CreateDebate


Debate Info

16
41
Yes, it requires faith No, that's just absurd
Debate Score:57
Arguments:31
Total Votes:70
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, it requires faith (10)
 
 No, that's just absurd (21)

Debate Creator

sparsely(498) pic



Does Atheism Require Faith

Is atheism a religion?

Yes, it requires faith

Side Score: 16
VS.

No, that's just absurd

Side Score: 41
3 points

I think you're confusing Agnosticism with Atheism. Atheism is the stated belief that there is no God.

with how much we know now... please you need faith to believe that.

Agnostics say "no way of knowing now" and some will decide "for now, i don't think it's probable, but if evidence is presented, i will reconsider". Atheists, like Christians, have decided on their belief or disbelief in God.

although, having faith in something doesn't make it a religion. I wouldn't call Atheism religion... it isn't a set of rules on how things work. Atheists splinter into w/e the fuck they wanna believe (which should be science). They have enough faith to say there is no God, but you don't have to do anything else in order to be an Atheist.

So, yes, it requires faith, but no, it's not a religion.

Side: Yes, it requires faith
sparsely(498) Disputed
2 points

I think you're caught in the trap of semantics.

Again, I would counter that for someone to believe there is no God, one first has to conceptualize and postulate the existence of God.

In other words, someone came up with the idea that there was intelligent force responsible for creation, and subsequently passed that idea onto someone else.

If the next person in the chain concludes based on lack of evidence that the idea is in the realm of infinite possibility, but unsubstantial as a postulate, they have exercised no faith. They have simply rejected a theory (like unicorns or dragons existed) which has no observable basis in reality.

But you're right about the title. For clarity's sake, I should've titled it "Does Atheism Require Faith?", but I don't think you can edit the debate title. Oh and I also learned that transparent gif's are not a good format for debate icons :P

Side: that's just absurd
ThePyg(6738) Disputed
1 point

i see where you're coming from, but Atheists reject any theory close to God. Since we are still at a very small understanding of the Universe, it takes Faith to say "I know enough to know that there is no force that one might think of as God".

who knows, it could be a mass amount of energy that does wonders. but the fact that it does wonders would make it not acceptable to Atheists.

But, it all depends on specifics. To me, Atheism in general requires Faith, but in what you're talking about, i totally understand what you mean.

Side: Yes, it requires faith

Yeah, you can change the title of your debate. Just click on the "moderator" tab and then click where it says "edit" next to your title. I change the debate title all the time just to mess with people. It's great fun ;)

Side: No, that's just absurd
SnapDragon(1) Disputed
1 point

The faith that an atheist has is not in the atheism but in their process in the rejection of God. You seem to say that God is disproved by a lack of empirical evidence, but knowledge from empirical evidence is problematic because of Hume's problem of induction, which effectively demonstrates that induction is illogical. The faith involved in the atheist's beliefs is the faith in the empirical epistemology. As Hume pointed out, we accept induction intuitively not reasonably. Since faith is sometimes seen as similarly intuitive, and all belief requires intuition, then you cannot complain of the theist's intuition.

A second point is you cannot disprove all concepts of God because there are infinite versions of the concept of God that requires you to use your epistemological processes everytime, which is impossible. Your disbelief may be based on only certain concepts of God, but this disbelief cannot be based on all concepts of God.

Side: Yes, it requires faith
jessald(1915) Disputed
2 points

Atheism does not necessarily assert the non-existence of God. It can simply mean one lacks belief in God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html

http://www.carm.org/atheism/atheism.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism

Either way, it's a trivial point. Whether you say "God does not exist" or "God is one of an infinite number of possibilities" the result is still the same -- you live your life as if there is no God.

On a side note, most Christians are agnostic. They realize they can't prove God's existence but they believe in him anyway.

Side: No, that's just absurd
1 point

For anyone who contemplates the universe and eternity it takes faith to say that it is more likely there is not a god than there is. Atheist normaly defend this position under vague statments about science making god uneccessary and unlikely. The most inteligent scientist in history ,even up to the modern time, do not seem to belief this however. recently the scientist Dr. hawkins has stated the ultimate gaol of man was to discover why god created us and the universe. Hawkins is in most circles considerd to be one of the smartest men to every lived. Other scientist who belived in some sort of god include Einstein and darwin to name a few. They did not think god was illogical,the lack of belief is neither more logical than not nor is it in any way benefical to the un believer, who will not recieve the sam confidence in death as a believer in some deity will. It seems illogical to say there is no god or even god is unlikely when there is no real evidence to support this view, and when there are still so many unknowns in the universe.

Side: Yes, it requires faith
sparsely(498) Disputed
3 points

By your own conception, there are more possibilities regarding the existence of man outside of an intelligent supernatural creator than there are in favor of. Simply taking odds into account, in an infinite universe there are infinite possibilities. Assigning one theory ("god") more likelihood than others simply because of common belief doesn't lend it great credulity by nature of its popularity. That's simply an argument from majority.

