Asserting that Atheism and Theism are both faith based positions
I am recently testing an assertion that I have concluded namely that atheism is a faith based position just like theism is a faith based position.
The reason I arrived at this conclusion is that theists have no proof that God actually exists. It's purely a matter of faith. Yes, there maybe strong implicit proof that God exists in their opinion (scriptures, history, etc) but there is no concrete proof of God's existence. In my view, atheists also suffer from the same problem of providing a proof of their position. Specifically that they cannot prove that God is non-existent.
The typical rebuttal I get is that the burden of proof is on the theists. But I view this as a cop out and they hide behind the wall of burden of proof which is just a bias in the debate.
Given the above, I claim that both atheism and theism are positions based on faith. Would it be incorrect to claim that?
theology atheism
asked 3 hours ago
Mika'ilMika'il
1213
New contributor
Mika'il is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
I am recently testing an assertion that I have concluded namely that atheism is a faith based position just like theism is a faith based position.
The reason I arrived at this conclusion is that theists have no proof that God actually exists. It's purely a matter of faith. Yes, there maybe strong implicit proof that God exists in their opinion (scriptures, history, etc) but there is no concrete proof of God's existence. In my view, atheists also suffer from the same problem of providing a proof of their position. Specifically that they cannot prove that God is non-existent.
The typical rebuttal I get is that the burden of proof is on the theists. But I view this as a cop out and they hide behind the wall of burden of proof which is just a bias in the debate.
Given the above, I claim that both atheism and theism are positions based on faith. Would it be incorrect to claim that?
theology atheism
asked 3 hours ago
Mika'ilMika'il
1213
New contributor
Mika'il is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
This seems like a false dilemma: either a position is based on conclusive proof, or it is based on faith. I believe that the train will leave at 8. I have no conclusive proof of this (it might even turn out to be false), but it's not just a matter of faith. Rather, I have reasons and evidence (even if fallible) to back me up.
– Eliran
3 hours ago
My assertion is that neither position can provide conclusive proof. Therefore both are on faith.
– Mika'il
3 hours ago
You are confirming what I sad: you think that a position is either based on conclusive proof or on faith. But there are other options: a position can be based on solid (but not conclusive) evidence, or on reasonable arguments. Some theists can give you arguments for the existence of God (e.g. the cosmological argument). Some atheists can give you arguments to the contrary (e.g. the problem of evil). Both of these are neither conclusive proof nor just faith.
– Eliran
3 hours ago
One is a belief. The other is a lack.of belief.
– Richard
3 hours ago
1
I believe that the planet Xincalus in the Andromeda galaxy is inhabited by dragons. Do you share that belief? If not, why not? Is denying the existence of Xincalus a faith-based position?
– jcsahnwaldt
22 mins ago
add a comment |
I am recently testing an assertion that I have concluded namely that atheism is a faith based position just like theism is a faith based position.
The reason I arrived at this conclusion is that theists have no proof that God actually exists. It's purely a matter of faith. Yes, there maybe strong implicit proof that God exists in their opinion (scriptures, history, etc) but there is no concrete proof of God's existence. In my view, atheists also suffer from the same problem of providing a proof of their position. Specifically that they cannot prove that God is non-existent.
The typical rebuttal I get is that the burden of proof is on the theists. But I view this as a cop out and they hide behind the wall of burden of proof which is just a bias in the debate.
Given the above, I claim that both atheism and theism are positions based on faith. Would it be incorrect to claim that?
theology atheism
asked 3 hours ago
Mika'ilMika'il
1213
New contributor
Mika'il is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I am recently testing an assertion that I have concluded namely that atheism is a faith based position just like theism is a faith based position.
The reason I arrived at this conclusion is that theists have no proof that God actually exists. It's purely a matter of faith. Yes, there maybe strong implicit proof that God exists in their opinion (scriptures, history, etc) but there is no concrete proof of God's existence. In my view, atheists also suffer from the same problem of providing a proof of their position. Specifically that they cannot prove that God is non-existent.
The typical rebuttal I get is that the burden of proof is on the theists. But I view this as a cop out and they hide behind the wall of burden of proof which is just a bias in the debate.
