Rebutting "atheism is a faith"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-11-2014, 10:16 PM
Rebutting "atheism is a faith"
I've been subjected to an online rant by a friend that atheism is simply a position of faith. He posted this recent Dawkins article on my Facebook page with the following comment:

Ahh...finally a (surprising) bit of honesty. Atheism is a position of faith, not reason.
I wonder if now they'll stay out of government and politics now? Can't have the state getting into bed with a religion now, can we.


I responded with: I'm struggling to see the tenet of your argument. Where does it state in that article that atheism is a position of faith, not reason?

His lengthy reply: I'll call your bluff. I suspect you know the tenet quite well because I know you're not that dull but I'll play your little game for now. The point is, in their intellectual arrogance, atheists ridicule, scorn and disparage anyone one who holds to any religious belief as quite obligingly exemplified by a man you seem to admire so much here:-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPqqp8KVuQU. However in the same breath will proudly exclaim that they believe in the science and science and reason has done away with the need for religion; that religion is based on faith, but we oh-so superior atheists trust in the science. Yet here we see both the courts AND a secular Humanist classifying themselves as a religion so that, for all practical purposes, they might practice their humanism! The only thing missing from Jason Holden's Humanist study group is God, or a god. Or are you going to suggest to me that a religion ipso facto requires a divine personage, because if you are, let me ask you this (and harping back to your original question); How does one SCIENTIFICALLY claim the non-existence of an entity who, by definition, is eternal, omniscient, ominpresent, and omnipotent? For if someone claimed to be God, but wasn't eternal, omniscient, ominpresent, and omnipotent, would that mean that said claimant wasn't God at all, but rather a liar? If God was (in fact) God, wouldn't that mean that he created the scientific laws and therefore said laws would be incapable of disproving (or proving) God's existence. To put this an a simpler analogy - it would be like a computer character in a video game claiming there was no programmer. Furthermore, doesn't the claim that an eternal, omniscient, ominpresent, and omnipotent entity does not exist imply that the claimant is in possession of the very characteristics that he claims are non-existent! Therefore it is quite plausible to suggest that atheism is ultimately a faith position and not one of reason.

I'm tired of his particular flame war. I'm not a fan of Dawkins because of his perceived Militancy. I'm a quiet atheist/humanist who deplores the extent and in a lot of cases/jurisdictions in the world the monopoly of philosophy and morality that religions have. I think the bases of my reply are these:-
  • I'm not a fan of Dawkins
  • Atheism/humanism is the default state for humans
  • We don't "practice" humanism, it's a philosophical position not a religion
  • Classifying humanism as a religion is the only way in some areas to get a foothold on debates on moral and philosophical issues

I'm struggling with his rant on religion and divine personages. Any help out there for constructing a simple, succinct rebuttal to his rants?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2014, 10:23 PM
RE: Rebutting "atheism is a faith"
It's no more a position of faith than the statement that ANYTHING for which there is absolutely no evidence of existence is more likely to NOT exist than to exist. I feel the evidence for the existence of god is no stronger than the evidence for the existence of leprechauns. Is it possible that leprechauns exist? Yes. Should we base our laws, morality, and government on the assumption they do? No.

Atheism is a faith like abstinence is a sex position.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mr. Boston's post
20-11-2014, 10:24 PM
RE: Rebutting "atheism is a faith"
(20-11-2014 10:16 PM)Cangarwbach Wrote:  I've been subjected to an online rant by a friend that atheism is simply a position of faith. He posted this recent Dawkins article on my Facebook page with the following comment:

Ahh...finally a (surprising) bit of honesty. Atheism is a position of faith, not reason.
I wonder if now they'll stay out of government and politics now? Can't have the state getting into bed with a religion now, can we.


I responded with: I'm struggling to see the tenet of your argument. Where does it state in that article that atheism is a position of faith, not reason?

His lengthy reply: I'll call your bluff. I suspect you know the tenet quite well because I know you're not that dull but I'll play your little game for now. The point is, in their intellectual arrogance, atheists ridicule, scorn and disparage anyone one who holds to any religious belief as quite obligingly exemplified by a man you seem to admire so much here:-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPqqp8KVuQU. However in the same breath will proudly exclaim that they believe in the science and science and reason has done away with the need for religion; that religion is based on faith, but we oh-so superior atheists trust in the science. Yet here we see both the courts AND a secular Humanist classifying themselves as a religion so that, for all practical purposes, they might practice their humanism! The only thing missing from Jason Holden's Humanist study group is God, or a god. Or are you going to suggest to me that a religion ipso facto requires a divine personage, because if you are, let me ask you this (and harping back to your original question); How does one SCIENTIFICALLY claim the non-existence of an entity who, by definition, is eternal, omniscient, ominpresent, and omnipotent? For if someone claimed to be God, but wasn't eternal, omniscient, ominpresent, and omnipotent, would that mean that said claimant wasn't God at all, but rather a liar? If God was (in fact) God, wouldn't that mean that he created the scientific laws and therefore said laws would be incapable of disproving (or proving) God's existence. To put this an a simpler analogy - it would be like a computer character in a video game claiming there was no programmer. Furthermore, doesn't the claim that an eternal, omniscient, ominpresent, and omnipotent entity does not exist imply that the claimant is in possession of the very characteristics that he claims are non-existent! Therefore it is quite plausible to suggest that atheism is ultimately a faith position and not one of reason.

