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

Originally posted by grainofsand

Originally posted by something wicked
Ah, you ignored my saying I believe that on ATS atheism is becoming more of a cult? Any reason for that?

Yep, it was off topic and unrelated to my question in the OP so I dismissed it as irrelevant. Start your own thread if you like, I may respond there.

And attacking faiths, I did say the faiths of others - who you refer to as religious zealots - is that not attacking the faith of others?

Anyone trying to force an unsubstantiated faith based argument on me is a religious zealot, simple descriptive term if you care to look it up, no attack there. Of course anyone with their own beliefs who is happy for me to not share the same would not be classed as such.

Copying and pasting from a dictionary of your choosing shows nothing really other than you know how to copy and paste - I notice you kindly didn't do that though when I referred to the current tide amongst some on ATS who refer to themselves as atheists as being somewhat cultlike.

Again, off-topic and to be blunt, I don't really care if you consider non belief as a cult, it is not related to the OP and not welcomed. As I said, start your own thread and I may be tempted to contribute if only for the amusement value.

edit on 1-4-2013 by grainofsand because: fixed quotes from rushing

Sorry it's not welcomed, but then you wouldn't have posted if you expected everyone to agree with you now would you? I honestly really don't care that you want to keep going on and on about what failings you find with non atheists, but if you keep making the posts in a global discussion forum then you should expect a debate. Perhaps if a thread is not about atheism you will do the same and not read it?

My position in life is based on reason, not faith.

Nope, I don't believe in any theories about the universe, the jury is still out in my mind, I just honestly state 'I don't know' without inserting an unprovable invisible entity to fill in the blanks

so you hold no theory of the universe or reality as true because it cannot be proven, but then you have a position based on reason? nonsensical.

You said this:

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz well i think god hates religion and any world view that seeks to do harm.

My reply about the Abrahamic God was relevant and proportional.

i mentioned an abrahamic god? you know there are three "religions" built around abraham, i didn't even reference one of them, let alone all of them. so no, your reply wasn't relevant.

You have no evidence to support your claim of gods. Any insertion of 'higher powers' to fill in the blanks of your knowledge is not logical, merely faith based unsubstantiated belief.

a god is the logical conclusion to what we know. a universe that had a beginning (from what we have observed on entropy and the expansion of the universe), and a lack of mechanics to explain how it came to be (it isn't a lack of knowledge that keeps us from being able to develop a way for it to have created itself, but that such a thing isn't possible at a fundamental level).

this leaves us with a universe that exists which began a finite time ago that couldn't have created itself. the logical conclusion is that something outside the universe caused it to begin. what you refer to as an "insertion" is known by most as a "logical deduction".

reply to post by grainofsand


Thread title:

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

I'm assuming that you mean lack of faith in God. The answer is simple. You have to have faith that there is no God in order to be an atheist. The existence of God can't be proven or not. Regardless of which side of the fence you land you have to have a certain amount of faith to have landed there. This initial step, in this case not believing in a god, then has natural effects on your answer to the biggest questions in life; which is the function of all religion.

reply to post by something wicked

Ah, just stick to the OP then, I tried to keep it uncomplicated for anyone who might face greater challenges than myself.
Debates about 'atheism being a cult' are not related to the OP though, You've been a member for a while now so I'm sure you understand the concept of starting your own thread before attempting to derail someone else's.

reply to post by grainofsand


By the way, the 'the only atheist in the village' comment was, yes, around the Little Britain sketches, but you (deliberatley?) missed the point. Nobody cared that he was gay and far from being the only gay person, the village was absolutely teeming with gay people, but you know what? No one else set their identity based on their sexuality (in Little Britain). So by referring to you as the only atheist in the village I was remarking that for some weird reason you appear to believe you characterise yourself based on something you do not believe in...... sad.

I can kind of in a way see that being a reasonable point of view for a vegetarian/vegan, but that is where the person is actively against a particular way of life, but atheism doesn't really fall into the same remit - you are basing your identity on what you are not. Interesting.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
a god is the logical conclusion to what we know.

Nope, it's a faith based assertion which does not follow logic in any way.

a universe that had a beginning (from what we have observed on entropy and the expansion of the universe), and a lack of mechanics to explain how it came to be (it isn't a lack of knowledge that keeps us from being able to develop a way for it to have created itself, but that such a thing isn't possible at a fundamental level).

this leaves us with a universe that exists which began a finite time ago that couldn't have created itself.

So you know that, or is it just another faith based assertion?

the logical conclusion is that something outside the universe caused it to begin. what you refer to as an "insertion" is known by most as a "logical deduction".