Given the above, I claim that both atheism and theism are positions based on faith. Would it be incorrect to claim that?
theology atheism
theology atheism
asked 3 hours ago
Mika'ilMika'il
1213
New contributor
Mika'il is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 3 hours ago
Mika'ilMika'il
1213
New contributor
Mika'il is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 3 hours ago
Mika'ilMika'il
1213
New contributor
Mika'il is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 3 hours ago
Mika'ilMika'il
1213
asked 3 hours ago
Mika'ilMika'il
1213
1213
New contributor
Mika'il is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Mika'il is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Mika'il is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
This seems like a false dilemma: either a position is based on conclusive proof, or it is based on faith. I believe that the train will leave at 8. I have no conclusive proof of this (it might even turn out to be false), but it's not just a matter of faith. Rather, I have reasons and evidence (even if fallible) to back me up.
– Eliran
3 hours ago
My assertion is that neither position can provide conclusive proof. Therefore both are on faith.
– Mika'il
3 hours ago
You are confirming what I sad: you think that a position is either based on conclusive proof or on faith. But there are other options: a position can be based on solid (but not conclusive) evidence, or on reasonable arguments. Some theists can give you arguments for the existence of God (e.g. the cosmological argument). Some atheists can give you arguments to the contrary (e.g. the problem of evil). Both of these are neither conclusive proof nor just faith.
– Eliran
3 hours ago
One is a belief. The other is a lack.of belief.
– Richard
3 hours ago
1
I believe that the planet Xincalus in the Andromeda galaxy is inhabited by dragons. Do you share that belief? If not, why not? Is denying the existence of Xincalus a faith-based position?
– jcsahnwaldt
22 mins ago
add a comment |
This seems like a false dilemma: either a position is based on conclusive proof, or it is based on faith. I believe that the train will leave at 8. I have no conclusive proof of this (it might even turn out to be false), but it's not just a matter of faith. Rather, I have reasons and evidence (even if fallible) to back me up.
– Eliran
3 hours ago
My assertion is that neither position can provide conclusive proof. Therefore both are on faith.
– Mika'il
3 hours ago
You are confirming what I sad: you think that a position is either based on conclusive proof or on faith. But there are other options: a position can be based on solid (but not conclusive) evidence, or on reasonable arguments. Some theists can give you arguments for the existence of God (e.g. the cosmological argument). Some atheists can give you arguments to the contrary (e.g. the problem of evil). Both of these are neither conclusive proof nor just faith.
– Eliran
3 hours ago
One is a belief. The other is a lack.of belief.
– Richard
3 hours ago
1
I believe that the planet Xincalus in the Andromeda galaxy is inhabited by dragons. Do you share that belief? If not, why not? Is denying the existence of Xincalus a faith-based position?
– jcsahnwaldt
22 mins ago
This seems like a false dilemma: either a position is based on conclusive proof, or it is based on faith. I believe that the train will leave at 8. I have no conclusive proof of this (it might even turn out to be false), but it's not just a matter of faith. Rather, I have reasons and evidence (even if fallible) to back me up.
– Eliran
3 hours ago
This seems like a false dilemma: either a position is based on conclusive proof, or it is based on faith. I believe that the train will leave at 8. I have no conclusive proof of this (it might even turn out to be false), but it's not just a matter of faith. Rather, I have reasons and evidence (even if fallible) to back me up.
– Eliran
3 hours ago
My assertion is that neither position can provide conclusive proof. Therefore both are on faith.
– Mika'il
3 hours ago
My assertion is that neither position can provide conclusive proof. Therefore both are on faith.
– Mika'il
3 hours ago
You are confirming what I sad: you think that a position is either based on conclusive proof or on faith. But there are other options: a position can be based on solid (but not conclusive) evidence, or on reasonable arguments. Some theists can give you arguments for the existence of God (e.g. the cosmological argument). Some atheists can give you arguments to the contrary (e.g. the problem of evil). Both of these are neither conclusive proof nor just faith.
– Eliran
3 hours ago
You are confirming what I sad: you think that a position is either based on conclusive proof or on faith. But there are other options: a position can be based on solid (but not conclusive) evidence, or on reasonable arguments. Some theists can give you arguments for the existence of God (e.g. the cosmological argument). Some atheists can give you arguments to the contrary (e.g. the problem of evil). Both of these are neither conclusive proof nor just faith.
– Eliran
3 hours ago
One is a belief. The other is a lack.of belief.
– Richard
3 hours ago
One is a belief. The other is a lack.of belief.
– Richard
3 hours ago
1
1
I believe that the planet Xincalus in the Andromeda galaxy is inhabited by dragons. Do you share that belief? If not, why not? Is denying the existence of Xincalus a faith-based position?
– jcsahnwaldt
22 mins ago
I believe that the planet Xincalus in the Andromeda galaxy is inhabited by dragons. Do you share that belief? If not, why not? Is denying the existence of Xincalus a faith-based position?
