Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why do some theists desperately try to claim a lack of faith as religion?

page: 1
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+2 more 
posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   
I've chosen conspiracies in religion to post this because from my experiences at ATS it appears to me that there might be a religious conspiracy to paint people who do not believe in gods with the same faith based religious brush which they follow themselves.

In many different threads I have been accused of having a similar religious blind faith during my considerations of peer reviewed science matters. It always seems quite silly to me because I make a reasoned opinion based on the research of others. I do not say 'that research is absolutely correct' I say 'many thousands of learned people agree with the evidence presented so I am drawn to a conclusion that it is more likely than an invisible unprovable entity doing it all behind the scenes.'
Before anyone starts with the 'scientific conspiracy' claims, I ask what of the 14,000 professors and many tens of thousands of university lecturers just in the UK, are they all in on this conspiracy people claim? Is it perhaps more likely that the religious fanatics are just making this up?

For the benefit of changing times and how society may interpret words, I have scanned the entry for the Websters dictionary from 1880, which I own as an interesting old book, see below image:


And here is the current online Merriam-Webster dictionary entry:
www.merriam-webster.com...


1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs



I studied environmental chemistry at university. Everything I was taught theoretically was able to be replicated in practical experiments which explained and backed up the various preceding maths. Some teaching I received was not proven to me by personal experiment, but the maths backed it up enough for me to conclude such information was correct.
It may be a 'faith' based position accepting the research of others without repeating it by oneself, however it is also a reasoned opinion based on the situation that other independent people are able to test it, and I myself can take the time to study any scientific claims to conclude if there is evidence to support it or not.
This type of 'faith' as mentioned in the 1880 dictionary is clearly under the realms of description 1 & 2.
While number 3 however is a very different concept of faith:

1880 Websters Dictionary wrote:
3. (Theol.) (a) The belief in the historic truthful-ness of the Scripture narrative, and the supernatural origin of its teachings, sometimes called historic and speculative faith. (b.) The belief in the facts and truth of the scriptures, with a practical love of them; especially that confiding and affectionate belief in the person and works of Christ.

I would put the 1880 (No.3) version with the 2013 online (No.2)
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

It is my assertion that when some religious people cry "you have blind faith as well" they are desperately wishing modern day atheists to all fall under a similar banner of people who state that they do not believe there are any gods.
Claiming "there are no gods" is a faith based position similar to the religious believers.
Stating "I've seen no evidence to support any claims that there are gods, so I do not believe there are any" is a reasoned and rational evidence based position. It requires no faith of any kind, it is a viewpoint open to change whenever any new evidence emerges. Zero evidence for gods = zero belief that they exist. It is impossible to prove that the assertion "gods do not exist" is correct. Such a position would equally be faith based.
I do not make such assertions though so any claims that my position is one of faith is clearly incorrect.

Interested in the thoughts of other members, religious minded or not, but please stick to interpretation of words and accepted meanings, not just unsubstatiated assertions.
As I said, any claims from science can be studied by anyone for long enough to discover evidence supporting or disproving the claims. Invisible and unprovable entities do not offer such research options though, so going back to the OP as closure to my comments, I assert that faith in gods is a totally different type of faith than the tested and testable faith in scientific experiments. It is blind and trusting in historical record with no way to repeat any of the published claims from the past.
If you wish to call it 'faith' then that is your right of course, but please present your cries of 'faith' with the caveat that there are different English language definitions of the thing you label faith, and faith in the research of others, while being able to test their claims, is very different to faith in old scriptures which are unable to be verified in any way.




posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Do you believe the scientific method is able to(hypothetically) prove all that is knowable in this Universe?



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by grainofsand


Interested in the thoughts of other members, religious minded or not, but please stick to interpretation of words and accepted meanings, not just unsubstatiated assertions.
[color=cyan] As I said, any claims from science can be studied by anyone for long enough to discover evidence supporting or disproving the claims. Invisible and unprovable entities do not offer such research options though, so going back to the OP as closure to my comments, I assert that faith in gods is a totally different type of faith than the tested and testable faith in scientific experiments. It is blind and trusting in historical record with no way to repeat any of the published claims from the past.

If you wish to call it 'faith' then that is your right of course, but please present your cries of 'faith' with the caveat that there are different English language definitions of the thing you label faith, and faith in the research of others, while being able to test their claims, is very different to faith in old scriptures which are unable to be verified in any way.


grainofsand, logic within your presented OP yes makes sense. But then [color=cyan] if you consider HIGHER FORCES Overseeing EA*RTH activities like MIB for example if said evidence has or was obtained of the GODS(s) how so is that to be proven if its not to be shared with those who feel they are in the know but have so much doubt etc. So yes it is a different kind of FAITH depending on the AWARNESS LEVEL of the being feeling their experiments prove or disprove said GOD(s) or Particles. So to conclude if it was possible for a data base to be shared GLOBALLY with ALL archeological / Cosmic-Lunar-Mars etc. / Under SEA there may be the PROOFS present but then how far is 1 who disbelieves WILLING to GO into that rabbit hole that just gets deeper until you uncover the land... and can see where said rabbit has been fully like ant farm somewhat. Sorry OT yes better information shared may change many minds Cosmic/Planetary so its kind of a early Jump to assume that the Proof not being present to some = non proof YES...


