Atheism - Is it a faith based belief system?
I'd like to know what others think. I think it is just as much a faith based belief system as any religion. The definition I found was "the doctrine or belief that there is no God ."

I had a rather involved argumet with someone here just a couple of months ago on this point.

Yes. In my opinion, all beliefs in the existence or non-existence of God are "religious beliefs" rooted in faith. Matters to which there can never be a definitive answer one way or the other are faith-based if one has an opinion on the matter.

Agnosticism is really the only non-dogmatic, faith-based belief (if it can even be called a belief).

EDIT: which PD already pretty much said.

Well if you want to get philosophical (and with religion, I assume you must), I'd imagine there are few definitive answers to anything, so basically everything is faith-based. (Note: I really know very little about philosophy, so if I'm missing something with regard to theories of epistemology, feel free to correct me)

While little can be "proven" under strict philosophical principles, much can be disproven. The existence of God cannot be either proven nor disproven. That's what I meant.

The only place where this discussion matters is in the minds of fundies who make-believe that it's an "insult" to say an atheist "has faith."

M-W defines faith as:



I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume the definition meant is 2)b., i.e. that most people saying atheists "have faith" make-believe that they're pointing out hypocrisy in that atheists (supposedly) put down others for believing in something unproven when atheism itself is unproven.

This represents a gross misunderstanding (or outright refusal to understand) logic. Most atheists state that they do not accept any current proof for God, and therefore do not believe in one. It's been a tenant of logic since Aristotle that the one who asserts a positive has the burden of proof (and no, saying "atheism is true" is not asserting a positive because of the meaning of atheism); thus, deists are the ones called upon to supply proof for their beliefs.

One is never called upon to "prove" a negative position. A negative position by definition is one that does not accept logical proofs of the positive; thus, the only building blocks for the atheist position are the proofs that the religous supply us, and our position is defined by stating that all of those proofs are flawed. Asking us to "prove" our point of view is like asking us to build a skyscraper out of nothing - the task is impossible by definition.

Yet, those religious folks who thrive from putting down people outside their viewpoint will continue incorrectly labeling atheism as a "faith," believing that such a term is an insult to us. But, by logic, it's nothing more than name-calling.

You don't know the history of belief systems. Tom Cruise knows the history or belief systems.

Fair enough. I wonder if there are other things that cannot necessarily proven or disproven under strict philosophical principles that you would not consider faith-based though.

@ Merrill: You are right, and ironically, I used that same argument in the "Belief in God" thread that Ara started the other day.

More accurately, my argument in the thread a couple months ago centered around whether Atheism is a "religious" belief, not whether it is "faith-based". I still assert that it is a religious belief system, because it pertains to the existence of divinity, but I think it is more accurate as you say to not classify Atheism as a "faith" since they do not believe in the existence of something that requires faith. They believe in its non-existence, based on the absence of factual evidence.

Atheism for me is wholly pragmatic.

The question is not one of belief, but one of need.

Do we need God to live this life?

As I was developing my philosophy, I often asked myself, "Is God a necessary element in this equation?" I always answered no.

Does that mean that there is no God? No, but the more you refine your philosophy, and the more this question keeps getting answered in this way, the more you tend to conclude that there is no God.

Yeah. I know what you mean, though of course I've not had as much life experience as you yet to really test my (developing) philosophy out.

One thing that always strikes me about God is how conveniently human he always is. And how conveniently successes and failures can be out or insourced to and from God. Every time I hear someone speak of God, I think to myself how comfortable in must be to really believe that. It makes life so much easier.

Unfortunately, I've already swallowed the red pill.

Read: punkdavid's old.

Yeah, man. I was sleeping through the night by the time YOU were born.

Dammit I knew I shouldn't have said that. Too much derail opportunity.

Most atheists actually don't even "believe in non-existence." They assert an "absence of factual evidence," as you said in the latter part of the sentence.

Some atheists are "strong atheists," though, and DO assert that "non-existence of all gods" is a provable statement - or, yes, even something to take on faith. I don't adhere to this myself, which puts me in the "weak atheist" class.

A gross generalization and insulting to all people with religious beliefs. I also happen to think your generalization is wrong.

This sounds a whole lot like agnostic. If this is your idea of an atheist, what is your definition of an agnostic?

PD, I think you are referring to the conversation we had a few months back. I think I would consider atheism or agnosticism as a religious belief, but I strongly disagree that it is rooted in faith. A strong atheist may have faith that there is no god, but a weak atheist or agnostic has a complete lack of faith. A lack of faith is not faith based, as I think Merrill Stubing was trying to point out. I consider myself in the category of the weak atheist. I have no faith whatsoever. Yet I consider myself as an atheist because I've thought long and hard about it and I have no reason to believe. I think of god as the same way I do Santa Clause; I can't prove he exists or does not exist, yet I'm not really open to the idea of existence because there exists not a shred of evidence.

What generalization? What's insulting?

If you ask the question of whether God is a necessary element and you answer "yes", then obviously you're not going to follow the same path of refinement that I outlined above.

However, if you ask the question, answer "no", and still continue to hold dogmatic religious beliefs, then I'd say you're not "refining" your philosophy, but more like entrenching it.