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

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Noncompatible

 

Dear Noncompatible,

You've got some interesting points, mind if I respond?

It seems as though you, and the rest of Atheism, are saying, we don't believe in no God, we just don't have sufficient evidence to persuade us that there is a God. Have I got that right?

An atheist is someone who does not accept there is any tangible evidence for gods.

I'm not trying to nit-pick, but the word "tangible" is interesting. I hope you're not stacking the deck right from the start. What would you require for "tangible evidence?"

Is it enough for hundreds of people to come up to you shouting "I saw it! He said he was God and He did something completely impossible! I touched Him, I know He was real!" If that level of proof is not sufficient for you, what would you like? Almost all of the characters of history through Rome don't have any more proof than that.

If you need to be able to subject His material body to laboratory tests before you have sufficient evidence, then there is nothing to be done for you. Try to prove love, not it's effects, but the actual existence of love. I'd like to see how that works out. If it doesn't, will you also not believe in love?

I hope you have at least a little evidence for the proposition that God does not exist. If you believe there is no evidence either way. What is keeping you from accepting as evidence the belief of almost all of Humanity from the beginning of recorded history?

You see, I suppose I need just a little more information than I have in order to fully understand your position.

Oh, I have enough evidence for me to believe in the existence of God, but you may not consider it evidence. hence, my questions.

With respect,
Charles1952

Questions are always welcome. They are after all what drives me.
Firstly, i don't purport to represent atheism. I am an atheist, but only that simple fact connects me to any other. My criteria of acceptance may (and probably does) differ wildly from any other self proclaimed atheist.

tangible evidence is simple enough. Current, observable evidence. Not second hand tales of events that are not recounted anywhere but the religious texts claiming the existence of the deity (or deities) in question would be nice.
It appears you believe in the christian god (I apologise if I'm wrong). That being said, do you not believe in all the other deities that came before, concurrent and after ?
What evidence is there that that particular god is the one that is more convincing than the others ?
After all recorded history extends way beyond the christian faith. Tangible evidence exists for the peoples of those times and yet nothing beyond religious texts for their/others/your god(s).
Do you refer to the greek tales of gods as myth?
If you do, are you offended when I use the term christian mythology?
With so many deities to choose from and zero tangible evidence for any of them how does one know which is the THE god ?
Could it be that they are simply security blankets to explain away the unexplainable ?
I don't need a security blanket (no insult meant to any, faith can be a great comfort to many).
I see no tangible evidence of any deity.
Therefore there are no provable gods. There is no tooth fairy, there is no Santa Claus.(Sorry but I regard them as having equal probability)

reply to post by grainofsand

Ah, I'm impressed and in awe of your great wisdom. I look forward to seeing the name Bob Sholtz in the worldwide media as a result of your sound evidence proving the existence of god/s. Wonderful

you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink...as the saying goes.

i show you evidence, but you just reject it because you don't want to believe.

reply to post by Ophiuchus 13


I guess that is fine but for myself I never received any such response I have not seen any evidence to persuade me in believing in a deity or deity’s and your theoretical beings that say they received messages have not shown me any verifiable proof so we are back to square one.

As for my original question of what created the creator I still haven’t heard an even halfway decent explanation. I guess it just popped into existence at some point but here is a second question. If the creator popped into existence then why couldn’t the universe do the same and if so why the need for a creator? The creator seems to be the middle man in this hypothetical situation. Who made who?

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13

 

I guess that is fine but for myself I never received any such response I have not seen any evidence to persuade me in believing in a deity or deity’s and your theoretical beings that say they received messages have not shown me any verifiable proof so we are back to square one.

As for my original question of what created the creator I still haven’t heard an even halfway decent explanation. I guess it just popped into existence at some point but here is a second question. If the creator popped into existence then why couldn’t the universe do the same and if so why the need for a creator? The creator seems to be the middle man in this hypothetical situation. Who made who?

indeed

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

Originally posted by grainofsand

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

Nope, it is a lack of belief in gods.

in other words, you believe that gods don't exist. you have faith in that belief. you think it to be correct.

Nope, I have seen no evidence to convince me that they do exist so I do not believe in their existence.
I do not take the counter argument that I believe they do not exist as I have no evidence to support such a position.
I do not know, but I do not believe, I therefore fall under the descriptive term of agnostic atheist.
Your position is the classic example of the theists I referred to in the OP. You seem desperate for me to have some faith for some reason, even though such claims are obviously silly.

wait...

