It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 7
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Credenceskynyrd

Originally posted by jiggerj

better because they were given a magic rock.
I know of people cured by taking fake medicine (placebo effect).


sorry what- you were extolling the virtues of science, I gave you an example of religion, it was specifically faith that saved this fella- believe in science then believe in Jesus according to your logic-



But, I don't know of anyone that re-grew a lost arm through his faith in Jesus.


What an odd thing to say, whoever suggested such a thing?



Jesus = Magic rock. Believe in both. Don't believe in either. But, don't believe in one and not the other.


how very odd you are- and I will be able to believe in what I want thank you, same way as you believe what science will be able to achieve in the future- you are a bit of a proto- nostradamus?


How could you completely miss the point? It's just not possible. I won't explain it because it's there, so you would miss the explanation too. Have a good day.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by bloodreviara
 


Thank you for being the only person to who could respond to my stance. Now, as you could see in my post, I juxtaposed the Christian world view and the Atheist worldview in relation to the laws of logic and its importance to the scientific method. Your only argument is that Christianity can not claim exclusive rights to logic. I did not say that. I presented the Christian view on logic. On a pure theist view on the subject; however, this could not be refuted, as an Atheist would have to form an exotic and convoluted explaination to do so.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ
There is a knowing from the nature of things.

I KNOW there will be Earthquakes.

I KNOW there will be volcanic eruptions.

I KNOW there will be changes to the Earth.

Those 3 are fine. it is assumption based on past facts, things measured, and a pretty safe bet. Still, you don't know there will be volcanic reactions...it would be nearly insane to say there won't be anymore ever mind you due to mathematical probability and a understanding of the physics behind it...but its assumed so much that stating you know is passable..plenty of precedence to justify such a claim without pretending to be a fortune teller.


I KNOW the Universe is into the green thing cause it recycles.


I KNOW my mom loves me.

see past 3 responses



I KNOW there is a creator ... a force... that enables me to breathe without me being aware of such breath.

See, now what makes your -opinion- more valid than mine, whom doesn't see a creator? You "know" there is one, whereas I see no evidence of one nor knowledge of one...one of us is right..I however hedge my bets and use no belief (after all, if evidence of a creator presented itself, I can easily change my view..I simply have no view of such things at the moment due to lack of evidence).
To state you know of such things means you have knowledge..proper knowledge over those whom don't have the knowledge...which you may..but unless you can and are willing to share this factual undisputed stuff, then your basically just claiming without presenting.
And that's no different than anyone else in the history of mankind that has used the "trust me and follow my advice without proof" stuff...the keystone of cults and snake oil salesmen.


There are things I just KNOW without having "faith" because the nature of things that surrounds me is evident there need not be faith, but a knowing. Its proof that brings about a knowing.


But that's just it. how can you know without evidence...that in its very essence is faith.
Faith isn't a negative (or a positive)..its neutral by nature...how its used can be interpreted as negative or positive. For instance, if some drug addicted person suddenly acquired religion and got them clean, raised a family, etc...I would never, ever bother to try and make them question their faith..because even if they are thinking rainbows is god winking at them, the effect of their faith being a net positive for society outweighs "truth". But many use their faith as some sort of weapon to use either literally or more intellectually..and that is when their "knowing" needs to be smacked down.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 





But that's just it. how can you know without evidence


Thats what you are missing.... I have evidence.

Have you watched the video I linked to. There is a lot of evidence people over look without a second thought.

I live my life by my own philosophy of said life... always have. I told you this previously. Its embedded in my very being. Information that is received is more compelling evidence of such.

Understanding your surroundings and what its made of and how it operates leaves someone like me astounded and the knowing is still.... a knowing. There is more confirmation of the knowing every single day. Sometimes I am amazed and all out baffled by the evidence that just falls into my lap.

I am not trying to make my view be more valid.... Im just showing you another view in which to see.

You say you see no evidence and I say everything I see is evidence. Our minds are constantly building and my mind is on a different journey than yours. You have built yours differently. This is evident and this is also why I asked you if you mind watching the video to be on the same wave length as me. Wave lengths.... are also evident in nature by the way.


