CreateDebate


Debate Info

62
77
It sure does. What? That's not right.
Debate Score:139
Arguments:72
Total Votes:190
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 It sure does. (38)
 
 What? That's not right. (34)

Debate Creator

Assface(406) pic



It takes faith to be an atheist.

It would be one thing if atheists said, "There's no proof for god." But they don't. They say, "There is no god." They make a definitive metaphysical claim based on the absense of proof. AKA faith. They're not claiming a lack of knowledge; if they were, they'd call themselves agnostics. They think they know something despite a lack of proof. The same way the faithful do. Atheists are just as religious as the religious people they hate, claiming knowledge of something they don't actually know and have no reasonable basis for.

It sure does.

Side Score: 62
VS.

What? That's not right.

Side Score: 77
6 points

It would be one thing if atheists said, "There's no proof for god." But they don't. They say, "There is no god." They make a definitive metaphysical claim based on the absense of proof. AKA faith.

Most atheists do say "there is no proof of god," they say things like highly unlikely, doubtful, etc. That is the majority of them from my experience. I do not fall on such formalities, I actually have "faith" that there is no god - since I cannot disprove a negative. In my defence I also say there is no such thing as unicorns... another act of faith. Hence why I'm on this side agreeing, though I do dispute the spirit of your argument.

They're not claiming a lack of knowledge; if they were, they'd call themselves agnostics. They think they know something despite a lack of proof.

Here I think you are misrepresenting what it means to believe, which is the fundamental basis of faith. An agnostic would be one who simply witholds an opinion on the matter. An atheist may be atheist however without "faith" in that they base an opinion on what is seen. They are not agnostic in that they are not on the fence, they don't think there is a god. They simply do not claim to have knowledge of this. Now, that would be faith if it were claimed "I know there is no god" but not when it is "knowledge" of things like fossils, the age of the planet, inconsistancies in faith which leads them to say "these gods people worship cannot be according to this evidence."

You can argue that even knowledge of evidence is faith, but then you're just being silly. By that standard knowledge the sky is blue becomes an article of faith, making the word "faith" itself worthless as a descriptive term.

Atheists are just as religious as the religious people they hate, claiming knowledge of something they don't actually know and have no reasonable basis for.

1. Not all atheists hate religion. Most don't actually, some even think it is useful and a nice fairy tale for the dying.

And even I, a religion-hating atheist, wouldn't deny a child or someone on their deathbed the comfort of a god if they choose to be delusioned in such a way for a time. I just see that blind faith leads to blind following which more times than not leads to the mass of religious doing one evil or another, making the world a darker place for it.

2. Atheism is actually extraordinarily reasonable, and more so in light of the social stigmas around it. It is an opinion based on observation. This faith you are comparing it to on the other hand is opinion despite observation.

Worse and my primary disdain for this horrible powerful thing holding back humanity's potential called religion, is that in fact due to the very nature of believing despite observation, it actually rewards "staying stupid." Creating an atmosphere we see right now in real time in pockets of the very religious areas even in this country which is supposed to be religiously neutral, where knowledge is treated almost like witchcraft or sorcery, feared, hated and avoided like a plague.

Side: Sometimes
4 points

Faith is an unconditional human attribute.

But there is a difference in believing in that you can find the answers of science then in believing there's a bearded man in the sky.

Faith is not exclusive to the religious. All people have faith in SOMETHING. So you cannot argue that having faith in your ability to use the scientific method is exactly the same as having faith in something that was thought up without reason.

But in the end, atheists do have faith. All humans have faith. This debate is ridiculous. All the atheists who are saying they don't have faith is just them trying to reason something impossible because you're purposefully trying to incite their discomfort. They are being as silly as you are being mean.

Side: It sure does.
Assface(406) Disputed
1 point

There is a difference, but there's also a difference between believing that you can find the answers of science and believing that there specifically isn't a breaded man in the sky (or the general concept that diminutive caricature represents, anyway).

