We hear from the truly, shamelessly self-deluded all the time in the press, on the internet, in letters to the editor, from committed door to door evangelists, etc. These are the people who have somehow swallowed their beliefs without too much choking. I would say that for many of these people, constant evangelisation and affirmation are a tool used to keep the beliefs real enough to the believer-they can't prove them, but constantly talking about them serves to make the beliefs more real in their minds.
For those who are naturally skeptical, or even just too shy to be as open, that benefit is lost. Without constant affirmation, a believer has a lot more room for honest doubt.
I remember going to Sunday school as an adolescent. It always struck me as odd that so much time was spent just getting people to start to believe things. If the beliefs were sound, why would it take so much faith, so much effort, to believe them? Even the most credulous kids had at least a few doubts that couldn't be satisfied with logic or evidence, but only through the endless repetition of prayers, myths, and dogma.
Altogether, I think Austin is completely correct in his assessment of Scientologists - they don't want to talk about it because any outside observer can see that their "scriptures" are clearly, obviously ridiculous. But like Wes, I don't think that this is limited to modern cults. I've seen many christians act the same way; refusing to clarify any of the "mysteries" of their faith or offer any explanation for their beliefs. "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" is a very common frame of mind for believers, mostly because deep down they know that they can't defend the indefensible.
[original post]
It is interesting how much effort religious organizations have to invest in teaching and re-teaching a religion's basic doctrines. As a point of comparison, it's true that schools have to repeat a lot of secular material but that's largely due to students simply forgetting things. Even with the repetition, though, much of school involves teaching new things that build upon previous lessons. Churches, though, keep re-teaching the same lessons year after year.
That's related to another curious problem with religion: much of religion relies upon the assumption that all the important ideas were discovered (or revealed) thousands of years ago and there's nothing fundamentally new about theology or the fundamental nature of all reality to learn — anything new is, at most, commentary on or minor refinements to the basic truths learned long ago. So there's just no room for progress and, correspondingly, nothing really new to teach.
While I appreciate your comment that with religion that there is no progress that is made because everything was revealed years ago, I think that this misses the entire point of religion (at least in Christian religion). The purpose of a Christian belief is not so much to plow new ground in an effort to develop new doctrines and thus constantly be in a state of evolving, but it is to improve spiritual knowledge that relates to a particular ‘revealed’ doctrine (application of that doctrine to life circumstances). So while a Church would naturally want to teach her disciples the doctrines of the faith initially, the re-telling (often in creative new ways) is done in order to apply (or re-apply) that doctrine to individuals’ many diverse and unique life circumstances.
The article also implied that faith is this thing that one has to work hard at in order to achieve. Faith is simply an acceptance of an established worldview.
Athiests and Christians alike have faith in an established worldview that has rules attached to it. Athiests accept rules such as there is only nature and natural causes to everything that exists or can be experienced. This ‘worldview rule’ governs everything that the athiest can believe. Christians, on the otherhand, have a worldview that God created and revealed himself. The Christian thus views the world through this lens.
I would also say that athiests keep retelling themselves their own beliefs too. Take this blog site for instance. Maybe athiests are doing all their re-telling because they need to keep their faith alive.
Ah yes, Darren B., two fallacies for the price of one! Atheists and Christians are the same because they both have faith and must re-tell their beliefs to keep that faith alive, AND a re-defining of faith to try and affirm that faith isn’t something that it is (belief without evidence).
Except you just defined faith as “accepting an established worldview” which contradicts the other statement. If faith is simply accepting a worldview, why does it need to be kept alive so actively?
And of course, atheists don’t have faith in their atheism, you can’t have faith in not accepting an argument. You either accept an argument or not. Once you have accepted an argument (i.e. god(s) exist) then you can have faith in something (i.e. Christianity or Islam).
Darren says: (Faith is simply an acceptance of an established worldview.)
Another definition: Faith allows you to believe stuff you is not true.
Correction: Another definition: Faith allows you to believe stuff you KNOW is not true.
“…the arguments aren’t for our benefit in the first place…. …the arguments keep getting repeated for the sakes of the religious theists themselves.” That sums it up perfectly. It becomes comical to hear the theists trying to prove to themselves over and over again that their delusions are real just because others believe them and share their fantasies or because they “know in their hearts” the truth or because they read a book someone else wrote that makes outrageous claims with no concrete proof.
Using pretty words to describe delusion like “faith” and “belief” doesn’t change the fact that theists “reality” is not based on, well, reality and thus requires something other than reality to sustain such as weak arguments, inaccurate analogies, and repetition.
Stephen says: “If faith is simply accepting a worldview, why does it need to be kept alive so actively”
Who says that it needs to be “kept alive so actively”? I never said this. This was the presupposition of the original blog post. I simply don’t see it that way. Faith is the acceptance of a worldview. For example if I buy into a Buddhist worldview, I have accepted Buddhism as my faith. In the same way, if my epistomology is based on an athiestic presuppositions, I will have adopted an athiestic worldview. This requires a certain degree of faith.
Stephen says: “And of course, atheists don’t have faith in their atheism, you can’t have faith in not accepting an argument.”
Atheism is a denial of God’s existance. Unless an atheist claims to have all knowledge and has searched the entire universe, this is clearly something that
that the atheist must accept by faith.
And athiesm is a denial
Really? That’s all? Then why is it a virtue?
