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

Originally posted by bloodreviara
The reason why they wish to claim we have faith as well is because
faith is utterly useless, it cannot be useful to prove truth, as believing
something on faith proves nothing, it simply means your gullible, they
really need faith to be seen in a positive light because once that one
is gone they have to take direct responsibility for believing ridiculous,
often oppressive things and its not as easy if they cant say "well i have
faith he bible is right and god is behind my desire to oppress."

Responsibility is really the key here, religion is the biggest cop out
of responsibility on the planet, it give you forgiveness for things it cannot
possibly forgive, it gives authority it has no right to give, it dictates actions
it has no right to dictate and the only thing keeping it afloat is the faith of
its followers.

I agree and I think both Buddha and Jesus would agree. Jesus said that you should love others like yourself and that if you hurt others then you hurt him. Jesus was pissed of at the hypocracy of the Jewish priests. Do you really think he will be different to the followers of Jesus who only wear their faith as a garment?

I can be happy that Jesus came to spread the message but Buddha also gave the same message of non duality before him and Krishna before Buddha. It is only small minded people that use religion vs religion as an argument because they are caught up in duality and is still eating the apple of the illusion of knowing right from wrong without having all the facts.

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)

That is a great question and I can say for a certainty that it cannot nor will it ever be able to.

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.

I agree that I can see it as very probable that god (from my point of view the awareness that is built up by everything that exists) could manipulate synchronicity to remove chance out of the equation since it forces things to be that would be very improbable otherwise. . It is a neat trick.

Originally posted by grainofsand

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)

Any method which relies on witnessed peer reviewed and controlled effects is more reliable in my opinion than ancient historical testimony.

But what was the testimony of say Peter that said we saw Him, we held him, we saw what it was. Its the same save for the fact that it cannot be repeted like a modern day controlled effect scientific experiment....but then again its not the same. Thats the only thing missing at large here. The reasons for not believing these ancient testimonys are lack of current modern witness peer review?

Why none religious want to get other people into your boat ?

Are they afraid ?

Or

they think that others may help them ?

God has open embrace for those who know what it is.

But arrogant wants to be god himself.

Religions and traditional atheism are 2 sides of the SAME coin of vast corruption and ignorance. They're 2 slightly different monkeys screwing the same football. Both worship rule BY secrecy, the existing political world as their REAL "God" equally. Both need to believe they are AT LEAST EFFECTIVELY the center of the universe regardless of what their meaningless, hypocritical words claim. Both fear the unknown and reject direct knowledge and experience of the unexplained in the same basic way.

Example: How many people who CLAIM to be scientifcally-minded believe the official 9/11 fairy tale? That takes as much blind faith, or even more, as THE most wacko cult that ever existed, yet apparently most people, and especially Americans, swallow it whole. Lack of a 757 (or other large aircraft) at the Pentagon and mere jet fuel allegedly causing SO much damage in SO little time in NYC are physically impossible per the government-media version. We might as well have been told of Moses parting the Red Sea and destroying the ENTIRE Egyptian army, and effectively everyone has no problem with it. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

reply to post by grainofsand


I appears you seem to think that science is the authority on which all knowledge is aquired.
Can you please, using the scientific method, prove that this is true?

Religion, Science, and Philosophy are all modes of inquiry.

None can get outside of themselves to truely know that they are indeed correct modes of inquiry that best explains the nature of the universe and what we experience.

Science is not atheism.

Nor does it support atheism.

Atheist make a fundamental error in relation to the idea of faith vs. the scientific method. Science is based on the assumption that everything can be explained, or is atleast understood by the physical nature of the universe.
Which is fine, but one has to have faith in this assumption in the overall context relating to the nature of existence.

The very nature of this assumption automatically renders any supernatural force as being irrelevant. So science is not looking for anything other than the physical.
To state you have no belief in Gods based on science or the lack of scientific evidence seems absurd now.

The basic Idea behind most, if not all religion is that the God/s "exist" beyond the scope of nature, it is "super-natural".
If we consider the mainstream religions of today that subscribe to one God, one god who is responsible for all of the universe as it exists, this is particularly relevant to the claim that Science supports atheism, or that the Atheistic position is the rational position.
It is not, nor is it supported by science. It would be merely an act of faith to state that a mode of inquiry, that being science, that is definded by its assumption that everything IN the universe is explainable through physical inquiry supports a proposition that Supernatural forces that lay outside of nature do not or cannot exist.