– jcsahnwaldt
22 mins ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
No, atheism is not a faith based position. This has been debunked time and time again and there are numerous resources on the internet that cover this error in logic. If theism claims the existance of a god, an atheist is one who is not convinced of that claim and rejects it.
An atheist has no responsibility to disprove the claim that god does exist because the atheist is not asserting anything. The burden of proof is on the person trying convince another with their claim. Claims require support and the thiest made the claim so the thiest must support it. Not having faith in something is not faith much like not having a hobby is not a hobby and not exercising is not a form of exercise.
answered 3 hours ago
CellCell
212115
You are just asserting the bias in the debate which I mentioned in my post. Remove the bias. Consider the assertion in isolation. Can an atheist prove the non-existent of a God?
– Mika'il
3 hours ago
2
@Mika'il It's not bias; it's simply how argumentation works. Athiesm only exist because theism exists; it's right there in the name: a-theism. It makes absolutely no sense to consider atheism in isolation. You're basically saying can someone conjure up the idea of something without asserting anything and disprove it. That's absurd.
– Cell
3 hours ago
We could easily imagine a parallel world where the dominant original belief is that there is no God. Later, a group of people start questioning this and claim that this not true. Now the burden of proof is on the atheists. That's why I said, eliminate the bias. The experiment is to look at the atheistic and theistic claims in isolation and to provide proof.
– Mika'il
1 hour ago
2
@Mika'il I disagree that we can easily imagine this. I would find it mind-boggling to discover a world of sentient beings where the primary belief is that there is no "God" without any prior knowledge of anyone asserting what "God" means or how it's defined or any positive statement about its properties . But you're right though, in that bizarre impossible hypothetical it would be the atheists that have the burden of proof, but that is not the situation here in reality.
– Cell
1 hour ago
2
@Mika'il I'm not being biased, it's just that people don't generally believe in negative claims unless a positive claim was asserted first. For example people don't believe in aliens because aliens have been asserted, people have disbelief in the boogeyman because the boogeyman has been asserted. You're asking me to follow along with unreasonable premises just so your argument makes sense. If you think I'm being biased then I challenge you to give me an example of a widely recognized negative claim on the empirical existence of something that precedes belief in the positve alternative.
– Cell
56 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
Both positions, the theist and the atheist made a claim: The theist claimed the existence of god, the atheist claimed the non-existence of god. History shows: Neither of them could prove his claim.
Having learned the lesson, today’s atheists make a weaker claim: The traditional god-concept - god being omnipotent, omniscient, all-good - is inconsistent. The concept leads to the problem of theodicy.
Hence atheists consider the existence of god a hypothesis. They claim that this hypothesis creates more problems than solves existing problems. Therefore atheists dismiss this hypothesis. They know: A world-model without a god-concept is more simple, but it leaves open fundamental questions due to lack of reliable answers.
IMO that’s not faith but heuristics.
answered 2 hours ago
Jo WehlerJo Wehler
17.5k21762
Yes, this is my take on the matter. A claim is made on both sides which is not provable. When you say the atheists say the traditional concept of god is inconsistent with his nature are you referring to the problem of evil they give as a rebuttal? You make an interesting distinction between faith and heuristics. I will look into that.
– Mika'il
1 hour ago
Yes, the problem of evil and also the existence of natural catastophies indicate the inconsistency of the god-concept.
– Jo Wehler
1 hour ago
Most people would accept that the more extraordinary a claim, the more extraordinary should be the proof that it's true. Asserting that a thing doesn't exist when there's no definitive proof that that thing exists seems to be the position which has the stronger position.
– Valorum
17 mins ago
Atheists do not claim the non-existence of god. Atheism is just the disbelief in the existence of a god. Atheists don’t accept the claim that god exists as being true because there isn’t reliable evidence to support the claim. Just as their isn’t reliable evidence to support the claim god doesn’t exist. Atheism alone is a neutral position. However, that does not mean that an atheist can’t hold a justification as to which scenario is more or less likely.
– Alexander Gegg
13 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "265"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Mika'il is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f61156%2fasserting-that-atheism-and-theism-are-both-faith-based-positions%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
No, atheism is not a faith based position. This has been debunked time and time again and there are numerous resources on the internet that cover this error in logic. If theism claims the existance of a god, an atheist is one who is not convinced of that claim and rejects it.
