@Discussion of Point 9,
I'm not saying you explicitly stated that here, I'm just laying out my argument. With that said, from what you're now clarifying, ie that you have not "logically concluded [that] god does not exist", it follows logically and necessarily that your disbelief is an argument of faith from point 3.
Again my larger position is that atheism is a position of faith not skepticism. And that it is agnosticism that is actually the position of a skeptic. If you believe it is simply a difference in terminology then there is no real issue here...and from what you've said I think you probably are agnostic and not atheist.
@Discussion of Point 10,
I'm not sure how to approach this other than to say that atheism is just that. Consider the word for a moment... atheism is literally anti-theism..the opposite of being a theist (I doubt anyone would deny that theists use faith as the basis for their belief). Atheism is, at its core, rejecting the idea that there could be a god or gods. Be careful not to confuse the concept of opposites and complements, atheism and theism are complements not opposites...they are counterparts of each other, not each others inverse.
Dictionary.com has an interesting blurb on the subject:
Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.
It gives a general definition of all 4 terms which it gives as 'disinclined to religous belief'. It describes atheism specifically as a 'denial of existance of a divine being'. Agnostics specifically as being 'committed not to commit' and skeptics specfically as 'critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds'. By this it is perhaps a hybrid of agnosticism and skepticism that I would claim myself to be...I don't reject all accepted doctrines and creeds and I'm not strictly opposed to reaching a conclusion...but I don't think a logical conclusion can currently be reached (I actually read a tremendous amount on theoretical physics to keep up on the prospects of finding additional information related to this issue).
The issue with the tooth fairy is where I think we perhaps have one of the biggest miscommunications. I'm not saying this rigorous standard should be applied to every single belief to show that it is in some small way based in faith. What I'm saying is that in a case where an atheist (could be you or anyone, whoever) is debating the origin of the universe they do not have a claim to the "default" skeptic position because the atheist position is a denial of divine existance despite having no proof to support it. And pursuant to the points above a belief without a proof is a belief of faith which would be on equal footing to theism. Despite what "seems" right or wrong this is logic at work, things are or are not in the world of logic and it is that cold binary decision making that facilitates the conclusion of debates of this nature. That is why I laid out a rigorous standard above (and it isn't really my own but rather my cobbled together version on the backs of numerous great philosophers).
I could simply say that it is in debate scenarios where such scrutiny is valid, but even then it doesn't take much logical scrutiny to realize that atheism is a faith based belief the same as theism. So in that sense yes the standard is most appropriate for debate where accuracy and detail are priorities. Having said that it doesn't mean that atheism is only based in faith simply due to some intense scrutiny and a technicality...the fact that it is a firm position on the subject without proof is no technicality or really a small detail.
PS - Technically theism implies a belief in revelation but theism and diesm can essentially be used interchangeably in what I've said thus far.
 |
| To Each Man, Responsibility |