I recommend reading some of the material under the “Basics” tab above, because you don’t know anything about atheism.
I am a Christian and I can honestly say that I don’t repeat doctrines in order to keep my mind freshly dupped. I’m sure that it is possible that someone out there does do sort a thing. But to make a blanket statement like that is kind of funny. It is very much like setting up a straw man so that you can bowl it over with ease.
I strongly suspect that many atheists who do the exact same things that all Christians are being accused of here.
Darren B. said:
That’s only because Christians have a strong tendency to project their faults onto others. But don’t feel too bad, that is a tendency shared by many that accept unfounded notions.
Daniel Dennett wrote in Breaking the Spell:
“… we need huge amounts of common knowledge to guide our way through life, and there is no time to sort through all of it, testing every item for soundness. And so, in a tribal society in which “everyone knows” that you need to sacrifice a goat in order to have a healthy baby, you make sure that you sacrifice a goat. Better safe than sorry.
“This feature marks a profound difference between folk religion and organized religion: those who practice folk religion don’t think of themselves as practicing a religion at all. Their “religious” practices are a seamless part of their practical lives, alongside their hunting and gathering or tilling and harvesting. And one way to tell that they really believe in the deities to which they make their sacrifices is that they aren’t forever talking about how much they believe in their deities―any more than you and I go around assuring each other that we believe in germs and atoms. Where there is no ambient doubt to speak of, there is no need to speak of faith.”
Austin said:
Faith is the acceptance of a worldview.
Really? That’s all? Then why is it a virtue?
Atheism is a denial of God’s existance.
I recommend reading some of the material under the “Basics” tab above, because you don’t know anything about atheism.
Yes. Faith is the confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea or a thing. An atheist, whether you understand this basic definition or not, requires faith. I suggest you study a dictionary.
I understand that atheism is a denial of God’s existence. This is a worldview that requires a step of faith even if you believe that it is a logical step.
Ah, Darren, you really don’t understand where we’re coming from. You’re so indoctrinated in your faith thing that you can`t see the forest for the trees.
Atheism requires no faith at all. We don’t share a “worldview” any more than Christians or any other human beings, we’re individuals that each have our own worldview – for example, some of us are pro-choice, some aren’t.
Our “denial” of your god is no different than your denial of Odin, Ra, Vishnu, Jupiter, Zeus, etc. You simply deny one fewer than we do. You may even consider the others to be obvious myth, and somewhat silly when viewed in a modern light.
We have come to our conclusions not through “faith” that god is imaginary and created by man, but by observation of our natural world, and the rational explanations given to us by the scientific method.
No atheist will EVER “claim to have all knowledge and [have] searched the entire universe”, and it’s ridiculous to insinuate so. We do, however, work with what knowledge we have so far, and that shows us that there is no compelling evidence for the existence of any gods.
Straight from Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary:
Main Entry:
faith
Pronunciation:
\ˈfāth\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural faiths ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\
Etymology:
Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide
Date:
13th century
1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one’s promises (2): sincerity of intentions
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction ; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonyms see belief
— on faith
: without question
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
Darren, you don’t understand what “faith” is, and you don’t understand what “atheism” is.
Faith is believing something despite not having any solid reasons to do so (hence the phrase, “leap of faith”). The way that you have defined “faith” empties it of most of its meaning. Your definition of “faith” is essentially identical to the meaning of “belief” and “value.” You appear to be defining faith in a way that nobody else does simply to set up a false equivalency. Ask yourself why you feel the need to do this, instead of owning up to the truth.
Darren, here’s an example of what I mean when I say that your definition of “faith” is faulty because it’s almost meaningless.
One plus one equals two. How do we know this? First of all, we know it through logic. Math is an abstraction of logic. Second, we can easily find evidence of this. If we take one of something, and then we put it with another of the exact same thing (such as pencils), we would clearly see that we have two of the same thing. Thus, based on evidence and logic, we accept as true the proposition that one plus one equals two. But according to you, we actually just have “faith” that one plus one equals two.
Most serious atheists reach their conclusion about god(s) in exactly the same manner. We look at the evidence and apply logic. Doing this shows us that the god hypothesis is so unlikely that it cannot be taken seriously, much like the idea that one plus one would equal anything other than two. For us, not accepting the god hypothesis is just like accepting that one plus one equals two. If you’re not prepared to call the simple math equation an expression of “faith,” then you cannot call the atheist position an expression of “faith” either. If atheism is the “denial of God’s existence,” then accepting that one plus one equals two is the “denial of one plus one equaling anything other than two.”
Belief in god(s) is not based on the same epistemological standards as other knowledge (or so-called knowledge). It certainly does not come through reason and an honest examination of evidence. Modern ideas about god(s) are illogical, and the evidence for god(s) is sorely lacking. That’s why we atheists have rejected the God hypothesis, and that’s why we don’t need to be omniscient to claim that your god does not exist. To believe that your God exists is like believing that one plus one equals anything other than two. That’s what faith is.
I suggest that YOU study a dictionary.
That’s not what you said before. This isn’t simply “acceptance of a worldview.”
Prove it.
I have. Several. And other reference works. That’s why I understand what atheism is.
Perhaps if you had taken my advice to study some of the material under the Basics tab above, you wouldn’t keep making these same mistakes.
As already noted, your understanding of atheism is deeply flawed.
