Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 17
17
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by NotAConsumer
 


Exactly. As a member of this site once told me, the burden of proof falls upon the holder of the belief.




posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by NotAConsumer
 

Dear NotAConsumer,

I may be missing your point here, so if I stumble around please be gentle in your response.


With out word of mouth we wouldnt be discussing this, but the fact that Religion is based on word of mouth,
Well, considering only the Gospels for a moment, the majority opinion is that Jesus said or did something and the Gospel writers wrote it down. I suppose that's word of mouth, but you could also call it eyewitness testimony from multiple sources.

you guys are on the defensive having to prove it to us.
I don't think that I or any other Christian has been given that job. If I thought I could "prove" God or Jesus or Christianity, I would review my thinking because I must have made a mistake. All I can do, all anyone can do, is look at the evidence and decide what path they are going to take. I happen to believe the evidence and reasoning leads to belief in God, Jesus, and Christianity, but some don't. That's the way the ball crumbles.


its not fair to come to our faces and say its real because we cant prove its not.
Coming to your face? It wasn't a Christian who started this thread. But I deny saying that it's real because you can't prove it's not.

My position on that question is "Look at all the evidence, apply reason, and decide what to believe for yourself based on the majority of the evidence." Neither "side" can prove it one way or the other, but I feel free to introduce evidence and criticize anything I see as a logical flaw.

Have I addressed your comment?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Theists seem to need this for some reason.

When their beliefs are questioned, they use this technique as a knee jerk reaction. It's basically a childish maneuver in an attempt to show that the atheist is indeed grounded in faith.

Here's the thing. They're not. Having faith is when one has belief in something when there is no evidence to back up said belief. Atheists do not believe BECAUSE there is no evidence.

Faith in and of itself cannot exist when there is evidence, unless it is for the opposing stance against the evidence.

Atheists do not have faith. They believe what they can see, taste, touch, prove, compute.




 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by NotAConsumer
reply to post by charles1952
 


You are allowed to do what you want but its not fair to come to our faces and say its real because we cant prove its not.
edit on 17-4-2013 by NotAConsumer because: (no reason given)


Not fair?
What standard of 'fair' are you basing your use of the word on?
Fairness...really?

This is very puzzling.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by slowisfast
 

In my response, I assumed she meant "logically valid," but I admit to a certain degree of confusion in this case.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


I understand, maybe some of what i wrote was for flare. but if thats the reasoning then both sides of the religious debate should forever be in understanding that you either believe in it or dont.

Erase the word debate and now use conversation the new conversation between the two sides should now be, hey look its not that bad on this side. but the original debate is a draw.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by spinalremain
 



Atheists do not have faith. They believe what they can see, taste, touch, prove, compute.


That's incorrect. Atheists have faith in their entire world all the time. When you open yourself to possible mishaps without any knowledge of what will happen, you are practicing faith. Every time you take a risk, you practice faith. Every time you give even an ounce of trust to any object or person connected to you, you are practicing faith.

Atheists are TACTFULLY faithful.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Well I can say the same thing about having faith that I will not get hit by a car today. There is no evidence saying I will or I wont, so it's faith yes.

The thing is......this thread and more specifically my post was stating that Atheists don't have faith when it comes to god. Otherwise, why paint them as atheists? We're singling them out because the issue at hand is faith in a creator or god, and of that atheists have absolutely none.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by NotAConsumer
 

Dear NotAConsumer,

Most people are more passionate and certain then I am. I expect there will be resistance to your idea that the debate is a draw. But (at least for me) the point isn't to "win," or to beat the other side into submission. People cover the whole spectrum (Sorry for the cliche) and I haven't figured out how to deal with those on either side who resist any new thought, or any old belief.

May I get personal for a moment?

For me, these eternal questions are far more basic than which political system takes over the world, or what currency is supreme. It took me a while, but I found that the answer to the question "Is there a God?" was the starting point for my life. Yes or no, it has to be decided by each person. And, whatever your answer, you build from there.

I read and listened, watched and thought. I kept finding a little bit of evidence here, a great argument there, perhaps an experience or two, and they all added up. Those who said there isn't a God seemed to rely heavily on "Science can't prove He exists," and "How come bad things happen?"

