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

reply to post by MamaJ

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

This statement kind of bugs me.

Why do you insist that atheists have to believe in the big bang? Is this your own opinion or is it taught to you by your faith or someone else? I have seen this parroted by a great many religious people that atheists must believe in the big bang.

I have read other theory’s than the big bang explaining the origin of the universe as to what I believe they all sound valid as theory’s but that doesn’t mean I believe any of them. I don’t have to put stock in any of them to be an atheist.

Many atheists like myself do not need the answer to the origin of the universe it simply is not a defining element in my life. I see this as another attempt by the religious to tack on additional meaning to the definition of atheism.

I am an atheist and I certainly do not have to believe in the Big Bang theory to be one. If that were true it would be akin to dogma for atheism. Let me simplify the definition of theism. Atheist = non believer. Saying atheists have to believe in big bang, wearing socks, bow ties, or must drive Priuses is simply not true.

I just wish people would stop trying to redefine what it is to be an atheist.

I know. 8 pages so far. It's semantic. If you say,

1. I believe in a Supreme being, then you are a theist.

Why? Because you have a stated believe in "God," whatever that means to you. You "believe."

If you say,

2. I DO NOT believe in a Supreme Being, then you are (ostensibly) an agnostic.

Why? Because you do not stand in a "believing relationship" either way. Many people mistake this phrase to mean they "believe" God does not exist. But it's an important semantic difference.

If you say,

3. I BELIEVE a Supreme Being does NOT exist, then you are an atheist.

Why? because you DO stand in a "believing" relationship vis-à-vis the existence of a Supreme Being.

The three choices are:

I BELIEVE (so you are a believer)
I DO NOT believe (so you are not a believer)
I BELIEVE not (so you are a believer)

In that sense "Theists" are correct when they state that atheists are 'religious' because they do believe. The agnostics don't make the decision, so theists cannot claim they have a religion. The confusion arises in a sloppy use of language that is often used improperly.

Look, folks, this is very basic logic taught in "Philosophy 100" or "Introduction to Logic." It's really not rocket science.

reply to post by schuyler


You are getting some things mixed up. If you really want to know the definitions it is a bit more complicated than the three choices you outlined. Here are two charts that may help you understand.





I am an agnostic atheist as defined above. I do not claim to know 100% that god does not exist however I do not see evidence that one exists and see no reason to follow any religion.

If evidence were presented to me proving the existence of one or more I would change my position to Gnostic Theist.

I had a thought. If a major portion of this thread is about definitions of atheism and agnosticism, why not check with the experts? So I visited the website of American Atheists and found this, among many other things:

What could it possibly mean to say that I don't believe in X but I am not maintaining there is no X? That is why I concluded that all Atheism is positive Atheism - we do not believe in X because we maintain there is no X.

What does all of this have to do with Agnosticism? Everything, as it turns out. Atheists who dilute their Atheism into Agnosticism are not only doing the cause and philosophy of Atheism a disservice, but they are also committing a crucial conceptual error - and allowing others to commit it too.

Thus, there are only two possible outcomes to our investigation - yes this god exists, or no this god does not exist. The first is (one of the many types of) Theism, and the second is Atheism. These two positions represent the poles of the spectrum of belief. In fact they are the only two points on that spectrum. Either you believe in god(s) and are a Theist, or you do not believe in god(s) and are an Atheist.

atheists.org...

So, apparently we don't have Agnostic Atheists, and Atheists believe God doesn't exist. May we go on from there?

in all seriousness, do we really need to debate about theist/atheist ?

Both sides sucks, both trying to argue about something we dont even understand fully.

*facepalm*

reply to post by charles1952


Then I guess I do not exist.

Considering Agnostic, atheist, theist, are all descriptive terms maybe the definition of agnostic should be removed from the dictionary.

I do not need a group such as American Atheist’s to tell me how to think. I do not remember joining there group or having a vote in such a group deciding this.