I explain the atom... and then you tell me I am just asking you to follow my ideas as opinion and not fact. Frankly speaking I am not asking you to follow or believe anything except some people do not need faith at all to believe in which is evident to their perception based on their knowledge and experience.

An experiment itself is an expression of reality based on the observation made per the experiment. Where does the observer view from? His eyes and brain ~ it's perception based. Voila!




its neutral by nature


What else is nature? Expand on that thought and give me more. There is evidence in nature of a creator, a source of never ending life.



how its used can be interpreted


Or.... how it is SEEN can be interpreted any which way the viewer see's it via the brain.

When the collective views nature one way and its undeniable, there is a knowing via the collective that defines the nature as such. Nature of reality is different from one viewer to the next, however there is science that backs up the science of consciousness and the mind is where its ALL at.





I would never, ever bother to try and make them question their faith..because even if they are thinking rainbows is god winking at them, the effect of their faith being a net positive for society outweighs "truth". But many use their faith as some sort of weapon to use either literally or more intellectually..and that is when their "knowing" needs to be smacked down.


I totally agree!


Knowing something is easy... its wisdom that comes with study, reasoning, analysis, and experimentation.

Wisdom seeks unity, not division and goes with the good order of nature.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Atheism is an intellectual stance. It is not a religion by any stretch of the imagination. Nor, does it require faith. Faith, by definition, the the hope for desired results or outcomes. Atheism is the intellectual stance that there is either lack of proof or not proof in a God/Intelligent designer.

With that said...

The stance on Atheism is ultimately boiled down to an opinion. It is an opinion as no one can know all the proof for or against the existance of God. So, in effect, Atheism is based on subjective thought rather than objective thought. Theists can base there stance on several factors. Such factors are the complexity of the universe, the patterns which are present in nature (which suggest design), and the identification of what is good and what is evil.

I want to expand on morality, as it is a difficuly with Atheism. There is nothing in the stance of Atheism which supports an absolute moral code. With an Atheist, morals are relative and subject to opinion. Absolute morality would require moral laws, in turn, an ultimate law giver. Atheist have to borrow moral code from a theistic society in order to function within society.

Expamle:
"A criminal broke into a person's home, stole money and other valuables, and critically injured the person's wife in the process."
An Atheist has no basis to condem the criminal for their actions, as morals are relative. Perhapes the criminal "had to steal to feed their family and the worman was just in the wrong place at the wrong time." An absolute moral code, on the other hand, would say that "the criminal's actions were wrong; that they should be punished regardless of why they stole or harmed another person." Society works on an absolute moral code, which is based on a theistic moral lawgiver.
edit on 31-3-2013 by Siberbat because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Siberbat
An Atheist has no basis to condem the criminal for their actions, as morals are relative.


Morals are relative, atheist or theist alike.
Burning red haired people because its a sign of being filled with demons is a morality supported by old religions..that is hardly good though.

Principles are key to society...and one can be a total skeptic on every single thing, and even a nihilist and have set principles based on society. Esoteric ideals transcend supernatural considerations



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   
The funny thing about denying a belief in something. You have to first recognize that there is belief in it in order to deny it.

SO those whom do not believe in God, have to acknowledge it as an existing possibility before they can hold their belief against it.

I like contradiction, and this from a certain point of view is just that.
edit on 31-3-2013 by UncleBingo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Good stuff


What is it Mark Cuban said? When asked if he was a 'glass half full', or 'glass half empty' person, he is reported to have responded "Who is doing the pouring?" ' I love it.


The term 'god' is a football of divisiveness. Who is doing the asking? The term is a method of enforcing a bifurcation fallacy trick. There is no definition to the term 'god' - so how can you base a definition, using referential terms which are not defined in the first place?

I have no idea what a god is, and even if I did, I would not know whether one existed in our universe in the first place. Both the belief in and the dis-belief in this concept is an enormous boast on the part of the claimant. One which I am not willing to participate in.

Understand that this is a game. You're all too smart to fall for this. This shows up in your excellent writings.

The goal is a New Religion, to replace the old one. One which denies everything, and takes science and social discourse captive for its own purposes.

But it uses the same thought control methods as the old religion, and has the same goals.