To state that you have no belief in God/s is an act of faith based on a mode of inquiry that cannot or does not endeavour to answer such questions.
To state that there is no evidence to support a belief in God/s based on science is an irrational act of faith, given that science does not and cannot deal with something that by its very nature is superior to nature, not to mention the fundamental assumptions made by Science as a mode of inquiry into the universe that all things can be explained by the physical nature of the universe itself.

IMHO the moment you injected science into beliefs, and twist it to support your belief, it becomes religion.

Originally posted by Lightworth
Example: How many people who CLAIM to be scientifcally-minded believe the official 9/11 fairy tale? That takes as much blind faith, or even more, as THE most wacko cult that ever existed, yet apparently most people, and especially Americans, swallow it whole. Lack of a 757 (or other large aircraft) at the Pentagon and mere jet fuel allegedly causing SO much damage in SO little time in NYC are physically impossible per the government-media version. We might as well have been told of Moses parting the Red Sea and destroying the ENTIRE Egyptian army, and effectively everyone has no problem with it. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

Seriously, anyone who discounts the official story about 9/11 should research it properly. Once you actually think about it, the idea that its all fake is ridiculous. Once you start to think the planes weren't real, the victims weren't real, it was all orchestrated by CIA etc. who'se the one believeing in a fairytale?

Whats wrong with your version of the bible story? Maybe you should go and re-read it, and take some time to think about it. Perhaps use some other translations as well, to get a grasp of its meaning...

Originally posted by atlasastro
reply to post by grainofsand

 

I appears you seem to think that science is the authority on which all knowledge is aquired.

Nope, you assumed that incorrectly.

To state that you have no belief in God/s is an act of faith based on a mode of inquiry that cannot or does not endeavour to answer such questions.

Nope, there is no faith involved at all. I have seen and experienced nothing in life to draw me towards believing in any gods. I have seen nothing in my life to draw me towards believing in pixies either, I therefore believe in none of them. Using your reasoning then are you asserting that my lack of belief in pixies is also an act of faith?

To state that there is no evidence to support a belief in God/s based on science is an irrational act of faith

Again no faith required. I have seen no evidence and I am unaware of anyone able to provide such evidence, as a result I do not believe in any gods.

IMHO the moment you injected science into beliefs, and twist it to support your belief, it becomes religion.

I use scientific evidence based reasoning for most aspects of my life while forming an opinion.
Going back to the OP your statement is a classic example of a theists claim that lack of belief is a religion, why are you and others so desperate to claim this?

There have been some very interesting contributions in this thread but I'm still waiting for a theist to explain why they sometimes appear so desperate to place rational thinking into a 'religion box', lack of faith being faith in itself etc?
The reason I started this thread specifically is because I've been accused of it so many times in other topics. Every time I ask for a concrete explanation when I disagree, the theists slink away and fail to answer.
This is your chance theists! Enlighten us godless folk, why exactly is failing to believe someone elses unprovable story a religion in itself?

* I'm sorry I haven't been able to keep on top of replies in this thread but there is a Christian festival going on in the UK right now and it is a 4 day bank holiday weekend - Although I obviously do not believe in the teachings of this religious event I have been taking advantage of the time off

reply to post by salainen


Oh no you DON'T! Strawman deflection or disinfo ain't working with me! I'm not saying anything about no planes or victims or who orchestrated it. It's simply about the real PHYSICS of what happened that day. Everything else comes AFTER that. Scientific, therefore REAL, conclusions require SOMETHING physically similar enough to have occured before or since a unique event. And the crickets STILL chirp...

I apologize if necessary if I've turned this into a 9/11 debate. I'll shut up about it now if everyone else will.

reply to post by Lightworth

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.
At least with a conspiracy theory there is usually some claimed evidence to support both sides of a discussion.

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.

Originally posted by grainofsand

To state that there is no evidence to support a belief in God/s based on science is an irrational act of faith

Again no faith required. I have seen no evidence and I am unaware of anyone able to provide such evidence, as a result I do not believe in any gods.

That sort of makes you agnostic though. If you say you are atheist, you have faith that you have been able to find the right answer by simply not finding a God. If someone says that 9/11 was an inside job, I will not believe them. From my knowledge, I have come to the conclusion that it was not an inside job, thats what I believe, but I need to have faith that I have researched everything thoroughly, and have all possible information.

Originally posted by grainofsand
There have been some very interesting contributions in this thread but I'm still waiting for a theist to explain why they sometimes appear so desperate to place rational thinking into a 'religion box', lack of faith being faith in itself etc?
The reason I started this thread specifically is because I've been accused of it so many times in other topics. Every time I ask for a concrete explanation when I disagree, the theists slink away and fail to answer.
This is your chance theists! Enlighten us godless folk, why exactly is failing to believe someone elses unprovable story a religion in itself?

