Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In a civil trial in the united states, something is said to be proven true if we can prove it by a preponderance of the evidence. In other words, If I can show that something is most likely true, then we believe it is true.
In a criminal trial, for something to be proven true, it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't absolutely have to be true. But there should no longer be any real doubt about the matter.
Rarely are people only allowed to believe in something, or against something, if they have metaphysical certitude. Instead, the standard of proof is somewhat less than that. We can disbelieve in a God if we think that it's more likley than not that these is a God. Or if we have no doubt that these is no God. Either of these are beliefs are atheism. And those beleifs are backed up by evidence, not faith.
Yes and that is why it is said "we put FAITH in our justice system" it is not always correct, but it is correct often enough for it to be useful. Additionally no one ever says it is perfect and that no convicted criminal has ever been innocent. It is true that rarely are people allowed to believe something only if there is metaphysical certitude, but at the same time if something does not have metaphysical certitude we are at least taking part of it on faith, not that that is a bad thing.
I have not really heard of the term weak-atheist, though it sounds like an agnostic.
It's a common mistake. It's easier to argue against a strong atheist so you will see people who hate the term and either ignore us or would much rather we call ourselves agnostics. It all comes down to my point earlier though, why would we self identify as agnostics if we really doubt that there is a god?
3 years ago I used to call myself an agnostic, my position wasn't any different as what it is now but it made Christians think that I was a fence sitter, that I either had no opinions about whether a god existed or that I thought it was a 50/50 affair.
The argument also works the other way around, why would people who are 99.9999999999999% sure that allah is real call themselves agnostics isntead of muslims?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent
This is because the very act of stating that there is a possibility that God may exist seems to suggest a lack of committment to a dis-belief in God.
I can see how committment is valued in a religion but in disbelief?
It's a common mistake. It's easier to argue against a strong atheist so you will see people who hate the term and either ignore us or would much rather we call ourselves agnostics. It all comes down to my point earlier though, why would we self identify as agnostics if we really doubt that there is a god?
3 years ago I used to call myself an agnostic, my position wasn't any different as what it is now but it made Christians think that I was a fence sitter, that I either had no opinions about whether a god existed or that I thought it was a 50/50 affair.
The argument also works the other way around, why would people who are 99.9999999999999% sure that allah is real call themselves agnostics isntead of muslims?
I can see how committment is valued in a religion but in disbelief?
What I am saying is that faith is not as you say "to believe that which the evidence proves true" your words not mine, but faith is the act of jumping to conclusions and believing in them with insufficient evidence.
Before we get into what you call "insufficient evidence", I note that this is a different standard that you used before. Are you retreating from the position that you have faith in anything you don't metaphysical certitude confidence in?
Because we don't have a metaphysical certitude in there only being one sun in our universe. But that doesn't mean it requires faith to believe it.
Faith is believing regardless of the evidence. Atheist disbelieve in god, but not regardless of the evidence. The disbelieve because of the evidence. If someone asked me what time it was, I could look at my watch and say it was 5 o'clock. That's not an act of faith. That is the results of an inquiry.
Beyond that, I also don't think the evidence is insufficient to conclude there is no God. Even though the burden of proving there is a God would be on those who are making the claim.
Yes and that is why it is said "we put FAITH in our justice system" it is not always correct, but it is correct often enough for it to be useful. Additionally no one ever says it is perfect and that no convicted criminal has ever been innocent. It is true that rarely are people allowed to believe something only if there is metaphysical certitude, but at the same time if something does not have metaphysical certitude we are at least taking part of it on faith, not that that is a bad thing.
Faith can mean a religion itself, like the christian faith. But beyond that, the most appropriate definition of faith is : A Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Which is what religion has, and the atheist doesn't.
Before we get into what you call "insufficient evidence", I note that this is a different standard that you used before. Are you retreating from the position that you have faith in anything you don't metaphysical certitude confidence in?
Because we don't have a metaphysical certitude in there only being one sun in our universe. But that doesn't mean it requires faith to believe it.
Faith is believing regardless of the evidence. Atheist disbelieve in god, but not regardless of the evidence. The disbelieve because of the evidence. If someone asked me what time it was, I could look at my watch and say it was 5 o'clock. That's not an act of faith. That is the results of an inquiry.
Beyond that, I also don't think the evidence is insufficient to conclude there is no God. Even though the burden of proving there is a God would be on those who are making the claim.