I'm tired of his particular flame war. I'm not a fan of Dawkins because of his perceived Militancy. I'm a quiet atheist/humanist who deplores the extent and in a lot of cases/jurisdictions in the world the monopoly of philosophy and morality that religions have. I think the bases of my reply are these:-
  • I'm not a fan of Dawkins
  • Atheism/humanism is the default state for humans
  • We don't "practice" humanism, it's a philosophical position not a religion
  • Classifying humanism as a religion is the only way in some areas to get a foothold on debates on moral and philosophical issues

I'm struggling with his rant on religion and divine personages. Any help out there for constructing a simple, succinct rebuttal to his rants?

A bigger pile of dung non-sequiturs does not exist in the universe, than that pile of garbage. Atheism is nothing but a dismissal of the idea that any of the gods are real. He has no evidence they are, and will not, and cannot provide any. There is no coherent definition of a god, and he cannot provide one.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
20-11-2014, 10:49 PM
RE: Rebutting "atheism is a faith"
To correct your friend - atheism doesn't claim that the lack of a god is scientifically proven, and never has. It merely claims that the EXISTENCE of one is also not proven. Invisible and undetectable things bear too strong a resemblance to non-existent things to be taken seriously by grown-up, thinking people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mr. Boston's post
20-11-2014, 11:42 PM
RE: Rebutting "atheism is a faith"
The first quote in my signature.

"If you keep trying to better yourself that's enough for me. We don't decide which hand we are dealt in life, but we make the decision to play it or fold it" - Nishi Karano Kaze
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes JDog554's post
21-11-2014, 06:58 AM
RE: Rebutting "atheism is a faith"
Humanism and atheism being classified as a religion is a legal distinction because we already have laws surrounding religious beliefs and it makes more sense, for now anyway, to include them under that umbrella than to try to create a whole new section of law. To say they require faith is just nonsense though. Atheism and humanism are based on observation and evidence (or lack thereof).

All that aside, if what he is saying is that we are just as bad as they are what does that say for his argument? At least he is recognizing that faith is not good.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
21-11-2014, 07:13 AM
RE: Rebutting "atheism is a faith"
In explaining that you are not a fan of Dawkins, relate it to something he might understand, like he is not a follower of Pat Robertson or the Pope. Its easy to pick a "figure-head" cut them down and then say you belong in that camp. Break down the association he is trying to lump you in.

As for Secular Humanism, define as the group does, just because a judge in a court decides it is something else doesnt make it so. They have been known to make mistakes (overturned convictions) when presented with more evidence.

And a reminder that most atheists will change their minds the moment verifiable and credible evidence is presented. All they have to do is present it, we've been waiting 2000 years now. Its the way science works, we need real evidence for what he is claiming.


"Life is a daring adventure or it is nothing"--Helen Keller
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bows and Arrows's post
21-11-2014, 08:29 AM
RE: Rebutting "atheism is a faith"
The OP has been addressed admirably. Succinct. Accurate. Simple.

This impressive pile of bullshit doesn't warrant an in depth dressing down but I can't sleep and I feel like stretching my insult muscles.

(20-11-2014 10:16 PM)Friend Wrote:  I'll call your bluff. I suspect you know the tenet quite well because I know you're not that dull but I'll play your little game for now.
Ignore the fact that you're not lying.

He made an assertion. You politely requested more information. I don't care how obvious and simple he thinks this is: You don't get too treat your friends like that.

The submoronic-

(20-11-2014 10:16 PM)Friend Wrote:  The point is, in their intellectual arrogance, atheists ridicule, scorn and disparage anyone one who holds to any religious belief as quite obligingly exemplified by a man you seem to admire so much here:-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPqqp8KVuQU.
Strawman and ad hominim. Even if he is describing his typical interaction with atheists it has nothing to do with what you said or the issue at hand: It wouldn't matter if we are all arseholes.

Even if he thinks he's making a coherent point: The only implication is that he thinks that the condesending dismissal of opposing evidence is emblematic or some kind of diagnostic trait of religion. Then that's probably telling.