Well, as a Christian I can tell you that I do not believe that atheism is a religion. So I don't think I can explain it further, but I can try if you elaborate.

One question I have not had answered though, is specifically to anti-theists, and that is, what proof is there that there is no god/s? Whenever I ask that question anti-theists slide away.

I have nothing against atheists, nor those who are anti-organized religion, but I don't understand those who are against the belief in god. If you cannot prove it, why can't you believe it? I have nothing wrong with people believing in aliens, there is absolutely no evidence for it, but I certainly understand people believing in aliens. Same with any religion. I am somewhat agains some churches though (specifically the Westerbro Baptist Church, Church of Scientology etc.)

Originally posted by grainofsand
* I'm sorry I haven't been able to keep on top of replies in this thread but there is a Christian festival going on in the UK right now and it is a 4 day bank holiday weekend - Although I obviously do not believe in the teachings of this religious event I have been taking advantage of the time off

Ah, at least you have found some good in organized religion

Originally posted by salainen
That sort of makes you agnostic though. If you say you are atheist, you have faith that you have been able to find the right answer by simply not finding a God.

Nope, I'm an agnostic atheist.
People can be agnostic theists if they believe in gods but state that it is impossible to prove or disprove their existence.
Anyone who does not have a belief in gods falls under the descriptive term atheist.
This is something I find many people struggle to grasp in discussions on ATS.
Don't believe in gods for whatever reason = Atheist

*Edit*

Well, as a Christian I can tell you that I do not believe that atheism is a religion. So I don't think I can explain it further, but I can try if you elaborate.

Excellent and refreshing to read from a theist, we are in agreement there

Firstly, Thanks for replying.

Originally posted by grainofsand

Nope, you assumed that incorrectly.

I stated that it appears that you hold that position. I can quote you so as to support my statement.
" It always seems quite silly to me because I make a reasoned opinion based on the research of others."
"Any method which relies on witnessed peer reviewed and controlled effects is more reliable in my opinion than ancient historical testimony."
"The scientific method is a proven success in most aspects of understanding life. I support it until such time as an unprovable entity wins the magic game in a public MSM debate."
"I think science minded folk are a better section of society to ask than faith based religion.
Every time. "

Read my opening comment again with the above in mind.

Nope, there is no faith involved at all. I have seen and experienced nothing in life to draw me towards believing in any gods. I have seen nothing in my life to draw me towards believing in pixies either, I therefore believe in none of them. Using your reasoning then are you asserting that my lack of belief in pixies is also an act of faith?

Are we using your experience as evidence? Can you qualify that with the scientific method please, have it peer reviewed please before presenting it as an argument.
It seems you would have me accept yur personal testimony whilst dismissing that of "religious people".

I quote you again.

"more reliable in my opinion than ancient historical testimony".

post by grainofsand

I am sorry, but I will not accept your beliefs based on your own claim that they are indeed true unless supported by Science and peer review. See how it works.

Again no faith required. I have seen no evidence and I am unaware of anyone able to provide such evidence, as a result I do not believe in any gods.

I didn't say you need faith here, I said your position was irrational faith.

I use scientific evidence based reasoning for most aspects of my life while forming an opinion.

Scientific evidence of what exactly? Your position is absurd.

Going back to the OP your statement is a classic example of a theists claim that lack of belief is a religion, why are you and others so desperate to claim this?

Your lack of belief isn't religious. The way you use science is! I clearly state that and why.

There have been some very interesting contributions in this thread but I'm still waiting for a theist to explain why they sometimes appear so desperate to place rational thinking into a 'religion box', lack of faith being faith in itself etc?

Science merely trys to explain the physical universe. That is its limit.

The moment you present Science outside of itself to argue against an entity that by its very nature lays beyond that which science contends to explain, you become religious.
The moment you accept the fundamental assumptions of science as being the only possible avenue through which things can be known and dismiss all other forms of inquiry........you become faithful to that assumption.

Thats my point.
Science, Religion and Philosophy are crippled by the fundamental fact that they cannot get outside of themselves to truely know they are correct. At some point you have to have faith that they are true, because you can never ever truely know.

When you get this fundamental point into your own head, you may see the point of the theists argument against your position.

Originally posted by atlasastro
The moment you present Science outside of itself to argue against an entity that by its very nature lays beyond that which science contends to explain, you become religious.

Thank you for the detailed reply.
It falls down as far as I'm concerned though as I do not argue that there are no gods, just that I have seen nothing to convince me and I am unaware of any evidence presented by others to support the claims of gods.
I mentioned science and belief in the research of others simply because so many theists do it all the time on ATS
"You have faith in the scientists" "You believe in things you cannot prove yourself" etc.