They sound like a group of militant atheists to me. There is a group in the UK who started having gatherings for Atheist’s where they can have a community much like church groups do the only real difference is that there will be no sermons or talk of religion. It is a religion free zone. The funny thing is the ones who were so against it are the militant atheists their main argument seems to be that they are being atheists the wrong way. They are not doing it right.

I see the group American Atheists trying to dictate who I am the same way others try to dictate that I must believe in the Big Bang to qualify as an atheist. Delusional people can be religious or non-religious neither group has definitive rights to that quality.

edit to add

Honestly if it bothers people so much then instead of calling me an agnostic atheist they can just call me an non believer in deity’s that is not 100% positive that they do not exist really it’s the same thing and I assure everyone that is what I think on the matter but if that is too hard for most I am fine with being called a heathen.

For myself they are descriptive terms for others they seem to be defining terms.

Do Christians call themselves theists or do they call themselves Christians. Christian seems to define theist seems to describe both are correct in a sense.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Depending on which religion you follow
The common big religion, Judeo-Christianity teaches we did start out immortal..then we ate some knowledge or whatnot and voila, God got uppity and made us mortal and will die, etc...

So, seems mortality, at least for humanity, is a eternal punishment (talk about holding a grudge)

Mortality is not an eternal punishment Its the complete opposite. Think about it, mortal, means that you die, so its not eternal.

I mean come on, honestly, how much do you know about Judeo-Christianity or any other religion? Not much, it seems.

Originally posted by jiggerj
Some loving god, huh? And of course, you will come up with some desperate, wholly irrational excuse to make this right in your head. Don't do that! Look at it for what it is. The biblical god is a story made up by men. NO loving god would carry out such atrocities.

You see, your understanding of religion is very limited. You really don't understand what it is about. And I do not block my self from it, not one of the Christians I know do. There are bible study groups out there, and they will speicifically go over this stuff. You don't seem to understand the idea of god, or love.

Imagine a world with a god with they type of "love" your thinking about. No pain, nobody dies, etc. Just think about what your saying.

Originally posted by grainofsand
Conspiracy theories are a bit like religion though aren't they. Not enough evidence to prove anything and always relying on the testimony of someone else. Believing either side of the 911 debate relies on faith in the source, which is why my mind remains open to any possibility.

You will bias towards one or the other no doubt.

Originally posted by grainofsand
Gods however, do not have any supporting evidence, apart from ancient multiple translated books. As such, I do not believe in the magical stories. My position is reasonable and honest but it is certainly not a position of faith or part of a wider religion of people who do not believe.

There is supporting evidence, if you care to look.

Originally posted by grainofsand
Faith in the existence of gods is a very different definition of the word. There is no way to verify such claims and there is no previous experience to draw me towards believing at all.
It is a blind faith which unlike 'faith' in scientific research, cannot be studied in any way which will provide primary evidence to the student.

Thats the point though. It can be studied. There is no conclusive proof, but it can be studied, and you can find things out. You haven't tried, because you came to the conclusion there is no god. After coming to that conclusion you see no point in trying to find one, and you probably feel that scientific discoveries such as evolution mean that gods don't exist.

Originally posted by Grimpachi

Why do you insist that atheists have to believe in the big bang? Is this your own opinion or is it taught to you by your faith or someone else? I have seen this parroted by a great many religious people that atheists must believe in the big bang.

Precisely! I find that also annoying. You can be theist, and believe in the big-bang, or you can be atheist and not believe in it. As a matter of fact the big-bang largerly works with the major religions, so it makes no sense to say that only, atheists believe in it, and that atheists only believe in it. Its a separate fact.

Originally posted by grainofsand
Personally, I'll take anything that was written about in the Christian books which doesn't seem to happen since they were written.
Water into wine, walking on water, parting of the sea, feeding of the millions starving in the world with 5 loaves and a couple of fish, raising of the dead, you know, all the things which convinced people in the past.
If I was the Abrahamic God I would reconsider my strategy as the modern world is the place for magic now, more than ever. Why would I believe something based on ancient testimony alone?

If you were any god you would know a lot more than you do now, and you wouldn't do anything differently. Some people on this forum think that USA should just nuke NK, and destroy the entire country. The leaders of USA (thankfully), are not doing that. Thats because they know a lot more about the situation than those who just want to destroy NK. How can we doubt their strategies without knowing their plans, and everything they know.

There is more than just ancient testimony.

Originally posted by charles1952
I had a thought. If a major portion of this thread is about definitions of atheism and agnosticism, why not check with the experts? So I visited the website of American Atheists and found this, among many other things:

What could it possibly mean to say that I don't believe in X but I am not maintaining there is no X? That is why I concluded that all Atheism is positive Atheism - we do not believe in X because we maintain there is no X.

What does all of this have to do with Agnosticism? Everything, as it turns out. Atheists who dilute their Atheism into Agnosticism are not only doing the cause and philosophy of Atheism a disservice, but they are also committing a crucial conceptual error - and allowing others to commit it too.

Thus, there are only two possible outcomes to our investigation - yes this god exists, or no this god does not exist. The first is (one of the many types of) Theism, and the second is Atheism. These two positions represent the poles of the spectrum of belief. In fact they are the only two points on that spectrum. Either you believe in god(s) and are a Theist, or you do not believe in god(s) and are an Atheist.

atheists.org...

So, apparently we don't have Agnostic Atheists, and Atheists believe God doesn't exist. May we go on from there?

That was sort of what I was thinking as well. But if someone wants to claim to be agnostic atheist, I have no problem with that. Basically saying that they're agnostic, but are leaning more on the side of atheism. As in they are agnostic, but as everyone is biased, they claim their side, which is either theism, or atheism. Then of course they shouldn't call them self atheist, only "agnostic", or the full "agnostic atheist", as they are not truly "atheist', while they are truly "agnostic".

Originally posted by Snsoc

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.

What is necessary is that consciousness - with the clear and compelling evidence that it exists as a non-material, yet physical presence - be revealed as logically and structurally compatible with what has been thoroughly proven to be real and reliable about the basic properties of that which is material, yet also physically existent. The good news is that this is possible and has been accomplished.

That said, the news is not as good for the logical and structural compatibility between what's been proven about physical existence and the existence of a God creator being that is infinite and nonphysical. The issues are sketched out in the post you've responded to, and these issue might not limit the capacity of a being that you can imagine to exist, but they definitely limit that being's capacity to have any contextual compatibility with either the material or non-material realms that make up the physical reality that you exist within.

You exist within a Relative Being State. Look it up if you have questions about what that means. Such a "God" being as has been traditionally depicted must exist as a Singularity - in an Absolute Being State. These two being states literally eliminate one another (Relative = "this and that", while Absolute = "this and that" is not possible). This God Singularity can't create a Relative Being State within the confines of itself, and the notion of such a thing fails profoundly - existing solely within the subjective imagination of the miraculous human mind. Any reality that exists only maintains existence if the entire spectrum of contextual relationships that constitute that reality remain within a basic confluence structure that defines the primordial nature of that reality as the contextual confine that it is. This structure is what defines that reality confine, and an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God being that possesses infinite nonphysical attributes is irreconcilably incompatible with the basic structure of our own reality confine, as it has proven itself to definitively exist.

This doesn't mean that human consciousness doesn't exist. It does. It doesn't mean that non-material physical existence is a lie. It's not a lie. It just means that the true physical nature of human consciousness and non-material physical existence has been misunderstood by both traditional science and traditional wisdom. Not surprising. After all, we're just beginning to build perception assisting machines capable of debunking our most cherished truths. We've got a fascinating century of discovery ahead of us.

reply to post by grainofsand

In response to OP.

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

Science does not look for God and only knows of a small percentage of whats going on in terms of all of reality. Science is based on logic and reason (the Head). God, and being able to directly experience God, is based on intuition and going deep within (the Heart).

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.'

There is also hundreds of thousands, if not millions or more, that directly experience and feel this invisible entity. Science does not yet understand "consciousness", yet alone what direct experience is. Yet surely Science would not doubt direct experience. And if you want to pull the whole "God" experience as being imagined, we can go to the other extent and also conclude that all of reality is imagined, and thus nothing is real.

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?

Nothing inherently wrong with science. It's the best we got to try and figure out how "things" work. Plus it shows the divine Craftsmanship within all things. Even when I "was" an Atheist, the whole argument of all of this intricacy of reality evolving from "nothing" just never cut it for me. As I said before, for all your professors/lecturers, we have 10,000 times that in folks who claim the direct experience of the divine. Apples & oranges.

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.

I got degrees from Universities and have read 100's of books and seen the maths too. After I've experienced the Spiritual realms, everything else is like straw to the wind. I'll take experiencing Infinity any day, over reading about and studying minute aspects of it. But that's just me. I understand we need individuals that are seasoned in Logic/Reason to be the Engineers who build bridges, cars, planes electrical grids, etc. Just like we need the Mystics and Saints to build the relationships with God/Enlightenment to share it with those whoa re ready for that

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.

The scientific method has "faults & limits". Sure it works, ....to a certain degree. For example, everything has to be "repeatable". Some aspects of reality are not repeatable and by there very nature, can't be repeated. SO according to the scientific method, should be tossed or labeled anomaly. Yet lets measure this very moment right now, one we are all aware of, and can measure.....yet we can never repeat it again cause that moment is already gone in the blink of an eye. According to the logic of science under the "scientific method", we should now toss out reality or consider it an anomaly.

Other aspects of reality can't be measured, or the act of observing the measurement, "skews" the results ala double slit experiment (wave collapse function).

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.

Your "faith & belief" works on a different principle. You believe you will wake up tomorrow. You believe you are who you think you are. You have faith your vehicle or transportation system will get you to work on time, or if there is some traffic up ahead, you hope for it to clear up so you can get there on time. You use "faith & Belief" daily in your own life, however you use them with things that you are accustomed to, according to what you know.

Others use "faith & belief" because they are already plugged into intuition and feel/experience the "Source". I "believe" that your whole premise is also based on "belief."

reply to post by MamaJ

Nous~

Reminded me of Around the time i was exploring christianity, Yes came out with Tales from Topographic Oceans,

Nous Somme Du Soleil (we are the sun)
(portion of the lyrics)

Hurry home as love is true
Will help us through the night
Till we're coming home again
Our life seems like
Life seems like a
Fight, fight, fight

Catch as we look and use the passions that flow
As we try to continue
We receive all we venture to give

Maybe we'll just stand awhile
And surely we can call
Dreams are said to blossom courage
Constant to the soul

Change we must as surely time does
Changes call the course
Held inside we enter daybreaks
Asking for asking for
The source


On our deathbed contemplating

"I hope I get there, maybe i'm not worthy, I sinned I doubt, what is the atheist is right " the Xtian, the

"maybe there is an afterlife, quick get me a priest " the ambivalent atheist

Its all good...
Look within
written words only go so far
logic leaves room for further questions
"we receive all we venture to give"
Enjoy
Experience
Being and Beingness
Peace

reply to post by salainen

That was sort of what I was thinking as well. But if someone wants to claim to be agnostic atheist, I have no problem with that. Basically saying that they're agnostic, but are leaning more on the side of atheism. As in they are agnostic, but as everyone is biased, they claim their side, which is either theism, or atheism. Then of course they shouldn't call them self atheist, only "agnostic", or the full "agnostic atheist", as they are not truly "atheist', while they are truly "agnostic".