-whale jizz covered-

(20-11-2014 10:16 PM)Dipshit Wrote:  in the same breath will proudly exclaim that they believe in the science
False equivalency. A statement of belief is entirely neuteral and a nessercery step in any reasoned position.

-scum sucking-

(20-11-2014 10:16 PM)Dipshit Wrote:  science and reason has done away with the need for religion;
Athiesm is an entirely seperate position to a belief in the validity and accuity of the scientific method. Though it is frequently suplimented by it. I could be a retarded, blind, deaf, mute who isn't religious because I'm too stupid to understand the idea of an abstract person who I can't touch and a position of non-belief wouldn't have anything to do with my understanding of the scientific method.

-no lipped-

(20-11-2014 10:16 PM)Dipshit Wrote:  religion is based on faith,

The only true statement he makes. No insult component here.

(20-11-2014 10:16 PM)Friend Wrote:  but we oh-so superior atheists trust in the science.
-boar cunt gargling-

(20-11-2014 10:16 PM)Friend Wrote:  Yet here we see both the courts AND a secular Humanist classifying themselves as a religion so that, for all practical purposes, they might practice their humanism!
I have nothing too add on this point. Granting something the same legal protections to something that deserves and requires the same legal protections by adding them to the same heading is entirely reasonable. It used to be legal to bugger pidgions in London because they weren't a specific inclusion to the beastality laws. Ruleing Secular Humanism as a religion is merely the simplest implimentation of that.

-ugly, off brand-

(20-11-2014 10:16 PM)Friend Wrote:  the only thing missing from Jason Holden's Humanist study group is God, or a god.

It's also missing a unifying doctrine, tenents and rules of behaviour, worship of any kind, the belief in any kind of supernatural element, rituals and faith.

It's in the name.

-human douchebag.

(20-11-2014 10:16 PM)Friend Wrote:  are you going to suggest to me that a religion ipso facto requires a divine personage

Yes.

(20-11-2014 10:16 PM)Friend Wrote:  because if you are, let me ask you this (and harping back to your original question); How does one SCIENTIFICALLY claim the non-existence of an entity who, by definition, is eternal, omniscient, ominpresent, and omnipotent?

Strawman, false eqivalency and two lies.

You never said that god was disproveable. You also can't prove a negative and the god he's describing is impossible to prove or disprove. He's also assuming that a generic god fit's the four part definition he perscribes and that any position on the stance of such a being is possiple to scientifically validated.

May the shit flossing-

(20-11-2014 10:16 PM)Friend Wrote:  For if someone claimed to be God, but wasn't eternal, omniscient, ominpresent, and omnipotent, would that mean that said claimant wasn't God at all, but rather a liar?

Depends on the trait's the claiment was saying they had. I'd view the claim in and of itself as being highly suspitious.

-maggot knee'd-

(20-11-2014 10:16 PM)Friend Wrote:  If God was (in fact) God, wouldn't that mean that he created the scientific laws and therefore said laws would be incapable of disproving (or proving) God's existence.
Nope. No idea where he's coming from.

-self entitled-

(20-11-2014 10:16 PM)Friend Wrote:  To put this an a simpler analogy - it would be like a computer character in a video game claiming there was no programmer.

The PC would be entirely correct to make that claim without evidence. He hasn't provided any or even an apt metaphor.

-ethnocentric, disengenious-

(20-11-2014 10:16 PM)Friend Wrote:  Furthermore, doesn't the claim that an eternal, omniscient, ominpresent, and omnipotent entity does not exist imply that the claimant is in possession of the very characteristics that he claims are non-existent!

Nope. No idea where he's coming from.

-liar of a friend.

(20-11-2014 10:16 PM)Friend Wrote:  Therefore it is quite plausible to suggest that atheism is ultimately a faith position and not one of reason.

Nope. No idea where he's coming from.

Demonstrate that he's worthy of the title now that he's calmed down a bit.

Cangarwbach: Good luck.

Soulless mutants of muscle and intent. There are billions of us; hardy, smart and dangerous. Shaped by millions of years of death. We are the definitive alpha predator. We build monsters of fire and stone. We bottled the sun. We nailed our god to a stick.

In man's struggle against the world, bet on the man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue's post
21-11-2014, 09:24 AM
RE: Rebutting "atheism is a faith"
I am borrowing this from someone.

Atheism is a faith like off is a TV channel.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like wazzel's post
21-11-2014, 12:39 PM
RE: Rebutting "atheism is a faith"
Atheism is a religion the way bald is a hairstyle.

But atheism does not require faith anymore than baldness requires a comb.

Religion is proof that invisible men can obscure your vision.
Visit my blog
Follow me on Twitter @TwoCultSurvivor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TwoCultSurvivor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: