Atheism as Faith

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Back in the day, a guy named Plutarch wrote an essay comparing atheism with superstition. In his estimation, superstition is worse than atheism because it puts divinity in a negative light. Of course, the school of thought to which Plutarch belonged did not view jealousy as a divine attribute. The jealous gods were not part of the higher pantheon. This perception of divinity is shared with Buddhism which depicts the jealous gods at a level below the higher gods.

One of my favorite ways to challenge the ignorant is to ask them where they got the idea that there is only one deity. They often point to a biblical passage that fails to support their assertion. That passage does not assert the non-existence of other gods, but instead affirms their existence. The jealous deity seeks to enslave people into his cult at the expense of a higher order understanding.

Which individual has greater faith: the one who is suckered into a cult of jealousy or the one who refuses to pledge allegiance to any of the gods? From where Plutarch sits, the atheist seems the more judicious of the two and hence the one closer to a sublime life path. Those who fail to become seduced into the luxury of ignorance are more likely to follow the path less traveled. The atheist is freer to bond with the eternal than is the religious bigot who has become immersed in a quagmire of primitive precepts.

What does this have to do with public policy? It promotes secularism as a spiritual enabler rather than as a negation of faith. It contradicts the crippling dogma of those who seek to put superstitious supplications back into public schools.

Comments

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Do you not know what a synonym is?

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

Yes, it's when someone politely engages in reasonable discussion of a point at hand.

No wait, I must be thinking of something entirely different.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Okay, since we've reached the end of the discussion, I am going to sum it up for the rest of the crowd:

Trust != faith.

They are synonyms, but not 100% replaceable.

When someone uses the word faith, it implies that they do not have proof of what they are believing to be true. Let's put it into context in the form of inter-personal relationships:

Trust is something that is built upon. It comes from experience. Faith just comes from the potential of trust.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

"When someone uses the word faith, it implies that they do not have proof of what they are believing to be true."

Not always, and in particular not in this context.

faith   
[feyth] Show IPA
–noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith)

Yes, it's the first definition of a very common word in the dictionary. But for some reason it becomes a belaboured mystery as soon as the subject of religion comes up. A suspicious man might think there's something about the subject of religion that causes people to lose their minds.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

CONTEXT. THIS IS WHY WORDS HAVE MORE THAN ONE DEFINITION.

From your same link:

2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

99% of the time people use the word faith they use it in a situation where there is no evidence. In fact, they're generally referring to their faith in god.

I'm not making a fucking literal statement here. I'm not saying this ALWAYS happens, but more often than not it does.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

"CONTEXT. THIS IS WHY WORDS HAVE MORE THAN ONE DEFINITION."

Indeed. I believe I've said that repeatedly.

"99% of the time people use the word faith they use it in a situation where there is no evidence."

Or perhaps 99.99%! But crucially, that's not what the word means here, and a wise man once said that CONTEXT is important.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Exactly. Faith can mean trust, but trust does not ALWAYS mean faith. That's all I was saying.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

Well I believe you did in fact say "When someone uses the word faith, it implies that they do not have proof of what they are believing to be true", which is incorrect. For they might mean this, if they have in mind the second definition we have quoted. But if they had in mind rather the first, then they would mean something else.

And the relevant definition here is the first one, i.e. the one according to which one wouldn't mean "that they do not have proof of what they are believing to be true."

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Trust doesn't have the definition of believing in something that lacks evidence. That properly is solely attributed to faith.

They're not 100% interchangeable.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

"They're not 100% interchangeable."

I'm certainly open to the idea that you have some nuance you would like to introduce to distinguish them. However, that doesn't change the issue at hand, which is the false equivocation introduced here about lacking evidence.

"Trust doesn't have the definition of believing in something that lacks evidence."

Neither does faith, according to the first definition quoted here, i.e. the one which is relevant here.

"That properly is solely attributed to faith."