All people might have "faith," but it is only the truly dogmatic who allow that faith to govern their active belief or disbelief in anything. Some are able to divorce their faith from their ideas about reality, and Atheists do not belong in that category.

Side: It sure does.
chatturgha(1644) Disputed
1 point

Some are able to divorce their faith from their ideas about reality...

How so? Explain this to me.

Side: What? That's not right.
3 points

I'm not sure this applies to all atheists, but many think that any potential proof of God that is offered is simply irrational and illogical. Therefore, they have faith, in that, they are claiming a claim to be illogical based on their own set of values. This is also referred to as faith.

Side: It sure does.
2 points

"An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid." —Carl Sagan, critiquing New Atheism long before it became the circle-jerk of bad ideas and poor scholarship that it is today.

Side: It sure does.
2 points

yes it sure does! it takes more faith to not believe in god then to believe in him. if you have faith in god you can not worry as much as how we got here because we can simply say he created us.... not saying learning about science and the world is bad, its great i just know intelligent design is more logical then coming from nothing or matter thats been her forever.... come on we come from MATTER thats just dumb. we come from something we cant even rap are little minds around but are evil self's want to think we are so smart so we make up are own answers that sound like i could happen that way. sorry atheists out there but your not as smart as god, get over it.

Side: It sure does.
xyze(39) Disputed
2 points

if you have faith in god you can not worry as much as how we got here because we can simply say he created us....

People who thought like this is the reason we had the Dark Ages. It's a cop out to the millions of people who have contributed to human knowledge and understanding of the world just to say "Well fuck your science, magic did it". I'd rather an explanation, thanks. What you're basically saying is "If you're religious you don't need to worry about fancy pants explanations and logic". Well, good luck convincing anyone.

"come on we come from MATTER thats just dumb"

We are made from matter. Scientists know in very specific detail how matter rearranged itself to form us. Are you seriously saying that matter rearranging itself due to genetic variation/natural selection into differently arranged bits of matter is 'dumb', whereas believing a bearded wizard in the sky thought it all into existence as a perfectly legitimate theory? Seriously? Are you a troll?

but are evil self's want to think we are so smart so we make up are own answers that sound like i could happen that way

Scientists like most people recognise that they don't know anything. This is one of the core reasons why people choose to do science - To understand more about the world, to gain information and knowledge. This is a much better idea than saying "Fuck we're dumb, I guess god just did it all... Yeh let's teach that in school".

sorry atheists out there but your not as smart as god, get over it.

Yes, God is so smart that he decided he would create faulty humans then command them to fix themselves and start worshipping him. Then he decided to send his son to a desert in bronze age palestine where most people couldn't read or write. Yeh, that'll get the message across! Bloody genius.

Side: What? That's not right.
2 points

One would be right in saying that " It takes faith to be an Atheist " whether you are talking about the past faith in religion they once had or the fact that they have faith in their belief that there is no god. Although, faith is an extremely general ideal to have. Everyone has faith in something, if not, then they would just go through their lives being unsure about everything that goes on around them.

Side: It sure does.
1 point

One of the many problems is there are some people (such as the person who posted this question) who are fundamentalists, and disregard all other opinions. I personally believe it does take atheism to be an atheist because you are, like believing in God, having a belief about something. However, not all Atheists are arrogant as many are saying, neither are all Christians judgemental/oblivious (as many others are saying). To be honest, I just think its best to live your life to the best you can, have faith in what you believe, and even if you are wrong about your Religion, if you live your life well you will still end up in the best position after you die.

Side: It sure does.
1 point

I'm not a fundamentalist anything, actually. I'm an atheist.

As for the rest of your post, reasonable argument.

Side: It sure does.
0 points

They cannot prove the non existance of God, all they have is a faith as rabid as any muzlim.

Side: It sure does.
garry77777(1797) Disputed
2 points

"They cannot prove the non existance of God"

You can't prove his existence either, thats why it takes faith (i.e. absence of evidence or a solid argument) to beleive in God.

