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

Your using a dictionary to disprove a point the Bible already covers as truth. Man worships himself. Even Bob Dylan worked out you have to serve somebody.

Originally posted by Noncompatible

Originally posted by charles1952
Science, which studies the natural world, does not have the tools (nor will it have) to measure the supernatural world. God's existence can not be proven in a scientific manner.

An Atheist, someone who believes in no God, cannot prove his position either. His position is the same as the believer's, studying a supernatural question with only natural tools.

All we can do is consider the existing evidence and reach a conclusion based on it. Belief, not proof, is all there is here.

An atheist is not someone who believes in no god. An atheist is someone who does not accept there is any tangible evidence for gods. It is not a belief, it is the absence of a willingness to accept faith as viable evidence for it/he/she/them (gods).

I am an atheist. There are many things I do not know. But based on the total lack of any evidence to the contrary, I feel comfortable with my lack of faith.
Others may find it disturbing.

With regard to theists that try to claim that I have a religion, I regard it more as a questioning of their own faith and an attempt to divert attention (usually their own) away from the massive "evidence hole" that pervades pretty much every deity based belief.

The title "atheist" itself means "no god". It's from Greek. "Theos" = God, "A" = alpha, the negative. Atheos means "no god".

reply to post by grainofsand

... any claims from science can be studied by anyone for long enough to discover evidence supporting or disproving the claims. Invisible and unprovable entities do not offer such research options though, so going back to the OP as closure to my comments, I assert that faith in gods is a totally different type of faith than the tested and testable faith in scientific experiments. It is blind and trusting in historical record with no way to repeat any of the published claims from the past.

The US National Academy of Sciences defines science as: "Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. It is limited to explaining the world through natural causes. Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral."

Looking for proof of God through science is like looking for a French translation in a Russian dictionary - its the wrong source.

Astronaut Edgar Mitchell said: "Frankly our knowledge base as far as how the universe works we're just barely out of the trees; so, we're pretty naive. We think we know a lot more than we do."

We have discovered many of Nature's secrets since the so-called Age of Reason began. But it would be foolish to believe we nothing more to learn, including knowledge that can connect religious truths and science. As astronaut Mitchell pointed out, we are yet as children in our understanding of the Universe/ Nature, and how an omnipresent God might exist in it. Thus, we are left, at present, to accept God and God's imminence in Nature, on our higher perceptions, and by our faith.

I could use the same paragraph to discuss faith in dark energy, Pangea or the multiverse. Faith in God is no more or less deductive, substantiated or 'valid' as Faith in no God - faith is faith.

My own faith is: religions (which speak of our existence and progress within God's universe) and science (which studies the nature and operation of the observable universe) present two avenues for understanding the same ONE reality.

reply to post by Orwells Ghost

So you have faith in Science?

No. Faith is believing in something that has no proof and no evidence whatsoever. Science has a proven track record, with enough accomplishments to fill a library. I believe in the probability that science will uncover the origins of life and the universe.

reply to post by slowisfast

Originally posted by Jiggerj Even if it takes a few million years we will figure it out.

What you have just expressed is a statement of faith.

I disagree. Science has a proven track record of figuring out that gods are not in volcanoes, don't live in the ocean, and don't create hurricanes, lightning, or visit plagues upon mankind... Science figured out how all of these things work. It is on that track record that shows me where science is going, so if I believe in anything it is on probabilities. And, in order for something to become a probability is has to have solid evidence of repeated accomplishments - science has that.

Though the probability of science understanding the beginning of life is not guaranteed, my belief is still based on verifiable evidence of the past, and not on faith which requires no evidence whatsoever.


P.S. I don't drink.

reply to post by jiggerj

Science has a proven track record of figuring out that gods are not in volcanoes, don't live in the ocean, and don't create hurricanes, lightning, or visit plagues upon mankind.

No science has not proved that. Science assumes the position. No more, no less. You assume God does not act through Nature's laws. This is your faith, it is not a rational position.

