There are an infinite number of things that could exist, but which I choose not to recognize or believe in. (ie, teapot orbiting Earth) Atheism is the "default faith" so to speak, as we are all atheists at birth, but I do not think that makes it a faith in the conventional sense that Harry and I were discussing. Satchmo, you're clearly an extremely smart dude (or you're just copy/pasting from a philosophical forum :p:), and I think you're trying to argue a point that is simply too deep for the purposes of this thread. I'm not the right person to provide a relevant and detailed counter-argument.

No, it doesn't immunize us, and Yes, it certainly seems a catalyst.

I'm sure it does for intellectuals like yourself, but for a lot of people with a lot of power (ie George W Bush) and for everyday people such as most reading this forum right now, faith is a vehicle for so much bigotry, prejudice, and harm that, in my opinion, it deserves my hate.

@Bold: You are misinterpreting what I am saying. I am not at all saying that one should not use reason and that we can't know everything. I believe that we can know the reality as it is.

What I was saying is that the question "What is the cause of cause?" cannot be answered because of what you are asking. Forget about what the answer is. Answering the question with any answer at all produces a circular argument. In answering the question you are assuming that there is a cause to causation.

I see this problem as the same problem that lies with proving that A=A. You can't prove it, but it is impossible to disprove it because in order to disprove it, you must accept it. In order to disprove anything there must be a reason why; in this case one would have to point out a logical flaw. By acknowledging that causal law does not exist because of a logical flaw, one acknowledges causal law.

"Why?" isn't a question in itself. "Why?" can be reworded as "What is the cause of?" There needs to be something that is caused for it to be a question.

To be honest, I really don't understand why this was included in your post.

There is no faith involved in accepting the validity of one's mind. There is belief put in one's mind, but it is justified in that logical belief has integrity. Outside of logic, there is no integrity, and there are contradictions. With contradictions comes the indefinite. Can you really believe in something that is undefined? What is undefined is not even a something. Ultimately, contradiction leaves to non-belief in the truest sense.

Unless you are crazy, you hold logic to have some value at some level. It might even only be on the most basic level, but it is enough for there to be some kind of belief.

Atheism in itself is pretty foolish. I don't think atheism can even be considered a respectful title, for there are a myriad of positions among atheists that conflict. The popular ones of today don't know what they are talking about.

Faith is the cause of all irrational actions. I don't think one can blame theism on for religion's blunders. I care less about religion and more about accepting what exists as a primary. Unfortunately, this is not true for the majority of atheists and it is especially detrimental since many of them believe that they are protecting thought.

On some level and in certain circumstances there is a resignation to accept and trust that which lies beyond our own current understanding. You can use the mundane analogy of stepping on an aircraft to take a flight. None of us would consider it justified to inspect the entire aircraft ourselves to see that it is structurally and mechanically sound before agreeing to take the flight. In this we are engaging in an act of passive or, in the case of some individuals, active faith. It need not be believing in things which do not apparently exist in time and space, but rather, if you have adopted any view of reality that is beyond 100% certainty, and you utilize that view of reality in some way to navigate through life, you are exercising faith.

I am not acting as a proponent or opponent of atheism or humanism. I think people should adopt whatever worldview that allows them to navigate reality with the highest degree of happiness for themselves, while causing the least amount of harm to others. For some that is Christianity; for others it is not (including many self-professed Christians). For some that is Islam; for others it is not (including many self-professed muslims). For some that is atheism; for others it is not (including many self-professed atheists), etc. etc. ad nausea.

how is that possible? are you somehow infallible? maybe a little on the omnipotent side instead?

Best post on the thread so far. Kudos Satch! :yeah:

What I'd like to know is whether someone who has lived all his life without anyone ever mentioning the concept of god or a higher power feel the need for something like that from within.

Apparently it has happened otherwise the concept of religion as it originated with our ancestors would not be.

This reminds me a lot Viktor Frankl

put the god delusion down. it is poison to your intellect and your spirit.

There is a pretty big difference between the idea of trusting the aircraft and acknowledging the existence of a god. There is evidence pointing towards the idea that the aircraft is safe. There is no evidence of god.

Why would religion make people happy? What does a religion have that understanding does not which enables one to be happier?

If I am wrong, that has little to do with the potential of the human mind to be right. I affirm the potential for it to be right, not the fact that it will always be right.

The mind validates itself. You cannot know whether something is or isn't without knowing itself. You mind has to have the capacity to know in order to know whether you do know or you don't know. By saying that you don't know something, you still affirm the validity of the human mind's potential to know.