Do Agnostics and Athiests simply reject faith?

Frank Apisa wrote:

Jason

There is no "faith" involved in taking a position of "I do not know" or "I am unwilling to accept that particular guess"...at least, no "faith" in the sense that a theist uses that word.

I think this is exactly right Frank. When an Agnostic says - 'I don't know' there is no faith. However, when an Agnostic judges that another person does not know, or thier faith is not valid - they are making a claim that they either 'know' something or they have 'faith' about something.

The claim that you do not know is not a faith answer - but the claim that my faith is not valid - you are stating that you believe your position (of not knowing) is the valid faith.

Frank Apisa wrote:

No agnostic worth his/her salt would say "you cannot know." If there is a God...and that God wanted to make Itself known....it would have no trouble doing so.

Doesn't seem to have happened, though....so either there is no God or if there is, It doesn't want to make Itself known.

This is exactly what I discussed above - there is a difference between your statement above - "I don't know." and "Doesn't seem to have happened." The former is not a faith based statement but the latter is.

Here is why I say this - a believers revelations from God - does not seem to have happened to you - and this is based on your faith of what evidence counts as evidence. Testimony of others does not count to an Agnostic - Hume made that clear. However, that does not mean that there are no systems that do not count Testimony of others as valid infortion (e.g. our legal system). It is your faith that testimony is not enough evidence to base a belief for God in.

Furthermore, when others 'feel' the presense of God - or feel like prayers have been answered - Agnostics do not count this as evidence as well. You have said dozens of times that this type of evidence is too ambigious for you to count as evidence. However, this does not mean that every system does count 'feelings' that seemingly have no emperical cause as valid (psychiatry for instance).

You deny these forms of evidence - but cannot do so based on 'knowledge' - you cannot do that. You cannot say with certainty, that God did not communicate with those people in those manners. So - you must have faith that a God would not communicate with those he chose to in this manner. It is not a simple lack of judgment case - it is a faith as to what counts as evidence from God.

Furthermore, this is not simply relative to the believer. There are good arguments as to why to trust eye witness historical testimony that fits other historical testimony. There are furthermore, good arguments as to why we can trust feelings that have no emperical cause. These arguments, you do not have faith in - and are thus invalid.

Frank,

I appreciate your patience and candor - your arguments are good and worthy of my full attention. As always I appreciate you and your words.

TTF

0 Replies

thethinkfactory wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Jason

There is no "faith" involved in taking a position of "I do not know" or "I am unwilling to accept that particular guess"...at least, no "faith" in the sense that a theist uses that word.

I think this is exactly right Frank. When an Agnostic says - 'I don't know' there is no faith. However, when an Agnostic judges that another person does not know, or thier faith is not valid - they are making a claim that they either 'know' something or they have 'faith' about something.

The claim that you do not know is not a faith answer - but the claim that my faith is not valid - you are stating that you believe your position (of not knowing) is the valid faith.

Well...that may or may not be. But since you are talking in generalities rather than citing a specific, we really don't know.

I want you to go back and quote anything I have ever said...here in this thread or anywhere else in A2K...that says what you say is being said. Then we can take a look and see if any "faith" is being expressed.

(I could save you a lot of trouble. You are not going to find anything....because it doesn't exist. All this stuff you are saying here, respectfully as possible, is merely a straw man you are building.)

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

No agnostic worth his/her salt would say "you cannot know." If there is a God...and that God wanted to make Itself known....it would have no trouble doing so.

Doesn't seem to have happened, though....so either there is no God or if there is, It doesn't want to make Itself known.

This is exactly what I discussed above - there is a difference between your statement above - "I don't know." and "Doesn't seem to have happened." The former is not a faith based statement but the latter is.

No way!!! There is nothing about the comment "doesn't seem to have happened" that is remotely like the "faith" you people keep talking about. It is a very, very conditional statement.

There is no way I would defend the propositon..."It has not happened!"

That would be a "faith" issue.

In the subject comment, I am merely saying that my evaluation of the evidence is that it is more reasonable to suppose it hasn't happened (no god has revealed itself) than that it has.

What is the comparable position of the theist? Where is the conditionality?

Are you suggesting that theists are saying "there may be a god?"

That certainly is not the position of the theists I know.

Quote:

Here is why I say this - a believers revelations from God - does not seem to have happened to you - and this is based on your faith of what evidence counts as evidence. Testimony of others does not count to an Agnostic - Hume made that clear. However, that does not mean that there are no systems that do not count Testimony of others as valid infortion (e.g. our legal system). It is your faith that testimony is not enough evidence to base a belief for God in.

Please!~ I understand that you finally have caught on to the silliness of "faith." What you ought to do, Jason, is to give it up...and stop trying to pretend that others (like myself) indulge in it.

Do not for one second suppose that anything I say about the unknown is in any way comparable to what you mean when you say "I have faith in God."

