[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Me doth think thoust protest too muchith

Whateth?

[Shaddim]

The older I get, the more I realize that religion is often a disease in a society, but that's not to be confused with spirituality.

Remember:

Faith = good
Dogma = bad


(besides, I had to get the word "dogma" into this thread.)

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Truth.

I'm pretty sure, in fact I know for a fact, religion predates history itself. I also know there is at least circumstantial evidence that religion has been around roughly as long as we have.

I understand that you're an atheist and thats just fine but denying reality is just plain sad.

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The older I get, the more I realize that religion is often a disease in a society, but that's not to be confused with spirituality.

Remember:

Faith = good
Dogma = bad


(besides, I had to get the word "dogma" into this thread.)

Oh come on. Dogma follows Faith like Laws follow Morality. I'm not saying you can't have one without the other but its a bit of a stretch to call one bad and the other good. Not much that our kind can't cock up given enough time and effort; faith/spirituality/religion is no exception.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by invisibleX 

Oh come on. Dogma follows Faith like Laws follow Morality. I'm not saying you can't have one without the other but its a bit of a stretch to call one bad and the other good. Not much that our kind can't cock up given enough time and effort; faith/spirituality/religion is no exception.

I'm well and determined to obey divine law, but I refuse to accept mankind's dogma piled on top of it. Faith is an awesome and wonderful thing, but invariably people in religious authority have to come along and put in their .02 too, and that's not what God's love is about.

[Face Ache]

I don't care if you believe in god(s), numerology, astrology, fairies, black magic, whatever.

But I do think faith in those things short-circuit people's ability to think rationally.

Like attributing random events to "karma", for example.

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I'm well and determined to obey divine law, but I refuse to accept mankind's dogma piled on top of it. Faith is an awesome and wonderful thing, but invariably people in religious authority have to come along and put in their .02 too, and that's not what God's love is about.

Can't argue with that.

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

I don't care if you believe in god(s), numerology, astrology, fairies, black magic, whatever.

But I do think faith in those things short-circuit people's ability to think rationally.

Like attributing random events to "karma", for example.

There isn't anything irrational about religion (or faith in anything).

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

I don't care if you believe in god(s), numerology, astrology, fairies, black magic, whatever.

But I do think faith in those things short-circuit people's ability to think rationally.

Like attributing random events to "karma", for example.

Given what I've seen on both sides of the fence, atheists and agnostics don't have a monopoly on rational thought. Stalin and Pol Pot come to mind.

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² 

meh, that's what I think of the entire thing. if someone is religious i wont stop them and try to say there is no god ect, i let them believe what they want. i'm not one of those type of people that stands on the corner and yells "there is no god you damn sheep!" i'm glad there is something for people to fall back on such as religion. oh, and you thinking that my statement is brief is funny for some reason. I simply put it in a way that allowed people to read it quickly and not in a page long reply for people to skim over, aka straight to the point. heh. anyways, have a good night mr. x

That isn't very fair to them. If somebody believed the world was flat, would you not correct them? It's the same thing.

I think spreading the real, honest truth is important.

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Alright, I guess I'll simply state it as: Your mocking, with such intensity, is showing your insecurity.

And if you think atheistic beliefs are above mocking... you have a lot to learn.

Er, all I can say to that is... I'm not even slightly insecure. Proposing such a thing is pretty dumb really, because neither of us can prove it either way. You're just gonna have to take my word for it.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The older I get, the more I realize that religion is often a disease in a society, but that's not to be confused with spirituality.

Remember:

Faith = good
Dogma = bad


(besides, I had to get the word "dogma" into this thread.)

Faith is bound by ignorance, therefore faith is NOT good.

Originally Posted by invisibleX 

There isn't anything irrational about religion (or faith in anything).

So, you're religious. You believe in your god. But everyone else, *everyone else*, that believes in a different god is wrong? The Egyptians that came thousands of years before you, whose religion lasted twice as long as Christianity has to date (assuming you're Christian, for arguments sake; it makes no difference), were wrong... but you're right? Come on. What if, by chance, you were born into a Muslim family, and thus indoctrinated by them instead? You'd be laying down the same crap about that too, completely oblivious.

*Everything* about religion is irrational. Every single little piece of it.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Given what I've seen on both sides of the fence, atheists and agnostics don't have a monopoly on rational thought. Stalin and Pol Pot come to mind.