An atheist has no responsibility to disprove the claim that god does exist because the atheist is not asserting anything. The burden of proof is on the person trying convince another with their claim. Claims require support and the thiest made the claim so the thiest must support it. Not having faith in something is not faith much like not having a hobby is not a hobby and not exercising is not a form of exercise.
answered 3 hours ago
CellCell
212115
You are just asserting the bias in the debate which I mentioned in my post. Remove the bias. Consider the assertion in isolation. Can an atheist prove the non-existent of a God?
– Mika'il
3 hours ago
2
@Mika'il It's not bias; it's simply how argumentation works. Athiesm only exist because theism exists; it's right there in the name: a-theism. It makes absolutely no sense to consider atheism in isolation. You're basically saying can someone conjure up the idea of something without asserting anything and disprove it. That's absurd.
– Cell
3 hours ago
We could easily imagine a parallel world where the dominant original belief is that there is no God. Later, a group of people start questioning this and claim that this not true. Now the burden of proof is on the atheists. That's why I said, eliminate the bias. The experiment is to look at the atheistic and theistic claims in isolation and to provide proof.
– Mika'il
1 hour ago
2
@Mika'il I disagree that we can easily imagine this. I would find it mind-boggling to discover a world of sentient beings where the primary belief is that there is no "God" without any prior knowledge of anyone asserting what "God" means or how it's defined or any positive statement about its properties . But you're right though, in that bizarre impossible hypothetical it would be the atheists that have the burden of proof, but that is not the situation here in reality.
– Cell
1 hour ago
2
@Mika'il I'm not being biased, it's just that people don't generally believe in negative claims unless a positive claim was asserted first. For example people don't believe in aliens because aliens have been asserted, people have disbelief in the boogeyman because the boogeyman has been asserted. You're asking me to follow along with unreasonable premises just so your argument makes sense. If you think I'm being biased then I challenge you to give me an example of a widely recognized negative claim on the empirical existence of something that precedes belief in the positve alternative.
– Cell
56 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
No, atheism is not a faith based position. This has been debunked time and time again and there are numerous resources on the internet that cover this error in logic. If theism claims the existance of a god, an atheist is one who is not convinced of that claim and rejects it.
An atheist has no responsibility to disprove the claim that god does exist because the atheist is not asserting anything. The burden of proof is on the person trying convince another with their claim. Claims require support and the thiest made the claim so the thiest must support it. Not having faith in something is not faith much like not having a hobby is not a hobby and not exercising is not a form of exercise.
answered 3 hours ago
CellCell
212115
You are just asserting the bias in the debate which I mentioned in my post. Remove the bias. Consider the assertion in isolation. Can an atheist prove the non-existent of a God?
– Mika'il
3 hours ago
2
@Mika'il It's not bias; it's simply how argumentation works. Athiesm only exist because theism exists; it's right there in the name: a-theism. It makes absolutely no sense to consider atheism in isolation. You're basically saying can someone conjure up the idea of something without asserting anything and disprove it. That's absurd.
– Cell
3 hours ago
We could easily imagine a parallel world where the dominant original belief is that there is no God. Later, a group of people start questioning this and claim that this not true. Now the burden of proof is on the atheists. That's why I said, eliminate the bias. The experiment is to look at the atheistic and theistic claims in isolation and to provide proof.
– Mika'il
1 hour ago
2
@Mika'il I disagree that we can easily imagine this. I would find it mind-boggling to discover a world of sentient beings where the primary belief is that there is no "God" without any prior knowledge of anyone asserting what "God" means or how it's defined or any positive statement about its properties . But you're right though, in that bizarre impossible hypothetical it would be the atheists that have the burden of proof, but that is not the situation here in reality.
– Cell
1 hour ago
2
@Mika'il I'm not being biased, it's just that people don't generally believe in negative claims unless a positive claim was asserted first. For example people don't believe in aliens because aliens have been asserted, people have disbelief in the boogeyman because the boogeyman has been asserted. You're asking me to follow along with unreasonable premises just so your argument makes sense. If you think I'm being biased then I challenge you to give me an example of a widely recognized negative claim on the empirical existence of something that precedes belief in the positve alternative.
– Cell
56 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
No, atheism is not a faith based position. This has been debunked time and time again and there are numerous resources on the internet that cover this error in logic. If theism claims the existance of a god, an atheist is one who is not convinced of that claim and rejects it.
An atheist has no responsibility to disprove the claim that god does exist because the atheist is not asserting anything. The burden of proof is on the person trying convince another with their claim. Claims require support and the thiest made the claim so the thiest must support it. Not having faith in something is not faith much like not having a hobby is not a hobby and not exercising is not a form of exercise.
answered 3 hours ago
CellCell
212115
No, atheism is not a faith based position. This has been debunked time and time again and there are numerous resources on the internet that cover this error in logic. If theism claims the existance of a god, an atheist is one who is not convinced of that claim and rejects it.