Nope, it's a faith based assertion with no evidence to back it up. A guess, nothing more.

Originally posted by octotom
You have to have faith that there is no God in order to be an atheist.

Oh dear, yet another incorrect definition of the word atheist. Anyone who does not believe in god comes under the atheist banner.
I have seen no evidence to draw me towards believing in any gods in my life, I therefore do not believe. No faith is required for me to reach that conclusion, just a lack of evidence.

Originally posted by grainofsand
reply to post by something wicked

 

Ah, just stick to the OP then, I tried to keep it uncomplicated for anyone who might face greater challenges than myself.
Debates about 'atheism being a cult' are not related to the OP though, You've been a member for a while now so I'm sure you understand the concept of starting your own thread before attempting to derail someone else's.

Not really, I questioned your OP stance, you don't like it - sorry. I won't start a thread because frankly I don't care enough to... responding to yours in a courteous manner and offering and alternative viewpoint was good enough for me, thank you. I do think it's related though because although I wouldn't say I'm overtly of faith I was making the point that most 'theists' don't 'desparately' say much about atheists at all appart from in baiting threads such as this one.

reply to post by something wicked

Ah, I'm grateful for your attempt at pseudo-psychology but as mentioned previously, as long as the UK has an established religion with bishops voting in the upper house of parliament, influencing legislation over me through their votes, I shall continue poking the out of date corpse with a stick.
Once religion is out of any form of government over me I shall leave it alone as something irrelevant to my life.

...this is a debating forum though so people tend to start threads which interest them, if this one is not for you then feel free to stay away, you are not forced to read it, and I'll shed no tears at your absence.

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by grainofsand
reply to post by something wicked

 

Ah, just stick to the OP then, I tried to keep it uncomplicated for anyone who might face greater challenges than myself.
Debates about 'atheism being a cult' are not related to the OP though, You've been a member for a while now so I'm sure you understand the concept of starting your own thread before attempting to derail someone else's.

Not really, I questioned your OP stance, you don't like it - sorry.

Not a question of if I like it or not, just an issue about staying on topic. Your thoughts on an atheist cult are off topic and irrelevant.

I won't start a thread because frankly I don't care enough to... responding to yours in a courteous manner and offering and alternative viewpoint was good enough for me, thank you.

Oh well, I'll miss what could have been an interesting debate, never mind, I'm sure I'll get over it.

I do think it's related though because although I wouldn't say I'm overtly of faith I was making the point that most 'theists' don't 'desparately' say much about atheists at all appart from in baiting threads such as this one.

Ah, that's your on-topic opinion and welcomed of course. I obviously do not agree with your thoughts though

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by grainofsand

 

You have to have faith that there is no God in order to be an atheist

Quite the opposite really. I consider myself an Agnostic Atheist

Agnostic/Gnostic referring to what you know
Theist/Deist/Atheist referring to what you belief.

I could assume the arrogant stance that I'm a gnostic atheist but that would be intellectually dishonest of me.

The same goes with Unicorns, I can't really prove they don't exist, having never seen one, so I'll stick with with the stance of Agnostic Aunicornism.

Russell Bertrand's teapot analogy highlights the unfairness of making such unfalsifiable claims as a benevolent God.

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time

i gave the reasons behind my logical deductions and showed they are based on evidence. instead of attempting to offer counter evidence, you reject my statements as "faith based belief".

perhaps you should take some philosophy classes. knowledge is often defined as "justified true belief", and i have provided justification for why my beliefs are true. if one believes that the knowledge they know is true, then they have faith in it. not the religious definition of faith you keep inserting, but a belief in the validity of an idea.

reply to post by NeverForget

Yep, agnostic atheist here as well. No faith required to fall under this descriptive term at all, just a questioning mind which does not believe in things lacking any evidence.

Now, a gnostic atheist would arguably be in a faith based position due to the inability to prove that there are no gods.
Hopefully this thread will educate at least a few people about the various definitions of faith or lack of faith.

Originally posted by grainofsand
reply to post by something wicked

 

Ah, I'm grateful for your attempt at pseudo-psychology but as mentioned previously, as long as the UK has an established religion with bishops voting in the upper house of parliament, influencing legislation over me through their votes, I shall continue poking the out of date corpse with a stick.
Once religion is out of any form of government over me I shall leave it alone as something irrelevant to my life.

...this is a debating forum though so people tend to start threads which interest them, if this one is not for you then feel free to stay away, you are not forced to read it, and I'll shed no tears at your absence.