Well you are close but not entirely. You see I live my life as an atheist because I give little or no thought to gods I do not practice any rituals i.e. attend church give thanks or thought to an afterlife. I live in the here and now and when considering world affairs I do not believe in prophecies so when considering world affairs such as global warming I am not comforted as some that such a thing couldn’t be true because god said he would never kill off man again like the story of the flood. That is where I have concluded that religion is destructive because we have had congressmen make statements that global warming is a hoax because god said……… yada yada.I am not taking a stance on GW here just stating that faith can be detrimental to society when used as justification to ignore science. I believe humanity’s future is depended ant on our own actions and when those in power have blind faith it affects us all.

I digress as I said I live life as an atheist not as an agnostic but when pondering existence I lean towards agnosticism because it only at that time do I even consider the possibility of the supernatural there really is nowhere else in my daily life does agnosticism have an effect.

So you were close when surmising but you had that backwards. I know it is semantics to most but it to me it is an important difference. It is very possible that others may think the way you described however for me it is as I explained.


The question put forward on this thread of why do theists try so desperately to label atheism as a religion seems to have either been lost or intentionally avoided by most theists on this thread still remains. I have already stated why I think that is but I failed to bring up one other alternative which is that some theists honestly do not know what atheism is or have been misled into believing it is something which it is not by others. From reading many of the replies so far I think that is a very real possibility considering the misconceptions so many have dealing with the varying definitions of agnostic, atheist, agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist, theist, agnostic theist, and gnostic theist.

Just like how some think all atheists must believe in the big bang they were misled somewhere into believing that.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Not saying that hypocrisy does not exist, yet understand that it is beset on all sides of the same dice.

I do not know what God is, but I know what he isn't. And even as an atheist I'm sure there is some relevant superstition that some of them atheists hold deer outside of god.

Look at it this way.....

Caveman see other caveman make fire....OHHHHH other caveman must be god, he can make fire. Magic is nothing more than a piece of science that has yet to be discovered. Who is to say that God is nothing more than the genetic vibration within all of us as it harmoniously resonates throughout nature at the same frequency?

Would you believe in him then? Christians like to push their faith in something they cannot prove as Atheists like to push their faith into something they cannot disprove. See the contradiction?

Ok, so God does or does not exist.......prove it.

reply to post by SaturnFX

MamaJ: 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.

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

From Wiki; Eureka Effect:
"Some research describes the Aha! effect (also known as insight or epiphany) as a memory advantage,[2] but conflicting results exist as to where exactly it occurs in the brain, and it is difficult to predict under what circumstances one can predict an Aha! moment."

On Evidence: "Many issues surround evidence, making it the subject of much discussion and disagreement. In addition to its subtlety, evidence plays an important role in many academic disciplines, including science and law, adding to the discourse surrounding it.

An important distinction in the field of evidence is that between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence, or evidence that suggests truth as opposed to evidence that directly proves truth. Many have seen this line to be less-than-clear and significant arguments have arisen over the difference."

see even Legal "Science" is an art a refinement a constant re-evaulation or a rewriting or dumping of previous laws/legislation.

I still ascribe to the "beleif" (after much observation) that a lot of Science or the application thereof is a "Poltical decision" where money personality "power dynamics" human frailty greed are the defining Raison d'etre

regrettably but true most organized religion/major faiths in my eyes falls into the above "beleif" of mine.

"I" am alone I make the decision I take responsibilty for my actions

Should I join with the peaceful ones who care for my soul or

Should I ascribe
to "Prince Philip has talked about "culling the herd" of human population, and openly said he wants to be "reincarnated as a deadly virus" in order to reduce the world's population."

Microsoft’s Bill Gates….