But your reasoning is worse. Just witness:
Even if atheism were “denial of God’s [your god, and just your god] existence,” that alone wouldn’t constitute a worldview. Atheism is not a worldview, ideology, belief system, or anything similar.
Austin said: Prove it (referring to atheism requires faith)
I’m sure that I’m not going to prove anything to anyone. But atheism does require faith. and atheism is a worldview (the basic worldview of atheism is there is no god, therefore no divine restraints. it doesn’t matter that you all haven’t come to a consensus on things like abortion or political party). I’m sorry that you don’t understand that you are following a belief and thus have common faith (that there is no God).
Atheism is a faith because you do not have absolute knowledge and have not explored every square inch of the universe to know such a thing. Therefore it is a faith that you espouse. Now if you say I am an agnostic and are truly seeking after knowing if there is a divine power, that is somewhat more consistant. But you don’t believe this. you have chosen the path of faith – atheism.
I’m sorry but this is pretty clear.
Austin said:
Faith is the acceptance of a worldview. Really? That’s all? Then why is it a virtue?
The definition of worldview is the overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world. This is a belief and thus to accept a worldview requires faith which I defined earlier. So when one talks about “religious faith” we are essentially referring to a worldview.
To move on with this point that atheism (because it is an absolute denial of the existenance of a god) requires faith let’s assume the following.
I tell you that God revealed himself to me and he is a 4 foot tall purple grasshopper. You have two basic options:
1. You believe me in what I tell you about my revelation.
or
2. You don’t believe me – as most would choose. You may even assess a reason for my claim: I am crazy or I am lieing. But the end result is that you will believe my claim to be untrue.
The affirmation of the positive or the negative in this case requires faith. We usually use logic in making our faith decisions – that is, we make the best decision based on our personal knowledge so that our faith decisions are not a leap into the absurd.
Your claim that atheism does not require faith is clearly wrong.
Well, not if you’re going to fail to provide any evidence or arguments in support of your claims. Merely repeating the same assertions over and over certainly isn’t proof.
I took the time to give you links to articles specifically refuting these claims. Would you do me the courtesy of actually address those arguments instead of simply repeating your original claim again?
Here’s an idea: maybe atheists know more about themselves and atheism than you do?
First you asserted that faith is simply the acceptance of any worldview. Then you said that faith is “the confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea or a thing.” Now you seem to be saying that faith is any belief in the absence of “absolute knowledge.”
Would it be possible for you to take a step back and provide a single, clear definition of what “faith” is?
Curiously, I have written an article refuting this common myth as well.
Except that atheism and agnosticism aren’t mutually exclusive.
No, what’s clear is that you simply don’t possess any accurate ideas about atheism. You really need to stop, take a little time, and read Atheism for Beginners
Constantly giving a false definition of atheism on a site about atheism and where you have specifically been pointed to accurate definitions of atheism not only won’t help you gain any credibility, but it will in fact give people the strong impression that you aren’t the least bit interested in serious discussion, learning, or truth. Even if you disagree with the definitions found in dictionaries, atheists’ writings, and other specialized reference works, you’re obligated to actually engage those definitions, argue against them, and make the case for yours instead of just repeating it as if it were never in any dispute.
First, you missed an option: to simply not believe your claim without also asserting that it is false. This is covered in Atheism for Beginners, by the way.
Second, what you say would only work under the third definition of faith you’ve given thus far. I will challenge this definition simply on the basis that you don’t use that definition consistently. Unless and until you settle on a definition, you can’t use this one to “prove” any points.
If “faith” is “acceptance of a worldview,” how is “affirmation of the positive or the negative” also an “acceptance of a worldview”? It doesn’t, so either you must retract that first definition or you must retract this recent conclusion. Pick one.
Except you can’t support this assertion without references to falsehoods about atheism and constantly shifting definitions of “faith.” If the only way to show that atheism is a faith is to keep changing what you mean by faith, then clearly something is wrong.
It’s kind of funny that you are lecturing me on my ‘warped view’ of atheism. Your entire site is a rant against christianity and you obviously do not understand that worldview. I do understand atheism, whether you believe this or not and I am not going to spend my time reading some crap that is the same illogical stuff that you are espousing so that I can “understand you” better.
No offense, but an absolute denial of something when you do not have absolute knowledge requires faith. I’m sorry that you have bought into an illogical worldview and are thus required to live in a state of inconsistancies.
I believe that the arguments that I have put forth, the vast majority of fair minded people would agree with. Your beliefs require faith. It is really as simple as that.
The views I put forth. You never refuted logically. If atheism does not require faith, then you ought to be able to easily refute the reasons I put forth that it does. If you are unable to refute my statements (which are based on logic – see above posts), then you do not understand the basic definition of faith!
God bless.. er..ah..blessings
You could always demonstrate that you actually understand what atheism is.
Feel free to support those two assertions.
So, you’re going to ignore arguments and explanations offered to rebut what you say then proceed to repeat the same original assertions over and over?
Do you remember what I said about appearing as though you weren’t interested in substantive discussion?
No offense, but the mistake you are making here is explained in material you refuse to read.
I’m sorry that you refuse to read material that contradicts what you already think.
Except that you haven’t actually set forth any arguments – you just keep repeating the same original assertions over and over.
You don’t know what I believe. You haven’t asked and you refuse any of the arguments and explanations I have written.