Keeping you blind. Don't fall for it.





edit on 31-3-2013 by TheEthicalSkeptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 04:41 PM
link   
OP: There's nothing "desperate" about it. Your emotional choice of words implies that believers are running around, tearing their hair out at the roots, attempting to offer up some flimsy intellectual construct in the face of your mighty intellectual prowess, furiously trying to compete with the advance of reason which is slowly destroying their laughable and pitiful belief system.

As an intellectual stance, atheism is often the one that requires the least amount of effort. Since, as atheists are fond of pointing out, you cannot prove a negative, it's incredibly convenient. You just go on your merry way, and check in with the Christians every few years-"Proven God yet? No? Well then, See you later!" All the while congratulating yourself on being so clever.

When the atheist is able to simultaneously observe the entire Universe, every dimension, every wavelength of energy, and detect no God of any kind, then he can definitively say that God does not exist. Until then, God's non-existence is a theory.

And,colloquially speaking, anything you turn to in your hour of need for strength and support, whatever you are devoted to above all other things, that is your religion. We've chosen the invisible dude in the sky. You've chosen a non-provable theory based on currently limited evidence. To each their own.

edit on 31-3-2013 by Snsoc because: Another poster had a really good argument



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
reply to post by grainofsand
 


If it can be proven that the existence of a creature that fully fits the traditional description of God, completely and irreconcilably clashes with the fundamental structural tenets of physical reality - making what is obvious and provable about reality incompatible with what would have to be obvious and provable about reality for such a God to exist in the way that it is traditionally depicted - then it's not a faith-based assertion to deny that such a God exists as traditionally depicted.

The overwhelming evidence that no such being exists is the lack of direct impact that such a being would have to have on the rest of reality. Not on the established structure, as is the case of the wind moving leaves on a tree, while being invisible, but on the very nature of the established structure itself, as a direct ramification of its existence and the impact on the basic existential "recipe" (for lack of a more descriptive analogy). Too many tenets (causation, ramification, precedence, quantization, emergence) that have been concretely identified and repeatedly proven to be systemic to what exists as real, would have to be completely vacated on behalf of this God's ability to be what it's been described as being.

And not just it's omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence - which would be impossible enough. The very claim of its infinite existence violates the basis of physical reality, and this means that even if it could ever exist - which it can't, but due to a host of logical conundrums that I haven't got the room for here - its extreme incompatibility with the basic structure of the reality that we exist within would completely deny it access to us in any manner possible. In short, if such a thing does exist, then it has never reached in a imposed its will on us, and it sure as hell never became flesh and dealt among us. The very nature of what it is would permanently isolate it from us, and us from it.

For me, this is proof enough that God doesn't exist. And I'm not relying on an faith here. This was just a skeletal overview of the reality issues involved. There's a lot more that fleshes these bones out to a degree that ends up being pretty damn impressive when all's said and done.

Faith is what's required to embrace a belief in something that can be debunked to the extent that the existence of a being that fits the traditional depiction of God can be debunked. It doesn't require faith to connect the myriad of dots that are available to be connected in pursuit of establishing the Atheist's claim of there being no such God. All it takes is honesty, discipline, and the effort required.


Oh....and Happy Easter.




edit on 3/31/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



This is so well thought-out and eloquently stated, I can hardly respond in a fitting manner. This is the kind of effort I'd like to see from all atheists.

It is my belief that God created all people with a soul, and that the soul is something which is able to interact with God, a being that does not exist in physical reality.

You might ask how a non-physical soul can mesh with a physical body. We still do not know where consciousness comes from, how something physical like the brain can create something non-physical, like the mind.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by slowisfast
 


All that is knowable in this universe is the existence of the self, the rest is entirely based on faith/belief.

With that being said, just because the scientific method can't explain everything doesn't mean we should bury our heads in a book full of fairy tales. We know now that lightning isn't god displaying his anger, the earth isn't the center of the universe, and that our planet is older than 6000 years, all thanks to science.

Now, please explain to me how lack of belief in god is akin to religion?



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Snsoc
And,colloquially speaking, anything you turn to in your hour of need for strength and support, whatever you are devoted to above all other things, that is your religion. We've chosen the invisible dude in the sky. You've chosen a non-provable theory based on currently limited evidence. To each their own.