No atheist claims 100% that God doe not exist, they claim that evidence doe not support it one iota.

"all they have is a faith as rabid as any muzlim."

So what you beleive Islam is closer to athiesm than Christianity? Seriously?

Side: What? That's not right.
5 points

faith is: belief despite lack of proof

atheism is the position of NOT believing god/s exist

atheism is the position of rejecting claims that god/s exist, due to a lack of evidence

Side: What? That's not right.
3 points

"It would be one thing if atheists said, "There's no proof for god." But they don't. They say, "There is no god." They make a definitive metaphysical claim based on the absense of proof. AKA faith"

well we kinda do when we need to explain our position, our stance on god is the same stance on unicorns basically or anything else considered ridiculous to believe in. If someone asked you on weather or not unicorns exist, you would say no, but how can you prove that unicorns don't exist. At this point you realize that you assume it doesn't exist because you never seen proof of it or had reason to believe it to exist, and you realize that saying unicorns do not exist is somewhat illogical, but is silly to even humor the idea to even begin with. Its the same thing with god and atheists, we say "there is no god" but that's because there is barely any difference at all between believing something doesn't exist and simply never thinking it did exist. Things we never think to exist we treat like things we know don't exist, but the reality is we don't have a reason to believe it. So yes atheists do say god doesn't exist sometimes, just like how you say unicorns don't exist yet if you were asked to prove they don't you'd have to explain why you don't believe it instead of why you believe it doesn't. there two things we tend to mix up a lot, however that does not take away from our point.

" They're not claiming a lack of knowledge; if they were, they'd call themselves agnostics."

you've never heard of agnostic atheism? agnosticism does not replace atheism because they answer two different questions about a person.

A = not or without, or simply non (its a prefix that turns everything into a negative.)

theism = a belief in god

Atheism = not or without; non belief in a god AKA lack of belief

gnosticism = knowledge (in today's society we associate this with god almost completely strictly if not completely.)

agnosticism = not or without; non knowledge AKA lack of knowledge

you cannot be just an agnostic or just an atheist same with theism and gnosticism

here are the four correct labels

agnostic atheist: lacks belief in god claiming no knowledge of his existence

gnostic atheist: lacks belief in god claiming knowledge of his existence therefore turning therefore there lack of belief is followed by a belief of gods nonexistence.

agnostic theist: belief in god claiming no knowledge of his existence

gnostic theist: belief in god claiming knowledge of his existence.

ask majority of atheists if they are agnostic and they will tell you that they are agnostic so you're accusation of us not claiming to be agnostic is ignorant and incorrect.

" They think they know something despite a lack of proof."

most atheists Iv talked to and myself do not claim to know of his existence, most atheists in my experience are agnostic atheists, not gnostic atheists, even though the majority of us that even get more attention get lumped in with the minority that don't get a lot of attention due to misunderstanding on how we come off to people. we do sound like we think we know he doesn't exist but its not as much knowing he doesn't exist as much as it is us not being convinced of his existence what-so-ever. if a salesman came to your door claiming that their lotion would make you younger and immortal you would come off to them as someone who knows that isn't true because your sure it isn't true because there isn't a reason to think so.

" Atheists are just as religious as the religious people they hate, claiming knowledge of something they don't actually know and have no reasonable basis for."

religious? no not really atheism doesn't have dogma because atheism exists as much as dark does, its a lack of belief therefore no dogma, no belief, nothing comes with it. claiming knowledge of something they actually don't know? Im sorry most atheists I have talked to have repeatedly admitted again and again that they do not know weather or not they exist. we don't need reason to not believe something just lacking reason for believing something to not believe it.

Side: What? That's not right.
Assface(406) Disputed
0 points

Fortunately, I have already responded to every single argument you submit here. Check the rest of my posts in the thread and respond accordingly if you feel like it.

Side: It sure does.
3 points

There are two different definitions for 'atheist'.

1: a person who doesn't believe in god.