I agree. People believe in all kinds of stuff - communism, capitalism, neo-conism, scientology, alien abductions, gossip magazines... people are free to fill their heads with whatever they choose.

That's why it's such a crazy world.

Generally, it's only when the loonies get organised that things get really scary.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Cipher13 

Faith is bound by ignorance, therefore faith is NOT good.



So, you're religious. You believe in your god. But everyone else, *everyone else*, that believes in a different god is wrong? The Egyptians that came thousands of years before you, whose religion lasted twice as long as Christianity has to date (assuming you're Christian, for arguments sake; it makes no difference), were wrong... but you're right? Come on. What if, by chance, you were born into a Muslim family, and thus indoctrinated by them instead? You'd be laying down the same crap about that too, completely oblivious.

*Everything* about religion is irrational. Every single little piece of it.

Silly foolishness.

Faith is simply the extension of hope, this includes hope in man, hope in justice, hope in decency, and a belief in fairness and a balance with everything under the sun. When a person casts their faith to the heavens, or even towards a looked upon event, whether it be Divine or Earthly, they do so because they believe in something greater than just themselves. People of all stripes do this, including atheists and agnostics. This isn't madness or stupidity, it's the search for equilibrium with all things, including your fellow man. The purest essence of humanism is composed of faith, to think otherwise is blindness.

As for your rant regarding other religions, not all Christians disdain from respecting others' beliefs, only a fool doesn't see that all beliefs are tied by a common thread.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Cipher13 

We (atheists) don't believe in fictitious entities. Go ahead and *try* to mock us.

Are you attempting to say just because you don't believe in God that you can't be mocked for your beliefs? If so, wrong. I've seen it one many times.

But since you believe you are enlightened and more intelligent because you don't believe in "fictitious entities" you think you can't be mocked.

You'd also think that those that were sticklers for facts would realize that they cannot really call Jesus a fictitious entity. As he surely did exist.

Not that this topic has anything to do with religion. It seems the non-religious have gotten all defensive about this thread from the start. As if the question itself has offended or made them insecure.

So the reason that we don't mock those that don't believe has nothing to do with any ability not to. But because their non-belief doesn't threaten our belief.

Anyone that is secure with their beliefs don't HAVE to belittle other people's beliefs

Originally Posted by sek929 

Say whatever you wish. Atheists believe there is no god, which is of course, a belief based on speculation.

Speculation, faith, .. call it what you want.

I'm saying both sides bring no proof to the debate which makes it totally ridiculous to argue about it.

Agreed.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Truth.

Speculation. Not truth at all. As no one knows this because there is no way to prove it.

For a group of people that worship at the alter of facts, you sure are eager to call beliefs facts when it suites your needs.

But if you have proof that a belief in a higher God once did not exist then go ahead and show me.

And no, lack of having proof isn't proof. It just means it's not known.

I find those that say they believe in facts, often mix their opinion with facts. Like calling the belief in God irrational. That's not a fact, it's an opinion.

[JonoMarshall]

For me faith = reality, how does anything really relate to your "sense/understanding" of life? Whether you believe in a spiritual God, Science, Facts, History, the present, need, desire, etc, it's all sort of the same deal?! </existensialist rant>

I believe in Karma, simply because I wouldn't wish good things to happen to bad people and vice versa, for me that's enough, everything's connected, yada yada.

[invisibleX]

That isn't very fair to them. If somebody believed the world was flat, would you not correct them? It's the same thing.

I think spreading the real, honest truth is important.

Faith is bound by ignorance, therefore faith is NOT good.

I guess you love Jehova's Witnesses then.

So, you're religious. You believe in your god. But everyone else, *everyone else*, that believes in a different god is wrong? The Egyptians that came thousands of years before you, whose religion lasted twice as long as Christianity has to date (assuming you're Christian, for arguments sake; it makes no difference), were wrong... but you're right? Come on. What if, by chance, you were born into a Muslim family, and thus indoctrinated by them instead? You'd be laying down the same crap about that too, completely oblivious.

*Everything* about religion is irrational. Every single little piece of it.

Actually I'm not religious at all. How do religions really differ though? Whether they have 1 god or 5 they're still attempting to fill the same void which begs the question: why is the void there in the first place? The bible, what I'm familiar with, acknowledges this long before it occurred to anyone that religion might be hard wired.

What exactly is rational about stomping all over other people's beliefs? Even if you want to just play this as something man-made you have to recognize the place that it has held. It is a set of rules on how to live a good life. Just looking at it as a law system alone clearly shows its value.

