Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Troike wrote:
In regards to atheism being compared to faith: if not believing in a god is a faith, then being bald is a hair colour.

The state of being bald doesn't do anything to preclude a hair color though. There are usually a few stray hairs around (either the side or back of the head, or the upper edge of sideburns) that make the hair color obvious, and the lack of hair growth does not change the genetic hair color of that person.

So even bald people have a hair color. A bald ginger still doesn't have a soul.

 DouglasJB wrote:

The problem for you "ttg" is that you have not experienced deity

Some of us have. But there is an explanation for this, and it is not divine, but neurological. Experience is a very weak form of evidence scientifically.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Troike wrote:
In regards to atheism being compared to faith: if not believing in a god is a faith, then being bald is a hair colour.

I felt I had to reply to Troike.


Troike, your syllogism would be accurate if you changed it to a hair "situation".
The colour of our hair is part of our hair situation; so is being without any.
Change the one word and in fact, you then have an accurate comparison.

I will use the amended version in the future.
Thank you Troike.

But that's the same as moving the goalposts. Troike specifically said hair colour, not hair situation, and not one ever uses the expression "hair situation when talking about a redhead, a brunette or a blonde. You can't change the words from someone's mouth to suit your purpose without their consent. Especially if the point was valid and remains so.

Feel free to come back to this thread, you can always put users on "ignore" if you don't like their tone. I disliked yours profoundly but I chose to engage instead. Edited for quote markers


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 Troike wrote:
In regards to atheism being compared to faith: if not believing in a god is a faith, then being bald is a hair colour.

The state of being bald doesn't do anything to preclude a hair color though. There are usually a few stray hairs around (either the side or back of the head, or the upper edge of sideburns) that make the hair color obvious, and the lack of hair growth does not change the genetic hair color of that person.

So even bald people have a hair color. A bald ginger still doesn't have a soul.

What about people who have halopecia (allopecia? The condition where you have no hair!)

 DouglasJB wrote:

Modern man and his fallacious stance that unless something can be quantified in front of them, it cannot exist.

That idea is not modern at all. Aristotle already admitted that the prime engine was necessarily one and indivisible.

Science is a wonderful thing, but it cannot overrule faith simply to suit the pride of man.

ಠ_ಠ

"Knowledge is a wonderful thing, but it cannot overrule belief simply to suit an emotion".

The job of knowlege is to find reasons to overrule belief. Emotion isn't a very good reason, mind you, but it's one nonetheless. Thing is, in this relation, when belief overrules knowledge, it doesn't grant a truth value to the proposition.

The Null Hypothesis is also a fallacious idea.

Please expand on this. In genuinly interested.

Anything one deludes oneself to excuse the immoral behavior you desire to perform is in no way proof of the absence of Good.

You know that thing that horrible doctor did to those two floozies in Human Centipide? I feel like you've just done the same thing to that poor sentence.

This human idea that or the base assumption of the Null Hypothesis that there is nothing at the base of everything is a very lost and extremely self-destructive idea.

Okay, so basically, the Null Hypothesis is the death of foundationalism, and that's why you say it's fallacious? Is that your claim here?




Edit : Aaaaawww chucks! I missed the part where he said he was done with the thread.

 d-usa wrote:

 Troike wrote:
In regards to atheism being compared to faith: if not believing in a god is a faith, then being bald is a hair colour.

The state of being bald doesn't do anything to preclude a hair color though. There are usually a few stray hairs around (either the side or back of the head, or the upper edge of sideburns) that make the hair color obvious, and the lack of hair growth does not change the genetic hair color of that person.

So even bald people have a hair color. A bald ginger still doesn't have a soul.

The point isn't that bald people can have a hair colour, the point is that they lack one in being bald, and you wouldn't describe baldness as haircolour, but rather a lack of hair.

Okay, here's a more straightforward one: saying that atheism is a relgion/faith is like saying that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

 Troike wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Troike wrote:
In regards to atheism being compared to faith: if not believing in a god is a faith, then being bald is a hair colour.