Please link me to any sources you might have where these solved mysteries have erased the God of the Bible.

reply to post by slowisfast


I could link to a site on the science of biology, but I'd rather just point out that biology has taught us that the chemical make-up of the brain has, and always will, determine our path. When we look back on all the wars and cruelty done by the human animal, we see that even if religion was never created, we still would have taken the same path. If it wasn't called a religious war, we would have found another reason for that war. If religion didn't grow powerful enough to instill fear in the common man, some other idea would have grown powerful enough to do it.

The bible has been around for 6,000 years and it has changed nothing. Belief in a god has not stopped war, greed, or ignorance; which is just as widespread today as it was in the human beginning. Religion hasn't changed anything because humans haven't changed. This makes the bible and the god totally irrelevant.

reply to post by slowisfast

We don't even fully understand the fundamental how and why of a single human cell and you want me to believe that we'll know and prove the origins of the Universe and the non-existence of God? I'm not buying.

We don't understand such things YET. Science is still in its infancy. It's only been less than a hundred years that we've figured out what DNA even looks like. And, in that short time we've already figured out how to read it, clone it, and cross breed it. What do you think we'll be able to do with DNA in a million years of research?

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by Orwells Ghost

 

So you have faith in Science?

No. Faith is believing in something that has no proof and no evidence whatsoever. Science has a proven track record, with enough accomplishments to fill a library. I believe in the probability that science will uncover the origins of life and the universe.

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

I have witnessed the accomplishments of religion, a fella I know, drinking bottles of whisky every day, living on the street turned his life around through Jesus.

You "believe", that is a form of faith about the future- safe to say you will never fully know about the non physical aspect of things until you breathe your last- 100% sure you and I will die fella, then we will know, not "science"

If you are atheist, you do not belong to any religion. But you still do believe things, and put faith in things. I for one believe in evolution. I have faith in the scientists who came up with the theory, and in the experiments which have been conducted to come to the conclusion.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by grainofsand

 

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

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

Congratulations, you are no longer a part of any religion. In other words an aatheist (from "A" = alpha, the negative, and "Theos" = God, Aatheos, meaning "no no God").

Originally posted by Budapest
reply to post by jiggerj

 

Science has a proven track record of figuring out that gods are not in volcanoes, don't live in the ocean, and don't create hurricanes, lightning, or visit plagues upon mankind.

No science has not proved that. Science assumes the position. No more, no less. You assume God does not act through Nature's laws. This is your faith, it is not a rational position.

Really? Science assumes the position that extreme heat and pressure causes volcanoes to explode and lava to boil over the top?

If god acts through nature's laws, then god killed 200,000 people in that recent tsunami. In a court of law he would have been found guilty of mass murder and crimes against humanity. So, do you really want to go there?

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by slowisfast

 

We don't even fully understand the fundamental how and why of a single human cell and you want me to believe that we'll know and prove the origins of the Universe and the non-existence of God? I'm not buying.

We don't understand such things YET. Science is still in its infancy. It's only been less than a hundred years that we've figured out what DNA even looks like. And, in that short time we've already figured out how to read it, clone it, and cross breed it. What do you think we'll be able to do with DNA in a million years of research?

Maybe so! Maybe we'll eventually discover the ability to travel at the speed of thought, and a way for our brains to increase capacity until we know everything. Maybe we'll even understand the nature of atoms to such a degree that we can manipulate matter by our wills alone.

And then some lesser being on a planet we created somewhere will say "I don't believe in a god I can't prove."

Originally posted by Credenceskynyrd

I have witnessed the accomplishments of religion, a fella I know, drinking bottles of whisky every day, living on the street turned his life around through Jesus.

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

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

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

Originally posted by Snsoc

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by slowisfast

 

We don't even fully understand the fundamental how and why of a single human cell and you want me to believe that we'll know and prove the origins of the Universe and the non-existence of God? I'm not buying.

