If you just say “I don’t believe in God”, then that (as is also in the sentence) would be just a faith.
However, atheism can also be used as an application of trivial scientific principles to the question of God: “We cannot prove the existence of unicorns, so let us assume that there are no unicorns.We cannot prove the existence of gods either, so…”
Atheism is the absence of faith in a deity.
A distinction could still be made between Gnostic and agnotic atheism.First describes the absolute knowledge of the non-existence of a deity, the latter the thought that there is probably no deity, but not 100% sure about it.
Believers in God are called theists, the opposite of which is A-theism
It is perfectly logical that atheism is not a belief but the opposite of claiming atheism is also a belief is simply and poignantly wrong.
I would definitely have answered no to that question a few years ago.But there is something that has made me sceptical for some time. Try an experiment.
Watch related debates between theists and atheists on the Internet and take a look at the comments.Then look at a debate between a Christian and a Muslim and then look at the comments.
The zeal to defend one’s own axioms is very similar, which I very strange or.find interesting. Why do atheists have a similar need as believers to defend their axioms and proclaim them as valid?
I do not believe that your question can be answered with certainty.I think that if atheists are also something of a believer, then at least another kind of believer. At least in atheists, something does not seem to be completely different, as in a believer. “The way I see the world, it’s right and I question someone with a certain zeal, motivation or even arrogance to argue for my worldview.”
I have no answer as to why atheists conduct theological debates when their argument is that atheism is not faith.For if atheism is not a faith, there is nothing for an atheist to debate on this question. If atheism is falsifiable, then this is not necessary or logical.
That depends. Atheism is often equated with not believing in the existence of a God.The absence of a faith is not faith at first. If, however, an atheist is convinced that there is no God, since he cannot find any evidence of the existence of God, then this can also be called a faith.
That is why there is agnosticism.He declares the question of the existence of God irrelevant. I think the questions of religion are largely reasonable, but they should be solved with self-reflection and reason, not with faith in ancient revelations.
no.There are a few classic similar questions about this:
Is IT a TV channel?
Is NOT-BRIEFMARKEN-COLLECTION a hobby?
Is ABSTINENZ a sex position?
This is probably a question of definition.
As I understand it, an atheist is someone who believes that there is no God.In this respect, atheism is also a faith, for neither the atheist nor the theist can refute or prove the existence of God.
The absence of faith is more likely to be found in the agnostic.He accepts that nothing scientifically sound about the existence of God can be said. And then that’s just the way it is, and it’s not that bad. You just can’t know everything.
Atheism was supposed to be the opposite of faith, but in reality it seems to be different.People always believe in something, be it something like a god or phsyical laws, however we do not know, we suspect or believe.
Since we can say nothing with 100% certainty, almost everything is just faith.
This depends on which form of atheism you follow.Basically, atheism is only called “There are no gods”.
One can now distinguish between agnostic atheism (also often called agnosticism, but M.M.n. misleading) and Gnostic atheism.
Translated means agnostic atheism “I believe there are no gods”, and Gnostic atheism “I know there are no gods”.
Who of them is right now, let’s face it.
There is a paperback.It is titled: God and Science. It has the subtitle: much knowledge leads us to God, little knowledge distances us from God. It was written by a very good philosopher and two Russian nuclear physicists. The book is very exciting. For me, the core of the statements was:
The atomic phiskers: Something happened at the big bang at the time 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang, because the first atoms formed.If this process had only happened at 10-42 seconds after the Big Bang, the universe would not exist in this form.
Philosopher and nuclear physicist: And then you built up the question of the explosive master together.Who was this master of the Big Bang, who was able to create a universe from the course of such a huge multifaceted explosion in the area of such small units of time. Could this explosive master be “God”.
They also came up with smaller subatomic particles.And at some point the nuclear physicists came to the view that there is only energy, that something like a ghost hovers over matter.
And long after that came the first atheists.