An atheist has no responsibility to disprove the claim that god does exist because the atheist is not asserting anything. The burden of proof is on the person trying convince another with their claim. Claims require support and the thiest made the claim so the thiest must support it. Not having faith in something is not faith much like not having a hobby is not a hobby and not exercising is not a form of exercise.
answered 3 hours ago
CellCell
212115
answered 3 hours ago
CellCell
212115
answered 3 hours ago
CellCell
212115
answered 3 hours ago
CellCell
212115
212115
You are just asserting the bias in the debate which I mentioned in my post. Remove the bias. Consider the assertion in isolation. Can an atheist prove the non-existent of a God?
– Mika'il
3 hours ago
2
@Mika'il It's not bias; it's simply how argumentation works. Athiesm only exist because theism exists; it's right there in the name: a-theism. It makes absolutely no sense to consider atheism in isolation. You're basically saying can someone conjure up the idea of something without asserting anything and disprove it. That's absurd.
– Cell
3 hours ago
We could easily imagine a parallel world where the dominant original belief is that there is no God. Later, a group of people start questioning this and claim that this not true. Now the burden of proof is on the atheists. That's why I said, eliminate the bias. The experiment is to look at the atheistic and theistic claims in isolation and to provide proof.
– Mika'il
1 hour ago
2
@Mika'il I disagree that we can easily imagine this. I would find it mind-boggling to discover a world of sentient beings where the primary belief is that there is no "God" without any prior knowledge of anyone asserting what "God" means or how it's defined or any positive statement about its properties . But you're right though, in that bizarre impossible hypothetical it would be the atheists that have the burden of proof, but that is not the situation here in reality.
– Cell
1 hour ago
2
@Mika'il I'm not being biased, it's just that people don't generally believe in negative claims unless a positive claim was asserted first. For example people don't believe in aliens because aliens have been asserted, people have disbelief in the boogeyman because the boogeyman has been asserted. You're asking me to follow along with unreasonable premises just so your argument makes sense. If you think I'm being biased then I challenge you to give me an example of a widely recognized negative claim on the empirical existence of something that precedes belief in the positve alternative.
– Cell
56 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
You are just asserting the bias in the debate which I mentioned in my post. Remove the bias. Consider the assertion in isolation. Can an atheist prove the non-existent of a God?
– Mika'il
3 hours ago
2
@Mika'il It's not bias; it's simply how argumentation works. Athiesm only exist because theism exists; it's right there in the name: a-theism. It makes absolutely no sense to consider atheism in isolation. You're basically saying can someone conjure up the idea of something without asserting anything and disprove it. That's absurd.
– Cell
3 hours ago
We could easily imagine a parallel world where the dominant original belief is that there is no God. Later, a group of people start questioning this and claim that this not true. Now the burden of proof is on the atheists. That's why I said, eliminate the bias. The experiment is to look at the atheistic and theistic claims in isolation and to provide proof.
– Mika'il
1 hour ago
2
@Mika'il I disagree that we can easily imagine this. I would find it mind-boggling to discover a world of sentient beings where the primary belief is that there is no "God" without any prior knowledge of anyone asserting what "God" means or how it's defined or any positive statement about its properties . But you're right though, in that bizarre impossible hypothetical it would be the atheists that have the burden of proof, but that is not the situation here in reality.
– Cell
1 hour ago
2
@Mika'il I'm not being biased, it's just that people don't generally believe in negative claims unless a positive claim was asserted first. For example people don't believe in aliens because aliens have been asserted, people have disbelief in the boogeyman because the boogeyman has been asserted. You're asking me to follow along with unreasonable premises just so your argument makes sense. If you think I'm being biased then I challenge you to give me an example of a widely recognized negative claim on the empirical existence of something that precedes belief in the positve alternative.
– Cell
56 mins ago
You are just asserting the bias in the debate which I mentioned in my post. Remove the bias. Consider the assertion in isolation. Can an atheist prove the non-existent of a God?
– Mika'il
3 hours ago
You are just asserting the bias in the debate which I mentioned in my post. Remove the bias. Consider the assertion in isolation. Can an atheist prove the non-existent of a God?
– Mika'il
3 hours ago
2
2
@Mika'il It's not bias; it's simply how argumentation works. Athiesm only exist because theism exists; it's right there in the name: a-theism. It makes absolutely no sense to consider atheism in isolation. You're basically saying can someone conjure up the idea of something without asserting anything and disprove it. That's absurd.
