Atheism: a faith based belief.

[Phi for All]

This is all very good, accepting people for themselves and trying not to judge. But the real question here is if atheists are using their belief system (or faith) with regard to their perspectives on religion.

 

I say it's not a belief if you DON'T believe in it. Atheism is about a lack of belief in god(s), so it's not a religion or a religious belief.

 

Atheism is NOT a faith-based belief.

[Memammal]

^ Yeah I get it, but do (or don't) you regard it as a secular belief as well? Secular beliefs: nonreligious beliefs that reflect an emphasis on living in the here and now. Secularists use scepticism and rationalism to question traditional religious beliefs; they may be humanists, atheists, deists (believing in a creative force, or first cause), or agnostics.

[Phi for All]

^ Yeah I get it, but do (or don't) you regard it as a secular belief as well?

 

I don't believe in Thor, or Santa Claus, or unicorns, despite all the huge amounts of writings concerning them. I also don't collect stamps, but I don't think it's a secular belief that keeps me from doing so. I just don't see the value, and I'm not at all interested. Same thing for god(s). I'm not against them, I just don't see any evidence to support their existence.

 

It's a lack of belief, so how can it be a secular belief?

[iNow]

Atheist. A*theist. Literally: Not*Theist.

That is all. Move along. No belief nor faith required.

 

If you're secular or humanist or something else, well... not to put too fine a point on it, but those are quite simply something else.

 

This isn't a difficult logical structure to comprehend, IMO. Sure, secularism or humanism are often related and they occasionally overlap with atheism at varying magnitudes in their respective Venn diagrams, but the long and short of it is that they are different concepts not to be conflated.

 

There is no more argument to be had here among anyone not being intellectually dishonest or willfully obtuse or just ignorant.

[Memammal]

^ Refer to that definition that I copied in my previous post. Admittedly not cast in stone; I got it here: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O62-secularbeliefs.html

I am not convinced that deists should form part of that umbrella term though..? Going back to the original topic, I would definitely remove the "faith based" part of it. That does not make any sense.

Edited May 12, 2016 by Memammal

[TheWorstGuyYouKnow]

I put faith in science I do not understand at all. For instance do I fully understand the science behind evolution and common ancestry? Not at ll! But I trust it blindly like many religions follow the teachings of holy books.

[ajb]

I put faith in science I do not understand at all.

Okay, so why do you have faith in science?

[Memammal]

It's a lack of belief, so how can it be a secular belief?

 

Atheist. A*theist. Literally: Not*Theist.

That is all. Move along. No belief nor faith required.

 

This isn't a difficult logical structure to comprehend, IMO.

 

There is no more argument to be had here among anyone not being intellectually dishonest or willfully obtuse or just ignorant.

 

Again, I get it. There really should not be any argument about the essence or meaning of "atheism", which is arguably best described here:

 

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.Atheism is contrasted with theism which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism)

 

Any confusion that may exist is brought about as a result of semantic (mis)interpretation, something that is also being exploited by some theists. The "issue" is not helped by definitions and references such as the one that I posted earlier, nor by these:

 

Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." (https://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism)

Strong or positive atheism is the positive belief that a god does not exist. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism)

[Phi for All]

I put faith in science I do not understand at all. For instance do I fully understand the science behind evolution and common ancestry? Not at ll! But I trust it blindly like many religions follow the teachings of holy books.

 

There's a difference though. Science promises the knowledge is there for you to explore if you suddenly feel the need to verify it. I think there's a difference between faith and trust, and this is a big part of that difference. You can trust science because you could check the evidence and methodology yourself, as many many skeptics before you have.

 

Trust isn't blind the way faith is. Trust wears fine-print spectacles.

[Ten oz]

 

There's a difference though. Science promises the knowledge is there for you to explore if you suddenly feel the need to verify it. I think there's a difference between faith and trust, and this is a big part of that difference. You can trust science because you could check the evidence and methodology yourself, as many many skeptics before you have.

 

Trust isn't blind the way faith is. Trust wears fine-print spectacles.

Great point!

In addition to verifying rather that simply trusting most people in science change their view over time or when proven wrong. There is no commitment or loyalty to something that isn't provably true. In religion a concepts are accepted and believed craddle to grave. In science concepts are challanged and reevaluated craddle to grave.

[Phi for All]

There is no commitment or loyalty to something that isn't provably true.

 

Oddly enough though, I've found that when I use reason and sound scientific methodology to reach a conclusion, it's fairly easy for me to change what I trust if evidence shows more support for a better conclusion. I was committed to the first conclusion until the second showed itself to be superior.

 

And conversely, when I reach a conclusion using a more emotional, or faith/hope/wishful thinking approach, it's very difficult to convince me I might be wrong. Evidence to the contrary falls on deaf ears, and even confirms that my emotional assessment is correct. It forms a conviction, strongly held and impervious to reason, and self-reinforced because we tell ourselves that faith is a good thing.

 

I think there is a danger in using faith if it might make you change the course of your life based on those convictions.

[disarray]

Phi for all.

 

Yes, if one has a strong desire or an emotionally charged experience that leads one to believe something, things such as confirmation bias, the halo (fork) effect, denial, selective

perception, etc. kick in automatically, often without our being consciously aware of it.

 

That's why being as emotionally objective as possible (including not getting too fond about ones own pet theories) is a hallmark of the scientific approach.

 

Indeed, there have been off-the-cuff ratings of famous scientists in this regard, e.g., Darwin tends to be high in the "objectivity" range.

 

An article at http://www.nature.com/news/how-scientists-fool-themselves-and-how-they-can-stop-1.18517 lists the various ways in which scientists can subconsciously be biased in favor of their own theories (hypothesis myopia, Texas sharpshooter, asymmetric attention, just-so stories), and various ways to avoid such bias (devil's advocacy, pre-commitment, team of rivals, and blind-data analysis).