Atheism - Faith there's no god

Is atheism based on having faith that there's no god? I know agnosticism says "I don't know if there's a god" whereas atheism says "there is no god". To me, it seems like it requires a leap of faith to say there's no god because there is no proof that there isn't.

If this is the case, how do you explain that to atheists? I've tried and it always ends badly where the atheist thinks I'm trying to convert them to have faith but I'm really just pointing out they have faith and what they really mean is they're agnostic.

Atheism is a word that gets lots of bad publicity, has long been used pejoratively, and now seems to mostly be used to refer to strong atheists...

Atheism simply means "lack of theistic belief", and can include rejection of theism or not. this means that strong atheism, a category within explicit atheism, is just as atheist as a newborn child (who hasn't had the opportunity to theorize on the existence of deities yet).

Agnostics are in fact atheists, but pressure from churches encourages people not to feel as such... Because to them atheists go to hell, while agnostics are potential believers (they don't reject god). It's all about making people feel bad about being atheist.

I don't think a Jediist would be likely to fall in the agnostic category because while there is lack of belief in one or more deity, the highest power is the Force... therefore any god from the other religions are not really gods in the commonly understood theistic sense... And if no gods can ever really be gods, you can't claim that it is possible for gods (the usual theistic kind) to exist.

ren wrote: I don't think a Jediist would be likely to fall in the agnostic category because while there is lack of belief in one or more deity, the highest power is the Force... therefore any god from the other religions are not really gods in the commonly understood theistic sense... And if no gods can ever really be gods, you can't claim that it is possible for gods (the usual theistic kind) to exist.

Well I consider myself agnostic, formerly an atheist. I make this distinction because so many people believe in deities... it doesn't make them right but it doesn't make them wrong. So my position is that we can't really know whether or not there is a god so it's pointless to debate or even take a side like theism or atheism.

I don't see much difference between agnostic and atheist. It's really just a degree of uncertainty, isn't it?

I reject the idea its a matter of faith to be an atheist, though. Lack of proof does not equate to faith. Common examples at this point are things like invisible fairies (etc). An invisible fairy is a ridiculous idea - no proof for them, no reason to believe in them, but a "strong agnostic" would have to concede that their existence is, at least, slightly possible. Atheists simply pfft the idea and will happily buy a round of beers if they're ever proven wrong.

No, lack of proof is not the same as faith that the proof will never arise. Dawkins considers that a weak argument most commonly employed by theists to further their agenda.

As an atheist myself I'll add to bard's comments.

I as an atheist do not believe in devine power in the theistic sense because I have no evidence to believe in them. If repeatable, verifiable evidence were to ever come forward I'll be happy to re-evaluate that stance, but this is not an act of faith even then.

In order for Atheism to be an act of faith one has to make the conjecture that "there is likely a god" and there be some evidence for that conjecture. Social constructs and tradition aren't sufficient evidence of this. The argument of the world being "too perfect" for their not to be a creator isn't either, as beings that evolved in this world we are, of course, going to be highly adapted to it.

Perhaps you could say there is faith involved in those atheists who say, "I KNOW there is no god" but most of us just say "I have no evidence for a god, therefore I do not believe it exists". However, the notion of knowing there is no god is based on the argument that if the only way to "prove" god exists is through an argument that sounds identical to one to prove the existence of faeries or goblins or the easter bunny, then it is likewise a creation of the imagination. Active proof that a god does not exist is impossible because the arguments for a god are circular and the target shifts constantly to adapt to changing information.
Could we prove that one particular instance of a god with set parameters didn't exist? Certainly, but most theists have taken a key from science and they adapt their views to new information. This doesn't make it scientific as these views always shift in a way to maintain their faith regardless of contrary evidence. Whereas science expects us to change our perspective based on the observed evidence regardless of what that means about what we believed prior.

Sorry... my last post is bugging me. I'm not aiming any vitriol at you, Whyte. I keep re-reading it and stressing.