Again, the lack of belief can only be the product of an existing belief in a theory postulated by man. In the case of supernatural, infinite creators, this theory has no substance and therefore requires to "faith" to reject.

Side: that's just absurd
1 point

If you define faith strictly, as a belief you hold that a belief is true without evidence, then of course all life requires faith. All decisions that lead to actually doing anything require faith, so atheists have faith too. Science cannot generate the kind of certainty you need to act. It tells you how the world is very likely to be constructed, not what you need to do next.

Maybe the question is asking whether atheism is a religion? Obviously the answer is ambiguous. We have evolved to be open to non-evidential beliefs that can be a great benefit to our lives.

We easily form our lives around complex conceptual systems and there are many such systems labeled as atheism. The idea of a life with no higher level concepts, no purpose, or truth, or depth, is not the ideal of reason. It is a waste of human life that could be lived with more meaning.

Does that make it an organised religion? Lets hope it never comes to that.

Side: Yes, it requires faith
sparsely(498) Disputed
1 point

Does the decision to eat require faith? Does the decision to sleep require faith? Procreation? Our physical bodies require those things, and force us to do them. This requires no belief at all, just knowledge of what it takes to fulfill those needs. It seems to me you're stretching the definition of faith to suit your own needs.

A waste? a waste is what we do when we justify our known actions based on unknown futures promising rewards or punishments by undefined and unprovable beings. A waste is when we justify treating one another like shit based on our differences of imagination and our allegiance to the hierarchy it gives birth to.

And since a religion is a set of beliefs and rituals designed to bring man closer to something unprovable, I don't think you have anything to worry about there.

Side: No, that's just absurd
1 point

First of all we should define our terms.

Let's define 'faith' as a belief of something without evidence and 'religion' as an institution which is organized around the question of god.

In order to make any existential claim, including "there is no chair in front of me" down to "there is no god" one has to have a belief framework which inevitably has a set of first principles which are not proved with evidence. This is true of any belief - and therefore any belief, including the belief in the chair or the belief/disbelief in the existence of god, will require faith at some level.

Depending on the belief system itself, the actual claim "there is no god" COULD be a faith based claim, or it COULD be an evidence based claim depending on what the assumptions of the belief system are - I am voting "yes" only because at some level it does require a faith based set of "first principles".

So to whether "atheism" is a religion, I'd have to say that no, atheism per se is not a religion, just like theism is not per se a religion. Christianity is an organized movement which has theism as a central tenant, so I would say Christianity is a religion. Similarly, a group such as "American Atheists" is organized around the central tenant of "atheism", I would also consider a religion, although a group organized around the non-existence of god.

Side: Yes, it requires faith

I think atheism requires faith in something....., especially when your plane is spiraling out of control towards the ground at incredible speeds.

Side: Yes, it requires faith
-2 points
KafkaTamura(4) Disputed
1 point

All atheism means is that you lack a belief in a God. Whilst it is true that some atheists do positively deny the existence of God (strong atheism), this is not necessary for one to be an atheist. Lacking a belief cannot be a matter of faith, since faith is a form of belief. As such, being an atheist does not require faith, but it may in certain instances be a matter of faith.

Side: No, that's just absurd
4 points

You can "believe" something without "faith". I'm only 99.999% sure that the atomic theory of matter reflects reality. That belief (or at least my level of confidence in it) would change if I were shown evidence to the contrary. If I were fairly certain (say 99% certain) that god doesn't exist, then I would consider myself an atheist (as opposed to an agnostic). Most atheists base their beliefs on this sort of empirical evaluation.

That being said it is certainly POSSIBLE to be "faithful" that there is no god. It's just an unlikely position.

Side: No, that's just absurd
3 points

"God exists" is a postulate, and therefore a man-made concept, no different than saying "the world is flat". As such, one who doesn't accept the postulate as true, or rejects the evidence presented as incredible (that is, too extraordinary and improbable to be believed), cannot be said to have "faith" (that is, firm belief in or trust of something for which there is no proof) in their position. They are simply rejecting a spurious postulate on the grounds of lack of evidence.

Side: that's just absurd
2 points

There is room for flaws in all knowledge. There is no such thing as an absolute certainty, only a very high measure of certainty. To say that if one believes there is no God without knowing the entirety of the universe "requires faith" is absurd.

We live by the fact that every day the sun will rise. Our entire society and planet is based on that fact even though there is a small measure of possibility that it might not happen. I don't mean to suppress the questioning of reality or the status quo (strangely, religion is the status quo), I only mean to point out that the question is more about the proper use of the word "faith" rather than the word "atheism".

Atheism is the absence of religion, which I guess can crudely be used in place of "faith". It is not a religion itself, much like how zero is a placeholder for the absence of a number, although it is not a number itself. In conclusion, Led Zeppelin rules.