You are way, way off base on that.

In any case...this method of dealing with this issue is absurd. You cannot keep citing generalizations and then arguing against them. Cite specifics of what I have said...and we will deal with those specifics.

The only specific you have mentioned so far "It doesn't appear to have happened" is a loser for your side of the argument. It is not a "belief"...and there is no way I would ever defend it as a truth....the way you theists have "beliefs" in a god (specifically the god of the Bible)...and how you defend that guess as "truth."

In any case...the general position of agnostics (I'll let the atheists speak for themselves)...IS NOT EVEN REMOTELY A FAITH STATEMENT.

Deal with that.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

There is no way I would defend the propositon..."It has not happened!"

That would be a "faith" issue.

In the subject comment, I am merely saying that my evaluation of the evidence is that it is more reasonable to suppose it hasn't happened (no god has revealed itself) than that it has.

I love you Frank - I really do. I love your fire and how you get so spirited. I am sure so many get so intimidated or even pissed off about how frank you are (no pun intended). Not me - I get it. I understand your fire - and I appreciate it.

To answer you directly though - you have made a VERY good point. If you, as an agnostic, are saying that it is more reasonable - then you are correct - this is not a faith. I cannot decide what it is though. Open ended opinion? Open ended 'knowledge'? I don't think it is faith - not the way you have spelled it out to me above - as 'more reasonable'.

This has me thinking. I have described my faith before to you - how I keep my mind as open as possible - how I carefully measure the times I feel God gives me reasons to believe in him and when I don't - and I remember you saying that you didn't think many believers acted how I act. Blind faith makes me sick - pissed off athiesm makes me sick - uninformed agnosticism makes me sick. Maybe my arguments attack these things - and not your agnosticism.

This is exactly why I am on this board. The people are generally so well informed - and your position Frank is a good one. I think both you and I have a healthy dose of bias in our thoughts - but I think your position is a good one.

Let me go further and say that my theism is that I find it more reasonable to believe in God than not. It is not strong (in the dogmatic sense) and when I state this to others - they tend to get scared.

I am not ready quite yet to come to 'the dark side' Wink

and go Agnostic - but thanks for the carpet bombing. I understand the enlightened agnostic position more. Hope golf is going well, buddy.

TTF

P.S.

Your comment Frank:

Frank Apisa wrote:

There is no way I would defend the propositon..."It has not happened!"

That would be a "faith" issue.

Is exactly how I feel as well. It is a faith issue.

Anyother athiests care to change my mind.

0 Replies

Can't change your mind on that TTF.

I do not believe in gods...that is not a faith issue.

I also believe there are no gods. That is a faith issue.

0 Replies

thethinkfactory

Sorry to intrude in your discussion with Frank. But what do you mean by "pissed off atheism"?

0 Replies

val, It's obvious that most people of religion do not understand atheism. Their thinking pattern doesn't allow them to know what atheism is all about.

0 Replies

spendius are you being sarcastic to me???

0 Replies

I am not sure what you mean by that CI.

If you mean that theists think a certain way and have trouble understanding the concepts of athiesm because of thier thinking - I think you are wrong. I can understand the concept of theism very easily. I just don't understand how the atheist can say that they do not have faith when they have faith that there is no gods.

If you mean that I just don't get it and it because I am thiest. That would be insulting if I measured my worth by how I think - you think - I am.

With that said:

Val,

I teach philosophy of religion and world religion classes at the college level. Many self proclaimed athiests seem VERY angry at religion. They are angry at God - for one reason or another - and claim to be athiests as an affront to that God. This is not athiesm - it is pissed at God athiesm - which by acknowledging that there is a God is not athiesm at all.

However, this is akin to the poor faith that I see in Christianity and other religions America as well. They believe in God because thier mommy said so - and call this blind faith - true religion. This lack of thinking might fulful the base concepts of a religion but are the most infintile reasons to believe that I can think of.

I think both theists and athiests in these cases outlined above are poor thinkers. This is the reason I put them in a list together.

Eorl wrote:

I do not believe in gods...that is not a faith issue.

I also believe there are no gods. That is a faith issue.

These are the same statement: To not have faith in Gods is to have faith that there are no gods. I am not sure how you go about not forming a belief without forming a belief.

Let me attempt to restate that.

If I am a weapons inspector and I am looking for WMD's in Iraq and I cannot find any - no matter what I do - I have come to the conclusion my most logical belief (faith) is that there are no WMD's in Iraq.

I cannot conclude that I do not have faith that there are WMD's in Iraq without forming a supporting faith that I have faith that there are no WMD's in Iraq.

By saying that you do not have faith in God's is saying that you have faith that there is no Gods.

TF

0 Replies

thethinkfactory wrote:

Eorl wrote:

I do not believe in gods...that is not a faith issue.