I guess what I intended with my argument was... well, try this: replace each instance of the word God in your original post with Santa or the Tooth Fairy.

So, what is the definition of agnosticism? Some imagine that agnosticism is an alternative to atheism, but those people have typically bought into the mistaken notion of the single, narrow definition of atheism. Strictly speaking, agnosticism is about knowledge, and knowledge is a related but separate issue from belief, the domain of theism and atheism.

”A” means “without” and “gnosis” means “knowledge.” Hence, agnostic: without knowledge, but specifically without knowledge of gods.

Despite such possible usages, it remains the case that the term agnosticism is used fairly exclusively with respect to a single issue: do any gods exist or not? Those who disclaim any such knowledge or even that any such knowledge is possible are properly labeled agnostics. Everyone who claims that such knowledge is possible or that they have such knowledge might be called “gnostics.”
Here “gnostics” is not referring to the religious system known as Gnosticism, but rather the sort of person who claims to have knowledge about the existence of gods. Because such confusion may come easily and because there is generally little call for such a label, it is unlikely that you will ever see it used; it is only presented here as a contrast to help explain agnosticism.

Atheism is a complex term to define, and many definitions fail to capture the range of positions an atheist can hold. Perhaps the most obvious meaning to many people now is the absence or rejection of a belief in a God, or gods. However, it has been used through much of history to denote certain beliefs seen as heretical, particularly the belief that God does not intervene in the world. More recently, atheists have argued that atheism only denotes a lack of theistic belief, rather than the active denial or claims of certainty it is often associated with. This is held to follow from its etymology: it stems from the Greek adjective atheos, deriving from the alpha privative a -,'without, not', and 'theos', 'God'. It is not clear, however, that this could not equally mean 'godless' in the earlier sense as meaning a heretical or immoral person.

The exact meaning of 'atheist' varies between thinkers, and caution must always be shown to make sure that discussions of atheism are not working at cross purposes. A leading atheist philosopher defines atheism entirely in terms of belief.

“For him, negative atheism is simply the lack of theistic belief, positive atheism is the asserted disbelief in God, and agnosticism is the lack of either belief or disbelief in God. This suggests that negative atheism, the minimal position that all atheists share, divides neatly into agnosticism and positive atheism. It is worth noting that the 'positive atheist' need not have certainty that God doesn't exist: it is a matter of belief, not knowledge.”
-Michael Martin

My take on it is this:

Theism is the conviction that there is a god. Atheism is a non-conviction that there is a god. The problem with many theists trying to challenge atheists lies with that an intellectual atheist (that is someone, who actually knows why he does not believe) would argue that he does not assert the absense of a god and therefore has no burden of proof while a theist usually does - and many theists think that atheism is a claim of god's non-existence rather than of non-belief.

Nosticism and agnosticism are subsets of theism and atheism and vice versa and are not mutually exclusive. You can claim to know that there is a god and that there is not a god and be a nostic in either way. Similarly you can claim that you believe that there is a god or that you do not believe that there is a god and as long as you do not claim knowledge you are an agnostic regardless if you are a theist or an atheist.

Now, there are many self-proclaimed agnostics and atheists that are confusing the terms and seeding the confusion in others and at the end of the day the definitions do not matter since in every case you have the power to explain what you do or do not believe, claim or do not claim to know, and - in the most productive cases - even why.

Oh and yes, if you happen to run across an atheist who is that ignorant of the reasoning behind non-believe, that he actually claims knowledge that there is no god, you sure should challenge him to justify his position. For it is when challenged, that a position gets ground and defines itself and it is through realization of faulty logic, that it can better itself. Of course, that conversation is only good for as long as the person considers what you say and usually when you start preaching rather than having an intellectual discussion on the topic, it stops getting any further - but then again, there are those who call themselves atheists who do the same, unfortunately thus damaging the reputation of the label.

Whyte Horse wrote:

ren wrote: I don't think a Jediist would be likely to fall in the agnostic category because while there is lack of belief in one or more deity, the highest power is the Force... therefore any god from the other religions are not really gods in the commonly understood theistic sense... And if no gods can ever really be gods, you can't claim that it is possible for gods (the usual theistic kind) to exist.