Side: No, that's just absurd

I am an atheist, and I here is what I believe. I don't rule out the idea of God completely, I just give him the same amount of plausibility as every other man made idea. Let me give you a list of thinks that I believe in equally as I believe in god (in no particular order):

-UFO's

-Vampires

-Werewolves

-All of the ancient Greek, Roman, Egyptian etc... Gods

-The Lock Ness monster

-Bigfoot

-Witches

-Magic

-Ghosts

-Souls

-The Flying Spaghetti monster

-The Hindu gods

-La Chupacabra

-Angels

-Mermaids

-Unicorns

-Fairies

And whole bunch of other things I can't think of off the top of my head. So, yes technically there could be a God, but it's about as likely as anything else on the list so I pretty much rule out the possibility.

Side: that's just absurd
3 points

That's quite true. There are infinity of things we have no proof they don't exist and just because we favor one idea that doesn't mean it's real.

It think that's the reason atheists are atheists and not agnostic.

In fact the whole concept of agnostic is a bit confusing to me, basically they are therefore same as atheists except they emphasize the fact that any of those infinity of things could exists which is what an atheist thinks anyway but just doesn't find a reason to constantly point it out...Oh, so that's the difference, agnostics "point it out"!

But as far as belief goes it's all dependent on definition of atheist

Def#1: "Does not believe in God.", here there is no belief required.

Def#2: "Does believe there is no God.", here belief is required.

But basically when a baby is born it's born clueless of God so it's atheism is not a belief when it's not even aware of such a concept so ultimately atheism requires NO belief.

Side: newborn is atheist without belief so

Agnostics are just atheists that are hedging their bets in case they are wrong.

Side: No, that's just absurd
ThePyg(6738) Disputed
2 points

what makes UFO's so impossible? are we really the only ones in this Universe?

but i guess the idea of aliens is actually very close to God. as Sparsely pointed out, we only have the decision on God based on the fact that man has brought it up. But once it has been brought up, it doesn't seem all that impossible, like aliens.

Vampires and werewolves are part of legends, things not taken very seriously. God and UFOs are different, since they are possible and many people believe so. This is where the line is drawn.

Side: Yes, it requires faith
1 point

Well, I agree with you kind of. I could order the things on my list by probability of being true, but in general those are around the same (in my opinion). People have claimed to see ghosts, just like people still believe in witches. There's actually photographic "proof" of some of things like the loch ness monster. Most people never see God, but base their beliefs on what they have been told by either their parents or those around them. Some people do claim to talk to god, or speak to god but people also claimed to be able to talk to other gods (Native American spirits, Norse gods etc...). I mean, if any one faith is right then that means every other faith is wrong.

As far as the whole, if a lot of people believe it it's possible I would have to disagree. A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it, and the truth is the truth even if no one believes it. Everyone used to believe the earth was the center of the universe, and everyone used to believe that the earth was flat. Mass numbers of people didn't make it true, it just made the people who believed it more sure of themselves. A ridiculous idea seems much less rediculous if everyone around you believes it too.

If you claim that atheism takes faith then you also have to agree that believing that your friends and everything around you takes faith. In fact the only thing you can be absolutely 100% sure of is that you exist.

Cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am)

Side: No, that's just absurd

If your going to vote me down at least have the decency to say why! This is supposed to be a debate site, so if you want to debate, great, speak up!

Side: No, that's just absurd
2 points

I agree, you had good points. I'm guessing though the down votes were for grammar. Who knows though. Generally whenever I get on the topic of religion I'm serial down voted because I'm aetheist. I think a couple Christians on this site think Jesus will give them a cookie if they do that. So that may be the case too.

Side: No, that's just absurd
1 point

The arguement posed on the other side by a couple people, that the fact that there is no way to be 100% sure that god does not exist (as is the case with everything) therefore makes faith in his non-existance a necessary thing, is a very very good arguement.

It's wrong though.

"Faith" requires a belief in something that there is no proof of, (which is why I laugh when evangelicals say they know there's a god, because the Bible itself asks for faith, which implies a lack of knowledge, but I digress) faith is not required when essentially nothing is believed. That is a lack of fatih. Semantics, I know, but I think an important distinction.

An example. If a man lives his whole life blind and deep in a cave, but believes there is a sun, he has faith that there is a sun, because there is absolutely no way of him knowing -and he would happen to be right. If the same man does not believe there is a sun, because he has never heard of a sun, had never seen the sun, and never felt the sun, he is simply wrong. And understandably so.

Now another arguement on the other side, that because Steven Hawking thinks there's a god, there must be a god, is ridiculous. He chooses to have faith but has never uncovered any evidence. It's not as if, him being the theoretical Physisist of the century, grants him some secret knowledge. Though smart he is, he is no more informed on the subject of god than me, or you, or the blind guy in the cave. By his own emission, and every religious person who isn't insane's emission, they don't know, only believe.

If someone is a good cook, should I take advice from them how to fix my car? That is exactly the same as taking the advice of any scientist, philosopher, priest, theologist, bartender, etc. on god. No one is an expert on the subject. You either believe, or you don't.

Side: No, that's just absurd