Am 21.01.2014 21:18, schrieb Patrick Elliott:
> On 1/21/2014 7:53 AM, clipka wrote:
>> Am 21.01.2014 08:14, schrieb Stephen:
>>> On 21/01/2014 1:43 AM, clipka wrote:
>>>> I'd consider myself a meta-agnostic: I /think/ I'm unable to know,
>>>> but I
>>>> don't know that either.
>>>
>>> What would you call someone who has faith that there is no god?
>>
>> An atheist.
>>
> The problem hear is the term "faith". If you mean that word in the sense
> that, "I have faith that I have sufficient information to conclude that
> there isn't one.", that is one thing, since its based on evidence. If
> its, "I just have faith there isn't one..", then, that is no more
> coherent a position than the opposite one, and it suffers from the same
> problem - its too easy to switch sides, for purely irrational reasons,
> without having any more evidence, or reason, for making the switch, than
> having chosen the original position.

To me, "faith" is a great deal more than a mere hunch, and therefore 
quite a way from changing sides; in my book, it is a strong conviction 
that needs quite a lot of evidence to be eroded, and just one baby step 
short of knowledge.

I claim that knowledge can only apply to truth, and given that I don't 
know whether the [non-] existence of a God is truth, I must interpret 
any statement saying "I know that God does [not] exist" as "I have faith 
that God does [not] exist".


Note that theism and atheism aren't black-and-white; there's quite a 
wide spectrum between the two, and it's full of people.

Post a reply to this message