I also believe there are no gods. That is a faith issue.

These are the same statement: To not have faith in Gods is to have faith that there are no gods. I am not sure how you go about not forming a belief without forming a belief.

Jason...you are back off base on this.

Think!

I do not believe in gods. THAT IS NOT A FAITH ISSUE.

If I did say "I believe there are no gods"...that would be a faith issue.

The two statements are simply not the same as you are supposing.

We've been over this before...and you seem to get it. But let a short while pass...and you are right back to wrong headed thinking on it.

When a person says they do not believe in gods...they are not expressing faith. They simply are stating that they are not willing to guess there are gods. It does not presuppose that they are guessing there are no gods...but merely averring that they are not willing to guess there are.

The rest of your explanation is illogical in the max.

0 Replies

thethinkfactory wrote:

I just don't understand how the atheist can say that they do not have faith when they have faith that there is no gods.

By saying that you do not have faith in God's is saying that you have faith that there is no Gods.

TF

Some of us atheists, well, me in particular, are without faith in God or gods. That is, belief in a god is absent from us. There is a void of faith, a faith vacuum, if you will.

Saying that is not the same as saying there are no gods.

As I explain once every so often on religion threads, my take on it is this -

Atheism as a word means a - theism, without theism. The body of the word does not mean anti-theism. I don't really care what webster or any dictionary has to say on the matter, that is how I break the word down, and that way happens to coincide with the use of (a) as an indicator for (without). See, for example, the use of (a) in medical terminology. (A)plastic anemia, and many similar words. Even anemia may be one of them, but I don't have a med dictionary at hand to check.

0 Replies

There is no god is not based on "faith." It's a statement without a noun or transitive verb to condition the statement. No god; similar to "no elephant in my kitchen." It has nothing to do with faith; it just is.

0 Replies

I understand fully that you do not have faith in gods. That is very clear by the word Athiesm. The question is how do you come to develop that thought.

If it 'just is' like CI is claiming - how did it come to be.

If you come by gathering some evidence that there is no God - and then make a postulation based on your inconclusive evidence - I think that is the definition of faith.

So - your lack of faith is supported by a faith that there are no gods.

Let me ask the question differently - how did you come to the conclusion that there is no God?

If by knowledge - you are claiming 'I know there is no God." If by opinion you are claiming "I believe there is no God." If by faith you are saying "I have faith that there is no God."

I do not understand how you simply - do not have faith. The only way I can understand this is if I am completely ignorant to the topic.

I am asking how you support your lack of faith. With knowledge, opinion, or faith?

Frank,

To say that "I choose not to guess" - is not the same as saying "I do not believe in any gods." The first is agnosticism - the second is athiesm.

I am thinking - as hard as I can - it simply does not make sense.

TTF

0 Replies

Think, I didn't develop the thought, I never had the thought. I never thought there was a god. It's not a loss for me, it's a lack.

0 Replies

Do you find support for this lack of a belief littleK?

TF

0 Replies

What do you mean by support? Social support of proof?

0 Replies

I, on the other hand, have a great deal of experience in my early life in having belief in God. It went away in a blink, I saw it all as a giant construct of men. It's true that I believe religion is a construct of men. It is not true to say that I believe there is no god. I am absent of interest to say that. I have have no interest in proving anything to you with any evidence.

I am simply clarifying my use of the word atheism, which you still take to mean belief there is no god or gods.

CI has a different opinion, he is a different atheist. (Hi, CI.)

You may believe whatever you want, fine by me.

0 Replies

There is no god, because I have seen no evidence to prove otherwise. If you claim there is a god, it's up to you to prove it; not for me to disprove it.

0 Replies

Ah, just read up-thread on support....

I don't look for reasons. I feel it, I suppose, in much the same way as believers feel god. Info that comes and goes doesn't sway me that much, though I find the angles interesting (and frustrating).

0 Replies

I have heard this before CI - that the burden of proof is on the person claiming for a positive.

I think this leads back to the heart of the claim that athiesm is is not a faith.

However, this thread was not started for me to prove thier is a God. I never claimed to have that proof - nor did I claim - in this thread - that my argument depended on my proofs for God.

I also think that those tables could easily be turned: For the claimnant that says that does not have faith in God - tell my what you use to support that claim. If the claimnant tells me thier claim 'just is'. It sound like blind faith to me.

So - if you are going to claim that you do not have faith in God - first, support how you came to this conclusion - and secondly, tell me what this support is: Knowledge, opinion, or faith.

That is where we are at - how a lack of faith can be supported. It seems to have to be supported by something. It is up to you to provide support for what you are claiming.

TTF

0 Replies

I dunno, Think, I don't hear a lot about why believers DO have faith in god.

At least, no 'support' for it besides the bible, which isn't exactly hard data.

0 Replies

Do Agnostics and Athiests simply reject faith?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know