[brassplayersrock²]

Originally Posted by Cipher13 

That isn't very fair to them. If somebody believed the world was flat, would you not correct them? It's the same thing.

I think spreading the real, honest truth is important.

would you like first choice of a corner to yell out that there is no god and see how long it is until you piss off some people or would like me to choose first? btw, you're earth is flat bit is flawed, we can PROVE to them that the earth isn't flat. we can't prove that there is a god. people believe what they want to, either they be shadow watchers or the ones to help show how things really are. i've witnessed people do really idiotic things and say really hurtful words because of whatever their belief system is. all that because of some idea someone conjured up long ago.

[Laminar]

Wow. Just wow.

[brassplayersrock²]

you still haven't chosen. gold or diamonds for your name on the collar?

[Laminar]

I'm not sure if we're at a place in our relationship when we can make that kind of decision. Maybe for now, a promise ring would be better. And tonight I'll let you get to second base.

[brassplayersrock²]

sweet! does this mean that your gf wants another guy in the relationship?

[Laminar]

...yes?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Cipher13 

That isn't very fair to them. If somebody believed the world was flat, would you not correct them? It's the same thing.

I think spreading the real, honest truth is important.

That is why there is missionaries I guess. To spread the real, honest truth.

It just so happens that your "real honest truth" differs from others "real honest truth"

The fact of the matter is, if you were really "real and honest" with yourself you'd admit there is no facts when it comes to such things. Acting as if there is only makes one seem insecure, or unsure about their beliefs. As that is the only reason one would exaggerate their understanding, or belief as facts when it is not so.

Er, all I can say to that is... I'm not even slightly insecure.

And all I can say to that is.. your posts don't reflect that. BTW, I've never met someone that was insecure that ever admitted it. Insecure people are too insecure to admit such things.

Proposing such a thing is pretty dumb really, because neither of us can prove it either way. You're just gonna have to take my word for it.

Ah so we are being honest now. Neither of us can prove either way. So by saying what you believe is true, and that "you'll just have to take my word for it" You aren't saying anything different that missionaries are.

Faith is bound by ignorance, therefore faith is NOT good.

No, faith isn't bound by anything. If it is, you are binding it yourself.

The Egyptians that came thousands of years before you, whose religion lasted twice as long as Christianity has to date (assuming you're Christian, for arguments sake; it makes no difference), were wrong... but you're right?

Not that his has any relevance. Christianity is based on a religion that really has no date. No one can say when the belief in the God of Abraham started. We can say "we have this info from this point" but no one truthfully knows. Anyone that claims otherwise is a liar.

*Everything* about religion is irrational. Every single little piece of it.

Depends on what on your view of rational. To me, looking around all I see I would say it was irrational to believe this was all a mistake. A non intentional happenstance.

I admit my beliefs cannot be proven. I believe myself that they are factual however. I am secure enough in my beliefs to admit that though.

And like it or not Cipher, your belief that God doesn't exist is based in faith as well. As it's not something you can prove.

Now lets not reply with the spin about "I don't hold a belief in God, I hold a disbelief"

Because we all know those are word spin games that means the same thing. And such thing has been debunked over and over again so many times in here it's not funny.

Atheists and Theists share one common feature. Both our beliefs are based on faith. As neither of us can prove or disprove either way. So if you say faith is bound by ignorance, I guess your belief that God does not exist is backed by ignorance. By your own addmitance.

Not that that is what *I* I am saying to you.

The act that atheists like to put on to act as if they have a higher ground to stand on is pretentious. We both have the same information, and the same "facts". You come to a different conclusion based on those facts than we have. But both our conclusions are based on faith.

Unless you can prove that there is no God, your belief that there is none is one based on faith. Like it or not. Admit it or not.

I could spin it and say "I hold a disbelief that God does not exist" and therefore say I am a Christian that holds a DISBELIEF and not a belief. Therefore no faith is required!

Which we both know that is a load of malarky. Word spins are just that.

Faith is involved in your beliefs Cipher. Admit it or not.

[brassplayersrock²]

kevin and i agree on something. cool

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

...yes?

Now if only bpr were a guy.

[brassplayersrock²]

do you know something that i don't? I suggest that you stop while you're ahead dakar

[Graviton]

In the basic Buddhist sense, Karma simply means 'action'. If you perform any action it will effect the world in some way, which in turn can lead to other actions and so on (like the ripples on a pond). So, seeing as all actions have consequences, the Buddhists teach that it is wise to be mindful of what you do, because the effects of the things that you do are your responsibility.

