are atheists part of a faith?

the reason i ask this question was because my religious studies teacher was talking about how no ordinary person has ever seen an atom (except from pictures that could just be drawings) and yet we are taught that they exist... this is kinda a leap of faith to think the whole world is made up of things so small we can't see them

Atheism is an epistemic stance regarding the non-existence of a metaphysical absolute (God). In either its strong or weak forms it requires no further commitment from the subject. Faith as a religious vernacular is not simply belief, but implies the object of faith is extant and relationable. Given that understanding, it would be a misuse of the term to apply it to a being rejecting posture.

We've been through this before. It is a frequently raised debate. I believe that atheism is not a religion as such, but that some atheists are happy to adopted the trappings of religion such as evangelism and preaching. They care too much and it becomes more than a lack of belief, it becomes more like a faith.

I myself am quite happy to believe that a god may exist in some form, but cannot see why I should care or, indeed, why he/she/it would. I'm simply not interested. Would that make me agnostic?

the ahtiests are commonly associated with evolution, in which case they worship TIME.

Originally Posted by Slyspy

We've been through this before. It is a frequently raised debate. I believe that atheism is not a religion as such, but that some atheists are happy to adopted the trappings of religion such as evangelism and preaching. They care too much and it becomes more than a lack of belief, it becomes more like a faith.

Close enough to what I think about atheism to state, I agree.

Simple apathy towards any religion is fine and not a religion, but I would rather call that agnosticism.
Atheists have a belief that no supreme being exists, so i am more critical of calling that a lack of religion. When they start preaching Athiesm then the preachers, then it has adopted religious trappings and I would certainly not refrain from calling it a religion.

The question in the title of the thread begs another question, are 'belief system' and 'faith' equivalent terms? Atheists have to make assumptions about unanswerable questions, so in my book they certainly qualify as a belief system. But my defintion of faith (which is different than religion, also) is a communion with that greater ideal. People that believe in 'humankind' and 'the greater good' are engaging in faith. There is no provable thesis to support these concepts (belief system) and they are in communion with the idea expressed (they act/think) in such a way that supports the object of their belief... they believe they are benefactor and beneficient of this 'greater good' or 'humankind'. I do not see that phenomenon that I'm calling 'communion with the object of the belief system' within athesists: atheists do not believe they benefit from the lack of a God, and they do not seek to benefit this lack of an entity in their actions. That's not the same thing as saying they don't seek to spread a creed, which has more religious ovetones, in my book. Clear as mud, right? Let me try more concisely...

At the end of the day, atheism is not a faith as there is no interpersonal relationship (real or imagined) with demands on both parties in the relationship between atheists and their notion of non-existence of the supernatural.

I hadn't thought of it that way. But to me there is no difference between a belief system and a faith when you are dealing with theological questions.

Originally Posted by Slyspy

I myself am quite happy to believe that a god may exist in some form, but cannot see why I should care or, indeed, why he/she/it would. I'm simply not interested. Would that make me agnostic?

Yes it does. Rather than religion and atheism, agnosticism is what that should have been taught at school. But then again; it`s nothing to teach about it..

I tend to personally consider atheism to be a sort-of religion - AFAIK true atheists have a tendency to be just as fervent about it as the truly religious, and often expend comparable mental effort on the issue, save in the negative.

Far as I'm concerned the two can butt their stubborn heads together to their heart's content so long they don't start dismemebering each other or bothering me or other people in general.

Although I consider it an important difference that where the true believer tends to consider his religion the Only Right Truth and path to salvation (and whatever), and those of the others at best cheap copies if not outright lies and suchlike in something of a spirit of "my Scripture is bigger and better than yours", the proper atheist equally denounces all religions irrespective of their names and sundry and everyone more or less equally left high and dry as far as the ultimate fate of the hypothetical immortal soul is concerned.

The rather major difference between "religious" and "scientific" world-explanations then tends to be that the former are, ultimately, based on various revelations and the like you're supposed to believe just because; there's nothing directly falsifiable or provable about them, they're matters of faith (sic). The latter rely heavily on logic, observation, provable theories etc. etc. and rather more importantly only very rarely try to claim any moral truths - and when they do tend to get seriosuly dissed by their peers.