– Cell
3 hours ago
@Mika'il It's not bias; it's simply how argumentation works. Athiesm only exist because theism exists; it's right there in the name: a-theism. It makes absolutely no sense to consider atheism in isolation. You're basically saying can someone conjure up the idea of something without asserting anything and disprove it. That's absurd.
– Cell
3 hours ago
We could easily imagine a parallel world where the dominant original belief is that there is no God. Later, a group of people start questioning this and claim that this not true. Now the burden of proof is on the atheists. That's why I said, eliminate the bias. The experiment is to look at the atheistic and theistic claims in isolation and to provide proof.
– Mika'il
1 hour ago
We could easily imagine a parallel world where the dominant original belief is that there is no God. Later, a group of people start questioning this and claim that this not true. Now the burden of proof is on the atheists. That's why I said, eliminate the bias. The experiment is to look at the atheistic and theistic claims in isolation and to provide proof.
– Mika'il
1 hour ago
2
2
@Mika'il I disagree that we can easily imagine this. I would find it mind-boggling to discover a world of sentient beings where the primary belief is that there is no "God" without any prior knowledge of anyone asserting what "God" means or how it's defined or any positive statement about its properties . But you're right though, in that bizarre impossible hypothetical it would be the atheists that have the burden of proof, but that is not the situation here in reality.
– Cell
1 hour ago
@Mika'il I disagree that we can easily imagine this. I would find it mind-boggling to discover a world of sentient beings where the primary belief is that there is no "God" without any prior knowledge of anyone asserting what "God" means or how it's defined or any positive statement about its properties . But you're right though, in that bizarre impossible hypothetical it would be the atheists that have the burden of proof, but that is not the situation here in reality.
– Cell
1 hour ago
2
2
@Mika'il I'm not being biased, it's just that people don't generally believe in negative claims unless a positive claim was asserted first. For example people don't believe in aliens because aliens have been asserted, people have disbelief in the boogeyman because the boogeyman has been asserted. You're asking me to follow along with unreasonable premises just so your argument makes sense. If you think I'm being biased then I challenge you to give me an example of a widely recognized negative claim on the empirical existence of something that precedes belief in the positve alternative.
– Cell
56 mins ago
@Mika'il I'm not being biased, it's just that people don't generally believe in negative claims unless a positive claim was asserted first. For example people don't believe in aliens because aliens have been asserted, people have disbelief in the boogeyman because the boogeyman has been asserted. You're asking me to follow along with unreasonable premises just so your argument makes sense. If you think I'm being biased then I challenge you to give me an example of a widely recognized negative claim on the empirical existence of something that precedes belief in the positve alternative.
– Cell
56 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
Both positions, the theist and the atheist made a claim: The theist claimed the existence of god, the atheist claimed the non-existence of god. History shows: Neither of them could prove his claim.
Having learned the lesson, today’s atheists make a weaker claim: The traditional god-concept - god being omnipotent, omniscient, all-good - is inconsistent. The concept leads to the problem of theodicy.
Hence atheists consider the existence of god a hypothesis. They claim that this hypothesis creates more problems than solves existing problems. Therefore atheists dismiss this hypothesis. They know: A world-model without a god-concept is more simple, but it leaves open fundamental questions due to lack of reliable answers.
IMO that’s not faith but heuristics.
answered 2 hours ago
Jo WehlerJo Wehler
17.5k21762
Yes, this is my take on the matter. A claim is made on both sides which is not provable. When you say the atheists say the traditional concept of god is inconsistent with his nature are you referring to the problem of evil they give as a rebuttal? You make an interesting distinction between faith and heuristics. I will look into that.
– Mika'il
1 hour ago
Yes, the problem of evil and also the existence of natural catastophies indicate the inconsistency of the god-concept.
– Jo Wehler
1 hour ago
Most people would accept that the more extraordinary a claim, the more extraordinary should be the proof that it's true. Asserting that a thing doesn't exist when there's no definitive proof that that thing exists seems to be the position which has the stronger position.
– Valorum
17 mins ago
Atheists do not claim the non-existence of god. Atheism is just the disbelief in the existence of a god. Atheists don’t accept the claim that god exists as being true because there isn’t reliable evidence to support the claim. Just as their isn’t reliable evidence to support the claim god doesn’t exist. Atheism alone is a neutral position. However, that does not mean that an atheist can’t hold a justification as to which scenario is more or less likely.