Well I consider myself agnostic, formerly an atheist. I make this distinction because so many people believe in deities... it doesn't make them right but it doesn't make them wrong. So my position is that we can't really know whether or not there is a god so it's pointless to debate or even take a side like theism or atheism.

I understand that, i can't be bothered with argumenting it either, because it's frankly lost in advance, for all sides...

However, wouldn't you agree that when you state you're agnostic, what you're saying is that there may be a god, and there may not be a god, and knowing for sure is impossible? If so, can you truly say you believe the Force to be the highest power there is? When you say that maybe the highest power is a god (you don't know), what you imply is that the Force isn't.

More recently, atheists have argued that atheism only denotes a lack of theistic belief, rather than the active denial or claims of certainty it is often associated with. It's uh, not really "recent" though

OK so I can see what ren and Wescli are saying. There are gnostic atheists and agnostic atheists. Maybe the title of this thread should've been "Gnostic Atheism - Faith there's no god". I'll just figure most atheists are agnostic atheists.

@ren I don't know what you mean. I don't see how agnostic atheism and Jediism are inconsistent. There is nothing theistic in the totjo teachings that I'm aware of. A belief in the force can be agnostic or gnostic, depending upon user preferences. Also, if you believe the dark side is thought-perversion rather than supernatural, agnostic atheism has no inconsistencies at all with the temple doctrine.

Whyte Horse, I think Ren was saying that, as Jedi, we tend to believe that the Force is the highest power there is. If you are agnostic, you are saying that it is possible that a god is the highest power, though it is also possible that there are no gods or that gods are not the highest power. However, if you believe that a god might be the highest power, you can no longer believe with certainty that the Force is the highest power. Since Jedi typically believe in the Force as the highest power, the two contradict themselves.

Ren, if that isn't right, please correct me. That's how I understood your position.

Also on Ren's point, I would argue that it all depends on your definition of a god. I believe that all religions are manifestations of the Force. Some believe in a life energy, while others believe in actual gods that take a form and walk amongst the people, creating miracles and influencing events. Others believe in gods that have actual form but tend to stay out of events. Those religions that believe that their god or gods are somewhere "out there" waiting to be called on or needed are simply giving form to something that has no form. It is the easiest way for humans to understand the gods, so they have form. Those religions see their gods as literal beings.

I believe that the gods are all the same. They are everywhere all at once. They are all part of the life energy that many religions believe in and that we call the Force. Some people give shape to the Force while others do not, but they are all the same. Thus, I believe that the Force is the highest power while simultaneously believing that all gods are the highest powers because I do not see the difference between them. They are simply different names for the same thing, and sometimes they are given form because it is easier for humans to understand that way.

Whyte Horse, I think Ren was saying that, as Jedi, we tend to believe that the Force is the highest power there is. If you are agnostic, you are saying that it is possible that a god is the highest power, though it is also possible that there are no gods or that gods are not the highest power. However, if you believe that a god might be the highest power, you can no longer believe with certainty that the Force is the highest power. Since Jedi typically believe in the Force as the highest power, the two contradict themselves.

Ren, if that isn't right, please correct me. That's how I understood your position.

You understood

Also on Ren's point, I would argue that it all depends on your definition of a god.

That why I said the usual kind of theistic god. A god isn't necessarily the highest power (or everywhere, know it all, creator of the universe, etc), and that's actually pretty common in polytheistic faiths.

I don't think agnosticism excludes any particular kinds of deity, meaning that a true agnostics, imo, can never be a true Jedi. Because an agnostic, by definition, doesn't know, while a true Jedi wouldn't know except about the Force.

If you believe in one almighty thing (like the Force or a deity), can you still count as agnostic? If you look at christianity, its god/trinity and its angels, it's not so different from hinduism and its brahma, trinity, and other gods... Catholics pray to angels just like hindus pray to their gods...

