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

Originally posted by thrustbucket
It seems to be human nature for one to believe they are right, and everyone else is wrong, while actively fostering an "us vs them" attitude. You've done it yourself throughout this thread.

Nope, I haven't said that any theistic position is wrong anywhere in this thread, I have stated that I do not believe in such things and made the assertion that my position is not one based on any faith.
The OP is a question why some theists seem so desperate to attribute my reasoned position to one of similar faith required by theists. Replies in this thread have even attempted to show that I have a faith, but unsuccessfully so far.
If you wish to assert that I have actively fostered an us vs them attitude them please feel free to expand, however in any debate there will always be an us vs them, otherwise it is not a debate.

reply to post by Ophiuchus 13


I think I know what you mean by techs. I have seen video of where they have recorded what they call auras. Different people had different colors and I know some people claim they can sense them I had an acquaintance that claimed it. I just can’t equate that with a creator though and I haven’t looked into it in-depth at all. There is a philosophy I adhere to although I make it up as I go along but it does sometimes fall in line with Buddhism. There is a scientific principle I adhere it to the one where it says energy cannot be destroyed or created only transformed. If I were to put money on any faith as to being closest to the truth it would be one that incorporates reincarnation because it does seem to follow he known laws of the universe.

Originally posted by thrustbucket

Originally posted by grainofsand

I doubt your persecution claims and could raise my own as a person without faith, but what's wrong with campaigning about laws and policies? Freedom of expression is only reserved for the theists now is it?

Um. There is a very large chasm between freedom of expression and actively and publicly belittling others that don't believe the way you do - which is exactly what many non-believers do. You'd have to be living in a closet the last decade to not notice just how activist and aggressive some atheist groups have become.

No, I'm not saying believers have a right to it either. I'm simply equating the behaviors. They are the same. Belief in God actually has nothing to do with it. It seems to be human nature for one to believe they are right, and everyone else is wrong, while actively fostering an "us vs them" attitude. You've done it yourself throughout this thread.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
When people feel threatened many will organize, prepared to fight back. There is a certain irony to the fact that the "militant atheist movement" could trace its genesis to the rise of religious (predominantly evangelical) fanaticism (if one was so inclined).

I speak of course for the current state of affairs in the USA.
As a simple non-confrontational atheist living in a southern state, even I sometimes feel the urge to tell "people of the faith" to stop pushing their agenda on me.

reply to post by grainofsand


I digress. I was simply stating that I have often heard it said that the dogmatic aggressive behaviors of atheists are often identical to the religious - which it seemed to me the OP was ultimately getting at in a round-about-way. I think words like "faith" and "religion" are usually brought up to describe broad behaviors. Dissecting the meaning of words, however, is not my cup of tea.

The argument of whether atheists have "faith" or not, I won't really participate in because I believe faith is relative - which is one thing, after reading this thread, I more than have confirmation of.

Originally posted by grainofsand

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
the term "agnostic atheist" is a contradiction.

agnostic meaning that one does not know if god does or doesn't exist, or if it is even possible to know.

atheist meaning one does not believe in god.

i also wouldn't term myself a "gnostic theist", i believe in god, and that there is evidence of god. i accept that my interpretation of the evidence may be wrong, but i do not believe it is.

Even my 15 year old son understands these basic terms from his philosophy and applied ethics class.
Perhaps have another check and try again fella. You are incorrect with your ideas of contradiction.

i think your definitions are off, which is creating a disconnection between our positions.

do you believe it is possible to know whether a god exists or not?

if you don't think it's possible to know either way, then logically speaking you could offer an opinion as to whether you personally believe god exists or not, but your reason cannot originate with a lack of evidence because you've already established that it isn't possible to prove it either way. in essence, reason wouldn't come in to play with your opinion because there is nothing to substantiate either claim, so there is nothing to reason over.

if you answered "no" to the above question, then your opinion cannot be proven either way, and is therefore pure blind faith (belief without a reason).

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

the problem comes when you say "i do not know whether gods exist or not" then you affirm belief in one of the sides.

