Errancy and atheism require religious faith?
Matthew Corner blumoose@infinet.com
Mon, 13 Jul 1998 22:24:43 -0400 (00900401083, 3.0.1.32.19980713222443.00833480@infinet.com)
>MJ:
> The finest words in the world are only vain sounds if you
> cannot understand them. -- Anatole France
>
>One does demonstrate word definitions. Both Atheism and Errancy meet
>the requirements of the definition of religion (Webster's Ninth
>Collegiate Dictionary):
>
> religion (rî-lîj´en) noun
> a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with
> ardor and faith' (personal or institutional which can
> include or not include a supernatural concept).
>
>A religion is any systemic belief for which there is no evidence. There
>is no evidence of the non-existence of God, yet Atheists believe it on
>faith alone. There is no evidence of any errors in the Bible, yet
>Errantists believe it on faith alone.
>
> Colors fade, temples crumble, empires fall, but wise words
> endure. -- Edward Thorndike
>
>
>There is only one kind of faith, believing without evidence.
>
> Contradiction is not a sign of falsity, nor the lack of
> contradiction a sign of truth. -- Blaise Pascal
>
>SHUMAKER
> It is perfectly logical (i.e. involves neither a strawman nor a red
> herring) for me to say that you are claiming, given your stated
> position, that atheism requires religious faith. This is so because
> of the method by which you are attempting to show that atheism is a
> religion; your method entails that religious faith is a required
> element of atheism.
>
>
>MJ:
>Atheism does require religious faith, a systemic faith in the belief
>that there is no God or gods.
>
> atheism (â´thê-îz´em) noun
> Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
> The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
>
>No negative can ever be proved so anyone who maintains the non-existence
>of anything is engaged in faith and speaking illogically. Persisting in
>any faith regardless of any evidence presented to the contrary is
>religious
>fanaticism.
>
> The fact that we have no observational reason to believe
> that there are unicorns does not demonstrate that there
> could not be one behind the next tree. -- Steven Goldberg
>
>It is illogical and irrational to say there are no unicorns,
>just as it is illogical and irrational to say there is no God.
>It is religious faith and religious faith alone that enables
>a person to claim there is no God.
>
>
>SHUMAKER
> It is not my purpose to convert people to atheism . . . (but
> to) demonstrate that the belief in God is irrational to the
> point of absurdity. If a person wishes to continue believing
> in a god, that is his prerogative, but he can no longer excuse
> his belief in the name of reason and moral necessity.
> --George H. Smith, _Atheism: The Case Against God_
>
>
>MJ:
>The fact that a person would dig out and preserve such a quotation
>is proof of religion. This statement is false from beginning to end.
>
> An atheist-laugh's a poor exchange For Deity
> offended. -- Robert Burns
>
>
>
>Take at look at the web site for the religion of Faith Atheism
>at <http://www.concentric.net/~Merlock/fatheism/>.
>
> Our Beliefs
>
> We realize that we cannot prove that no god exists, just
> as theists cannot prove that a god does exist. We, however,
> have faith that no god exists.
>
> The three basic tenets of Faith Atheism, which we take on
> faith, are:
>
> - No God or gods exist.
> - Neither humans nor the universe was created by a "higher" power.
> - There is no immortal soul and nor is there an afterlife.
>
>
>If this be not a religion, then pray tell, what is it?
>
>
>Regard$,
>--MJ
>
>
>There is only one way in which a person acquires a new idea; by
>combination or association of two or more ideas he already has
>into a new juxtaposition in such a manner as to discover a
>relationship among them of which he was not previously
>aware. -- Francis A. Carter
>
>Lies are usually caused by undue fear of men. -- Hasidic Saying
>
>False face must hide what the false heart doth know.
> -- William Shakespeare
>
Matthew
You statement implies that belief/non-belief in anything that can neither
be proved nor disproved requires religious faith. This is false, unless
you also are saying that science is a religion. If you define religion as
a system of beliefs, then science is a religion; however, using the
definition you give it is not such.
religion (rî-lîj´en) noun
a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with
ardor and faith (personal or institutional which can
include or not include a supernatural concept).
For science, nor atheism, requires any faith at all. Science is a system
to incorporate the knowns of reality. This is done through theories. This
provides a framework that is designed to link our perceptions, and predict
how those perceptions change. This does not require faith, but merely
evidence that these theories predict reality with a accuracy. This
accuracy can be monitored, we need merely to notice that our perceptions
and predicted perceptions concur. If they do not, then the theory needs
revision, for it does not match our perceptions, and hence is not, fully,
correct. If something makes no change to our perceptions, that is, it does
not affect our perceived environment, then there is no reason to suspect it
exists. Why is this so? Simply this: Something that causes no change to
reality is not part of reality, and as such is non-existent. The
god-concept is one of these, for, there being no evidence for his
existence, in essence, means he does not affect reality in any perceivable
way. That is to say, believing in god is the same as believing in
invisible and intangible moose. That is, irrational. Where reason is
defined as being able describe with all the parts that change reality, and
something that makes no change, needs no representation, for there is no
difference to the system if you add it in. (similar to multiplying by one
or adding zero.) Atheism then, is a system that does not add an
unnecessary element to our description of reality; god. As such, the lack
of a belief in something unprovable is not religious faith, but the only
rational choice. To define rational in another way: the ability to discern
between what affects reality and what does not. How does one dicern this?
As said before, one theorizes, and if the theory holds with perception,
then the elements it incorporates are what affects that situation. So far,
there is no theory that includes the element god. There is also no hint
that we will ever need such an element, for the supposed element, in no
way, affects reality. As such adding in a 'zero' to our equation of
reality is silly and worthless, for it does not add to our understanding of
reality, but needlessly complicates it.
The above is not to say that *every* atheist has no faith, merely that
*all* atheists do not need it. This is contrary to theists, who must have
faith to believe in god, that is, they have no evidence for a *positive*
belief (that of god), and so must have faith to believe in this. A
positive belief is one in which believing it adds something to one's
conception of reality's framework. A negative belief does not add
something add something to our conception of reality, but leaves something
out. (almost too simple). Atheists have a negative belief, that is they do
not beleive in god. Why? For adding him into their conception, or
anyone's, does not change how the universe functions, it is still described
in the exact same way, the god concept changes nothing. Since the god
concept adds nothing to our understanding, it is useless to believe, since
things in the end, are the same, but it costs additional baggage. If you
have any questions about what I have said, I would be pleases to answer.