First, it’s possible to be both agnostic and atheist. As far as I know, all the panelists on this board are agnostic atheists, including myself (though of course my saying so doesn’t mean they would describe themselves that way). See this question.

So:

1. Being atheist means you don’t believe in god(s). A (not) + theist (believer in god) = not a believer in god.
2. I try only to believe in things for which there is good evidence.
3. There’s no good evidence for god’s existence,
4. so I don’t believe, (by 2)
5. so I’m an atheist. (by 1)

No faith involved. The only arguable step in the syllogism is the first, where I define atheism as not believing rather than as positively believing in God’s nonexistence. If that’s the only gripe you have, then fine, I’m an agnostic according to you, though I don’t think the above definition is particularly idiosyncratic.

Finally, the god hypothesis, if it is coherent, is a very bad one on the grounds that it involves a lot of extraordinary assumptions (e.g. a mind can exist without a body, existence is possible outside the physical universe, that god can break special relativity by knowing everything everywhere simultaneously, etc.), hence believing the god hypothesis false is also rational and also requires no faith.

Posted: November 4th 2009

See all questions answered by George Locke

I have confidence, not faith. I have confidence in my husband because he has proven himself time again and again. I have confidence in science for the same reason.

However, I have no confidence in religion as it does not advance the quality of my life in any way for the aspects of religion that can be positive, like the social networking, can be had in a secular milieu.

Posted: November 4th 2009

See all questions answered by logicel

First of all, it’s tremendously presumptious to tell other people what they believe. Rude even.

You are missing the distinction between lack of belief and disbelief. I don’t believe in the existence of bigfoot, as I don’t think the evidence warrants belief. It’s up to those who do believe to produce evidence, which is true for all positive claims.

Bigfoot is actually a simple case, because there is a good definition of what bigfoot is and how he/she interacts with the world. God is harder because theists can’t come up with a definition that works (ie you can’t tell me what god is in the same way you could tell me what bigfoot is).

Agnosticism – at least as originally coined – is a statement about knowledge, not a statement about belief. An agnostic believes that it is not possible to know for sure where god exists or not. You can have both theistic and atheistic agnostics.

Posted: November 4th 2009

See all questions answered by Eric_PK

faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof (from Merriam Webster dictionary)

We have to be careful about the word proof, it’s usually reserved for mathematics and in that context a proof has the status of being true with no room whatsoever left for doubt. Proof cannot be used in the same way when it comes to thinking about how evidence in the world relates to a truth claim. Instead we then take proof to mean (also from Merriam Webster):

The cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

So do I have have firm belief in anything which is inadequately supported by evidence and reason? Not that I know of.

The closest thing I can think of is that I helplessly and habitually assume that the fundamental 'laws’ with which we try to describe how the universe behaves, will still be relevant tomorrow. For instance, I assume that if I drop a pen it will fall to the floor. But if I’m thinking carefully, I’m aware that this assumption is not grounded in evidence. To use David Hume’s expression, it seems that the assumption that the universe will remain fundamentally the same from moment to moment is a 'habit of thought’ (one which is necessary for survival). So although there’s a sense in which I could be said to 'believe’ in the uniformity of nature, I think it would be misleading to call this a 'firm belief’.

Posted: November 4th 2009

See all questions answered by bitbutter

To assume that Atheists must have faith to not be agnostics shows a deep misunderstanding in what Atheism is. Atheism is rarely a belief in no gods, although some Atheists carry it that far. The majority of Atheists who have written about this subject have no belief in gods. They aren’t those who say, with no evidence, there is no god. They are those who say, pointing to the evidence for alternatives, there probably is no god, and the probability is shaded enough to the “no god” side of the spectrum for me to safely say he’s not there.

As for faith, I do have faith. Not all Atheists do, and many who do won’t admit it, but I have faith in many things. There are many things I believe but can’t prove.

It’s likely that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe, although there is no evidence that they do, much less that they’ve visited. However, I have faith that they’re definitely out there somewhere.

I am one of those Atheists who is not content with saying, “I simply don’t believe in gods,” and it’s only recently that I’ve “come out” with this, but I believe there isn’t a god. I don’t have clenching proof of there not being gods, but I believe there aren’t any.

I have faith that my boyfriend isn’t sleeping around on me or badmouthing me behind my back. I have no proof that he’s Mr. Perfect, but I have enough faith in him to say I know he wouldn’t do that to me.

Faith isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I wouldn’t be as happy as I am if I demanded evidence for everything. When I’m told that I’m loved, I accept that on faith. However, as long as I recognize that I can argue for a lack of belief in gods but not a faith-based belief in a lack of gods, it won’t interfere with what I do. To debate from a position of faith is a waste of everyone’s time. However, to live with a moderate amount of faith in good things, I don’t think is a bad thing.

Posted: November 4th 2009

See all questions answered by Reed Braden

Atheists really don’t have faith. You can only have faith in something you believe in.

Faith is usually considered to be something you have to work at: you have to work at belief in God even though you may have doubts.

If you lose your faith and become an atheist then that effort ceases.

Posted: November 4th 2009

See all questions answered by Steve Zara