No, I express a lack of belief in the various claims of gods.
I cannot say 'there are no gods' as that would be a faith based position.
I can say I have seen no evidence to convince me so I do not believe the claims. I can also say at the same time that I do not 'know' that the claims are false.
That's my last word on it now as I'm just repeating the same thing to someone who doesn't even get the concept of agnostic theist, agnostic atheist etc.
When you've done a little more reading maybe I will entertain you, but although I do not believe in the historical idea of trolls, your responses are drawing me towards believe in such things

reply to post by grainofsand

faith=belief

they are synonyms.

Main Entry: faith
[feyth] Show IPA Part of Speech: noun
Definition: trust in something
Synonyms: acceptance, allegiance, assent, assurance, belief, certainty, certitude, confidence,

thesaurus.com...

this is where your confusion lies.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13

 

I think I know what you mean by techs. I have seen video of where they have recorded what they call auras. Different people had different colors and I know some people claim they can sense them I had an acquaintance that claimed it. I just can’t equate that with a creator though and I haven’t looked into it in-depth at all.

I know what you mean Grimpachi as far as those shared techs. But 1 is speaking of techs that would be more associated with Advanced Paranormal/Dimensional that some even make conspiracies in usage with Star Gate type Tech from multiple soul energy vortexes opening/intra points for whatever reason. This is tech that would not be sharable with many really who cannot comprehend the need or wants to understand human Soul/Spirit/Internal Energy manifest abilities - energy Capture-usage and 1 is clearly speculating

Originally posted by Grimpachi
There is a philosophy I adhere to although I make it up as I go along but it does sometimes fall in line with Buddhism. There is a scientific principle I adhere it to the one where it says energy cannot be destroyed or created only transformed. If I were to put money on any faith as to being closest to the truth it would be one that incorporates reincarnation because it does seem to follow he known laws of the universe.

That's a nice philosophy to follow. but 1 has seen different experiences in my personal life with some around me and mysef that just ENCOURAGE ME DEEPLY TO ACCEPT AND BE GRATEFUL THE IS THERE. So the energy created not destroyed aspect, hmm thru Experience there is more to that. Its just not THE topic for most CREATOR Creations who are not AWARE and understand or PRECIEVE what it may mean, therefore is not discussed here 1 does wish you luck with following your philosophies Buddhist related or other and hope in eventual you find Peace and knowledge as you journey with the rest of us..

NAMASTE*******

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Bob are you claiming you didn’t see this?



Are you saying that regardless of the fact that these are excepted definitions by the educated world that you deny their existence?

Are you just making up the definitions of these things as you go to suit your needs?

BTW I have yet to see you post any evidence to support your claims of deity’s.

Also this post is still very relevant to the ongoing discussion. I think no one has tried to answer it because they know their position is preposterous.

I am sure you have heard this before but perhaps you didn't understand or 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.

Someone please explain how the nonbelief in the unicorn is a faith based nonbelief. If that cannot be explained then the claim that the nonbelief in deities is a faith is not valid as it is not repeatable.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz
Nope, no confusion about my lack of belief.
I refer you to Grimpachi's informative and educational post above: www.abovetopsecret.com... ...you may find it useful.

Originally posted by grainofsand
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

 

Nope, no confusion about my lack of belief.
I refer you to Grimpachi's informative and educational post above: www.abovetopsecret.com... ...you may find it useful.

edit on 1-4-2013 by grainofsand because: Typo

so you're denying that the accepted definitions of "faith" and "belief" are the same? that they're synonyms?

reply to post by Bob Sholtz
No, but I am drawn to ignoring your silly attempts at claiming my lack of belief in the existence of gods is a faith based position. There is no evidence to draw me towards believing the claims.
As I said, when you understand the basic philosophical terms such as agnostic theist or agnostic atheist please do come back and we can have a debate based on accepted terminology.
Again though, why are you as a theist so desperate to show my position as being faith based?
Does it threaten your faith based position in some way?

reply to post by Ophiuchus 13


That is completely cool that you have had those experiences and they have shaped your thinking. I am glad people have as such as you however I haven’t had those experiences but if I ever do my views will certainly change. I do not claim certainty on the subject matter only that with lack of available evidence I hold no belief in deity’s. 98% of the time probably more I give no thought to it. The only time I can say that I do with any frequency has been on this sight. Most of the time a thread like this peaks my interest so I start reading with no intention of posting but I had seen there were a great many people that had huge misconceptions. The OP of this thread has posed a question I have asked on several occasions with no replies ever given. So far I have learned that my notion that the majority of those that believe atheism to be a faith are not trying to redefine it to suit their agenda it is that they were honestly mistaken. That one little fact has greatly improved my view of those who parrot it. As I had said before everyone makes mistakes be it theist or atheist and luckily all that is needed here is patience and education.

