Atheism: a faith based belief.

[Strange]

Again!! This thread is about how a atheist reacts when ever the word God is seen.

 

I haven't seen any particularly strong reactions to your comments here, so I'm not quite sure what your point is. There have been some very reasonable responses (mostly far better than mine, I am happy to admit) and no anger, no "stone the heretic".

 

So it seems to me (and I may well be wrong) that you interpret any other opinion as an emotional and irrational response.

[Bill Angel]

The Bible contains a clear definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1: Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Simply put, the biblical definition of faith is trusting in something you cannot explicitly prove.

 

Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism.

See. https://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism

[PoPpAScience]

To quote from strange; "You seem to think". All your posts to me are from this context. Except for 1 or 2 sentences your expressing responses to what you think I'm saying, no matter how clear I be in what I'm saying. Now your not the only one, except for a couple of sentences by others, all else do the same. Post 24 explains what I'm trying to express exactly. But you take a quote from it and express something totally different.

 

For a true philosopher like I, it is not about challenging science or the concept of God. It is always about expanding the frontiers of thought on the matters, to levels not seen before. That is what has driven human understanding for all its history

 

 

The point is that atheism can be challenged. Just, no-one has yet presented evidence for the supernatural that could really challenge the minimalistic philosophy of atheism.

 

Your very wrong about that!! The evidence has been shown in many a great research books, they just don't use terms like supernatural. But based on how you interpret what I have been posting here, it is obvious that your mind would not be able to see the written words as they are presented. Thus you would not be able to contemplate on that knowledge. This is a normal condition for most and not a reflection on you.

 

 

[ajb]

Your very wrong about that!! The evidence has been shown in many a great research books, they just don't use terms like supernatural.

Wow, you are now claiming that there is evidence of god, the supernatural and so on.

 

I must call you out on this. As far as the scientific community is generally concerned, there is no objective, repeatable and credible evidence for the supernatural. The claim otherwise is bizarre. Citations are needed!

 

 

Thus you would not be able to contemplate on that knowledge. This is a normal condition for most and not a reflection on you.

So that was not a weak attempt at an insult? lol

[DrP]

There has been absolutely no evidence shown beyond individual testimonies of people feeling a presence or having prayers answered. Both of which can easily be explained in other ways rather than proving a god exists.

[PoPpAScience]

 

I haven't seen any particularly strong reactions to your comments here, so I'm not quite sure what your point is. There have been some very reasonable responses (mostly far better than mine, I am happy to admit) and no anger, no "stone the heretic".

 

So it seems to me (and I may well be wrong) that you interpret any other opinion as an emotional and irrational response.

 

The quote of mine you posed expands beyond this thread.

 

There have been reasonable responses, if there was not, I would not be posting back. But to say other posts are not of the irrational type, is being bias or dishonest.

 

"seems to me" you misinterpret alot.

Wow, you are now claiming that there is evidence of god, the supernatural and so on.

 

I must call you out on this. As far as the scientific community is generally concerned, there is no objective, repeatable and credible evidence for the supernatural. The claim otherwise is bizarre. Citations are needed!

 

Ok I'm bored with you, you can not respond honestly. Your obsession with words I do not use is kind of strange.

[dimreepr]

 

Again!! This thread is about how a atheist reacts when ever the word God is seen. It is not about if there is a God, or about what you believe. It is about how you express what you believe. My point in this thread is that I have witnessed atheist react the same way to the word God for 10 years. Atheist react as if they have very strong faith based beliefs that shall not be challenged, and to do so, one shall receive their raft. They react the same way a religious person does, if their faith is challenged.

 

Its about mannerism of actions and speech.

 

 

So you come onto a forum for discussing science, make an assertion, then use the members rational rebuttal of your assertion as evidence to prove it; in the playground they just stick their fingers in their ears and do this.

[ajb]

Ok I'm bored with you, you can not respond honestly. Your obsession with words I do not use is kind of strange.

I have reported your post as it is you that have made claims of such evidence and are now refusing to expand on this. We are a science discussion forum and it is you that are not following the ethos and rules of this forum.

