It's 'per se' not 'per say'. Just letting you know because I used to make that mistake and it embarrassed me when I figured it out and I know you hear a lot of complicated words and want to use them and then not exactly spell them right so you might appreciate some help on that front.
That wasn't meant to be condescending or anything negative really just want to help
"Do you consider it 'faith' [not to believe] in tiny invisible purple unicorns?" It's kinda hard to word what I am trying to convey, but I will look through some of my logic textbooks, and see if they have a better definition.
Sorry, I was using my mobile phone. I ment to say you can't prove something using the absence of something. Hence the argument, of the unicorns does not satisfy, for it tries to prove something, with the absence of something. (That is something not real)
PS: My phone changed "By" to "My" :p
Okay the sentence "you have to make a conjection my the presence of something" makes no sense. Conjection isn't even a word, so I'm really, really not sure what you're trying to say here, lol. Makes it impossible to reply to your argument because it obscures the point you're making - why is the analogy faulty? It follows the same logic. If atheism is a 'faith', since you can't prove that God doesn't exist, then not believing in tiny invisible purple unicorns are a 'faith' since you can't prove that they don't exist. If your logic can be easily applied to something so ridiculous, then either the analogy is faulty or your logic is faulty. You really can't just say "what you said seems ridiculous so I'm dismissing it".
To be fair, I played around for a long time with the idea that atheism is faith too but I ended up dismissing it for this exact reason.
You're using an anti-analogy, to make my logic seem ridiculous, good attempt though. When you make an argument, you have to make a conjection my the presence of something, not the absence of something. It is imposable to prove that God dosen't exsist, for if you could, would it have been done? (But there I go trying to prove something with an absence of something, I guess I myself fall into the same fallacies.)
I don't mean to "Rub you the wrong way", You have made some interesting points that I wanted to reply to; without going off topic in a thread. If I upset you please lets just stop it here, for I like to build bridges, not burn them. <3 =D
I'm sorry, that was never my intention. I was just trying to show something, from a different angel. For instance Religion can be defined as, a set of beliefs that are based on faith in conjunction with reason; which also describes atheism. Since you can not prove that God exist, or that he doesn't.
a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
This is the definition people refer to. Atheism is not a religion. Agnosticism is not a religion. You are being rude though; instead of trying to refute my point you're being condescending because you think you're right. Maybe work on that.
Well it really doesn't madder. Not to be mean, but Plato states, whether a person believes it, or accepts it, it does not affect the truth. Opinions are nice, they give idividuality, but there are wrong opinions, and rights opinions. Through the process of expanding ones mind, one will forever become closer to the truth. (That's Plato's Ethics)