their beliefs on science which isn't necessarily true. =/

Quote from: "freeservant"If you are a nihilist or postmondernist who rejects the laws of logic then no rationality is needed for your view thus faith is irrelevant.

I'm probably the only Nihilist here so:

1. Naturally that means not all atheists are Nihilists

2. Nihilism does not affirm, it denies. It does not deny reason, only the epistemology position that absolute knowledge can be derived from the use of it. We don't reject laws of logic or reason we simply claim not to know with the utmost certainty possible. Keep in mind, it's a very pedantic philosophy.

It's amazing that Nietzsche's philosophy is still influencing how the church paints all atheists. What's worse is they distort his own philosophy to the most shallow surface of a glance interpretation as possible. And still respond to his poems through the use of childrens' songs:

[youtube:14yq8cqx]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wok-I4_Pas[/youtube:14yq8cqx]

Quote from: "necrobitsch"I suppose I've got a certain amount of faith in science. I understand a reasonable amount of it, but will be the first to admit maths and physics leaves me flabbergasted when I get up close and personal. But what I do know makes so much sense, that I do have to make that leap of faith to accept the stuff I don't understand to be true if it seems validated by scientific consensus. If that makes sense?

Lets take a look back at 2 of the greatest assets to modern science, Galileo and Newton. Both of them were amazingly smart, Neil Tyson himself said Newton was the smartest man who has ever lived. Both of them came up with ideas that formed our knowledge of the universe today. But for some reason, both of them believed in God, is this because God must be real? No its because not even they understood everything, and when their knowledge could go no further they placed this sense of " an impossiblity to understand" on god, or faith.

Now when you exclude a god and rely only on evidence and facts, when one encounters something he/she does not understand, they do not put it on god, only knowlege that we have not yet accumulated.

Quote from: "Sophus"I'm probably the only Nihilist here so

A little off topic, and I will create a new thread if you'd like me too, but why are you a nihilist? Life to me has alot of meanings, including, raising a child (children), bettering the lifes of others by make their "dreams" come true, and having plain-old' fun.

Quote from: "freeservant"So I say that She that is without guilt can cast the first stone...

You still don't understand what an ad hom is...but that's your problem not mine.  I know that an ad hom only refers to attacking one's character in order to disprove their argument; and doing such is a fallacy as it has no baring on the validity of their argument.  I was merely stating why I didn't bother reading a website you posted.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "necrobitsch"If that makes sense?

A bit.  For me it's not unfounded faith in science as much as it is trust in the scientist.  Faith is based on nothing whereas trust is based on a track record of honesty.

If you pull out the dictionary one of the secondary definitions of faith is "trust in a person or thing" (wording may vary depending on the source).  Things like faith that your spouse is true to his/her vows, faith that a teacher is telling the truth etc.  This is not religious faith where you trust that something is real despite lack of evidence; when we trust another person it is typically because we have a history with them which allows us to have "faith" that they will continue to act in an expected manner...or with scientists we have "faith" that they will act according to their training and not just make stuff up.

Quote from: "Whitney"...or with scientists we have "faith" that they will act according to their training and not just make stuff up.

This is the whole point.  The scientific method checks what scientists claim, instead of taking their word at face value.  This is what religion does, and questions are answered with scripture...which doesn't actually answer anything.

Quote from: "tymygy"

Quote from: "Sophus"I'm probably the only Nihilist here so

A little off topic, and I will create a new thread if you'd like me too, but why are you a nihilist? Life to me has alot of meanings, including, raising a child (children), bettering the lifes of others by make their "dreams" come true, and having plain-old' fun.

Because we invent the meanings. Life does have any one true meaning or any definite meaning at all. Doesn't mean I live that way, it just means we're a tiny pale blue dot in universe that couldn't care less about us. It's not a sad or happy thought, it's just the way life is. It has no purpose other than the illusion our minds give it.

Quote from: "Whitney"If you pull out the dictionary one of the secondary definitions of faith is "trust in a person or thing" (wording may vary depending on the source).

Yep.  There are a lot of colloquial definitions to a variety of words.  The usage of "faith" in this topic, however, is the religious usage of it.  If we're going to start equating definitions, then I'm going to have to start cheating on my wife because I don't have any faith.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "tymygy"

Quote from: "Sophus"I'm probably the only Nihilist here so

A little off topic, and I will create a new thread if you'd like me too, but why are you a nihilist? Life to me has alot of meanings, including, raising a child (children), bettering the lifes of others by make their "dreams" come true, and having plain-old' fun.

Because we invent the meanings. Life does have any one true meaning or any definite meaning at all. Doesn't mean I live that way, it just means we're a tiny pale blue dot in universe that couldn't care less about us. It's not a sad or happy thought, it's just the way life is. It has no purpose other than the illusion our minds give it.

I can't disagree, but I guess the meanings we create are what I live for. Yes we are small, yes we are "not" known by any other life in the universe, but we are rare, VERY rare. And that's why I feel lucky to have life, lucky for every breathe I take. If you look at life from the view of, "yes we're here... Now what?" it does seem alot like no meaning. However, the astronomical chances that we ARE here, makes me smile.  

You're not the only nihilist Sophus

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "necrobitsch"If that makes sense?

A bit.  For me it's not unfounded faith in science as much as it is trust in the scientist.  Faith is based on nothing whereas trust is based on a track record of honesty.

Trust is probably a better way of describing it, yes. It doesn't have the association with religion and blind acceptance of mythologies that faith has. I trust theories rooted in sound scientific method, even if the precise details of the methodology are beyond my comprehension. I suppose by trusting the way in which the conclusion is reached negates the need for a "leap of faith" in quite the same way. The method to reach the conclusion has been tried and tested and proved true and therefore logically and reasonably this should remain true even if I'm unable to explain the process with my own limited knowledge, and even if this method hasn't provided conclusive answers to mysteries and conundrums that are still out there.

If not believing in a mysterious all-powerful deity requires faith then so does not believing in Zeus or Allah. That means that Christians have many faiths other than just their faith in the biblical god.

They're a very faithful lot, those Christians.

Quote from: "i_am_i"If not believing in a mysterious all-powerful deity requires faith then so does not believing in Zeus or Allah. That means that Christians have many faiths other than just their faith in the biblical god.

They're a very faithful lot, those Christians.

Which also means that they never really have to have their faith tested, because apparently regardless of what you believe you still have it. Doesn't that punch another hole in the Christian philosophy?

You can justifiably be a strong atheist regarding specific definitions of god with no faith necessary whatsoever. If the definition of god includes testable claims like "My god will allow me to drink any poison without ill effect." then the existence of that specific god can be tested. If the subject is ill after their Drano cocktail, you can confidently state that the god with the stated qualities does not exist. Another different god with different qualities could still exist, but the specific immune-to-poison one you just tested is no longer in the running. You are a rationally justified strong atheist regarding that god.

If the existence of a specific definition of god requires that a certain phenomenon be present, and that phenomenon is not present, then that god does not exist.

It's funny you mention the poison thing.  Snake handlers do just that, they take up vipers under the idea that they won't be bitten and they drink bleach believing that their god won't allow them to be harmed.  Did god fail them when they are bitten?  No, he is testing them.  Did they fail the test when they die?  No, god just wanted to take them home.  Faith is one of those things that finds justification (read: excuses) for falsifying data rather than adjusting the beliefs to fit the data.

Quote from: "i_am_i"If not believing in a mysterious all-powerful deity requires faith then so does not believing in Zeus or Allah. That means that Christians have many faiths other than just their faith in the biblical god.

They're a very faithful lot, those Christians.

Another great point I didn't think about! Thanks for the replies guys