are atheists part of a faith?

[Don Corleone]

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.

[Slyspy]

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.

[Watchman]

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.

[English assassin]

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.

[BDC]

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.

[Marcellus]

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.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

[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...

[A.Saturnus]

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

[Al Khalifah]

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.

[Pindar]

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

Don't like vernacular ehh?