“The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent

Ah such men of science and logic

Why the silence from compassionate scientists taking these genocidal misfits head on? where are the scientists hiding, yeah thats right they crawl back into their labs because they play the game. A game where your bread and butter is predicated on not rocking the boat. A blind eye towards the mounting evidence of immunizations ill effects, the fluoridation of drinking water to dumb down the masses, the Political decision to turn Climate theory into "climate change", a new religion with real life consequences ( heck they're even lumping questioning into Climate Change Deniers now)
meanwhile the Wildlife Fund grabs more and more wilderness for their future "elite" offspring.
Really all one has to look at is Agenda 21, and see where we're being herded into, by no less then men of science, or more accurately using science through a political lens to acheive their desired outcome.

But you hold up your hands and rant and say with an "honest looking face" it wasnt me, that science is neutral,
yeah right

Maybe they confused Angels as the gods!

reply to post by grainofsand


then you are more likely agnostic rather than an atheist. Pls see Niel Grasse de Thyssen about this (pls check spellin) and youtube

chou

reply to post by UncleBingo

Not saying that hypocrisy does not exist, yet understand that it is beset on all sides of the same dice.

I do not know what God is, but I know what he isn't. And even as an atheist I'm sure there is some relevant superstition that some of them atheists hold deer outside of god.

I never said hypocrisy belonged strictly to Christians I believe that attribute can be used to describe a myriad of groups. And as you said there probably are some superstitions that some atheists however the key word in that statement is some. That is not an attribute that can be added to the definition of atheist. Let me put it this way some Christians believe that people of color are descendants of Cain does that mean all Christians believe that? I don't think so. The only attribute or shared common denominator of atheist is we do not believe in deities. Anything else is an effort to add to the definition.

Would you believe in him then? Christians like to push their faith in something they cannot prove as Atheists like to push their faith into something they cannot disprove. See the contradiction?

Ok, so God does or does not exist.......prove it.

I am sure you have heard this before but perhaps you didn't understand where they did not explain correctly. Proving a negative is impossibility. Let me explain. Someone claims flying unicorns exist your stance would be that they do not exist (this is an assumption on my part). In turn they tell you to prove it. They are asking you to prove that flying unicorns do not exist. How do you prove something that does not exist outside of mythology, fairytales, and TV shows? Is there any way that you can prove this? The burden of proof would lay with the person making the claim that flying unicorns exist not the person who does not believe in them. Asking someone to prove that God does not exist is a logical fallacy.

Let us dissect this a little bit more would you call your nonbelief in flying unicorn’s faith? What is it that you need to blindly believe in to make you disbelieve in unicorns? I simply do not understand where faith is needed to not believe in something that there is no proof of. Maybe you can explain why your nonbelief in flying unicorns is a faith. If you can adequately explain that then maybe I can understand your position that my nonbelief in deities can be considered a faith. I thank you in advance for your rational explanation of such a position.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
faith can be detrimental to society when used as justification to ignore science.

Definately. And organized religion can be very bad when used for power, money, politics, etc.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
From reading many of the replies so far I think that is a very real possibility considering the misconceptions so many have dealing with the varying definitions of agnostic, atheist, agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist, theist, agnostic theist, and gnostic theist.

Well its a bit complicated, especially if you never really think about it. So atheists probably are even worse in knowledge of all this, since they probably never really consider things like that.

Although I don't see how anyone can claim that atheism is a religion. Or that agnosticism is a religion. You can say that they are beliefs, but not religion.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
I digress as I said I live life as an atheist not as an agnostic but when pondering existence I lean towards agnosticism because it only at that time do I even consider the possibility of the supernatural there really is nowhere else in my daily life does agnosticism have an effect.

So you were close when surmising but you had that backwards. I know it is semantics to most but it to me it is an important difference. It is very possible that others may think the way you described however for me it is as I explained.

Basically I was talking about your belief, not how you live your life. If you claim not to know if a god exists, then your sort of agnostic, regardless of whether or not you ever really think about it in your daily life. I mean how can agnosticism have an effect on anybodys life anyway? Wouldn't agnostics live their life just the same as any atheist, and only consider themselves agnostic when pondering existance, etc.

Doesn't really matter though, and you can call yourself atheist, and I can call you atheist, not a problem.