Actually, I agree, I don't think the Church of England should have seats in the Lords for no other reason than the fact they are members of the Church of England..... but then if they act as independent voices I struggle to really care too much and perhaps as they have no electorate to please then sometimes they may do more good than harm. You will disagree through no logical point other than they represent in your eyes a faith, not the representation of the community they serve. Perhaps if you could point to the laws they have directly influenced then that would be interesting, but I kind of think you won't be able to do that and then..... aren't you stretching once more outside the very strict remit you impose on your threads?

I'll come or go into any thread on a global discussion forum that I choose to. If I ever act discourteously please feel free to say so, otherwise please accept the fact that if you throw an opinion into the ether you may not always get the responses that vindicate your own opinion.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
i gave the reasons behind my logical deductions and showed they are based on evidence. instead of attempting to offer counter evidence, you reject my statements as "faith based belief".

perhaps you should take some philosophy classes. knowledge is often defined as "justified true belief", and i have provided justification for why my beliefs are true. if one believes that the knowledge they know is true, then they have faith in it. not the religious definition of faith you keep inserting, but a belief in the validity of an idea.

If you make the claims then the burden of proof is on yourself.
I do not believe in gods as I am unaware of any evidence to support such claims.
I do not believe you have any evidence apart from faith based theories, but I am happy to entertain your groundbreaking theological claims?

reply to post by something wicked

I don't imagine we would agree on many things but as long as you keep your claims of atheist cult out of this thread then I shall have no issue.
I only mentioned the C of E bishops having votes in government in response to your pseudo-psychology post here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
It is a valid reason to have issue with religion, although as you say, off-topic so now you understand my motivation we can move on

reply to post by grainofsand

If you make the claims then the burdon of proof is on yourself. I do not believe in gods as I am unaware of any evidence to support such claims. I do not believe you have any evidence apart from faith based theories, but I am happy to entertain your groundbreaking theological claims?

entropy is the second law of thermodynamics. it deals with a closed system moving from a state of order to disorder over time. this means that the current state came from a previous state of higher order. entropy is observable and quantifiable.

In 1929 Edwin Hubble, working at the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena, California, measured the redshifts of a number of distant galaxies. He also measured their relative distances by measuring the apparent brightness of a class of variable stars called Cepheids in each galaxy. When he plotted redshift against relative distance, he found that the redshift of distant galaxies increased as a linear function of their distance. The only explanation for this observation is that the universe was expanding.

skyserver.sdss.org...

the expansion of the universe has also been observed, making a finite beginning the only explanation that fits. things that have beginnings have causes. so something caused the universe to begin. the universe cannot have created itself through it's own means because nothing of it existed to cause itself to begin.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by grainofsand

 

If you make the claims then the burdon of proof is on yourself. I do not believe in gods as I am unaware of any evidence to support such claims. I do not believe you have any evidence apart from faith based theories, but I am happy to entertain your groundbreaking theological claims?

entropy is the second law of thermodynamics. it deals with a closed system moving from a state of order to disorder over time. this means that the current state came from a previous state of higher order. entropy is observable and quantifiable.

In 1929 Edwin Hubble, working at the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena, California, measured the redshifts of a number of distant galaxies. He also measured their relative distances by measuring the apparent brightness of a class of variable stars called Cepheids in each galaxy. When he plotted redshift against relative distance, he found that the redshift of distant galaxies increased as a linear function of their distance. The only explanation for this observation is that the universe was expanding.

skyserver.sdss.org...

the expansion of the universe has also been observed, making a finite beginning the only explanation that fits. things that have beginnings have causes. so something caused the universe to begin. the universe cannot have created itself through it's own means because nothing of it existed to cause itself to begin.

And right there is where you insert the unprovable invisible entity to explain it all.
As I said, you have no evidence, just faith based assertions.

I think I understand the OP's question but it should have been worded differently.

A lot of the neo-athiests (sam harris, dawkins etc) running around writing articles, arguing on tv, making documentaries, and basically just pushing their agendas remind one very much of the behaviors of the 15th century catholic church - complete with tactics of persecution, intimidation, superiority, and even trying to change laws, policies with agendas.

I don't think all Atheists do this. Not all of them are fascists in behavior but enough of them are dogmatic enough to be compared to religion in behavior alone.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


We have no example of a universe not existing so to assume that one didn't exist and then existed isn't exactly the most logical.

You know your wrong Bob. We can believe things without evidence as long as we preface it as such, like an educated guess.