The state of being bald doesn't do anything to preclude a hair color though. There are usually a few stray hairs around (either the side or back of the head, or the upper edge of sideburns) that make the hair color obvious, and the lack of hair growth does not change the genetic hair color of that person.

So even bald people have a hair color. A bald ginger still doesn't have a soul.

The point isn't that bald people can have a hair colour, the point is that they lack one in being bald, and you wouldn't describe baldness as haircolour, but rather a lack of hair.

You still have a hair color though, unless you want to sound stupid for saying stuff like "my hair color is mullet".

Okay, here's a more straightforward one: saying that atheism is a relgion/faith is like saying that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Definition of HOBBY:

: a pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation

In my free time I like to relax by not collecting stamps.

Stil works.

Also:

My faith is not believing in Scientology.

Also works.

 d-usa wrote:
You still have a hair color though, unless you want to sound stupid for saying stuff like "my hair color is mullet".

But no hair is present, and that is the point. Baldness (atheism) is a lack of hair colour (a relgion). One would not describe bald as a hair colour. How hair works IRL isn't really relevant, it's the principle that's the important part.

 d-usa wrote:
Definition of HOBBY:

: a pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation

In my free time I like to relax by not collecting stamps.

Stil works.

And do you do this specifically? You especially engage in sitting down and deciding to actively not collect stamps? No, you just don't happen to collect stamps. Collecting stamps is something active, there's a specific activity there. Not collecting stamps is the absense of doing something, not being involved in the collecting of stamps.

So, I'm interested to know, are you just debating these metaphors for fun, or are you really of the opinion that atheism is a faith of sorts?

But hair color is still present, and that's the problem with your argument. Just because you cannot see the hair doesn't mean that the person doesn't have a hair color.

Baldness is a hairstyle, not a color.

Just because people don't think bald people have a hair color doesn't mean that they don't.

But it's the baldness that's important. The fact that bald person has a hair colour isn't relevant, it's that the bald itself is a lack of hair colour.

Here, I'll rephrase the metaphor so it's more to the point:

"If not believing in a god is a faith, then baldness is a hair colour."

Is "mullet" or "Afro" or "curly" a hair color?

Your argument fails on a single simple fact, bald people have a hair color. That statement is 100% true. You saying over and over again that baldness is not a hair color doesn't change that.

Don't get mad at me because you made a stupid analogy.

d-usa, that's the most asinine argument I've ever heard and its hurting my head. You're missing the entire point of what Troike said and I hope its on purpose because if its not...wow.

Uh, what? Where did you get the impression I was mad...? I was being pretty polite, I thought. And there's no need to go calling people's points stupid.

Anyway, the bald person having a hair colour is irrelevant. The bald is what this metaphor is concerned with, not the person who has the bald. The bald (atheism) is a lack of hair colour (a religion). That's the extent of it. I'm not sure how I can clarify it any more, really.

Hair style is also irrelevant, the metaphor talks about hair colour and not style. Those are seperate things.

 MWHistorian wrote:
d-usa, that's the most asinine argument I've ever heard and its hurting my head. You're missing the entire point of what Troike said and I hope its on purpose because if its not...wow.

The problem is that he is taking a statement that is 100% true, and tries to use it as an analogy to prove that a different statement is not true.

He says "If what people are saying about atheism is true, then what I am saying about baldness is true". The problems with that statement is that what he is saying about baldness is actually true. He might as well say "if Atheism is a faith, then cats are felines" or "if Atheism is a faith, then foxes are canines" or "if Atheism is a faith, then Dachshunds are dogs".

You can't use an accurate factual statement and then make the argument that "if the lie is true, then the truth is true".



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Troike wrote:

Anyway, the bald person having a hair colour is irrelevant. The bald is what this metaphor is concerned with, not the person who has the bald. The bald (atheism) is a lack of hair colour (a religion). That's the extent of it. I'm not sure how I can clarify it any more, really.

Except bald is in no shape/way/form a lack of hair color. That is where your comparison falls apart.