– Alexander Gegg
13 mins ago
add a comment |
Both positions, the theist and the atheist made a claim: The theist claimed the existence of god, the atheist claimed the non-existence of god. History shows: Neither of them could prove his claim.
Having learned the lesson, today’s atheists make a weaker claim: The traditional god-concept - god being omnipotent, omniscient, all-good - is inconsistent. The concept leads to the problem of theodicy.
Hence atheists consider the existence of god a hypothesis. They claim that this hypothesis creates more problems than solves existing problems. Therefore atheists dismiss this hypothesis. They know: A world-model without a god-concept is more simple, but it leaves open fundamental questions due to lack of reliable answers.
IMO that’s not faith but heuristics.
answered 2 hours ago
Jo WehlerJo Wehler
17.5k21762
Yes, this is my take on the matter. A claim is made on both sides which is not provable. When you say the atheists say the traditional concept of god is inconsistent with his nature are you referring to the problem of evil they give as a rebuttal? You make an interesting distinction between faith and heuristics. I will look into that.
– Mika'il
1 hour ago
Yes, the problem of evil and also the existence of natural catastophies indicate the inconsistency of the god-concept.
– Jo Wehler
1 hour ago
Most people would accept that the more extraordinary a claim, the more extraordinary should be the proof that it's true. Asserting that a thing doesn't exist when there's no definitive proof that that thing exists seems to be the position which has the stronger position.
– Valorum
17 mins ago
Atheists do not claim the non-existence of god. Atheism is just the disbelief in the existence of a god. Atheists don’t accept the claim that god exists as being true because there isn’t reliable evidence to support the claim. Just as their isn’t reliable evidence to support the claim god doesn’t exist. Atheism alone is a neutral position. However, that does not mean that an atheist can’t hold a justification as to which scenario is more or less likely.
– Alexander Gegg
13 mins ago
add a comment |
Both positions, the theist and the atheist made a claim: The theist claimed the existence of god, the atheist claimed the non-existence of god. History shows: Neither of them could prove his claim.
Having learned the lesson, today’s atheists make a weaker claim: The traditional god-concept - god being omnipotent, omniscient, all-good - is inconsistent. The concept leads to the problem of theodicy.
Hence atheists consider the existence of god a hypothesis. They claim that this hypothesis creates more problems than solves existing problems. Therefore atheists dismiss this hypothesis. They know: A world-model without a god-concept is more simple, but it leaves open fundamental questions due to lack of reliable answers.
IMO that’s not faith but heuristics.
answered 2 hours ago
Jo WehlerJo Wehler
17.5k21762
Both positions, the theist and the atheist made a claim: The theist claimed the existence of god, the atheist claimed the non-existence of god. History shows: Neither of them could prove his claim.
Having learned the lesson, today’s atheists make a weaker claim: The traditional god-concept - god being omnipotent, omniscient, all-good - is inconsistent. The concept leads to the problem of theodicy.
Hence atheists consider the existence of god a hypothesis. They claim that this hypothesis creates more problems than solves existing problems. Therefore atheists dismiss this hypothesis. They know: A world-model without a god-concept is more simple, but it leaves open fundamental questions due to lack of reliable answers.
IMO that’s not faith but heuristics.
answered 2 hours ago
Jo WehlerJo Wehler
17.5k21762
answered 2 hours ago
Jo WehlerJo Wehler
17.5k21762
answered 2 hours ago
Jo WehlerJo Wehler
17.5k21762
answered 2 hours ago
Jo WehlerJo Wehler
17.5k21762
17.5k21762
Yes, this is my take on the matter. A claim is made on both sides which is not provable. When you say the atheists say the traditional concept of god is inconsistent with his nature are you referring to the problem of evil they give as a rebuttal? You make an interesting distinction between faith and heuristics. I will look into that.
– Mika'il
1 hour ago
Yes, the problem of evil and also the existence of natural catastophies indicate the inconsistency of the god-concept.
– Jo Wehler
1 hour ago
Most people would accept that the more extraordinary a claim, the more extraordinary should be the proof that it's true. Asserting that a thing doesn't exist when there's no definitive proof that that thing exists seems to be the position which has the stronger position.
– Valorum
17 mins ago
Atheists do not claim the non-existence of god. Atheism is just the disbelief in the existence of a god. Atheists don’t accept the claim that god exists as being true because there isn’t reliable evidence to support the claim. Just as their isn’t reliable evidence to support the claim god doesn’t exist. Atheism alone is a neutral position. However, that does not mean that an atheist can’t hold a justification as to which scenario is more or less likely.