Karma, de-mystified and in a non-supernatural sense, is just a word that represents the taking of responsibility for ones own actions and that (as a humanist/naturalist) is an idea that I have no problem getting behind.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Now if only bpr were a guy.

But he's already engaged to that girl he knocked up over lunch, right?

[Dakarʒ]

I have no idea what you're talking about, and I'm glad.

[sek929]

Atheists of the boards, I have a question

So do you think that science has broken everything down into truths?

Science has but scratched the surface of what we call 'reality' so don't bother insisting your speculation (or as Kev said, faith) that science has it all figured out is any more valid than the flying spaghetti monster.

Logic goes down the tubes with quantum physics, black holes, etc.... In fact, it always seems that new science rips down all the preconceived notions of old science. Since neither religion nor science has done anything past hypothesis I think it's irrational to claim that atheists are based in 'logic.'

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Atheists of the boards, I have a question

So do you think that science has broken everything down into truths?

Science has but scratched the surface of what we call 'reality' so don't bother insisting your speculation (or as Kev said, faith) that science has it all figured out is any more valid than the flying spaghetti monster.

Logic goes down the tubes with quantum physics, black holes, etc.... In fact, it always seems that new science rips down all the preconceived notions of old science. Since neither religion nor science has done anything past hypothesis I think it's irrational to claim that atheists are based in 'logic.'

It's just the "What I think is more superior than what you think" argument. It has little to do with facts, or for the person you are talking to. And it's more about convincing yourself.

And I agree with your posts. If I can remember correctly seck, you didn't hold any beliefs either way. And in this instance, faith is not involved.

So if you don't wanna believe in God, and you HATE the thought of having your beliefs based on faith, switch to being an agnostic.

Agnostics hold no belief either way.

[sek929]

Since me and Kevin are agreeing I must now go check hell for freezing

[Graviton]

If believing in a god takes faith and not believing in a god takes faith then what do you call people who don't use faith (and what is their stance)?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Graviton 

If believing in a god takes faith and not believing in a god takes faith then what do you call people who don't use faith (and what is their stance)?

We call them agnostics. And their stance is they have no stance. They hold no belief that God exists, or does not exist. Therefore no faith is required.

Athests hold beliefs that no God exists. Faith Required
Theists hold beliefs that God does exist. Faith Required
Agnostics hold no beliefs either way. No Faith Required

What some Atheists like to pull is to say "I don't hold a belief, but a DISBELIEF" which is basically saying the same thing as showed above where I could claim to be Christian without faith.

It simply doesn't work that way. Any belief, or lack of belief, that is based on something that cannot be proven, faith is required.

[sek929]

If you believe science is mankinds only hope then *drumroll* you have faith.

I guess a nihilist wouldn't have any faith...but that's about the only example I can think of.

A soldier has faith in his unit.
A pilot has faith in his groundcrew
I have faith in the strength of lumber and nails.

[sek929]

I consider myself agnostic, but I also have faith (maybe hope is a better word) that this current existence is but a glimpse of what 'reality' is.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Since me and Kevin are agreeing I must now go check hell for freezing

brass, you, and I are all agreeing. I am waiting for the forum to split into two at any minute.

[Graviton]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

We call them agnostics. And their stance is they have no stance. They don't hold a belief that God exists or doesn't exist.

As soon as you claim either way however, faith steps into the picture. No matter how much you kick and scream about it.

But most atheists (including Richard Dawkins) also claim to be agnostic, they just think the idea of a god is very unlikely, which is why they call themselves atheist.

They don't faithfully believe there is no god, they just think it's unlikely (like unicorns, goblins, bigfoot and such and such). I don't see how that takes faith, it just takes scepticism.

What in your opinion is the difference between faith and scepticism?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Agnostics hold no beliefs either way.

An agnostic is someone who believes that God's existence is unknowable. Most agnostics are ultimately theists.

Someone who has no belief regarding gods is an atheist, because he doesn't believe in any gods. Conflating the word "agnostic" with the idea of not believing in any gods is confusing at best.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Graviton 

But most atheists (including Richard Dawkins) also claim to be agnostic, they just think the idea of a god is very unlikely, which is why they call themselves atheist.

They don't faithfully believe there is no god, they just think it's unlikely (like unicorns, goblins, bigfoot and such and such). I don't see how that takes faith, it just takes scepticism.