Indeed I have, but you refuse to read my arguments.
Already done. Since you refuse to read them, though, you will simply continue in your ignorance and imagine that you’ve actually made substantive, serious arguments here.
What I don’t understand is your definition of faith because you keep changing it. Despite being specifically asked to be more clear, though, you have refused to elaborate.
Darren B. wrote:
If the christian god is not material, how would exploring “every square inch” of the material universe lead to knowledge about the existence of your god?
Here is my basic arguement that has not been dealt with.
1. Faith is believing something when someone does not have all of the knowledge to support that belief.
2. Atheism is a denial of God’s existence.
3. Since a human can not possess absolute knowledge, atheism must rely on faith.
This is a pretty basic break down of what I have stated. If you want an intelligent debate, if that is possible here, you have to show me where my logic falls apart. If you can’t, then my logic wins this debate. Referring me to other writings is rediculous because then, according to basic decency, you would have to afford me the opprotunity to refer you to other writings and then we would get no where.
Paul wrote:
If the christian god is not material, how would exploring “every square inch” of the material universe lead to knowledge about the existence of your god?
In short, it probably can’t, however, in order for atheism to not rely on faith, one would have to have absolute knowledge. Since no one can have absolute knowledge, an atheist is stuck having to rely on his/her faith in this absolute denial.
So, it’s no longer the acceptance of some worldview? Sorry, but your argument can’t be accepted when you use in it a premise that you yourself weren’t asserting as true just a little while ago — unless and until you clarify that. You can resolve this by simply retracting your earlier definitions of faith. Or don’t you want to admit error?
Well, this premise is just false. So regardless of how you deal with your confusion over what faith is supposed to be, your argument fails.
Feel free to explain what “absolute knowledge” is and demonstrate that humans are incapable of possessing it.
It’s also very broken.
Oh, I have, but you don’t want to read it. You said so yourself.
Not really, no, because it’s ultimately a matter of formulating your own arguments rather than simply relying on what others have said. I have formulated my own arguments and it’s quite indecent of you to insist that I repeat it all just for you here in this space. Indeed, one of the reasons that that material was created was so that I and others don’t have to repeat ourselves so often.
In a sense, the material I linked you to was created for precisely people like you. It’s all there, explaining in great detail all the things you’ve gotten wrong so far. There’s absolutely no reason for me to retype or even paste in all the stuff I have already published elsewhere on this site simply so that you don’t have to click a mouse button a couple of times. You aren’t such a great and exalted personage that I am obligated to spare you that work and effort.
If you actually care about serious, substantive conversation and are willing to invest the time to read rebuttals to your positions, then you can invest the effort to “click” and “click” to read what I’ve already written here just for people like you. If you can’t be bothered to “click,” then you never would have read it all anyway and were never actually interested in substantive discussion — all you’re doing is desperately grasping at straws for a “reason” to not be exposed to facts that contradict your ideology.
If you do read it, though, you are free to refer to “other writings” which yourself have written and published elsewhere. What you shouldn’t do, however, is simply refer to what others have said without formulating your own argument.
sounds like you have you worldview all worked out then.
Austin said: So, it’s no longer the acceptance of some worldview? Sorry, but your argument can’t be accepted when you use in it a premise that you yourself weren’t asserting as true just a little while ago — unless and until you clarify that. You can resolve this by simply retracting your earlier definitions of faith. Or don’t you want to admit error?
- this is rediculus. When I referred to worldview in my inital post, I was referring to Christianity and atheism in particular. Because your post was on the reason that Christians evangelize – you said that christians evangelize for self serving reasons in order to strengthen there own disception. I was merely pointing out that atheism – as a worldview that requires faith too. Read my inital post – i never defined faith as an acceptance of a worldview.
As for as your other arguements, I’m tired of trying to have a meanful, logical discussion with you.
The problem is is that you never
Our Sunday school class at church has extended an the floor to the founder of the St. Louis area Skeptical Society. I sure hope he is not as closed minded and completely illogical as you are acting.
Feel free to explain how anything I wrote – you know, about how you need to take responsibility for reading what others write rather than having it spoon-fed to you exactly where and when you’d prefer – could possibly entail a “worldview.”
You simply said “worldview,” you didn’t specify any particular worldview. If you intended only certain worldviews, it was your error for not specifying.
So, how and why is “faith” the “acceptance of Christianity or atheism” and how does this mean the same as “believing without absolute knowledge”?
Except that atheism isn’t a worldview, as I have explained in some detail.
Really? Please explain how and why the statement “Faith is simply an acceptance of an established worldview.” does not qualify as defining faith as an acceptance of an (established) worldview.
The word “is” entails a relationship of equivalence. It’s commonly used in definitional statements.
The word “simply” connotes the idea that there is no more to the former than what is expressed by the latter.
Please explain how and why it is “closed minded and completely illogical” to expect you to click a mouse button or two in order to read rebuttals of your falsehoods and arguments?
Since you never even tried to read the detailed explanations countering your false statements and rebuttals of your “arguments,” I challenge the notion that you were ever even interested in a meaningful, logical discussion with anyone — much less that you ever tried.