And, yes, the above is heavily caricaturized. It's that or a page-long discourse I seriously don't feel like typing up. I get to write *those* sorts of things quite enough in the university tests.

the reason i ask this question was because my religious studies teacher was talking about how no ordinary person has ever seen an atom (except from pictures that could just be drawings) and yet we are taught that they exist... this is kinda a leap of faith to think the whole world is made up of things so small we can't see them

Slightly OT but your religious studies teacher is an idiot.

It's perfectly true that no one has seen, or ever will see, an atom. But people can readily see rather a lot of evidence that is neatly and consistently explained and simplified by the theory that atoms exist, and furthermore there are perfectly doable experiments that would prove that atoms did not exist (assuming that they did not).

Therefore although a belief in atoms involves a faith of a sort (faith that our sense data do not deceive us, faith that we have the reasoning abilities that we think we have, a belief that there is not some even better theory that explains all our sense data without postulating the existence of atoms, and so on) it is foolish to equate that faith to a faith in God. For the two to be the same there would have to be features of the real world that could be readily observed and that were most elegantly and satisfactorily explained by the existence of God.

Which it seems to me there are not.

Slightly OT but your religious studies teacher is an idiot.

Hence why you need physicists to teach religious studies. Humanities teachers really bug me on the whole. The level of ignorance is staggering.

It seems even the courts are confused

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAW OF THE LAND
Court rules atheism a religion
Decides 1st Amendment protects prison inmate's right to start study group

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 20, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.

"Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.


The court decided the inmate's First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.

Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, called the court's ruling "a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence."

"Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion," said Fahling.

The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion.

Fahling said today's ruling was "further evidence of the incoherence of Establishment Clause jurisprudence."

"It is difficult not to be somewhat jaundiced about our courts when they take clauses especially designed to protect religion from the state and turn them on their head by giving protective cover to a belief system, that, by every known definition other than the courts' is not a religion, while simultaneously declaring public expressions of true religious faith to be prohibited," Fahling said.

It also seems the atheists want their cake and eat it to.

Everything is a belief...You even have to believe that a fact is a fact. In that case, atheism requires belief, or at least I believe so ...

Originally Posted by English assassin

Slightly OT but your religious studies teacher is an idiot.

It's perfectly true that no one has seen, or ever will see, an atom. But people can readily see rather a lot of evidence that is neatly and consistently explained and simplified by the theory that atoms exist, and furthermore there are perfectly doable experiments that would prove that atoms did not exist (assuming that they did not).

Yes, Rutherford scattering ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_scattering ) and Deep Inelastic Scattering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_inelastic_scattering) are examples of how repeatable experiments can be used to explore the composition of matter.

[QUOTE=English assassin]Slightly OT but your religious studies teacher is an idiot.[QUOTE]

i resent that.... he is a very good teacher and i was saying that god couldn't possibly exist cos he hasn't helped anyone (that i know of) in the recent years and he said just because god doesn't make himself known doesn't mean he isn't there and that we have never seen an atom yet we are till taught to think they are there... he is an atheist btw but he just has to 'broaden our minds' to all paths...

What Pindar said, except that I wouldn´t have used "vernacular".

The ultimate athiest would believe nothing unless it was proven and shown to them, alla the atomic theory argument.
I suppose the ultimate fundamentalist would believe anything unless it is proven and shown not to be true - ie God commands you to go kill lots of people, now do it.

Originally Posted by Slyspy

We've been through this before. It is a frequently raised debate. I believe that atheism is not a religion as such, but that some atheists are happy to adopted the trappings of religion such as evangelism and preaching. They care too much and it becomes more than a lack of belief, it becomes more like a faith.

I myself am quite happy to believe that a god may exist in some form, but cannot see why I should care or, indeed, why he/she/it would. I'm simply not interested. Would that make me agnostic?

