How many atheists are willing to admit that they use faith everyday in their lives?

And more importantly, what makes this faith any different from the faith utilized by religious and spiritual people?

We all use faith. Every single one of us in some form or fashion. Every time you get in a car to run and errand and expect to get back safely, guess what that is? You can argue that you're simply operating on statistical probability, and that's all good and well. But you still have no guarantee of your outcome. And there are plenty of people who have been proven wrong when rolling the dice on those odds. Former Deftones bassist Chi Cheng - amazing man and great musician - recently passed away on April 13th of this year after a car crash in 2008 that left him comatose for 4 years and ultimately resulted in heart failure. Do you think he expected to get where he was going? Dude wasn't even wearing a seat belt when he crashed (which is sadly what killed him). That's how much faith he had in statistical probability.

We all do this everyday. There are countless other examples. A friend of mine passed away last year of food poisoning at the frighteningly young age of 30. How often do we even think about whether or not what we eat everyday could kill us?

I could go on and on, but you get the point. Faith is part of human nature. Some of us just embrace it more honestly than others. So atheists, I'm throwing the ball over to you now. How many of you are willing to admit your regular usage of faith and what separates yours from ours?

Let's hear it.

 

I don't expect to get back safely, which is why I wear a seat belt. I'm extra careful when I pull out onto a road and I keep an eye on roads in other directions when I'm at stop lights because I don't assume other people are going to be good drivers.

My belief in food safety has nothing to do with faith. I believe certain foods are safe based on the evidence that they are inspected. However, I have seen evidence that meat is not properly cared for at stores and packaging plants, which is one reason I'm glad I'm vegan. I wash my veggies even when they say they are pre-washed.

I can't think of a time that I use faith. I also think there is a difference between your examples of someone doubting they'll get into an accident with having faith that there is a magical being in the sky that can read our thoughts and send us to heaven or hell. I think some things are a gamble, and it's not necessarily based on a belief without evidence, but it's a hope or a belief based on some amount of evidence. I mean, I could stop wearing my seat belt and I believe that I will most likely be fine, based on the evidence that I am a really safe driver and have never been in a serious accident, and it's fairly unlikely that I will be. It's not belief without evidence. It's belief based on some amount of evidence, and it's not a belief that I most CERTAINLY will be ok. I bet if you ask pretty much anyone who doesn't wear a belt if they actually belief it's not possible for them to get into an accident in which they'll be hurt from not wearing a belt, they're not going to tell you it's not possible. So, that's not the greatest example.

Belief in a god that you have never seen or heard - a god for which there is no actual evidence - that's on another level. That's totally different than expecting not to die when you eat something.

And I don't think most self-proclaimed theists embrace their faith very honestly, or they'd accept that they really don't have a belief in something for which there is no evidence - they have a desire to belief. I also think most people that have faith in god, when asked if there is a possibility that they're wrong, they won't admit that they could be. How's that for honest? I bet if you ask just about any atheist if they could be wrong about some belief, they'd accept that they could be. And that's a big difference with most atheists and what you consider
their use of faith.

 

By that definition yes, everyone applies "faith" in their day to day lives. As you point out though, that "faith" is based on what you call "statistical probability" - really practical experience, evidence and guidance from others. It also involves things we have no choice but to trust one way or another. Obviously nothing can have a guaranteed outcome but there can certainly be a limited number of likely ones and though it could still be considered "faith", it would be irrational to account for anything other than the likely outcomes. You test your bath water to see if it's too hot or too cold but you don't check it for sharks.

Religious people do this in exactly the same as anyone else though. They have an additional and different form of faith in their religious beliefs. These are generally not about day-to-day practical questions and generally not supported by formally repeatable evidence. This also goes beyond religion to things like belief in ghosts, aliens and the like that some people have a faith in the existence and nature of. The key difference is the lack of that "statistical probability" in to the realm of "true" faith - believing in something because it "feels right".

I fail to see any argument for your approach to faith being "more honest" than atheists (in fact, that's somewhat insulting). I'm standing by different and I consider religious faith flawed in principal but I'm not going to go as far at questioning your honesty.

 

What you’ve got here is a false comparison. You’re pleading equivalence between basing practical behavior on observable phenomena and basing belief in the Deity on the very same criteria. It goes, “I believe that rain will fall toward the ground, therefore I also believe in the Deity.”.

Essentially, you believe ‘cause you believe.

UNLESS of course, you take ALL observable phenomena to proceed from the Hand of the Deity…in which case ALL logic collapses…‘cause…you know…“God did it.” And your argument holds.

…or some s*** like that.

 

Faith has two definitions, one religious and one secular. When one uses the word faith, one can mean either a generalisation of religion or one can mean belief in any statement. It is important to keep the two apart. Note however that sometimes, the religious kind of faith is a subset of the other one, which means that arguments like that in the OP can be correct without actually addressing the atheists' claims about faith.

I use normal faith in my everyday life, but I don't get faith from nothing. From statistical observation and some understanding of a car and the traffic system, I have non-religious faith in that I will return safely. However, notice that if asked about why I think I will return safely, faith is never the reason, it is merely a description of my feelings towards my car situation.

When non-religious people address the issue of faith, it is usually with respect to a common answer to anti-religious arguments: "you just got to have faith". You may label (and correctly so) my belief that I will return safely a "faith", but it still hasn't affected anyone's argument that faith for no reason is bad.

Essentially, we all have faith, but when you cannot justify why and just fall back on the fact that you have it, some logical piece is missing and that's what the argument of faith addresses.

 

Unifier, you've been here since 2010. Have you really not been told that non-religious people have an issue with the lacking reason behind the faith? Surely, this question is answered daily on this forum?