In times of need I seek out the strength within myself and the help of loved ones, not scientific theory or unprovable overlord entities.
To each their own of course, but I started this thread asking why some theists seem to desperately claim that lack of belief is a religion somehow, I await a reply which answers this question.
*Edit* I've actually read a couple of replies here which explain it nicely but it would have much more credibility coming from a theist of course.*/edit*

I had a lovely meal at my mates house tonight though, my faith that it was going to be top class was not in vain.
Such faith in the standards of the food offered to me by my friend was based on past experience which indicated that he is a person likely to feed me well. Gods do not appear to offer any prior experience to base decisions on though, so I would suggest that faith in such entities is a less reliable 'faith' than my belief that my friend would be providing lovely food to me tonight


I'm not commenting anymore tonight (sleepy fat grainofsand), but if you are a person who believes that faith in the testable claims of scientists is the same as faith in gods, please do post your comments here, I will be interested in reading your reasons why.
edit on 31-3-2013 by grainofsand because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   


What came before Science?
reply to post by MamaJ
 


Deductive reasoning, caveman sees meteorite hit the ground, burning bush. Finds fire, trial and error, meat tastes better cooked. Next time meteor hits cavemans child. Caveman starts beleiving the gods have deserted him. Curses the gods but keeps on using fire. Pragmatism?

Smarter (chieftan/shaman) dude sees how his tribe can be sent to another tribe to rape pillage steal what is not theirs through sheer force. Invokes his tribe with the threat of damnation. Dumber dudes keep giving medicine man a portion of their hunt gains even though he didnt life a physical finger in effort.

Present day FDA revolving door with Big Pharma: chemicals of little value are approved, your GP prescribes them (modern day medicine man) You get sick, you have faith that its not the Doctors fault as he begins a trial and error cocktail of other drugs. Meanwhile back at the FDA scientific results are skewed, where studies showing too many adverse results are not collated into final results.

US Govt prints money 17$ Trillion in debt (note carries insignia In God We Trust) , the religion of economic theory says that economy will expand. Common knowledge and maths show that it will take at least 2-3 generations to repay unsustainable debt. You have faith that morons in power will find a solution I mean to question them is to question the very bedrock of your society, otherwise they would have been hung as treasonous

What came before science, who cares all I see is the fallacies of Coercive Religion (heaven/hell) and Organized Mafia Science.

We are truly F!!!


Only a reset or global tidal wave, a different paradigm will change the status quo.
I have faith in neither
I use my eyes & mind to see its all a Con game
I use my heart to tell me something is sadly wrong
I suspect that the planet is perhaps ruled by the Gnostics Deimurge
Arguing with theists or scientists is counterproductive

I await for gods flying UFOS to come and rescue us before the planet blows up
See there you go: a science based Theology or TheoUFO-ism-ology

Meanwhile the new 21st century climate change hypothesis is turned into a religion and people start trading in Carbon credits ( new form of Federal Reserve worthless paper ) the Middle income earners again foot the taxation or increased cost of goods
Earth still dying from many causes ( carbon is essential to life by the way ) The revered high priests of climate science are now conning us as well as the politicians and banksters and pharmacists. Lets not forget the Military who for decades conned us that we keep needing more and more bombs to blow the world over many times

We have truly devolved to cavemen again


from grainofsand


In many different threads I have been accused of having a similar religious blind faith during my considerations of peer reviewed science matters






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.



And in each and every time in the peer reviewed "papers/research" of others in Uni or in regulatory bodies or in industry many have faith and a belief and assumptions that "no sexual favours" coercion or bribes or academic pressure was present, human nature being what it is



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
reply to post by slowisfast
 


All that is knowable in this universe is the existence of the self, the rest is entirely based on faith/belief.

With that being said, just because the scientific method can't explain everything doesn't mean we should bury our heads in a book full of fairy tales. We know now that lightning isn't god displaying his anger, the earth isn't the center of the universe, and that our planet is older than 6000 years, all thanks to science.

Now, please explain to me how lack of belief in god is akin to religion?


I don't disagree with anything you've said and I certainly don't advocate one burying their head. I'm a proponent and supporter of the sciences and fully believe that those fields have added greatly to the quality of the human experience and our knowledge overall.

You seem to think that those that believe in God don't believe in science, or have hostility towards it. That's unfortunate. It's really easy to stereotype groups of people base on the loud minority(understandable in a way), please be better than that.