C.S. Lewis and Peter Kreeft were influential for me, so was the Catholic Church. I spent some time with a non-denominational group (I don't know if they were Fundamentalist or Evangelical, or what.)

I can't prove God exists, or indeed, "prove" anything about God and religion. But I trust my reason and evidence, and I am persuaded that I have found the right answer to the question. If there is some reason out there to change my mind, of course I'll look at it. I can always learn. But I haven't seen that new reason or evidence yet.

I'd love to talk with you about it.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Pardon?
 


Your assuming I'm christian? If not, then why group my comments to such as a way to explain your point of view? Huh....interesting. Tell me, do you understand the basis for religion? I am simply not a worshiper, nor a disbeliever. I am simply above that concept in belief as you would put it. Above many other silly things humans do as well like superficial social pleasantries for instance. I have no need or emotional tie to most of humanity as I find it rather primitive in thought and execution.

To me, atheists are just as bad as Christians...whining about belief and disbelief at levels only a child would endure, just because one side thinks they are right in their assertions over the other. Each shouting louder than the other so that they get the last word.

Petty at best. Such a waste of energy to dwell on exacts within the human perception which is a very flawed concept by the way.

And I do not feel you are understanding my use of the word faith. You are putting a religious meaning on it whereas I am not. For an atheist to do so, if comical, is the very point I am trying to make.



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


The Agnostic position is, overall, a good one IMO. We don't know enough to rule out some sort of causa causarum or original universal principle. At the same time, we don't know enough to definitely rule anything in either, let alone be specific about it's possible nature. I suppose you could call this possibility god and I have heard/read some fascinating possibilities (though usually by reasonable people who don't claim all must submit to their absolute truth). In the end, who knows?

Though IMO, the same level of agnosticism shouldn't extend to obvious god's of mythology, such as the personal, primitive and vile moron type of deity depicted in biblical texts. If it exists, I don't see why this god would be so difficult to prove. Yet instead, we know overwhelmingly that the supernatural claims in such texts cannot happen, to the same extent that the evidence that any of it did happen, is underwhelming. In fact we don't even know if the central characters actually existed.

The very best that could be said for these type of gods, is that it can't definitively be proved that they don't exist. Which puts them in quite a large category. Yet god's claimed domain has been shrinking steadily, as knowledge increases. They deserve the same level of agnosticism as any other fantasy that no one has provided genuine evidence of and give no indication of existing (beyond delusion).

The inference that dismissing it is based on faith might make believers feel better about it all, but this seems either knowingly dishonest, or a delusion in itself. Could it be part of a coping mechanism re the cognitive dissonance?

To those who claim society benefits from such archaic beliefs, all indications point in the opposite direction.

www.epjournal.net...



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by spinalremain
 


A child can grab a Calculus book and claim to understand the subject simply because its keys are in his or her possession. Likewise, we could have all the elements and tools necessary to grasp the essential origin and nature of this universe. But without the necessary comprehension, it's just a jumble of puzzle pieces that has a dozen possible solutions but only one truth.

Neither theists nor atheists possess the comprehension necessary, and to claim otherwise is as infantile as the child with the Calculus book. As of this day and age, religion is more of an emotional security issue than anything else. It gives us the peace of mind to sleep at night and the strength of courage to get up in the morning. As long as we can continue to live the life we feel obligated to live, we will use whatever devices we deem necessary to aid our physical, mental, and emotional conditions so as to better travel our respective paths.
edit on 18-4-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by UncleBingo
reply to post by Pardon?
 


Your assuming I'm christian? If not, then why group my comments to such as a way to explain your point of view? Huh....interesting. Tell me, do you understand the basis for religion? I am simply not a worshiper, nor a disbeliever. I am simply above that concept in belief as you would put it. Above many other silly things humans do as well like superficial social pleasantries for instance. I have no need or emotional tie to most of humanity as I find it rather primitive in thought and execution.

To me, atheists are just as bad as Christians...whining about belief and disbelief at levels only a child would endure, just because one side thinks they are right in their assertions over the other. Each shouting louder than the other so that they get the last word.

Petty at best. Such a waste of energy to dwell on exacts within the human perception which is a very flawed concept by the way.

And I do not feel you are understanding my use of the word faith. You are putting a religious meaning on it whereas I am not. For an atheist to do so, if comical, is the very point I am trying to make.