What counts as faith is all semantics. We're just interested in reasons.

 

I'm guessing the OP is trying to justify his faith in his religion by trying to crowbar any examples (however poor and inaccurate) of atheists using faith, as if the two are the same. I've seen theists do it before. Basically, "well, you have faith that your spouse/mate isn't going to stab you in the face when you sleep, therefore, belief in a magical being is just as justified of a belief." Not only is it not actually an example of faith (I have evidence my girlfriend isn't going to do any such thing based on 10 years of non-violent behavior, and before that, personality traits and behavior associated with non-violence), but it's also a belief with a complete lack of evidence and a rather large claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

You've done terrible things to the meaning of the word "faith".

 

I would say that you have evidence that your girlfriend HASN'T stabbed you in the face, not that she wont, right? Future results are usually indicative of past evidence, but they are never a foregone conclusion, right?

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/foregone+conclusion

I have not stated that there is absolutely no possibility of her stabbing me in the face. I have not formed an opinion in advance of proper consideration of evidence, arguments, etc.


Evidence of past behavior and personality traits is evidence that certain behavior is unlikely. I have not stated that I believe there is absolutely no chance of such events happening - just that they are unlikely. This is a belief not based on a lack of evidence nor one of absolute certainty. Both of you have failed to understand what faith is or what amount of belief is involved in statistical assessments.

 

Isn't a belief, a belief no matter where its placed? Isn't one of the many definitions of belief, also faith? Belief and faith, are both something that is intangible, right?

 

Why do think christians own the word "faith"?
They don't , it can be used by anyone...it doesn't necessarily have to do with religion or gods.....tsk, tsk , such arrogance...


I have faith in different things which is backed up by FACTS...in the religious sense "faith" has nothing to back it up...

 

Sure I do. I don't defend it, I think it's irrational and if I could do away with it I would.

Nothing separates this faith and that used to justify religion, both seem irrational to me. The former however is like a phobia; I rationally know the dark can't hurt me, yet I remain afraid of it.

 

You're correct, of course. Atheism, in and of itself, requires faith. Believers in God have faith that God exists. Atheists have faith that God does not exist. Neither believers nor atheists can prove their claim to a certainty! Inherent in atheism is an unstated but necessary belief that energy and matter can be spontaneously created in an environment in which they don't already exist. In my opinion, that belief requires far more faith than is needed to believe in God!

Having said the above, my comments weren't intended to impune atheists. Many atheists are not hateful toward religion, nor toward those of us who believe in God. People can live good lives and be good human beings without believing in God. However, atheists who hate and attack religion, are inconsiderate bigots.

 

What are christians who hate and attack atheists?

 

If the hatefullness and attacks are un-provoked, the attackers would also be bigots. If, on the other hand, the hatefullness came in response to anti-Christian hatefullness, I'd call such behavior "counter-attacks".

 

A common mistake. Atheism describes not believing in any gods but that doesn't necessarily imply explict denial of the existance of any given god (or in the context of this thread, faith a god doesn't exist). That isn't to say some atheists don't hold that position, just that it isn't fundamental to atheism by definition.

Again not true. Even if an atheist explicitly denied the existance of any gods, that doesn't mean they are incapable of believing the universe came about in a different manner to the one you describe (or indeed that it always existed). They could even believe in a non-divine creator.

Given the dearth of evidence available on the subject, I'd suggest that any definitive position regarding the source/creation/nature of the universe requires exactly the same amount of faith. That's why I don't hold one.

Sure, but so are theists who hate and attack religion. That has very little to do with faith though.

 

I don't know how many but OP is right , i know atheists who vote for a government proven to be (*)(*)(*)(*) and have faith that they will do better this time.

 

LOL! Yup! I expected a "worm and squirm" from christians who don't think christians ever do anything wrong.....

"counter attacks" ...what Jesus believed in.


If the hatefullness and attacks are un-provoked, the attackers would also be bigots. If, on the other hand, the hatefullness came in response to anti-Atheist hatefullness, I'd call such behavior "counter-attacks". ....wouldn't you???




""I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians, they are so unlike your Christ"". Mahatma Ghandi

 

Another dumb "straw dog" argument.

 

Wouldn't an atheist have faith that a Christian would "see the light" and become an atheist?

 

Doesn't sound like faith. I probably make the assumption that I will get to where I'm going if I drive well and nothing goes wrong. It's more, as you say, playing against known odds. An example of faith of the religious kind would be me expecting God to clear the way for me or protect me or increase the odds of my survival in my favor. There's no proven precedent or evidence available for me to rely on the intervention of a God on my behalf, or include him in odds based on reasonable, likey outcomes.

I can see what you are saying though. I used to, but as I grew up I realized that if people like to believe in God and the higher ideals he represent than it's perfectly fine. The only thing that's frustrating is hearing that from people who, in practice, counter the ideals of their own faith, or who are obviously full of crap. Like wealthy evangelists....yuck.

Also, at the least, it's probably a differentiation between "faith" and "hope".

 

You apparently read my post. You either didn't understand what I said, or hate has blinded you to what I said. I used exactly the same criteria for judging Christian bigotry as I did for atheist bigotry. Speak English?

 

IF you're correct that atheism can be defined as you claim, I don't believe that many atheists are aware of it. If we have an atheist here who concurs with your definition, I'd ask him/her to tell us what God they believe may exist.

 

Then you wouldn't get out on the road at all.

You still assume they're good enough drivers that less than 10% of them will cross the center line into oncoming traffic.

But that evidence is hardly conclusive by itself, since you have no way of knowing that what you're about to eat has actually been inspected.

"Won't" is actually more like it.