A person interested in a meaningful, logical discussion would put a little effort into understanding what others are saying and why. Given how easy it is to follow a link and read what that very same person has published elsewhere on the very same site, I think that it’s reasonable to expect that much effort from you. So the failure to have a meaningful conversation here seems to lie entirely with you because you haven’t actually done anything except repeating the same assertions over and over while refusing to consider any arguments offered by anyone else.
Explain to me how you dealt with my initial arguement.
1. Atheism is an absolute denial of God’s existence.
2. An absolute denial of anything requires faith if you do not have absolute knowledge.
This is pretty basic here. It is not hard to see this logic. Either you have to admit that yes you do need to exercise faith or you have to prove to me why your worldview is immune from this logic.
I willing to give to you that your system is a logical step of faith, but my word. Can you be this dense.
You were provided links to detailed explanations of the falsehoods and refutations of the “arguments.”
A false statement.
Prove it.
Basically false and unsupported.
I just cleaned my glasses and, frankly, I’m still not seeing it.
Or you can just use that mouse button to follow the links you were given.
It’s not “dense” to note that you cannot possibly respond to arguments and explanations that you admit you refuse to read.
I posted my arguement in simplistic terms. If you could deal with my logic in a way that is intelligable, I would definitely read more of your ‘work’, however, your not dealing with my basic arguement makes you look like you can’t. I have not heard anything from you or anyone else that refutes my basic logic:
1. Atheism makes an absolute statement about God’s existence.
2. Humans have finite knowledge.
3. Therefore, atheism must be based on faith.
No offense, but why should I waste my time on your material if you can’t refute this. I am beginning to think you are nothing more than an intellectual hack.
LOL typical theist. Bad arguments, bad grammar and finally a tantrum complete with name calling.
Give it up, man. You’ve gone into a battle of wits completely unarmed and now you’re just making a fool of yourself.
naked_ape said:
LOL typical theist. Bad arguments, bad grammar and finally a tantrum complete with name calling.
Give it up, man. You’ve gone into a battle of wits completely unarmed and now you’re just making a fool of yourself.
- the funny thing is, my argument was never answered. if it is bad, show me where it logically falls apart. If you can’t do that, then you are a hack.
Let me rephrase my last. If you can’t show where my logic falls apart AND you still dogmatically insist that it does, you are a hack.
That may be part of their flaws.
I think that my explanations and arguments are reasonably intelligible.
Directing you to where I have already published my explanations and arguments is not “not dealing with” what you have written.
That’s because you are unable or unwilling to use that little button on your mouse to click on a hyperlink.
Falsehood.
True, but not a premise you have spelled out before. Curious how your “basic logic” changes from comment to comment. I suspect that if you really understood your argument, it wouldn’t change.
Given that you started with a false premise, it’s hardly surprising that you arrive at a false conclusion.
You mean, why should you “waste” your time reading the material that was written specifically to address and rebut claims like yours? If you sincerely consider it a waste of time to read anything that addresses your ideas, then it is unambiguously true that you were never interested in serious, substantive conversation.
Or do you mean that it would be a “waste” of your time to move your mouse and click on a link, so I should spend my time retyping or pasting all that material right here where you can read it? You would have to have an exceedingly high opinion of yourself if you believed that the time required by you to click on a link is more valuable than the time required by me to recreate material I originally published specifically to avoid doing exactly that over and over.
Says the person who refuses to click on links where they he might learn facts that conflict with his ideology.
Says the person unable or unwilling to follow the link to read the answer.
Explanations of the errors in your assertions as well as the flaws in your “arguments” have been explained in some detail — but you’d have to be able and willing to use the button on your mouse to follow the links to learn this. So long as you persevere with the arrogant attitude that already-published material should be reproduced right here especially for you, you won’t learn anything.
Really, what is your excuse again for why you shouldn’t have to click on a link or two? Why is it again that I should reproduce material I specifically published for the purpose of not having to re-type it again over and over every time a theist wandered by making the same false assertions and fallacious arguments?
You don’t have an excuse for that. You don’t have a reason for that. Your consistent refusal to push a mouse button can’t be defended by any appeal to any reasonable, rational principle. After all this time, it’s just a petulant refusal to be confronted with ideas and arguments that might contradict an ideology you hold too dear.
Darren,
You seem overly obsessed with debating Austin without addressing some of the other bloggers. Just as you ignored the other bloggers, you also ignored the “basics” as Austin suggested you check out.
How about Fei’s analogy about 1+1=2? Or Mike C’s comment about your denial of Odin, Ra, Vishnu, Jupiter, Zeus, etc? You keep your reference to “God” as if this is the only god to exist in the minds of mortals. Is your denial of these other gods based on faith or evidence (or lack of)?
It’s not that I, and others, deny the existence of god(s), I just do not have a belief in a supreme being(s). Is that based on faith? Hardly. I also do not have a belief in the easter bunny, the tooth fairy, etc.
I do believe that chistianity and other dogmatic religions are hogwash. Does that make me and others like me amoral. Not likely.
Remember, our prisons are full of religious men and women.
I hate labels, but sign me out as a Taoists, Free Thinker, Secular Humanist, Athiest, Agnostic, whatever. No, sign me out as Just Gus (aka Keoni).
By the way Darren, are you a high school student trolling this site? If not, sorry I was thinking that about you.
keoni, I think you are right.
The fact that Darren responded to my post which ridiculed him and not to the others you mentioned implies that he is a troll.