Apologies, I did assume you were a christian.
Now I see you for what you are though (or a least what you'd like to think you are...).
edit on 20/4/13 by Pardon? because: Parentheses
edit on 20/4/13 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 


It's a matter of emotional security. Because the human race has proven woefully inadequate at playing the mature monarchy, we desire a higher system that doesn't fall prey to the trappings of the human condition as we perceive it. Unfortunately, this also means that the exact parameters of this system are devised according to our limited perception, which means that either way, we are bound to our own nature. And the crux of the struggle is that we are unwilling to embrace our imperfections.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Thanks for all the interesting replies over the last few days.
I hadn't noticed until today having left this thread alone, after thinking the well written comment by Grimpachi (www.abovetopsecret.com...) agreed in the main with my own position.

I see there are a few comments which continue to claim that lack of faith in a god, due to lack of supporting evidence, is a position of faith akin to belief in gods. I have not read any which I could consider convincing arguments, or a position I can agree with.

Another position I see put forward is belief in gods due to some alleged logical reasoning. This appears to me to be nothing more than the old "We can't explain it so a god must have done it" argument, with it's obvious fallacy.

Both style of comment have been discussed and countered quite well as far as I have read, so I shall not add anything further because I would effectively be repeating what I have posted in previous pages.

These did interest me though:


Originally posted by UncleBingo

 

I am simply not a worshiper, nor a disbeliever. I am simply above that concept in belief as you would put it. Above many other silly things humans do as well like superficial social pleasantries for instance. I have no need or emotional tie to most of humanity as I find it rather primitive in thought and execution.

To me, atheists are just as bad as Christians...whining about belief and disbelief at levels only a child would endure, just because one side thinks they are right in their assertions over the other. Each shouting louder than the other so that they get the last word.

Petty at best. Such a waste of energy to dwell on exacts within the human perception which is a very flawed concept by the way.

I have not read any whining from atheists in this thread at the levels of a child as you put it. Perhaps you would like to provide a link to the offending replies.
This, to me has been a very interesting read so far and as it is a discussion forum one would expect differing positions, otherwise there would be no disscussion.

It is amusing that you declare yourself 'above that concept of belief' compared to atheists, theists, and silly superficial humans, as that could arguably be an example of you asserting that your own position is 'right' over others.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
reply to post by grainofsand
 

The inference that dismissing it is based on faith might make believers feel better about it all, but this seems either knowingly dishonest, or a delusion in itself. Could it be part of a coping mechanism re the cognitive dissonance
I have certainly wondered the same thing myself.
It seems unusual that there is such an attempt to claim a lack of belief as faith by those who do believe in gods. Could it be driven by a fear or jealousy of the often found 'no spiritual conflict' position by one who has no faith in gods.
I, and other atheists, have been accused of presenting a position of 'superiority' over those who believe in things with no evidence, although nowhere in this thread have I claimed that. Is this just an inferiority complex of theists who struggle with beliefs which are absolutely unable to be proven?

I was criticised for using the term 'desperately' in the title, but many replies here support my opinion that there is a desperate effort by some to claim lack of belief in gods as a faith in itself.
I continue to await a convincing reasoned argument to draw me towards thinking otherwise.

Again, thanks for the replies folks, it remains an interesting discussion while unhelpful emotions continue to be left out of our contributions.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


I am above the concept because it does not register. It is no where in the persona that is me. It is a waste of time IMO. Once you have a broad understanding of what we are as a species it would be beneath you as well.

And I was being general when I made the child statement, didn't mean anyone here was being obtuse. Actually some of the most provoking words I read in years. Hard to find people like that ya know!



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by UncleBingo
reply to post by grainofsand
 
Once you have a broad understanding of what we are as a species it would be beneath you as well.
I have a fairly good all round understanding of the biological, psychological and sociological aspects or traits of our species but continue to be fascinated by the various spiritual/religious beliefs people have, even though I do not subscribe to such viewpoints myself.

I consider all my interactions with other people to be a continual learninge experience and doubt I shall ever consider my own knowledge to be so superior that the atheist/theist debate is beneath me.
I do congratulate you on your perceived enlightenment though.






top topics



 
17
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join