I have seen no evidence to draw me towards believing in any gods in my life, I therefore do not believe.

you're contradicting yourself drastically. which is it, that you don't believe in god, or that you don't know? the two cannot exist at the same time.

you either don't believe there is a god, or you are unsure if there is or isn't.

Keep it coming fella, you are just showing your position of someone desperate to label me as a person with faith, as mentioned in the OP.
I do not believe in gods as there is no evidence to convince me they exist. That puts me under the atheist description.
I am unable to say there are no gods due to an inability to prove such an assertion. That puts me under the agnostic description.
Because there is no evidence to support the existence of gods and an inability for me to establish any of it as fact, I can honestly say I do not know but do not believe.

If you cannot grasp that I will not be drawn into further debate about it, my position is clear, regardless of your inability to understand it.
My position remains one of reason, yours however relies on faith.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

As I said, I look forward to seeing the name Bob Sholtz in the worldwide media as a result of your sound evidence proving the existence of god/s. Wonderful

Tutors in the class may have BEEN here before and WANT to SEE classmates PASS this class and not need the next class for that teacher may not teach the same way to achieve the going to be made end result. But this is just 1 trying to assist as do others I guess to some who rather see next class I guess, its their
WILL so 1 tries to somewhat let them go their way even if warned not to SOOOOO many times. Please excuse 1 if ANY felt disrespected by the. Will continue to observe the artificial classes within CLASS like sims somewhat. Odd

NAMASTE*******

reply to post by grainofsand

I do not believe in gods

I am unable to say there are no gods

you don't believe in something, but then you're unable to say that you don't believe in something. you really need to take a class on logic, then a class on philosophy, lol.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by grainofsand

 

I do not believe in gods

I am unable to say there are no gods

you don't believe in something, but then you're unable to say that you don't believe in something. you really need to take a class on logic, then a class on philosophy, lol.

Ah, you fail to understand a basic and honest reason based opinion, that's ok, others reading this thread will so your failure is irrelevant.
Back to the OP though, my position is not one based on any faith, whereas your belief in a god clearly is.

Originally posted by Beavers
reply to post by grainofsand

 

Atheism IS a faith.

Unless the atheist has died themselves and has first hand experience that there is 'nothing' after death, then they have no fricking idea what happens when they die, just like the rest of us.

If you believe in something without any tangible evidence, it requires faith.

the intelligent thing to do would be to say 'I don't know what happens after we die' - and for that reason I think atheists are stupid

(and the ones that preach about it make me laugh a lot!)

You start with a blatant falsehood and end with a truism. Weird.

Of course I do not know what happens beyond death. Beyond the fact I am dead. I do not need faith to tell me that, it is observable.
So do I believe I'll be dead? Of course I do. Requires no faith, it is simple fact.
Faith is required to believe there IS something after expiration.

So what exactly are you laughing at ? The acceptance of an actual occurrence.

Silly thing to laugh at, methinks.

reply to post by grainofsand


Grainofsand you realize by now that Bob is a gnostic theist he claims 100% certainty the existence of deity’s. It may be that he simply cannot except that there are those who do not and are not 100% certain on either side he may deny that agnostic is even a relevant term. He may be one of those I outlined earlier that purposely misrepresent atheism to give his faith merit. Gnostic theists are definitely different from agnostics on either side. I find it sort of ironic that usually when theists describe attributes they deem unlikeable about atheists after some discussion they generally are talking about the gnostic atheists. He has certainly ignored the proper definitions of these terms and seems to be on a mission to redefine them for some reason. It seems very disingenuous.

again perception - there can be techs HERE with the ability to SEE the Soul/Spirit/Internal Energy and its activities, somewhat. (depends on how advance the tech is) WHY some feel since these techs are not shared with them that their afterlife claims are valid or not makes no sense. Have some room to at least consider as it can only be beneficial as opposed to feeling as some feel allowing some other Teacher to shall we say start teaching them. To add as they get to know this teacher their previous CLAIMS of NO CREATOR go right out the window as the see the CREATED Teacher is not of the 3D manifest ONLY nor its Faculty.