I am really not retreating from anything. All my original premise was it takes faith to be an atheist, or more specifically a "strong atheist", because God is an impossible concept to prove or disprove at the moment so any absolute claim would take a measure of faith. By having insuffecient evidence I mean we do not have any testable evidence of God's existence or dis-existence therefore we have no metaphysical certitude. As I stated again the burden of proof is always on a person who makes a claim. Thus a person saying there is certainly no God would have to prove his or her statements just as much as a person saying there is a God. The only reason that is not the way it works in the courts is because their is an assumption of innocence and all assumptions without proof are more or less based on faith.
You can look at your watch and say it is 5 O'clock, but what if you had no watch or other timepiece and were underground then it would be impossible to tell time as is the case with God. However because of your watch and what we have defined time as you have an observable test to determine time. No such test exist to prove or dis-prove God so your as good of trying to disprove God as you are trying to disprove that it is actually six instead of five in such an underground cavern.
Last edited by Randomstudent; 04-22-2009 at 10:29 AM..
Faith can mean a religion itself, like the christian faith. But beyond that, the most appropriate definition of faith is : A Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Which is what religion has, and the atheist doesn't.
Faith can also mean "complete trust" (Merriam-Websters dictionary) i.e. I have faith that John will win the city council election. If one is 100% certain of something then one can be said to have faith in it.
Last edited by Randomstudent; 04-22-2009 at 10:12 AM..
It's a common mistake. It's easier to argue against a strong atheist so you will see people who hate the term and either ignore us or would much rather we call ourselves agnostics. It all comes down to my point earlier though, why would we self identify as agnostics if we really doubt that there is a god?
3 years ago I used to call myself an agnostic, my position wasn't any different as what it is now but it made Christians think that I was a fence sitter, that I either had no opinions about whether a god existed or that I thought it was a 50/50 affair.
The argument also works the other way around, why would people who are 99.9999999999999% sure that allah is real call themselves agnostics isntead of muslims?
I can see how committment is valued in a religion but in disbelief?
Commitment can be very valued in disbelief. I disbelieve Young Earth Creationism and I am rather committed to that because it appears to be unscientific and an incorrect account of geological history. On some level however, since it was so long ago and all the details from that time cannot be fully assessed, it cannot entirely be discounted on a metaphysical level so I have a marginal amount of faith that things happen according to how science views them as having happend.
It seems also to be applied in the standard dictionary definition of atheism. I am fine with "weak atheism" as a term it just sounds more like an agnostic then the dictionary definition of atheism. Which is "the doctrine that there is no deity." Or "a disbelief in God." Now if you operate from the premise that it does not take commitment to disbelieve the second one would apply to a "weak atheist" however, I think it requires commitment to say anything except "not sure", "maybe", "do not know", or "could be."
As to Muslims, they have faith to fill that .0000000001% of questioning. If one is 99.9999999% certain there is no God. Then either you take the .000000000001% on faith to disbelieve in God. Or You say it is impossible to truely know and you fit the definition of an agnostic otherwise it is contradictory.
Last edited by Randomstudent; 04-22-2009 at 10:23 AM..
Commitment can be very valued in disbelief. I disbelieve Young Earth Creationism and I am rather committed to that because it appears to be unscientific and an incorrect account of geological history. On some level however, since it was so long ago and all the details from that time cannot be fully assessed, it cannot entirely be discounted on a metaphysical level so I have a marginal amount of faith that things happen according to how science views them as having happend.
It seems also to be applied in the standard dictionary definition of atheism. I am fine with "weak atheism" as a term it just sounds more like an agnostic then the dictionary definition of atheism. Which is "the doctrine that there is no deity." Or "a disbelief in God." Now if you operate from the premise that it does not take commitment to disbelieve the second one would apply to a "weak atheist" however, I think it requires commitment to say anything except "not sure", "maybe", "do not know", or "could be."
Do you or do you not understand why we identify as atheists as opposed to agnostics? I must have said it about 5 times in this thread but it seems to fall to deaf ears. As I also stated earlier, people will actively try to define atheism as being 100% that there is no god(to the point that some even say "well true atheists are....." because it's easier to argue that it takes faith to have that position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent
As to Muslims, they have faith to fill that .0000000001% of questioning. If one is 99.9999999% certain there is no God. Then either you take the .000000000001% on faith to disbelieve in God. Or You say it is impossible to truely know and you fit the definition of an agnostic otherwise it is contradictory.
False dichotomy and grasping at straws. This isn't an all or nothing issue, there are levels of certainty, of confidence and you are right when you say that there is no way of knowing 100% one or the other which is fine because it is not our position
Here is one more issue from me, what do you think of the statement:
"I am a weak atheist but also I am a strong atheist"
Only in the same sense that not collecting coins would be a hobby.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Atheism is a religion too."
