Gah.

Anyway, indeed, you are correct. Talking past each other with differing definitions is less than enlightening. I associate religion necessarily with the supernatural because of the western bias (there are examples of things that are labeled “religions” that for this reason I would probably instead call “philosophies”, like Taoism). I also associate atheism with scientific thought, although you are correct…there are many scientists who are religious (although I’m willing to bet the majority are incredibly liberally religious, or “socially” religious, and not a believer in the full sense). There are also many atheists who are, as you note, not particularly thoughtful in their reasoning (“how can there be a god with this much pain in the world?”)

That having been said, I’m pretty confident that the numbers are in my favor.

From comment 10:
To say that “English is an ambiguous language” is just a cop-out for people who don’t use language as precisely as they should. English is perfectly suitable for discussions of this sort, provided that you know how to use it.

From comment 18:
Your assertion above about God and Faith is just more playing with words. [...] But you are committing yet another fallacy…the fallacy of the four terms (google it if you are curious). [...]

The quaternio terminorum directly relates to my point in comment 9. By using words such as “faith” and “religion”, one cannot exactly prove, from one individual to another, the concept we are discussing (Atheism is a religion, for anyone keeping score) without a consensus definition. This is because when I see the word “faith”, I attach a definition to it which may or may not be different from another person’s definition. In a debate such as this, differing definitions are near-fatal to the discussion.

As far as Scientific Atheism goes, I don’t see science as nearly linked to atheism as you do. I guess this is because (a) I am fairly religious (although only in private), and (b) I have known some very religious scientists. I’ve met a few atheists that don’t believe in God because “the world is a horrible place”, but I mostly blame their views on teenage angst they haven’t purged or the death of their over-the-top liberal ideas.

The other thing to note is that I’m using Atheism to mean, effectively, areligious. The two do draw themselves out slightly differently.

My stance that Atheism is not a religion is grounded in the argumentation above. Atheists, largely, are such based on a belief system grounded in science. We’ve already covered the science > religion.

Your assertion above about God and Faith is just more playing with words. If by “faith” you mean simply “belief in God” then perhaps your syllogism would be logically valid. But you are committing yet another fallacy…the fallacy of the four terms (google it if you are curious). What’s happening is that in the two statements “someone who believes in God must have faith” and “someone who does not believe in God must have no faith” is using “faith” in two different ways (at least, it is if you are insisting on your conclusion, that “people who believe in God, yet have no faith.” Try writing it out and spelling out or subsituting the definitions for “faith” in all the cases. You’ll see what I mean by four terms.

What I was getting at, however, was to disprove a ‘mathematical’ quality of faith. A true scientific proof would have us believe that if someone who believes in God must have faith, then someone who does not believe in God must have no faith. It’s simple negation, and 100% totally false. I’ve met plenty of people who believe in God, yet have no faith.

This, I’m still stuck on the basic, original core of this argument: Atheism is not a religion. This is the reason I’ve been asking your definition of faith, as it is the basis for religion and the argument itself. I believe this is where the miscommunication is happening, as when we use an abstract word such as ‘faith’ then we are communicating an incomplete thought, and are assuming the reciever shares our definition.

You say “you still haven’t proven that faith in the disbelief in God is different from faith in the belief of God.”

I gave a fully rationed explanation for this stance, the very end of which is: “Religion is NOT disprovable…I cannot prove there is a god, nor can I prove there is no god. This means that religion is, by its nature, unscientific. Since science is the most true method we have of understanding the world, religion can therefor be dismissed as a system of explanation.”

The entire argument can be summarized like this: Science is the best way we have of understanding the world. Religion < Science. Thus, religion is a sub-par way of interpreting the world. Thus, it is not rational.

More clear?

I am trying to understand you and your beliefs. More importantly, from what I understand, you define faith as requiring a diety to be faith itself. This would definitely constitute an inconsistency with my definition: “a belief without rational proof”.

I had a response to your criticism in my prior post that got eaten. I’ll have to see if I can reconstruct the basics:

What I meant to say about the wikipedia above was to check the wiki’s entry on “falsifiability.” I tried to link to it, and the commentign function evidently can’t parse html.

Carl Sagan was fond of saying “Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.” That is to say, the burden of proof lies on those making the positive claim for something. This is not to say that everything is true until disproven, the conclusion that you so eagerly jumped to above. It is just a logical fallacy to make that leap…I mis-spoke when I used the word “valid” in my prior comment. I should have said “considered.” Even so, valid does not equal true. You can have many valid arguments that aren’t true (just basic Aristotelean logic there, Bill).

To put the entire stance in a somewhat more philosophically phrased way:

“Scientific process has, through practice and result, shown to be an effective way of learning about, describing, and predicting the world. The scientific process has been shown to be clearly better at this than any other attempt by humans to explain the ontological world. No system of supernatural beliefs of any sort (religion included) have approached science and scientific method in this way. Thus, science is the best method we have of explaining the world. As Popper showed us, the very definition of science is rooted in the fact that a scientific statement, theorum, or belief is scientific precisely because it can be disproven…there is some set of facts that would result in the community deciding that they were wrong (see: Copernicus and Einstein). Religion is NOT disprovable…I cannot prove there is a god, nor can I prove there is no god. This means that religion is, by its nature, unscientific. Since science is the most true method we have of understanding the world, religion can therefor be dismissed as a system of explanation.”

QED.

According your provided definiton of scientific theory (“…science never proves, it only disproves…”), a Theory of Creationism is true until it is disproved by proof? Am I understanding this correctly?

How about this: let’s take a Theory of God. Disprove to me that a supreme entity exists. Until you do so, he must therefore exist, correct?

I’m interested in how you have come about know that a supreme being does not exist. More accurately, I’m interested on how it is not based on faith, but is instead based on proof.