Not according to the first definition quoted here, i.e. the one which is relevant here.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

VVVV continue this in the other sub-thread.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

We don't let people take communion at RBCC unless they swear on the Bible that their faith is completely and without reservation not based on any evidence or reasoning whatsoever. If they can support any of their beliefs with evidence and reason, we get them the hell out of there before they infect the others.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

If you have evidence then you don't need to ask someone to have faith, because they know that they can trust you from the evidence.

They wouldn't say, "Do you have faith in my findings?"

They would say, "Do you trust my findings?"

Technically, you could ask the first question, but by and large people use the second.

This is just semantics bullshit.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

"If you have evidence then you don't need to ask someone to have faith..."

You certainly might be the first definition, i.e. the one which is relevant here.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

They're not 100% interchangeable man. You can't use them as the same word in EVERY circumstance.

Trust doesn't have the definition of believing in something that lacks evidence. That properly is solely attributed to faith.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

"They're not 100% interchangeable man. You can't use them as the same word in EVERY circumstance."

I'm certainly open to the idea that you have some nuance you would like to introduce to distinguish them. However, that doesn't change the issue at hand, which is the false equivocation introduced here about lacking evidence.

"Trust doesn't have the definition of believing in something that lacks evidence."

Neither does faith, according to the first definition quoted here, i.e. the one which is relevant here.

"That properly is solely attributed to faith."

Not according to the first definition quoted here, i.e. the one which is relevant here.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Neither does faith, according to the first definition quoted here, i.e. the one which is relevant here.

Not according to the first definition quoted here, i.e. the one which is relevant here.

Yes it does. It's there in the second definition

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

"Yes [faith] does have the definition of believing in something that lacks evidence [according to the first definition quoted here]."

You're mistaken.

I'll quote it again:

faith   
[feyth] Show IPA
–noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith:)

"It's there in the second definition."

But not in the first, right?

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I'm going to school you on some basic English here.

Words have context.

Which definition you use is based on the context.

Understand?

There is NO context for trust in which you believe in something without evidence. There IS for faith.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

"Words have context."

Indeed.

"Which definition you use is based on the context."

As I keep pointing out.

"There is NO context for trust [the first definition] in which you believe in something without evidence [the second definition]."

If that's true, I suppose we must conclude that the use of the two definitions must be kept quite separate.

I'm not sure why you think that's relevant.

Anyway, the definition to use in this context is the first one, i.e. the one about trust or confidence, and not the second one, i.e. not the one about having no evidence.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

What the fuck are you smoking? Why are you sticking words in my mouth? That is not the first definition of trust, it is the first definition of faith.

I'm not talking about the difference between the first definition and second definition of faith, I'm talking about the difference between WORDS. I would ask you to please refrain from further fabricating arguments that I never made.

The fact is, the first definition of faith is trust. The second definition is NOT trust. They're not the same word, and there are situations where trust is not applicable. Like, if you are describing a situation in which you believe something without any evidence in it, you have faith in it. You are using the second definition. There is no definition of trust that describes this, therefore they are not 100% interchangeable.

You do not understand what a synonym is.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

"That [..] is the first definition of faith."

Indeed.

The one we should be using here.

"The fact is, the first definition of faith is trust. The second definition is NOT trust."

That certainly does seem to be the case.

"[The two definitions are] not the same word... therefore they are not 100% interchangeable."

Ok.

Anyway, the relevant meaning in this case is the first one, i.e. the one about trust, not the one about having no evidence.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

This is a strawman. You're not replying to what I said, you're just changing what I said and replying to that.

You have failed the discussion.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

Ok.

Anyway, the relevant meaning in this case is the first one, i.e. the one about trust, not the one about having no evidence.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

All of the definitions are relevant when talking about the differences between words.

If you want to talk about the differences between definitions, that is a separate discussion that I am not having. You can start it elsewhere.

If the two words meant the same thing 100% of the time, they would have the same definitions.