Agnostic is more of a beleif That Somethin could Posibly be out there.

im more of an agnostic than an atheist.

For example.
I beleve In the big bang.
Lots of smaller Big bangs Happen all the time and We happen to be able to see them Thanx to hubble and so on,

To many religions Thats Blastfamy.

but think about it....
All the matter was compressed And then it EXPLODED and bits of debree went flying all over the universe.

Biger rocks whilst spining create gravity (all mass has gravity)
The biger rocks draged in stellar dust and Other smaller rocs these heated up and melted and the planets were being fromed.

Now we can take that to be fact.
Cos u can see it hapening to starts and stuff out there in space.
And there are also newly formed planets excetera,

HOWEVER
This is whete the agnostic part comes in.

Where di the matter come from to vreate the big bang?
of course Some will say God Created it.
And if i ask where god came from...
You will say he always was and always will be.
And to that extent I can use the same Argument For where the matter came from to create the planets.

These Are BAD ANSWERS.
They Have NO Logical reasoning behind them,
And asd such my feble Mind Cannot comprehend Andy more of the situation.

There fore i am agnostic.

Look at the Typo's In that Then :(
GAH!

I want my edit button back

The only time I think about the existance of god is when these threads come up on the forum. If there were no religious people we wouldn't even have a word for atheism and no one would talk about it at all. If there were no atheists all you christians would still pray at supper time and go to church

The categorical definition of the object, i.e. "faith", is what confuses.

Change "faith" to "existential perspective" and you have a rhetorical question.

A denial of God is more or less equivalent to an acceptance of God when the two concepts are compared within the appropriate context as an existential perspective.

Religion and science are not opposite ends of an axis, they are two different ones.

You can be a religious scientist , a non-religious scientist, a religious non-scientist (new agers), or a non-religious non-scientist.

Darwin's voyage on the Beagle was to collect natural specimens... after which he intended to become a man of the cloth by some accounts.

Einstein believed in God.

Also there are plenty of scientists who believe in God but not in man made trappings ie religion.

Well as far as i know.
Religion Was science in the begining.

As monks were technicaly alchemists.
They experimaneted to find the elixer of life.
they did this my trying to turn a base mettal in to gold.

Gold being Purest form of mettal They knew of.
And if they could change lead from being lead in to pure gold.
They could Obviously Then Use the elixer on them selfs To make Humans Pure again,
So they would be allowed back in to eaden.

over the years science and religion drifted apart.
With some scientific studys contradicting religious beleifs.

So its not actualy 2 diferent axis(s) "Axie?"....
There more Like 2 estrange brothers,
Who were born from the same mother. Which both have the same goal In life.
Although 1 took the path of faith,
and the other of logic.

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

What Pindar said, except that I wouldn´t have used "vernacular".

Don't like vernacular ehh?

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

The categorical definition of the object, i.e. "faith", is what confuses.

Change "faith" to "existential perspective" and you have a rhetorical question.

A denial of God is more or less equivalent to an acceptance of God when the two concepts are compared within the appropriate context as an existential perspective.

Yes.

However "atheism", by definition(of my dictionary), is unbelief of God or deities. Unbelief simply means lack of belief.

Denial of God would be what the Romantics did in the 18th century (ie. Byron) for example.

Originally Posted by GiantMonkeyMan

the reason i ask this question was because my religious studies teacher was talking about how no ordinary person has ever seen an atom (except from pictures that could just be drawings) and yet we are taught that they exist... this is kinda a leap of faith to think the whole world is made up of things so small we can't see them

Isn't this like asking if black is a color?

Legally yes.

Originally Posted by Zalmoxis

Isn't this like asking if black is a color?

I always love well-used analogies .

Black is the lack of colour Thats why it does not reflect the any colours back.

Red objects are red becous they Trap all other colours in the light spectum and only Bounce back red.

Same for all colours,

Whit objects arent a colour either.
They bounce back ALL the colours in the light spectrum.

Atoms however exist.
Thats why they were able to split an atom.

i dont think youl find that they were able to Split god.