What in your opinion is the difference between faith and scepticism?

They just want to have their cake and eat it too. This is mostly due to the fact that they don't want a title that tethers them to an absolute. You see, absolutes are fatal and it would show that they're not nearly as scientifically minded as they want everyone to believe. Especially since a true person of science would never rule out the possibility of anything.

Example: "I'm an atheist, but no one can know if there is a creator, and I don't really care."

As you can see, this isn't a true atheist. This is more of a wishy-washy, "don't nail-my-foot-to-the-floor" agnostic/quasi-nihilist.

Atheist: "There is no god."
Agnostic: "I don't know if there is a god."
Nihilist: "I don't care if there's a god, all spirituality is bunk, nothing really matters anyway."

All in all, skeptics are fine, in fact most of the people who believe in a god, or gods, have some type of skepticism. It challenges their faith all the time. This doesn't mean that they really don't believe, it just means that sometimes they have doubts. Personally, I think that's just part of being human.

[Chuckit]

Actually, having doubts does mean not believing. Like, literally. That's the meaning of the word "doubt."

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Graviton 

But most atheists (including Richard Dawkins) also claim to be agnostic, they just think the idea of a god is very unlikely, which is why they call themselves atheist.

Where I come from, that is called riding the fence. An agnostic simply either doesn't care either way, or hasn't made their mind up yet. If he is claiming he believes that God does not is exist, then that would make him an atheist.

They don't faithfully believe there is no god, they just think it's unlikely (like unicorns, goblins, bigfoot and such and such). I don't see how that takes faith, it just takes scepticism.

There is one thing to say you don't believe that God exists, and to say God does not exist. However they are both similar in that each belief, is one based in faith.

What in your opinion is the difference between faith and scepticism?

Being skeptical means that you are still open that it's true. Someone that is an Atheist isn't skeptical. Agnostics could be considered skeptical. There are agnostics that lean closer to the belief that God doesn't exist, and Agnostics that lean closer to the belief he does. Neither of them will however tell you they know for sure either way.

However, anyone that claims that there is definitely a God, or that God definitely doesn't exist is making said claim out of faith. Not fact.

Too many people think faith is a dirty word. Or that it has negative connotations.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Actually, having doubts does mean not believing. Like, literally. That's the meaning of the word "doubt."

No, it means that sometimes you think that other things or ideas are possible.

Hell, I have serious doubts about whether the gov't will spend my tax money correctly, but ultimately I pay them because I think it's the right thing to do.

Just because you have some misgivings doesn't mean that you've cast your beliefs aside.

[Graviton]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

They just want to have their cake and eat it too. This is mostly due to the fact that they don't want a title that tethers them to an absolute. You see, absolutes are fatal and it would show that they're not nearly as scientifically minded as they want everyone to believe. Especially since a true person of science would never rule out the possibility of anything.

Which is why most atheists think that the idea of god is very unlikely and why they feel confident enough to dismiss it.

I don't see how that would require faith though.

Example: "I'm an atheist, but no one can know if there is a creator, and I don't really care."

As you can see, this isn't a true atheist. This is more of a wishy-washy, "don't nail-my-foot-to-the-floor" agnostic/quasi-nihilist.

But what if they do really care about the question of gods existence (and in my experience most atheists do), yet simply feel it's so unlikely as to be reasonable enough to dismiss? Because that's precisely what most atheists claim (Richard Dawkins et al)

By your standard it would seem that practically nobody is an atheist. Which is an odd stance, I feel, and not in line with the testimony of actual atheists or popular atheist literature.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

No, it means that sometimes you think that other things or ideas are possible.

Not so. For example, while I have no doubt that the sun will rise tomorrow, I do believe other things are possible. I ultimately believe that the possibility where the sun rises is the only one that's actually going to happen in the near future, though, and that's why it isn't doubt, even though I readily acknowledge the possibility of, say, the sun blinking out of existence or getting swallowed by a stray black hole.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Graviton 

Which is why most atheists think that the idea of god is very unlikely and why they feel confident enough to dismiss it.

I don't see how that would require faith though.

If you hold ANY belief that isn't based if fact, faith is required.

But what if they do really care about the question of gods existence (and in my experience most atheists do), yet simply feel it's so unlikely as to be reasonable enough to dismiss? Because that's precisely what most atheists claim

It doesn't matter. If you hold a belief, you hold a belief. And if the belief is not based on factual evidence, it is based in faith. Not that there is anything wrong with faith. Most scientific discoveries started with the scientist having faith that his observations will turn out the way he believed they would. I would hope that someone wouldn't attack someone for faith like that. Or having faith at all. As if it were a bad-destructive thing.