The closest you could get with your argument is

Baldness (atheism) is the lack of expression (practice) of hair color (a faith).

The hair color is still there, it still exists. It is genetically always a part of that person, a trait that will be observable again if hair grows back and a trait that can be genetically passed on to another person. So if you use your argument all you accomplish is arguing that atheism is still a faith or religion, but there is no outward expression of it in the forms of rituals or observances. Just like bald people still have a hair color, but there is no outward expression of it in the form of hair.

But I know you don't believe that atheism is a faith, so that is why I am saying that it is a stupid analogy because it defeats your own argument.

Again: I'm not arguing that Atheism is a faith, just that the argument you are using is fundamentally flawed.

 d-usa wrote:
Except bald is in no shape/way/form a lack of hair color.

But if a blad person grew their hair (got into relgion) they would gain a hair colour, yes?

 d-usa wrote:
The hair color is still there, it still exists. It is genetically always a part of that person, a trait that will be observable again if hair grows back and a trait that can be genetically passed on to another person. So if you use your argument all you accomplish is arguing that atheism is still a faith or religion, but there is no outward expression of it in the forms of rituals or observances. Just like bald people still have a hair color, but there is no outward expression of it in the form of hair.

This is the thing, I'm not using the genetic factor here. The genetics of the bald person are irrlevant, it's baldness as opposed to having a hair colour. Their internal factors aren't a part of it, the head that we can see is what's representing them having or lacking a religion in this metaphor.

But that doesn't change the metaphor. Bald people still have a hair color, even if you can't see it. You are still making a "if false = true, then true = true" comparison. Baldness doesn't make hair color to away, so the comparison would mean that atheism doesn't make faith go away. Both just are a state of not expressing something.

I'm not trying to argue against your statement that atheism is not a faith. I'm just trying to show you that you are using a flawed argument to support it.

Atheism is a religion/faith just like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

 TheWildHost wrote:
Atheism is a religion/faith just like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

It's a better starting point than the baldness argument.

 d-usa wrote:
But that doesn't change the metaphor. Bald people still have a hair color, even if you can't see it.

The seeing it is what the metaphor concerns itself with, though. As I've said, a lack of hair on one's head (baldbess) = atheism, whilst hair (and thus a hair colour) equals a religion. Therefore, it is just the head we see that is relevant to point.

But hey, if we want to go for extra clarity:

"If not believing in a god is a faith, then having no hair upon your head is a visible expression of hair colour".

You should probably just find something to make your argument with besides baldness, because it is just a very awkward and convoluted way to try to get your point across.

The stamp analogy is a much better start.

I would also stick with using religion instead of faith, just because it can avoid side arguments of "having faith vs having a faith".

You guys are seriously arguing over THIS?

Also, 50 simple proofs, it's quite an interesting read

http://godisimaginary.com/

 TheWildHost wrote:
You guys are seriously arguing over THIS?

Also, 50 simple proofs, it's quite an interesting read

http://godisimaginary.com/

Me and Troike are not arguing abot God being real though.

We are not even arguing about Atheism being a religion.

We are arguing about the merit of a particular argument.

I'm aware, that's why I'm so dumbfounded. I linked the website because it's something I believe everyone should see, not to interject it into your argument.

If we are really going to nitpick about analogies, then I guess we can take it to the extreme and say there's no such thing as analogy because the frame of reference is too different for it to bear any merit on the discussion at hand. It's an effective way of stalling things. Asserting that lacking faith is a faith is ridiculous. I could go to a homeless bloke and offer him nothing but a descriptn of a sandwich. Would he then have a sandwich? oF COURSE HE DOES, in his mind. Mind sandwich. Does an abstract concept of having something, and being able to imagine oneself enjoying that really lend someone possession of that object? I think it would be incredibly ridiculous to suggest that by inducing in someone an imagination of something counts as them having had it in the first place. Faith is the same thing.
Your need to project it onto others in order to categorize them within a structure in which they don't fit--but happens to suit your world view--sound like an issue that Greek mathematicians got in a pissing match over, going so far as to kill outspoken mathematicians that argued more than natural numbers. Faith characterizes a certain set of behaviors, atheism another, and both together form a larger description of mechanisms through which people find meaning in their lives. In that same token, some people measure meaning according to the number of people they annoy through Facebook. Do you now develop a new category of faith principled on facebookian friendism?