We don't understand such things YET. Science is still in its infancy. It's only been less than a hundred years that we've figured out what DNA even looks like. And, in that short time we've already figured out how to read it, clone it, and cross breed it. What do you think we'll be able to do with DNA in a million years of research?

Maybe so! Maybe we'll eventually discover the ability to travel at the speed of thought, and a way for our brains to increase capacity until we know everything. Maybe we'll even understand the nature of atoms to such a degree that we can manipulate matter by our wills alone.

And then some lesser being on a planet we created somewhere will say "I don't believe in a god I can't prove."

Exactly! And when we create planets and universes, we'll be nothing more than imperfect scientists. Not gods.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Really? Science assumes the position that extreme heat and pressure causes volcanoes to explode and lava to boil over the top?

If god acts through nature's laws, then god killed 200,000 people in that recent tsunami. In a court of law he would have been found guilty of mass murder and crimes against humanity. So, do you really want to go there?

The post you are quoting stated that God can act through natures laws, not that everything that happens in nature was done by God. There is a huge difference.

God didn't kill 200000 people in a tsunami, the tsunami killed them. Sure, he didn't save them, and he probably could have, but imagine this world without any disasters. No war, no pain, no suffering, furthermore, no saddness, etc. Pretty much you would be left without feelings or emotions. You would go through your life without any danger, and therefore absolutely no purpose. You wouldn't need to try to survive. No need to work. You can't get excitement from going bunjee jumping, you wouldn't feel the pleasure in just relaxing at a beach.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by slowisfast
reply to post by grainofsand

 

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

Do you believe the scientific method should be able to be applied to all that is(hypothetically) knowable in this Universe?

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

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

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

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

I agree that humans need to get rid of their small minded conception that their view (religious dogma) is the right way for all souls just because you choose it. Are we not all trying to get the best approximation of what really is. Even if I get a very good approximation when I try to define things without knowing everything then I end up with a simplification that is a lie. So I am creating a view that I know is not 100% right and in need of adjusting since I do not have all data.

“You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth

Every religion or science that exists today is an idol since it is a simplification of what is. So if you create a view of what is then question it and keep changing it always being unsure if it is true or not.

Because sometimes the universe reveals knew things for the seeker of what is that the seeker could not have created in it's imagination. The universe/reality is a very strange place and very different then I have been told it is. I am still trying after 2 years to get used to that synchronicity is real (at least I can get it to work) and the energy flow thru the body. Some things need to be experianced to be understood and believed.

Originally posted by slowisfast
reply to post by grainofsand

 

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

Do you believe the scientific method should be able to be applied to all that is(hypothetically) knowable in this Universe?

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

The problem IS your question. You did not ask it straight-forward, it's too ambiguous.

Short answer - Yes. Scientific method is a viable way to verify repeatable results which we eventually come to accept as "proof" or at least extremely strong evidence.

reply to post by jiggerj

Really? Science assumes the position that extreme heat and pressure causes volcanoes to explode and lava to boil over the top? If god acts through nature's laws, then god killed 200,000 people in that recent tsunami. In a court of law he would have been found guilty of mass murder and crimes against humanity. So, do you really want to go there?

God is responsible for life and death - so yes, God did kill 200,000 people in the Tsunami. First God gave them life then took it away. Mass murder? Perhaps. Crime against humanity? You must first show the damage - death is not damage. I say that because this body is not all there is to life. No more than this computer is all there is to the internet. It is the device by which I access the internet. If I kill this computer I do not kill the internet. To act in the universe we need physical form, a biological device. When this device dies, I will get another, I will live again. It is God who decides when I live or die - if a man (or woman) decides to act like God and take a life then it is an action that can be brought before the courts, because he/she has no right to act like God - that is a crime against humanity.

Originally posted by slowisfast
reply to post by grainofsand

 

A child with their games, but hey..

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

By a large majority they are.
Hard to believe you don't recognize that.

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.