Anyway maybe someday I will experience something that changes my mind on the matter of the existence of deitys it is possible.

reply to post by Grimpachi

the trouble comes with the word "agnostic".

"there is a god"
"there isn't a god"
"i don't know whether there is or isn't a god"

are viable separately, but combining any two of them creates a logical fallacy.

to be atheist is to state "i do not believe in god"
to be agnostic is to state "i do not know whether god exists or not"

one cannot hold a belief to be both true and false when dealing with absolute terms such as these.

you CAN say "i don't think god exists, but i don't know either way" but you CAN'T say "i don't believe god exists, but i don't know either way".

the word "belief" not only indicates that you have an opinion on the matter, but that you believe your opinion to be true.
the word "think" indicates that you have an opinion which you acknowledge can be wrong.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
Anyway maybe someday I will experience something that changes my mind on the matter of the existence of deitys it is possible.

I share exactly the same position. My opinion is always open to change as evidence is presented in life.

Originally posted by Grimpachi


Anyway maybe someday I will experience something that changes my mind on the matter of the existence of deitys it is possible.

edit on 1-4-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

Grimpachi, I do wish you the best with positive experiences in seeing more. Some of my personal experiences were related to unfortunately less pleasurable situations that (not doubting myself) but that if there was no higher power FELT over some and me at these less pleasurable times the outcomes seem would have been much more dire. So that is why 1 wishes you positive experiences if you truly seek to find.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

Urm, so you disagree with internationally accepted teachings of philosophy now?
Can't really carry on with the debate if you are making your own definitions up for the terminology.

Originally posted by grainofsand
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

 

Urm, so you disagree with internationally accepted teachings of philosophy now?
Can't really carry on with the debate if you are making your own definitions up for the terminology.

it is you who are abusing definitions.

Definition of AGNOSTIC 1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

www.merriam-webster.com...

"not committed to believing" directly conflicts with atheism. more "you're wrong, but i'm not going to offer any arguments to show that you are wrong, just state it"

reply to post by grainofsand


What you have to say is There is no evidence to support the belief in god.

When asked if a god exists you can only reply I don't know there is no evidence to support the claim.

Just like if someone asked you if purple alien unicorns live in the Andromeda galaxy.... you reply... I don't know there is no evidence to support that claim.

To idiots this means that everything could be true, but to educated people they see the correct constraints of evidence and reason.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


How intellectually dishonest can you be? WOW you are probably the worst offender I have ever seen on here. Let me use your source and here is the complete definition.

Definition of AGNOSTIC


1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something

FYI agnostic is a noun

Definition of NOUN


: any member of a class of words that typically can be combined with determiners to serve as the subject of a verb, can be interpreted as singular or plural, can be replaced with a pronoun, and refer to an entity, quality, state, action, or concept

First the words gnostic o agnostic describes certainty level atheism and theism describes leanings or position. All are descriptive and can be combined as double descriptive. The chart is right in front of you.

Second your claim that it is a logical fallacy is false but you insist please provide the fallacy they are all listed every single one online if you look. I have never not once in all the time I have been on ATS been shown the logical fallacy you claim so it should be no problem for you to find and post it with the link backing your position up.

You could always try to start a new one assigning it a definition you have been attempting to redefine these terms for quite a while.

If you feel the world is against you on this that would be because it is. Definitions will not change to suit you books will not be rewritten to fit your position. I am past the point of thinking you are simply misinformed you certainly area gnostic theist your views are militant doctorial in nature. You feel the world should conform to your views and are trying to erase the views that oppose yours you are doing this in the fashion of trying to control the definition to control the conversation. Your tactic will fail you are not the first to try this you will not be the last.

You are just as bad as gnostic atheists who try to tell other theists how to be an atheist. It is ludicrous and it turns people away even those that hold the general belief as you. In the end it does not matter if you except the proper definitions held by the world or not because they will not change. At least try a new tactic this one has failed miserably. You could be simply trying to derail the thread to keep others from gaining wisdom in which case you have had moderate success.

Back to unicorn athiestacorn agnostic athiestocorn requires faith or not to be faith>