Either that or, like many theists, he will respond more readily to ridicule and the fear of being laughed at than to logical, well presented arguments like the ones Austin has set out.
Either way, he is becoming tiresome and further replies to his nonsense will serve no purpose.
Darren: There are several flaws in your position but here are the two most serious as I see it.
1st, you aren’t consistently defining “faith”, and none of your attempts to define it are really normally accepted meanings. Faith (when discussing religion) usually means “believing something without evidence or without requiring evidence”. Hence if I believe that Obama is the current president of the U.S.A., it is not a faith based belief. However, if I believed that Obama were really a space alien, THAT would be a faith based belief because the belief is not based on evidence.
2nd, you keep defining atheism as “denial of God’s existence”, which is incorrect. According to that definition a Christian would be an atheist since he/she is in denial of the existence of Thor and Vishnu (gods). Furthermore, atheists do not all deny the existence of gods. The only thing all atheists have in common is that they are not theists (ie. they don’t believe in gods — no denial required).
YIKES! [or...WTF?]
By the way Darren B…Learn some basic spelling, if you’re so smart.
[Or try using Mozilla Firefox Browser; which has spell check. It helps with some spelling; but not grammar, of course.]
athiest should be atheist (I noticed you seemed to finally catch that one.)
[Similarly, (mysteriously?) so many theists misspell theist, as thiest]
existance (an IMPORTANT word, I’d say) should be existence
[I'll use = to mean "should be"]
dupped = duped
rediculus = ridiculous
arguement = argument
[You get the picture, I’ll assume.]
For me, atheism is…simply…the LACK OF BELIEF in ANY gods.
WHY? There’s absolutely no observable Scientific evidence…and never was…for the existence of any gods.
Just like there is absolutely no verifiable evidence for Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, fairies, Unicorns, Satan…and yes…even Jesus.
Sunday school class?…How old are you? Still need brainwashing, huh?
Since you’re on the Internet, I’d say…learn some REAL bible history about the sources of what we atheist consider to be delusions; and what modern, independent, archaeology has established about the many lies and total LACK of history in that regard. There’s a whole lot of old AND new information about the “Deceptions and Myths of the Bible”.
Religions, in my opinion, are all based on totally made-up…obviously HUMAN created…stories.
It’s all…basic…tribal…Story-telling. Often, borrowed…even stolen…from older cultures. Such is, demonstrably, the case with the Bible. And the New Testament was borrowed from other, earlier “Savior” Mythologies; and written down quite a bit of time after the SUPPOSED events. Not only that; but the “Gospels” which even made it into the NT, were chosen (by a clerical committee) out of a rather strange bunch of texts, because they conformed with the a particular dogmatic 4th Century Roman Religious/Political agenda, influenced by Emperor Canstantine, no less.
AND…the four Gospels (unbelievably) contradict each other, in many critical places.
There IS…STRONG evidence that Jesus, like Mithra, Osiris, and other Messiah figures, are all, totally…Mythological.
Since you won’t do the minimum of clicking suggested by Austin, this may be my personal exercise in futility; but here’s another excellent page at the American atheists Site regarding the definition of atheism.
http://www.atheists.org/atheism/About_Atheism
ALSO…at the same Site; a page with links to many excellent articles on various aspects of the various “Major” Religions and Mythologies:
http://www.atheists.org/religion
To repeat something often said…most of us atheists were raised (indoctrinated) in some religion or another…mostly in Christianity. Many…as I did…studied Christianity from early childhood, all the way into College level courses…and beyond; mixed in with Theology and various Philosophy courses.
We actually know, in other words, from our earliest roots, sometimes MUCH more than what the average dedicated “Fundies” know about their Bible, and Theology. Add to that the immense source of knowledge that we ALL have access to, thanks to the Internet.
Enough said…probably too much? Only one other thing, regarding Darren B, comes to MY mind…
Darren?..IF…I suggest…IF…you refuse to do the minimum, as requested by our oh-so kind, generous, and gentlemanly host, Austin;
May I personally suggest?
(not-so-kind-and-gently):
“BUG OFF!
[(under breath?)...You totally ignorant, waste of time, f%#**%g, religious Arsehole!"]
Of course…I don’t mean that…in a bad way…?
Darren:
Aren’t you just a little bit curious why Austin keeps saying that atheism is not an absolute denial of God’s existence? Aren’t you just a little bit curious why he insists that atheism is not a world-view? Or why it doesn’t require faith?
There is a reason that Austin has a whole series of articles dealing with these and other misunderstandings – they are sadly VERY COMMON MISUNDERSTANDINGS. Knowing this, he has prepared his answers in advance. Your assertions are nothing new. We get people saying the very same things time and time again here.
This site has many regulars, and most of us haven’t bothered to engage you because we’ve seen it all before. I´m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt here. You believed you were being very reasonable, and your initial tone was civil. But you obviously thought you were going to teach us something. It never occurred to you that maybe you had something to learn and once your false ideas were challenged, your tone changed.
I say false ideas because plain and simply they are. I think it very arrogant to assume that you couldn’t possibly be wrong. There are so many things wrong with what yo believe to be a simple irrefutable argument. Austin has provided links explaining in detail most of them. The time you’ve invested in responding could much more productively been used to read them. Your logic is fine but all your premises a false, and therfore your conlusion is necessarily so.
Here are a few clues:
Atheism is not the denial of God’s existence in the same way that Christianity is not allegiance to the Pope.