Is a christian who believes in god and accepts there may be angels they do not know an agnostic? If not, then a Jedi who believes in the Force and accepts there may also be other beings (superior to ourselves) isn't an agnostic either...

As to whether gods are believed to be actual beings or more like facets of the same thing that just happens to be easier to understand... I suggest you read into the many sects of Hinduism... Interpretation of the same thing can lead people to polytheism, monotheism or atheism... Truly an interesting religion.

Ren, I will definitely do some research on Hinduism. Thank you.

I guess in my comment I was using the definition of agnosticism that Wescli provided:

Wescli Wardest wrote:
”A” means “without” and “gnosis” means “knowledge.” Hence, agnostic: without knowledge, but specifically without knowledge of gods.

[/quote]

So since gods are physical manifestations of the Force while the Force itself is an energy, I could see an agnostic who believed in the Force as an energy but was not sure if there were all-powerful physical manifestations of the Force (gods).

I'm in that place where I believe in the Force, and that things like God's are personification's of the Force within one's mind. As such I believe the Force can be represented by my mind as any manner of things under suitable circumstances. It could go both ways then, as deity worship then becomes personal spirituality and religious experience likewise is a personal spiritual experience. For me it leaves the door open to the possibility of external influence, without requiring it. This also gives me a tie-in to researching the psychological perspectives. So bringing in some acknowledgement of my limited ability to perceive beyond my physical senses, perhaps panentheism (not pantheism)?

Abhaya Budhil wrote: Ren, I will definitely do some research on Hinduism. Thank you.

I guess in my comment I was using the definition of agnosticism that Wescli provided:

Wescli Wardest wrote:
”A” means “without” and “gnosis” means “knowledge.” Hence, agnostic: without knowledge, but specifically without knowledge of gods.

So since gods are physical manifestations of the Force while the Force itself is an energy, I could see an agnostic who believed in the Force as an energy but was not sure if there were all-powerful physical manifestations of the Force (gods).

The problem is, this isn't a definition... It's the etymology.

In free dictionary: "1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something."

Wikipedia:"Agnosticism is the view that the existence or non-existence of any deity is unknown and possibly unknowable. More specifically, agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable."

Not quite the same I think...

since gods are physical manifestations of the Force while the Force itself is an energy, I could see an agnostic who believed in the Force as an energy but was not sure if there were all-powerful physical manifestations of the Force (gods)

But the physical world is a manifestation of the Force. If the god of pantheism counts as a deity, then so does the Force. After all, it's not clear what a deity is or isn't, but at least we can tell it can both be personal and impersonal. An impersonal deity that is ubiquitous is the Force. Something can't be everywhere if something else is already everywhere.

It is possible to know that your god does not exist.

bard wrote: Sorry... my last post is bugging me. I'm not aiming any vitriol at you, Whyte. I keep re-reading it and stressing.

I guess what I intended with my argument was... well, try this: replace each instance of the word God in your original post with Santa or the Tooth Fairy.

Santa is a corrupted legend based on the folklore of St. Nicholas, who we can prove existed. The Tooth Fairy is a corrupted legend based on multicultural accounts of fae, which (most likely) do not exist, except that the presence of them and their analogues in nearly every culture on the planet hints at some underlying cause, rational or imagined.

I don't find that either of these are good replacements for the "God" issue as presented.


Furthermore, why do theists and atheists alike demand that the existence of a god be an empirical issue? Why can't the existence of a god be purely philosophical?

Atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

That's all and ever will be. Nothing more or less. It is not a faith.

I have never meet anyone that actually claimed a gnostic atheism, though such a person might exist. In common usage atheism is used for a firmer assertion that there is no god, usually, but not always implying a general materialism. They claim that the lack of evidence for a god means that there is no point in considering its existence.

Agnostics on the other hand, in my experience, are more open philosophically, and make room in their mental model of reality for a god.

I see this as the difference. Whether they way they internally model of reality makes room for the possibility of a deity.