The theory of God

[Phi for All]

 

A perfect example of this is, you have a member posting in every philosophical or religious thread. When ever the word God is printed he/she responds with the same posts over and over again. He/she says; I have no interest in if God is or isn't, but here is my emotional and gobbledegook response anyway. The repeating of these posts is very dogmatic, and faith based. For if one has no interests in the subject matter, then they are ignorant of the subject, and regurgitate their faith based beliefs only.

 

Explain please how asking for evidence to support an assertion like "God did that!" is "emotional and gobbledegook response".

 

You didn't address the questions asked. I don't say there is no god(s). I'm a weak atheist, which means I don't think there is a god, I'm not willing to say there isn't, but so far there's no good evidence. That's not faith-based at all, not even a little. That's a reality-based assessment.

 

So I don't believe in god(s). That doesn't make me anti-god(s), any more than my non-stamp collecting makes me anti-stamps. In other words, I don't fit under the blanket you're using to condemn atheists. What's up with that?

[PoPpAScience]

 

 

Explain please how asking for evidence to support an assertion like "God did that!" is "emotional and gobbledegook response".

​Don't know, I never said that anywhere. Asking for evidence is a viable question.

 

 

You didn't address the questions asked. I don't say there is no god(s). I'm a weak atheist, which means I don't think there is a god, I'm not willing to say there isn't, but so far there's no good evidence. That's not faith-based at all, not even a little. That's a reality-based assessment.

You so far have been making statements as questions to me and I try to avoid answer them. I responded to this post because you recognized that the he/she was you in my post. hmmm what does that say?

 

 

So I don't believe in god(s). That doesn't make me anti-god(s), any more than my non-stamp collecting makes me anti-stamps. In other words, I don't fit under the blanket you're using to condemn atheists. What's up with that?

Now this is a gobbledegook statement, full of emotion. You don't believe[beliefs] in god(s), but must respond every time it is mention. What's up with that? If you were entering threads about stamp collecting, of which you have no knowledge on because you don't care about the subject, and making many statements that could be perceived as negative and gobbledegook in nature. What's up with that?

[iNow]

I'm an atheist. Based on that label alone, please tell me what I do and do not believe or accept based solely on faith.

Edited March 28, 2016 by iNow

[Strange]

Now this is a gobbledegook statement, full of emotion. You don't believe[beliefs] in god(s), but must respond every time it is mention. What's up with that? If you were entering threads about stamp collecting, of which you have no knowledge on because you don't care about the subject, and making many statements that could be perceived as negative and gobbledegook in nature. What's up with that?

I see no emotion in that statement. Nor "gobbledegook". Phi for All may not care about god(s) but probably cares about irrational statements and feels they should not be allowed to go unchallenged (this being a science forum and all).

[iNow]

I blasphemed atheistic beliefs yesterday (snip) it is taboo to speak against atheist beliefs in a science forum

Amazing how frequently we see this uniquely ignorant canard.

 

Has not even been a month since I had to respond to another poster making quite parallel claims about atheism being a religion and lack of theism somehow being a set of beliefs or people responding to nonsense claims as being somehow emotional or dogmatic or acting on faith.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93763-my-religion/#entry908642

Some people are passionate about eradicating ignorance in all of its countless many forms from the world. Many religions and quite a sizable number of their basic tenets are validly categorized as such.

 

Some people are inspired by the prospect of educating others whenever an opportunity to do so gets presented.

 

Others value critical thinking and empirically based decision making and wish to live in a world where more of their fellow citizens do the same.

 

Still others are genuinely curious to better understand the position of people with whom they disagree, frequently using probing questions and Socratic challenges while doing so.

 

There are also others who experienced a cathartic sense of relief and freedom once untangling themselves from the shackles of faith and wish to share that transformative experience with others.

 

Reasons for the behavior of atheists are myriad and diverse, but atheism itself is not the driving motivator. Atheism is not a system of belief, set of values, and it tells you nearly nothing about the person to whom the label applies. Atheist literally just means not*theist. That is all.

 

Advocating that others consider letting go of Iron Age human mythologies in this modern world just as they themselves have done cannot be legitimately described as a religion, no matter how fervent, bombastic, or even how obnoxiously the person is while doing so.

[Moontanman]

 

It is not more-or-less. It stands alone. Religion is a collection of works that are worshiped. Religious people can become very emotional and dogmatic. But individuals can make statements in a perceived factual manner that are strictly based on their faith that it is so. I find atheists, do this a lot when talking against certain subject matter, just as I did when I was an atheist.

 

A perfect example of this is, you have a member posting in every philosophical or religious thread. When ever the word God is printed he/she responds with the same posts over and over again. He/she says; I have no interest in if God is or isn't, but here is my emotional and gobbledegook response anyway. The repeating of these posts is very dogmatic, and faith based. For if one has no interests in the subject matter, then they are ignorant of the subject, and regurgitate their faith based beliefs only.

 

Faith, based, and beliefs, are not words belong to the subject of religion only. They are words that can related to the speech of individuals or groups outside Religion. All fall in to the category of faith based beliefs, because we all are not all-knowing beings and science is on the endless path to knowing.

 

Thus when I witness over the last 10 years, atheists expressing their faith based beliefs on a subject matter, and they call me religious for doing so, I react. Not to stir trouble, but it does, but to be philosophical about the situation.

 

 

Exactly what faith based beliefs does an atheist have?

[Phi for All]

Now this is a gobbledegook statement, full of emotion. You don't believe[beliefs] in god(s), but must respond every time it is mention. What's up with that? If you were entering threads about stamp collecting, of which you have no knowledge on because you don't care about the subject, and making many statements that could be perceived as negative and gobbledegook in nature. What's up with that?

OK, barely coherent. Best of luck. Thanks for your time.

[Strange]

It is not more-or-less. It stands alone. Religion is a collection of works that are worshiped.

 

That is an odd definition of religion. I am not sure what you mean by "works". Do you mean books, paintings and sculpture? There are religions that do not worship such things. (And it is a sin in many. Including, I guess, yours.)

 

Or do you mean deeds? Do people worship deeds? I suppose the popular Christian veneration of saints could be an example of this. But this has often been frowned upon by the Church.

 

A broader definition of religion would include faith or belief in something, typically one or more higher or divine powers. That clearly does not include atheism as there is no belief involved and (obviously) no higher power.

 

 

Religious people can become very emotional and dogmatic.

 

You certainly provide evidence of the dogmatic.