– Alexander Gegg
13 mins ago
add a comment |
Yes, this is my take on the matter. A claim is made on both sides which is not provable. When you say the atheists say the traditional concept of god is inconsistent with his nature are you referring to the problem of evil they give as a rebuttal? You make an interesting distinction between faith and heuristics. I will look into that.
– Mika'il
1 hour ago
Yes, the problem of evil and also the existence of natural catastophies indicate the inconsistency of the god-concept.
– Jo Wehler
1 hour ago
Most people would accept that the more extraordinary a claim, the more extraordinary should be the proof that it's true. Asserting that a thing doesn't exist when there's no definitive proof that that thing exists seems to be the position which has the stronger position.
– Valorum
17 mins ago
Atheists do not claim the non-existence of god. Atheism is just the disbelief in the existence of a god. Atheists don’t accept the claim that god exists as being true because there isn’t reliable evidence to support the claim. Just as their isn’t reliable evidence to support the claim god doesn’t exist. Atheism alone is a neutral position. However, that does not mean that an atheist can’t hold a justification as to which scenario is more or less likely.
– Alexander Gegg
13 mins ago
Yes, this is my take on the matter. A claim is made on both sides which is not provable. When you say the atheists say the traditional concept of god is inconsistent with his nature are you referring to the problem of evil they give as a rebuttal? You make an interesting distinction between faith and heuristics. I will look into that.
– Mika'il
1 hour ago
Yes, this is my take on the matter. A claim is made on both sides which is not provable. When you say the atheists say the traditional concept of god is inconsistent with his nature are you referring to the problem of evil they give as a rebuttal? You make an interesting distinction between faith and heuristics. I will look into that.
– Mika'il
1 hour ago
Yes, the problem of evil and also the existence of natural catastophies indicate the inconsistency of the god-concept.
– Jo Wehler
1 hour ago
Yes, the problem of evil and also the existence of natural catastophies indicate the inconsistency of the god-concept.
– Jo Wehler
1 hour ago
Most people would accept that the more extraordinary a claim, the more extraordinary should be the proof that it's true. Asserting that a thing doesn't exist when there's no definitive proof that that thing exists seems to be the position which has the stronger position.
– Valorum
17 mins ago
Most people would accept that the more extraordinary a claim, the more extraordinary should be the proof that it's true. Asserting that a thing doesn't exist when there's no definitive proof that that thing exists seems to be the position which has the stronger position.
– Valorum
17 mins ago
Atheists do not claim the non-existence of god. Atheism is just the disbelief in the existence of a god. Atheists don’t accept the claim that god exists as being true because there isn’t reliable evidence to support the claim. Just as their isn’t reliable evidence to support the claim god doesn’t exist. Atheism alone is a neutral position. However, that does not mean that an atheist can’t hold a justification as to which scenario is more or less likely.
– Alexander Gegg
13 mins ago
Atheists do not claim the non-existence of god. Atheism is just the disbelief in the existence of a god. Atheists don’t accept the claim that god exists as being true because there isn’t reliable evidence to support the claim. Just as their isn’t reliable evidence to support the claim god doesn’t exist. Atheism alone is a neutral position. However, that does not mean that an atheist can’t hold a justification as to which scenario is more or less likely.
– Alexander Gegg
13 mins ago
add a comment |
Mika'il is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Mika'il is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Mika'il is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Mika'il is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Philosophy Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f61156%2fasserting-that-atheism-and-theism-are-both-faith-based-positions%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
This seems like a false dilemma: either a position is based on conclusive proof, or it is based on faith. I believe that the train will leave at 8. I have no conclusive proof of this (it might even turn out to be false), but it's not just a matter of faith. Rather, I have reasons and evidence (even if fallible) to back me up.
– Eliran
3 hours ago
My assertion is that neither position can provide conclusive proof. Therefore both are on faith.
– Mika'il
3 hours ago
You are confirming what I sad: you think that a position is either based on conclusive proof or on faith. But there are other options: a position can be based on solid (but not conclusive) evidence, or on reasonable arguments. Some theists can give you arguments for the existence of God (e.g. the cosmological argument). Some atheists can give you arguments to the contrary (e.g. the problem of evil). Both of these are neither conclusive proof nor just faith.
– Eliran
3 hours ago
One is a belief. The other is a lack.of belief.
– Richard
3 hours ago
1
I believe that the planet Xincalus in the Andromeda galaxy is inhabited by dragons. Do you share that belief? If not, why not? Is denying the existence of Xincalus a faith-based position?
– jcsahnwaldt
22 mins ago