LOVE LIGHT ETERNIA*******

reply to post by Grimpachi

I know, it's probably down to a lack of understanding of the various terms, at least I hope it is and not just a childlike belligerent attempt at derailing the topic.
Hopefully, as it is repeatedly explained then more people will understand that an agnostic atheist does not require any faith to reach their reasoned position.

very understood but its the philosophy that is questioned

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by grainofsand

 

Grainofsand you realize by now that Bob is a gnostic theist he claims 100% certainty the existence of deity’s. It may be that he simply cannot except that there are those who do not and are not 100% certain on either side he may deny that agnostic is even a relevant term. He may be one of those I outlined earlier that purposely misrepresent atheism to give his faith merit. Gnostic theists are definitely different from agnostics on either side. I find it sort of ironic that usually when theists describe attributes they deem unlikeable about atheists after some discussion they generally are talking about the gnostic atheists. He has certainly ignored the proper definitions of these terms and seems to be on a mission to redefine them for some reason. It seems very disingenuous.

you misunderstand. i believe in god, and that there is evidence of one. i gave the evidence as to why i think there is a god, and when i did that it was rejected on the basis of me "injecting a being that doesn't exist", not by grainofsand disagreeing through the introduciton of counter evidence or a disagreement of interpretation.

i'm open to different ideas, and it wouldn't be the first time i changed my mind on the topic.

i can understand if someone says "i don't know if there is a god or not" and i can understand if someone says "i don't believe in god", but a single person cannot hold both of those to be true. they're contradictory.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
i can understand if someone says "i don't know if there is a god or not" and i can understand if someone says "i don't believe in god", but a single person cannot hold both of those to be true. they're contradictory.

Nope, no contradiction there at all.
I do not know that gods do not exist but due to lack of evidence I do not believe that they do. Which bit of that is so hard for you to understand?
Regardless, back to the OP, yours is a position of faith believing in gods and mine is not, it is a reasoned opinion.

As far as your lame evidence goes though, as I said, present it to the world stage and I look forward to seeing your proof of gods in the media. You make the claims, the burden of proof falls on yourself alone.

the term "agnostic atheist" is a contradiction.

agnostic meaning that one does not know if god does or doesn't exist, or if it is even possible to know.

atheist meaning one does not believe in god.

i also wouldn't term myself a "gnostic theist", i believe in god, and that there is evidence of god. i accept that my interpretation of the evidence may be wrong, but i do not believe it is.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
the term "agnostic atheist" is a contradiction.

agnostic meaning that one does not know if god does or doesn't exist, or if it is even possible to know.

atheist meaning one does not believe in god.

i also wouldn't term myself a "gnostic theist", i believe in god, and that there is evidence of god. i accept that my interpretation of the evidence may be wrong, but i do not believe it is.

Even my 15 year old son understands these basic terms from his philosophy and applied ethics class.
Perhaps have another check and try again fella. You are incorrect with your ideas of contradiction.

Originally posted by grainofsand

I doubt your persecution claims and could raise my own as a person without faith, but what's wrong with campaigning about laws and policies? Freedom of expression is only reserved for the theists now is it?

Um. There is a very large chasm between freedom of expression and actively and publicly belittling others that don't believe the way you do - which is exactly what many non-believers do. You'd have to be living in a closet the last decade to not notice just how activist and aggressive some atheist groups have become.

No, I'm not saying believers have a right to it either. I'm simply equating the behaviors. They are the same. Belief in God actually has nothing to do with it. It seems to be human nature for one to believe they are right, and everyone else is wrong, while actively fostering an "us vs them" attitude. You've done it yourself throughout this thread.

the problem comes when you say "i do not know whether gods exist or not" then you affirm belief in one of the sides. it directly contradicts your statement that you don't know. knowledge is "justified true belief". to not know means that you can't offer one position as more true than another, but you clearly do.

Regardless, back to the OP, yours is a position of faith believing in gods and mine is not, it is a reasoned opinion.

how is your opinion reasoned when you admitted that there is no evidence either way? you picked what you wanted to believe. belief and faith cannot exist separately. do you not understand that? if you do not have faith in a belief, you don't believe it to be true, which makes it not a belief.

As far as your lame evidence goes though, as I said, present it to the world stage and I look forward to seeing your proof of gods in the media. You make the claims, the burden of proof falls on yourself alone.

lame evidence that you refuse to answer, besides calling it "lame" and "wrong". well reasoned indeed *cough*.