Atheism is not a world-view in the same way that not believing that anchovies and chocolate make a good combination is not a world-view.
Do you believe I am blond? Is that faith?
One of the problems with the argument that Austin wrote on his link is that the burden of proof should not necessarily lie with the theist. Theism has been around longer in history, therefore, to make a break from belief to non belief would require a burden of proof.
A denial of God is still an absolute position. It is not the same as agnosticism which leaves a window open for the possibility of a god or gods. And because atheism absolutely denies the existence without full knowledge of everything there is to know, this falls into a realm of faith. I don’t think there is any way to escape this.
Even if your ‘worldview’ holds that the only thing that is worth while in gleening knowledge from is the material world, this too involves faith because we do not have absolute knowledge when it comes to all that exists.
This is pretty clear argument. I read Austin’s material and I don’t agree with his arguments in his articles either. I think that it fails the logic test.
Stike my comment about the burden of proof. This is really unnecessary to my argument and it is just going to become something that the opponent will use to make confusion. atick with the following:
Any absolute belief requires absolute knowledge if you want to avoid faith.
If I believe that the earth is round (and I do) which is an absolute belief, and I do not have first hand knowledge of this, I am ‘trusting’ the authorities for this belief. I will have esentially put my faith in someone for this information. This is the same with any absolute assurance that we posses without absolute knowledge.
Simon asked: Do you believe I am blond? Is that faith?
yes, I would have to accept that on faith.
You mean “atheist.”
Curious that someone who has kept harping on logic would make such an obvious logical fallacy. Neither the age nor the popularity of belief are any indications that the belief is any more or less likely to be true; age and popularity are completely irrelevant to the question of truth.
When it comes to a burden of proof or support, it lies entirely with those making assertions of fact, not with those who do not happen to believe those assertions. It doesn’t matter how old those assertions are or how popular those assertions are.
It also still isn’t atheism.
Disbelief in gods does as well.
Since your repeating falsehoods, despite being pointed to corrections, there’s nothing to “escape.”
You’re more than welcome to support your premise that this definition of “faith” is correct. If you can.
I doubt you will even try, though, given how studiously you have avoided even dealing with the fact that you have changed your definition of faith.
What was it you said above? Oh, yeah…
So, I look forward to your explaining where, exactly, my arguments and explanations “fail the logic test.”
Any time you think you can support this claim, you are welcome to do so. I won’t hold my breath, though.
You don’t have first-hand knowledge of the curvature of the earth?
Why do you keep putting “absolute” in front of words like “belief” and “knowledge”? It looks like you’re trying to communicate something, but I can’t discern what it might be. This goes hand-in-hand with your repeated refusal to justify your definition of “faith.” You never explain what an “absolute belief” is, what “absolute knowledge” is (that was a recent addition to your definition, by the way), or how either lead to “faith.”
I defined faith in one of my above posts. I never claimed it to be a worldview as I was accused of. Quite frankly when I first posted, I never dreamed that anyone would deny that all worldviews rely on faith in an idea, person etc. That challenge, quite frankly, surprised me.
By putting absolute in front of belief and knowledge I am trying to point out that atheism’s denial of God’s existence is a ‘firm negative’ – the opposite of a positive for those who do not understand. Man has finite knowledge, therefore, to make a denial of the existence of God requires faith.
Faith is the confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, an idea or a thing.
Therefore, for me to accept atheism (or theism) I must have faith in the same sort of way that I would have to have to believe that Simon’s hair is blond or that China exists for that matter since I have never personally been to China.
This is not that difficult. Please stop making absurd arguments and accept this rational step of accepting my argument.
You defined faith in several of your above posts, and in different ways. I can’t trust that you’ve settled on one definition so long as the others are waiting in the wings for you.
You have not been accused of claiming that faith is a world view. What you did is say that faith is “simply” the acceptance of a worldview.
Well, it’s your fault then for not being able to support your claims.
What is a “firm” or “absolute” negative as opposed to simply a “negative”?
And when are you going to start defining atheism correctly?
You still have not established how or why a “firm” negative requires faith.
It’s possible to have proof that some person, idea, thing is true, valuable, or trustworthy. Ergo, your position is that “faith” exists no matter how much “proof” you have.
Atheism isn’t a belief to be “accepted.”
It’s easy to spout off falsehoods when you deliberately ignore everything contrary that anyone else has ever written.
Austin said:
You defined faith in several of your above posts, and in different ways. I can’t trust that you’ve settled on one definition so long as the others are waiting in the wings for you.
-simply not true. Read my posts again. If you see differing definitions post them. I defined faith from the dictionary after I was challenged initially.
You have not been accused of claiming that faith is a world view. What you did is say that faith is “simply” the acceptance of a worldview.
-I did use the word ’simply’, and I do believe that ’simply accepting a world view’ is the essence of what is being done when one someone has a religious faith. Accepting a worldview fits into the definition of faith because it is essentially an idea about how the world works. Christians believe in a God who revealed himself in a person just like a Buddhist believes in a worldview that human desire causes suffering, just as an Atheist believes in only a materialistic world. These are completely different worldviews and each require faith in order to believe.