In fact the whole issue of forcing others into your worldview sounds like that whole thing about women's rights, minority rights, racism, LGBT issues....

Do you think there is a difference between "having faith in something" and "having a faith"?

I wonder if part of the problem might be that for some applications the word "faith" itself has become a substitute for religion had a history towards a stronger religious meaning, such as "being part of the faith". And that in modern times "faith" is more often used as a substitute for "trust" and in a non-religious setting.

I know that for myself, I don't really see the problem with saying "Atheists have faith that God doesn't exist". To me that doesn't really conflict with anything, as it simply states that Atheists have searched for evicence of God and didn't find any and that they trust that absence of evidence enough to determine that there could not be a God and having trust that there will never be any evidence to prove that he exists in the future.

However, I wouldn't say that Atheism is a Faith as it doesn't really fit the description of a religion or world-view or belief system.

Edit: modified what I am trying to say.

How dare that Douglas man try and tell me that I brought nothing and was just trying to be hurtful.

I admit that I was harsh, however this only because I was angry at the way he dismisses everyone and talks nonsense about things that he has no evidence of, pretending that he knows the answer to life, and that comes with it greatest questions upon nothing but his own thoughts. He did not once try to explain the science of why there is a god, acting as though science is a non sequitur. I am angered by this level of narcissism, that someone thinks that they as an individual has the power to understand the universe based on nought but a few feelings that can be easily explained by science.

Why would he be so special and have god reveal himself to him? And then try to tell me that I just must not have experienced god is that it is due to some flaw in my own personality, based only on the short paragraphs that I have posted?

I would like to say that I don't have a problem to with religious people, but I'm afraid I can't as along with most religions comes the assumption that you have all the answers. And for anyone to claim they know the cause of everything either shows that they are a being ignorant of what they are following or an egotist.

I hate to have to be so strong with words, however it is the only way people will listen. It's tough love. I want this douglas to be able to help solve the mysteries of the universe and to do so you need the right tools. An irrational deity is not going to help us solve the logical questions that need to be answered in order to truly understand the universe around us.

 d-usa wrote:
I don't really see the problem with saying "Atheists have faith that God doesn't exist".

There is a massive problem with that, it totally misrepresents the Atheist position (which is simply rejecting a god claim).

 Riquende wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I don't really see the problem with saying "Atheists have faith that God doesn't exist".

There is a massive problem with that, it totally misrepresents the Atheist position (which is simply rejecting a god claim).

And why to they reject a god claim?

And why to they reject a god claim?

Atheists shouldn't rely on faith, they should base everything they say on rationality and probability, in one form or another.

 thetallestgiraffe wrote:

And why to they reject a god claim?

Atheists shouldn't rely on faith, they should base everything they say on rationality and probability, in one from or another.

Do Atheists think that a god could exist and that we just haven't seen any proof yet, or do they outright reject the possibility of a god and of ever finding any proof?

That said, I don't think that anyone actually does act on faith alone. Everyone bases what they think upon a (seemingly) rational train of thought.

Faith means that you are doing something with no proof or reason to do so, but even when you believe in a god, friend or family member you are still doing it with some sort of reasoning behind it, consciously or not


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Atheist reject the idea because the chances are so ridiculously small that it would not be practical to act upon the premise. No atheist can ever say an absolute in an infinite universe.

 d-usa wrote:
Do Atheists think that a god could exist and that we just haven't seen any proof yet, or do they outright reject the possibility of a god and of ever finding any proof?

That's actually two different types of atheism you've described. Weak atheism (we haven't seen any compelling proof yet, so I shall live my life as if there is not god) and strong atheism (god cannot exist, the concept is irrational).

So, it depends on the atheist.