2: a person who believes god doesn't exist.

In the first sense of the word, often called 'weak atheism', it is actually an agnostic stance. The weak atheist doesn't claim to know that god doesn't exist, and as such, has no faith in the matter.

The second sense of the word, often called 'strong atheism', only fits the idea of requiring faith in a very broad sense of the word. Typically faith refers to confidence placed in a person. You would have to extend that definition to be 'confidence placed in a person or concept', meaning having faith in the idea that god doesn't exist.

With the common usage of the word faith, atheists don't have faith.

Side: What? That's not right.
Assface(406) Disputed
0 points

Dude, seriously, I'm getting really tired of this.

Please read the thread before you say the exact same thing everybody else has already said.

Side: It sure does.
TruthAnalyst(48) Disputed
1 point

1 - Chill out friend :)

2 - One of the points of a community debate is to get the total community input, even if the same point is made more than once.

Side: What? That's not right.
3 points

Using faith, a type of belief, to describe atheism, a type of disbelief, is inherently self-contradicting. You are essentially saying that disbelief requires belief, which is false by definition.

It requires no faith to not believe in something. To insist otherwise, only elucidates the level of absurdity that the religious are willing to stoop to make their absurdities seem less absurd.

I look forward to your reply.

Side: What? That's not right.
2 points

Let's work through this Argument from Faith Equivalency shall we?

1. You have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, don't you?

2. See! Atheists have faith too!

3. Therefore, belief in science is just another faith.

4. Just like I have faith in God and Jesus.

5. Therefore, God exists.

Yep, makes sense to me!

Side: What? That's not right.
Assface(406) Disputed
1 point

First note that I have neither asserted nor implied the positive existence of god (least of all the Christian God) anywhere in this thread.

Second, note that I've made no equivalence between "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow (or in the non-existence of unicorns or Russel's teapot or basically anything else) and faith in the non-existence of god. I can only assume you're replying to the Christian apologist in your mind who likes to quote Aquinas and otherwise serves in your tireless construction of strawmen.

Side: It sure does.
DeaconFred(11) Disputed
1 point

First of all, my response was joke to poke fun at your silly “assertion”. It’s silly, because it attempts to shift the burden of proof to those who say “there is no evidence that god exists”. I think Dan Barker summed it up best like this…

Theists claim that there is a god; atheists do not. Religionists often challenge atheists to prove that there is no god; but this misses the point. Atheists claim god is unproved, not disproved. In any argument, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

If a person claims to have invented an antigravity device, it is not incumbent on others to prove that no such thing exists. The believer must make a case. Everyone else is justified in refusing to believe until evidence is produced and substantiated.

Some atheists feel the argument is pointless until the term "god" is made understandable. Words like "spirit" and "supernatural" have no referent in reality, and ideas like "all-knowing" and "omnipotent" are self-contradictory. Why discuss a meaningless concept?

Side: What? That's not right.
1 point

The subject of Metaphysics has always been controversial. Especially for the believers in the Scientific method, such as I. We have been searching for proof for many, many years and found none. The current belief that the Universe is only 50,000 years old by the teachers of Intelligent Design is completely false.Carbon-14 dating is proof. Several stories in the "Bible" has already been proven to be false or misrepresented. The cities of Saddam & Gomorrah were destroyed by volcanoes and massive earthquakes not by the hands of an angry, fictional being that wanted to show how angry he was with us. There is no true evidence that the "Great Flood" ever really existed. Plus this new "God Particle" that was made up by high ranking religious scientists to make an attempt to give somewhat an answer to everything that is physics and other things has yet to be found. Not even by the largest detector in the world called the "Large Hadron Collider" cannot find it.

Side: What? That's not right.
Assface(406) Disputed
1 point

A non-scientific creator need not reflect the writings of clear allegory and mythology; that's not what's up for debate here, and is a non-sequitur. All of the arguments you submit attack points made by no one present. Please try to stay on-topic.