Accepting a negative requires faith just like accepting a positive. If Simon tells me he is blond headed, I can believe him, not believe him or with hold opinion until I see the evidence myself.
if I believe him, I have put my faith in him that he is blond headed.
if I choose to not believe him, I have put my faith into something else like maybe I think he lies or he is insane or maybe I’m just inconsistant like you seem to be. But to deny his blonde hair and be consistant, I have to have faith in something.
if I choose to with hold my judgement, then I can possibly exisit in a consistant state of faithlessness.
If you want your world view to be faithless, I would suggest that you only believe what you have experiencee first hand or have done primary research. This means that if you have never been to china, you should with hold judgement on China’s existence until you see it for yourself. And unfortunately you will need to give up atheism for agnosticism so that you can consistantly live in faithlessness.
Even if you do so, my faith tells me that you would still be unable to logically defend yourself because of the illogicalness of my past dealings with you (notice that this is a faith based on a denial of your ability to debate just like atheism is a denial of God’s existence).
This debate really sums up the Proverb: ‘Only a fool says in his heart there is no God…’
You my friend are a fool. And maybe, just maybe, you ARE closed minded like I stated before. You are intellectually closed minded and are unable to discern your illogical position.
I have: “accepting an established worldview”, “the confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea or a thing”, and belief in the absence of “absolute knowledge.”
So you admit that you weren’t using a dictionary definition originally? And what dictionary, exactly?
Thank you. Since Buddhists are often atheists, attributing two different worldviews to atheists is an admission that atheism is not, itself, a single worldview.
Prove it.
You didn’t believe the truth of the proposition “Simon is blond” before you claimed it. So, what sort of “faith” did you have prior?
A primary error of yours here is not recognizing that not believing the truth of a proposition encompasses withholding judgment. This is explained, by the way, through the links I gave you earlier.
Do you believe the entire verse — that atheists are incapable of doing good?
Only if I ever expected you offer substantive comments once it became clear that you were unwilling to follow links to material posted here on the site.
It’s not closed-minded to expect you to read explanations and arguments written to counter the ideas you are posting.
What was it you said above? Oh, yeah…
Do you still believe this, or do you only believe it when it’s applied to people other than yourself?
Darren:
You have predictably ignored my entire post, except for the last line where you have just as predictably missed the point. If you believe I am blond you are a fool. I didn’t say that I was, I only asked you if you believed that I was. Nor am I now saying I am not. Would an explanation of what you should have learned from this simple exercise be something you’d be interested in?
@ Darren B:
This is the exact definition of the word “denial” which is in Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary:
1 : refusal to satisfy a request or desire
2 a (1) : refusal to admit the truth or reality (as of a statement or charge)
(2) : assertion that an allegation is false
b : refusal to acknowledge a person or a thing : DISAVOWAL
3 : the opposing by the defendant of an allegation of the opposite party in a lawsuit
4 : SELF-DENIAL
5 : negation in logic
6 : a psychological defense mechanism in which confrontation with a personal problem or with reality is avoided by denying the existence of the problem or reality
Can you even COMPREHEND why atheists are not “denying” god(s)?
Firstly, you have to believe that there is actually a god that is existent. Then, you must, of course, despite ALL EVIDENCE to the contrary, deny god(s) exist at all. The key here is “EVIDENCE”. Do you have any, Darren? Do you have ANY evidence whatsoever that god exists, period? Where is it? “Faith” is not evidence.
Since atheists are non-believers to begin with, how can we deny anything that is non existent? It would be like denying the tooth fairy or Easter bunny. Do you have “faith” in the tooth fairy or Easter bunny, as well? Of course not!
You know, or should, that they aren’t real, they’re fabricated to amuse children. To an atheist, that also applies to god(s) they are make-believe and don’t really exist. How then would denial even enter into the situation?
Darren B,
If we accept for a moment your definitions of “atheist” and “faith” (just so that we can be talking about the same concepts rather than using the same words to mean two different things), then there are different problems.
First of all, if we use your definition of “atheist” then probably none of us writing to you are atheists. You are using the word to describe something that has nothing to do with our point of view (or at least MY point of view). In fact, I doubt there many people ANYWHERE that fit your definition of atheist exactly. I have never met or talked to anyone who “believes in only a materialistic world” and is in “absolute denial of the existenance(sic)of a god”.
Second of all, your definition of “faith” makes it a pretty useless word, if it is just another way of saying that you think something.
What would you say was the opposite of “faith”? If you can answer that it may help clear this up.
Am I the only one who thinks that Austin should publish a story with the title “Darren B: This is Your Brain on Religion!”, with choice quotes from Darren B and links to his posts, as a cautionary example?
I can’t think of a better warning of the negative effects of religious thinking than Darren B.
And I don’t know where Austin gets the patience from. I really don’t.
OK, it’s officially Austin and Darren’s fault my lawn isn’t getting raked. This was like watching someone go mad in 53 posts. It started OK, then went to lunacy.
I agree with Mark in regard to Austin’s patience on this one. I’m surprised it has gone on so long only because of Darren’s refusal to support any position, or even be willing to acknowledger error, to debate, etc.
Here’s the one thing I couldn’t get through, however.
Darren simply refuses, is too stupid, too stubborn, blind, ignorant, afraid or insane to understand one thing that is essential for this to be a viable discussion:
Know the definition of an atheist.
Without that, all of this is pointless.
Good day, I have to go rake the lawn.
Mark Barratt (53); you are definitely not the only one; I agree with you completely.