The difference between believing in the research of others and believing in gods/religion is that it is possible to study and understand scientific claims and reach an informed conclusion about the various reports.
You can study a religious book as long as you like but it will add no further proof to the existence of gods in any way. That is the faith I'm talking about, blind unsubstantiated faith. It is the kind of faith which some theists would love to attribute to people who trust in the scientific research of others, but one is verifiable, the other is not.

Originally posted by grainofsand
Nope, I'm an agnostic atheist.
People can be agnostic theists if they believe in gods but state that it is impossible to prove or disprove their existence.
Anyone who does not have a belief in gods falls under the descriptive term atheist.
This is something I find many people struggle to grasp in discussions on ATS.
Don't believe in gods for whatever reason = Atheist

None the less an agnostic. As you say, being agnostic does not mean you can't be atheist. Sure, agnostic atheist is more specific, but still, my quote stands.

By your definitions, all Christians are agnostic theists, as we believe that you cannot prove God. Which is where faith comes in...

Originally posted by grainofsand

Well, as a Christian I can tell you that I do not believe that atheism is a religion. So I don't think I can explain it further, but I can try if you elaborate.

Excellent and refreshing to read from a theist, we are in agreement there

I'm not the only one with that opinion though, I would hope that the vast majority would understand it. Perhaps they say atheism is religion in some specific context (although I cannot think of such a context).

Now atlasastro is raising some good points in my opinion. You need faith in something, and science does only really study what can be studied, as in our material world. There is no proof against God, and no proof for God. I'll just say that both atlasastro and grainofsand have good points, and I agree with both.

reply to post by grainofsand


I love Science. In fact, Science has improved my faith in the unknown and known. It has also made my belief in a creator that much more.

After reading this thread there is evidence that.....

You love Science.

You have faith in Science. The evidence of such is within this thread, yet you deny it?

Your philosophy of life is Science based.

What came before Science?

Originally posted by grainofsand

Thank you for the detailed reply.

You are welcome.

It falls down as far as I'm concerned though as I do not argue that there are no gods, just that I have seen nothing to convince me and I am unaware of any evidence presented by others to support the claims of gods.

What falls down?
Are you qualifying what you state is "evidence"? I would argue that you are, and the method or standard you use is Science. That much is clear. You state that clearly.
Since the belief being discussed is that of God/s etc. One need only take a cursory glance at doctrine and dogma to recognize that the nature of these God/s is supernatural. Again, this is beyond the scope of science. So how do you state that others have presented evidence at all, except that you accept only what science presents within its own mode of inquiry! It seems absurd to have any position on the existence of Gods using Science then.
That is all you have, faith in science that it is the only knowledge and evidence you will accept as a true discription of the nature of universe, and us. Which is cool.
But you still have to accept the basic assumption that the universe is only described and understood via its physical nature.
You need to place faith in that. Its a fundamental philosophical position.

I mentioned science and belief in the research of others simply because so many theists do it all the time on ATS
"You have faith in the scientists" "You believe in things you cannot prove yourself" etc.

I understand your point, I can see how that would frustrate you. But in terms of the 'big" questions, Science, Religion and Philosophy are in the same boat. Modes of Inquiry. Thats how I see it.

The difference between believing in the research of others and believing in gods/religion is that it is possible to study and understand scientific claims and reach an informed conclusion about the various reports.

It is possible to study religion. In fact Science studies the effects of religion, Medical studies on the effects of religion on recovery rates of ill patients, Sociology of Religion, Durkheim for example.

You can study a religious book as long as you like but it will add no further proof to the existence of gods in any way. That is the faith I'm talking about, blind unsubstantiated faith.

People don't read religious books for proof. The very idea of most religions is founded around the concept of faith. Otherwise there would be no point to the concept. If everybody new God truely existed then they wouldn't need faith, would they!

Just like if we already knew every aspect about the physical universe, we wouldn't need science.

It is the kind of faith which some theists would love to attribute to people who trust in the scientific research of others, but one is verifiable, the other is not.

Can you point out the research that says God does not exist?
Can you point out the research that says God does exist?

You can't for either positions so why even use science at all.

Any position on God is simply a belief, and any position on God using Science is a faith based belief.

I hope you see my point.

Thank you for your reasoned contribution to this thread.

Just this though...

Originally posted by salainen
You need faith in something, and science does only really study what can be studied, as in our material world.

I have lived happily without faith in invisible entities for many years of my life.
Personally I see no need for it and would consider it as an uneccessary distraction.