There is simply no loophole. If you hold a belief in something that cannot be proven, faith is required.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

There is simply no loophole. If you hold a belief in something that cannot be proven, faith is required.

Yes, but if you don't believe is something that cannot be proven, all that's required is skepticism.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yes, but if you don't believe is something that cannot be proven, all that's required is skepticism.

I know how some atheists like to use the first because the wording makes it look as if their belief isn't a belief, but it's just a word game as I already shown above. Under such spins I too could be a Christian and not have faith!

If you are skeptical, than you are saying that there still is a chance that it's true. Therefore not an Atheist. And "don't believing in something exists" is the same thing as "believing it does not exist"

Again, back when I was an atheist I too tried to find a loophole. I argued and spun till I was blue.

There is none.

If you hold a belief that God doesn't exist. Or don't how a belief that he exists, no matter how you spin it. Faith is involved since there is no solid proof. Lack of proof isn't proof.

Again I could simply say

"I disbelieve that God does not exist" and since I disbelieve, faith isn't required!

I just found a loophole for being a Christian without having to have faith!

[Graviton]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

There is one thing to say you don't believe that God exists, and to say God does not exist. However they are both similar in that each belief, is one based in faith.

So, for example, it takes faith to not believe in Thor? Or Zeus? Or Allah? Or Athena?

Being skeptical means that you are still open that it's true. Someone that is an Atheist isn't skeptical. Agnostics could be considered skeptical. There are agnostics that lean closer to the belief that God doesn't exist, and Agnostics that lean closer to the belief he does. Neither of them will however tell you they know for sure either way.

However, anyone that claims that there is definitely a God, or that God definitely doesn't exist is making said claim out of faith. Not fact.

But that's not faith in the sense of religious faith, because although the belief in god is on religious faith, the belief that there more than likely is no god is borne out of scepticism (due to lack of tangible evidence). Thus, they choose to call themselves atheists.

By your definition, the belief or non belief in anything would take 'faith' and that leaves no word to describe or distinguish religious faith from just normal belief in the things our senses can discern and the rejection of concepts that they cannot. You would need a different word to describe the religious kind of faith, so that those who do not hold any religious faith could distinguish themselves from it.

I doubt you will get many real sceptics to agree with your definitions, but good luck with them anyway.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Graviton 

Which is why most atheists think that the idea of god is very unlikely and why they feel confident enough to dismiss it.

But see, this is a paradox. Either you believe in the absolute, or you don't. They may want to change the definition of what an atheist is, but that doesn't make it so. Perhaps they should take it up with Webster's. Highly unlikely != no.

i.e. It's highly unlikely that the Dolphins will win the Super Bowl this year, but that doesn't mean it's completely impossible.

I don't see how that would require faith though.

Any profession of an absolute requires at least a minute amount of faith.

But what if they do really care about the question of gods existence (and in my experience most atheists do), yet simply feel it's so unlikely as to be reasonable enough to dismiss? Because that's precisely what most atheists claim (Richard Dawkins et al)

Then they aren't atheists, they're agnostics, but they want to keep the atheist title because it holds a certain degree of shock value in western culture. Or, like a I said before, these people really are true atheists, but they also want to throw a lasso around the agnostic definition to make it look like they're being more reasonable, or to leave themselves an out by not unequivocally stating an absolute.

By your standard it would seem that practically nobody is an atheist. Which is an odd stance, I feel, and not in line with the testimony of actual atheists or popular atheist literature.

That's a fact. Most atheist literature reads like the minutes of an agnostics' convention. This isn't real atheism, and it doesn't match with the definition.

The actual definitions:

Agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

(no absolutes here, very open-ended.)

Atheist: one who believes that there is no deity

(A strong absolute, which also requires a degree of faith since science has reached no conclusions.)

So, Dawkins and his ilk want to wear the mantle of this generation's atheists, including being apostles for said belief, but don't want to speak in too many absolutes so they can avoid coming off as being unlearned or unscientifically minded. This way they can reach across the aisle to actual agnostics for support and to build on their membership.

When you visit Dawkin's site, don't you get a kinda "churchy" feel about it? I know I do, and so do most people.

RichardDawkins.net - The Official Richard Dawkins Website

Yep, that about sizes it up.