You call them fairy tales, I use to too, but the truth, from my perspective, is that it's the it's the single greatest source of philosophical truth and wisdom we have on record. Take that however you will, but I don't believe that science and religion are at odds in their essence. They speak to two, entirely different, things. We, humans, have created them to be at odds in our modern, materialistic, society and by doing so made them mutually exclusive. While you thank science(and I do as well), my gratitude ultimately goes to the one that gave us this piece of meat inside our skulls that have allowed us to uncover and do some of the most amazing things.

It's very easy to discount the intellect of those you disagree with, it's a trap I urge you not to fall in to. People, much smarter than either of us, have been debating these topics for generations and its not something I see ending any time soon.

As to your last question, I never equated lack of belief to 'religion', the OP did. I was simply asking questions. While, in no way religious, lack of belief is belief in something. Like you said, the only thing concrete is our own existence, the rest of it is arbitrary.

I like the way you think.

edit on 31-3-2013 by slowisfast because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by UncleBingo
The funny thing about denying a belief in something. You have to first recognize that there is belief in it in order to deny it.

SO those whom do not believe in God, have to acknowledge it as an existing possibility before they can hold their belief against it.

I like contradiction, and this from a certain point of view is just that.
edit on 31-3-2013 by UncleBingo because: (no reason given)


Why do you think this? Atheism is simply a description of nonbelief in deities.

Before I had ever heard of the concept of god I was an atheist I didn’t deny anything. There was nothing to deny yet I was still an atheist.

My life was somewhat different than most of those around me growing up. My family never spoke of deity’s and it wasn’t until my thirty’s till I set foot in a church. It was believers who labeled me an atheist not myself or I was called heathen whatever floated their boat. Anyway the point is I never had to deny a god to be an atheist. Most of my life I had zero interest in learning what deity’s were. It certainly caused me some problems growing up as most of my childhood friends had to go to church where I had no interest in it. It was a Christian that informed me I was an atheist then explained what one was and I agreed with him. That was gossip news to many then I remember many families wouldn’t let their children associate with me because of it. Maybe they thought it was contagious
luckily we moved quite a bit because my father was in the military and I learned quickly to not let others know that I didn’t believe in such things otherwise life would become a little difficult. From a very early age I learned about Christian hypocrisy even if I didn’t know what it was called. They preached about love and acceptance as long as you accepted Christianity otherwise they may try to beat the Jesus into you. Thank goodness things have changed. A growing populace no longer believes in deities to where atheists like myself no longer need to hide the fact we don’t believe in such things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway dealing with the OPs question of why so many seem desperate to label Atheism as a religion it seems they do so because if they can get people to believe that then they think they can recruit more followers.

Think about it Christianity has done pretty well throughout history when it came to competing with other religions but now that they are faced with those who simply do not believe in deity’s their normal toolbox of tricks to gain followers isn’t doing so well. The old my god is better than your god routine just doesn’t work with atheism. Of course I am over simplifying here. Anyway if they can get the population to believe atheism is a religion then it will go a long way in their eyes in converting others to their way of thinking. It is easy for one religion to demonize another but they really don’t have much in the way of ammo to demonize atheism. It doesn’t stop them from trying though I have seen them call it Satanism or claim that morals are the property of religion and so forth. The educated know better however there isn’t a lack of uneducated out there for them to prey on.

Christianity feels threatened not by another religion but by the fact that a growing number of people in this world simply do not believe in the improvable anymore so labeling atheism as religion is simply a failing tactic they are trying so that their control system can remain relevant in the future. Personally I think within the next 100 years religions like Christianity will become about as popular as Norse mythology is today. Well maybe 200 years.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


I have no problems with your lack of religion, lack of faith, lack in the belief of Gods at all.

I'm just not so sure you have a lack of faith in "anything and everything". I equate "God", or the creator with everything and anything.

I believe this because of the way our bodies and the Universe (systems) are designed as a collective.

If you do not believe in God/Gods/Creator then you must believe in the Big Bang?

What came first in the big bang? Nothing?

So... out of nothing comes all that you see?

First, to determine you lack faith, I need to ask more questions to determine if you really do not hold any faith to a singularity of causation.