Side: It sure does.
1 point

Your assertion only works for strong/positive atheists. Weak/negative atheists only claim that they do not not believe in God. I do not know the actual numbers, but it appears to me that a significant majority of modern atheists, especially on this site, are of the weak/negative variety. Without making a truth claim, this variant of atheism is not intrinsically reliant on faith.

Side: What? That's not right.
Assface(406) Disputed
1 point

Re-read the post. My assertion applies all to those who "claim that they do not believe in god," insofar as their belief reflects what they find to be true in the world (and I think that's the definition of the word). Append as many conditionals and qualifiers ass you please, but the word you're modifying remains.

Side: It sure does.
imrigone(768) Disputed
3 points

Re-read the post.

Okay, lets do that:

"It would be one thing if atheists said, "There's no proof for god." "

As a matter of fact, that is all that many of us say. Specifically negative atheists.

"But they don't. They say, "There is no god." "

Not all atheists say this. It is not definitive of all atheists.

"They make a definitive metaphysical claim based on the absense of proof. AKA faith. They're not claiming a lack of knowledge; if they were, they'd call themselves agnostics."

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism refers to a lack of knowledge, atheism refers to a lack of belief. It is possible to be both simultaneously, and many modern atheists claim both categories.

"They think they know something despite a lack of proof. The same way the faithful do. Atheists are just as religious as the religious people they hate, claiming knowledge of something they don't actually know and have no reasonable basis for."

Well, some do believe they have proof, usually based on logic. I personally don't have this belief so I won't argue for them. But I know they exist.

My assertion applies all to those who "claim that they do not believe in god," insofar as their belief reflects what they find to be true in the world (and I think that's the definition of the word).

Most inclusively, atheism is simply a lack of belief in deities.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheist#m_en_gb0977070

Append as many conditionals and qualifiers ass you please, but the word you're modifying remains.

And the word I'm modifying remains a lack of belief, no an active disbelief.

Side: What? That's not right.
1 point

it sure take faith & commitment to stick to your arguement that God isn't real, when he clearly does...

Side: What? That's not right.
xyze(39) Disputed
2 points

It sure takes faith and commitment to stick to your argument that the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't real, when he clearly does....

Side: It sure does.
1 point

Atheism doesn't mean "believing there isn't a god"

Atheism means "not believing in god"

Theism meaning belief in god, and the a prefix meaning not. This is not a difficult concept.

There could be invisible pink unicorns wearing top hats living at the edge of (or just beyond) the universe that secretly watch over us and are actually everywhere and actually came to Earth in human form (As Billy Mays). Many books were then written about Billy Mays and the invisible pink unicorns. Oh, the unicorns also created the universe. And they want you to mutilate your genitals and not make sculptures of any unicorns.

Hell, this could be the case, However there is no evidence for such. If I believe there are no such unicorns, is that really equivalent (in terms of faith) to saying I believe there is? The burden of proof is still on theists to prove that their god exists. Until that time, I shall not believe that there is a god. I call myself an atheist, meaning a person who does not believe there is a god.

Side: What? That's not right.

Faith would imply lack of evidence which isn't true, there is an abundance of evidence supporting the atheist point of view.

Side: What? That's not right.
Bohemian(3867) Disputed
1 point

Atheism neither has nor needs evidence. One does not need evidence that something isn't true. Most things aren't true simply as a function of probability. There are an infinite number of false claims and only a finite number of true claims. For this reason, skepticism is the logical default position. I do not need evidence to justify my disbelief in the tooth fairy.

Side: What? That's not right.
1 point

There is a difference between faith and knowing, because of lack of evidence. Faith is blind, evidence or lack there of is common sense.

Side: What? That's not right.
0 points

faith, what is it? I'm atheist i believe in faith but nothing have ever happening to me yet to prove that any of this is real i mean you cant decide without evidence, i have never used faith if i have it was something really small that almost didn't matter to the world or make a dent in an act made by a single person.

Side: What? That's not right.