[photon]

Originally Posted by llama64

I'd argue for the opposite case.

Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist. Science hasn't demonstrated there is a God so therefore there is no god. But Science also hasn't ruled out the possibility of God. This leaves the Atheist with what constitutes as a belief.

I would make that "Science hasn't demonstrated there is evidence of a God so therefore I will not believe in God at this time." Every atheist of course is different, but I would say the vast majority would change their mind given evidence.

So it's not a belief, it's a withholding of belief. An unwillingness to commit either way. That's why I think agnostic is more faith based because an agnostic has committed, committed to the position that it is unknowable for all time.

Also it can be confusing because many atheists are strong atheists with regards to the God of the Bible, but weak atheists with regards to an undefined God. Meaning they do believe that given the amount of contrary evidence that there is no God of the Bible. But with the undefined concept of some being outside our reality they're weak atheists meaning they don't believe in it because there's no evidence.

That's why I always try to make sure it's clear what's being discussed.

Agnostics are similar to Atheists except that they will not declare that god does not exist because there is no evidence to state such. Instead, they leave open the possibility since that seems to be what reality presents according to all accounts.

Not really, to me an agnostic isn't open to the possibility, an agnostic thinks that there can be no resolution to the question by definition. But I see what you mean, in that respect an atheist and agnostic can be similar. I have seen the term agnostic deist and agnostic nondeist used as well to define a person who thinks that the existence of God is unknown or is unknowable, but chooses to believe or chooses not to believe respectively.

See what I mean, our definitions of the words are almost reversed.

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

My response to this would be the same as llama's.
There is no proof of the correctness of religious belief, nor is there proof of the correctness of atheistic belief. There is a subtle difference between not believing in something vs. believing not something. Also, I would not go so far as to say that atheism is a natural, rational default. Given that proof cannot be given either way, but there have been countless individual accounts of religious experience some might argue that the more rational default position (if one were forced to take a position) would be to accept some form of religious belief. Personally, seeing as we're not forced to take a position, I would say an admittance that you can't know either way and so refusing to either believe or refute (agnosticism) is a reasonable choice.

On the opposite side of countless individual accounts of religious experience though I would place the fallibility of people's perceptions, the ease of which they are deceived, the unreliability of memory, etc. And I agree that refusing to believe or refute is reasonable, though my definitions seem to be a bit different (see above).

Anyways, atheism is faith based because it is a belief in a positive statement (there is no god) which cannot be supported by evidence.

Taking the default position based on lack of evidence isn't faith, it's reason. The lack of belief isn't faith.

And when you say "there is no god" what god do you mean? Do you mean the God of the Bible? Because many atheists would likely have much evidence that supports that the God of the Bible doesn't exist (given the validity of the claims made by the Bible and some of the people who follow it). That's important because an atheist might give a different answer to "Do you believe in a god who is just out there" and "Do you believe in the God of the bible who interacts with people".

I didn't say that religion was about critically challenging things. He did say that religion is about not challenging things critically. My point was that religion is not about avoiding challenging things critically, that a person may be religious and still challenge things critically without being in conflict with their faith and spiritual belief.

Ah ok. Yeah I agree, though many scientists that I know that are religious know full well their believe is irrational and not based on anything beyond their own faith.

Actually, atheism is the belief that there is no god.

EDIT: I don't mean to be rude or condescending on this. I just wanted to clarify, so that semantics aren't a problem in the debate.

No worries, I agree semantics in this can be a huge problem. From Wikipedia: Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2] When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities,[3] alternatively called nontheism.[4]

So we're both right

That's just stereotyping. I'm sure there are many theists who would be willing to abandon their faith if it could be proven that their faith was misplaced, just as I'm sure there are many atheist who would be willing to change their minds in the face of proof. I would also think that there are many theists and atheists who would not be willing to change their opinions in the face of proof. Either way, it's not a big deal cause there isn't going to be any proof either way on the big questions of spirituality and religion vs. atheism.

Fair enough, though the question of would theists abandon their faith is moot because by definition faith is belief without evidence.

And while there's no evidence that an atheist would not change their position, there IS evidence that some theists would not. Just observe the willingness of religious groups to ignore evidence and continue believing things like young earth creation and such.

EDIT: Sorry, teaches me to not read the thread before responding, I see the whole thing that we're arguing semantics is covered