The very Science you say you love and attribute your lack of belief with is lacking a great deal. Im not saying it hasn't giving us answers we can go off of. These answers lead me to a singular causation of life.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   


there is nothing significant about it just water coming from their eyes and the love they think they feel is nothing more than the products of physical jiggery pokery within their bodies
reply to post by Credenceskynyrd
 


Touche, and see this is how schizophrenic science has become, create Nuclear weapons absolve responsbility for the effects of dropping it on the "other" and call it a Political decision. Meanwhile enjoy the tenureship or government grant paid for by the taxpayer and all is well. We always justify it in our minds by creating the "other"

Here's a thought experiment. A restaurant carries product liabilty insurance in case anyones gets ill from their food. Why dont we register scientists and set them up like partners in a law firm or insurers in a Lloyds underwriters Pool, in other words they cant hide behind a limited liability company. Make them accountable for their discoveries or more accurately responsible and accountable for the deleterious effects. I think there'd be a rush for the doors to the humanity sciences where they could grow fatter and safer meddling in social services and what goes in peoples bedrooms (you must with all available means deter weapons designers changing occupations to Psychiatry)



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 07:32 PM
link   
If the original poster is so intelligent why is it he made the most obvious mistake that you don't need faith in every religion. I can name several religions of the world like most sects of Buddhism, Zen, Taoism, mystical paths and some forms of Yoga such as Patanjali where you don't even need faith. By the way I have no problem with science but it seems to me most atheists have very little or no understanding at all of world religion and think all religions are just like Christianity. I'm a Buddhist and I don't need or care about faith. I just meditate and I have my own experience.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 07:53 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)


Chumming the waters? I'll take the bait!
Yes, I believe that everything that is knowable can be tested given the scientific method -- however, the tests might get pretty strange, and we may not be able to do it yet,... that's because humanity has only been using the scientific method for a few hundred years and we've got thousands of years of myth and "well it killed old Zeke -- so let's not do that again."

The addition of "hypothetically" knowable is strange. It pre-supposes that someone THINKS that something is knowable but it will prove to perhaps NOT be knowable. I would contend that is the trap; you only know what you know, and a wise man doesn't know what he doesn't know. If something like "what is outside our Universe" is unknowable, well, then it doesn't stand up to the scientific method.

I believe that there probably are the "equivalents" of God-like beings and that's hope that we might have some sort of a soul; because our shared experience lives on after we die in a higher life form. Nothing about us seems so far above animals that we should automatically have something metaphysical involved. Other than bumps in the night -- I don't see much that isn't at some level explainable.

Before you make some "zinger" on science - -please be a bit more specific and don't try to use the magic of words that mean nothing or anything. What you know - you know, what you hypothetically know is another term for "a guess."



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 08:04 PM
link   
This thread seems to be too much of a tit-for-tat about theology -- and not enough soul searching.

Let's stop forcing "Atheists" to be a religion, or a religion of non-religion. It doesn't pre-suppose anything -- it is "non believe." Just like we don't call people "members of the non-belief in Unicorns sect" we don't call atheists a religion of non-god belief.

I'm more an Agnostic, in that I do think there is a God, but I don't know what that really means. Evolution Science itself informs me that time and evolution that allows an intelligence like humanity to form, must have allowed another to form. Given that the Universe is here -- I assume it is infinite until that can be proven wrong (longer theological discussion). So therefore; intelligence has happened before, and it has had longer to develop. Therefore, there are beings tantamount to Gods that exist. Whether they are helping us or using us as lab rats, or entertainment -- or something else, I cannot anthropomorphize, and I recognize that I cannot detect the hand of some super advanced being given my limited resources and awareness if they do not want me to.

The Question of the OP is; "Why do some theists desperately try to claim a lack of faith as religion?"
My best guess so far, not being a theist but having attempted a few times; Theists project their own world-view, and reason that the OTHER group is just another type of religion OR, the defend their own world view by assuming that you cannot believe in nothing.

Again, it's not a lack of faith or a religion to NOT believe in Unicorns. You just see no evidence for Unicorns. It's the same as saying people who don't believe in Trickle-down economics are not "the unfaithful in the power of throwing money at rich people" -- we call them; Rational humans.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join