NAMASTE
LOVE LIGHT ETERNIA*******



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by slowisfast
 

If something is provable then it can be shown to others repeatedly...what's your question/statement?



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


I like your game. I'm hereby officially changing my position.

I now have a lack of faith in God's non-existence.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 

Thanks for the contribution but I do not believe in higher powers so my assertions still stand unattacked.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


Not attacking. Asking you if there is proof but its just not currently shared would this change your OP outlook? Based on the Proof being not shared due to the magnitude of its influence. (also) I don't attack please don't mistake reflect yes and that's when in mirror for too long for whatever reason projecting.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by grainofsand
 


I like your game. I'm hereby officially changing my position.

I now have a lack of faith in God's non-existence.

Silliness, why continue playing such a lame game?
This OP is about claims that lack of belief in gods is a faith in itself. I assert that such claimants are wrong.
It remains a simple lack of belief due to insufficient evidence.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


Drop the word prove, then, if it's hanging you up. My question is straight forward. Do you choose to answer?

Do you believe the scientific method should be able to be applied to all that is(hypothetically) knowable in this Universe?
edit on 30-3-2013 by slowisfast because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by grainofsand

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by grainofsand
 


I like your game. I'm hereby officially changing my position.

I now have a lack of faith in God's non-existence.

Silliness, why continue playing such a lame game?
This OP is about claims that lack of belief in gods is a faith in itself. I assert that such claimants are wrong.
It remains a simple lack of belief due to insufficient evidence.



You're correct about it being silliness.

Let me ask, have you heard of or are you familiar with the "Inversion Principle" in logic?



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by slowisfast
reply to post by grainofsand
 


Drop the word prove, then, if it's hanging you up. My question is straight forward. Do you choose to answer?

Do you believe the scientific method should be able to be applied to all that is(hypothetically) knowable in this Universe?
edit on 30-3-2013 by slowisfast because: (no reason given)

Any method which relies on witnessed peer reviewed and controlled effects is more reliable in my opinion than ancient historical testimony.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


You didn't answer the question.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by slowisfast
reply to post by grainofsand
 


Drop the word prove, then, if it's hanging you up. My question is straight forward. Do you choose to answer?

Do you believe the scientific method should be able to be applied to all that is(hypothetically) knowable in this Universe?
edit on 30-3-2013 by slowisfast because: (no reason given)


The scientific method is a proven success in most aspects of understanding life. I support it until such time as an unprovable entity wins the magic game in a public MSM debate.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


It was a yes or no question.

I, too, appreciate science and the scientific method.

edit on 30-3-2013 by slowisfast because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by slowisfast
reply to post by grainofsand
 


Drop the word prove, then, if it's hanging you up. My question is straight forward. Do you choose to answer?

Do you believe the scientific method should be able to be applied to all that is(hypothetically) knowable in this Universe?
edit on 30-3-2013 by slowisfast because: (no reason given)


Dog with a bone, but hey.
I think science minded folk are a better section of society to ask than faith based religion.
Every time.
I prefer to trust people who make claims which I can test by experiment.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


A child with their games, but hey..

I didn't realize that those cross sections of society were mutually exclusive.
Thank you for teaching me something.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by grainofsand

Originally posted by slowisfast
reply to post by grainofsand
 


Drop the word prove, then, if it's hanging you up. My question is straight forward. Do you choose to answer?

Do you believe the scientific method should be able to be applied to all that is(hypothetically) knowable in this Universe?
edit on 30-3-2013 by slowisfast because: (no reason given)

Any method which relies on witnessed peer reviewed and controlled effects is more reliable in my opinion than ancient historical testimony.


(note: Not aiming this reply at you, just tossing it in the discussion in general..)

This is very interesting to me because way back in those ancient historical times, the people had absolutely nothing unless they were reliable and honest with each other, so in light of this, they had their own system of "peer reviewed, and witnessed events". I trust their system of honesty and personal integrity of what they witnessed over today's faulty and error ridden, ego driven scientific system, much more..

It seems whichever one you choose has it's own pitfalls either way...



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


1. Do you believe that the scope of science is unlimited?

2. Do you believe that science tells us what the nature of reality is?

3. Do you believe that science is based, at least in part, on unprovable philosophical premises?

edit on 30-3-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Agnosticism

Essentially,



Agnosticism is the view that the existence or non-existence of any deity is unknown and possibly unknowable. More specifically, agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable.


You almost said it clearly enough in the original post, OP..




Claiming "there are no gods" is a faith based position similar to the religious believers.
Stating "I've seen no evidence to support any claims that there are gods, so I do not believe there are any" is a reasoned and rational evidence based position.


I just wanted to add in the tw o cents of mentioning Agnostics since that seems to make sense here.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by slowisfast
reply to post by grainofsand
 


Drop the word prove, then, if it's hanging you up. My question is straight forward. Do you choose to answer?

Do you believe the scientific method should be able to be applied to all that is(hypothetically) knowable in this Universe?
edit on 30-3-2013 by slowisfast because: (no reason given)


Yes. Science has, and will continue to unravel the mysteries of the universe. As a unintended bonus, with each mystery solved we erase the biblical gods from every corner of the universe. Time and time again science has proven that if something is knowable (provable), then we will know it.

The two main questions left is: Where did the universe come from, and how did life begin. Even if it takes a few million years we will figure it out.

edit on 3/30/2013 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join