 

If I have been dishonest in any of my replies then you should report me to the moderators. I am just as much a subject of the rules are you are.

[PoPpAScience]

 

 

So you come onto a forum for discussing science, make an assertion, then use the members rational rebuttal of your assertion as evidence to prove it; in the playground they just stick their fingers in their ears and do this.

 

Rational!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have reported your post as it is you that have made claims of such evidence and are now refusing to expand on this. We are a science discussion forum and it is you that are not following the ethos and rules of this forum.

 

If I have been dishonest in any of my replies then you should report me to the moderators. I am just as much a subject of the rules are you are.

 

How do I report the moderators to the moderators. Are you serious?

[dimreepr]

I'm gonna get my Dad on you.

[ajb]

How do I report the moderators to the moderators. Are you serious?

You will notice that I am not a moderator. Anyway, if you feel that a moderator has broken the rules then I can assure you that the other moderators will look into it.

 

And of course, there is no obligation to use this forum. If it does not fit your needs then you are free to leave.

 

Anyway, we should try to keep this thread on topic. I am just pointing out that if you think I have broken any rules here, or in anyway have acted rudely to you then please report my offending posts.

[PoPpAScience]

Its been fun but time to move on. A forum that creates a section for atheist to expose there faith based beliefs and ridicle the people the section is suppose to be set up for, is silly at best. Quite obvious that you are bad people and I'm glad to have seen it early.

[swansont]

 

If atheism was not a faith based belief system, why are the posters posts so filled with emoitional rants,

 

 

 

Attacking someone's world view is likely to elicit an emotional reaction. You're basically telling them that how they approach life is wrong (and often, by default, that yours is the "right way"). It doesn't have to be about religion or belief. If someone told you e.g. that your choice of profession meant that you are wasting your life, you might react to that.

 

Ironic that someone who fancies him/herself as a philosopher would fall prey to such a simple logical fallacy. (Faith causes emotional reactions, therefore all emotional reactions indicate faith. Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted.)

 

Ok I'm bored with you, you can not respond honestly. Your obsession with words I do not use is kind of strange.

 

 

So Google them. That was your advice earlier regarding your vocabulary. Are you not willing to live up to a standard you expect of others?

[ajb]

Its been fun but time to move on. A forum that creates a section for atheist to expose there faith based beliefs and ridicle the people the section is suppose to be set up for, is silly at best.

You have not been ridiculed. You have simply not been able to back up your claims, which is not that unexpected. Nor have you really given us anything to think about.

 

You simply took an extreme view of the words 'faith' and 'belief' while largely ignoring peoples objections. In particular one can believe something and have faith in something while not having 'blind faith'. I can require my faith in something and my belief in something to need evidence. This is the difference with science and religion.

 

Quite obvious that you are bad people and I'm glad to have seen it early.

How can you make such a moral judgment? You do not know any of us and your words are quite insulting. Please think about this.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

PoPpAScience

 

Even though I am sure you will interpret this as yet another dogmatic and oppressive post from an authoritarian atheist - Please take note of the following requests:

 

1. Stop reporting posts that you merely disagree with. The staff do not have unlimited time and we are all volunteers - we really do not want to start the day with a bag-full of spurious claims of rule breaches.

 

2. Perhaps take a bit more time to read the posts before responding to them - your claims of irrationality and bigotry based on the responses in this thread from the membership are quite frankly ludicrous. Either you are trolling and thus responding merely to annoy, or you are preaching thus not reading the messages sent to you and just providing pat replies - neither is acceptable.

 

3. If you continue to describe the membership in general or any members in particular as bad, idiotic, or any other insulting terms you will be suspended.

 

4. When asked direct questions concerning factual assertions you have made it is necessary for you to reply

 

Re-read the rules with regard to yourself - Matthew 7:5 - before reporting anything and before continuing with this current thread. And do NOT respond to this moderation within the thread - responses will be summarily removed; report this post if you feel you have a genuine grievance

 

[Strange]

To quote from strange; "You seem to think". All your posts to me are from this context. Except for 1 or 2 sentences your expressing responses to what you think I'm saying, no matter how clear I be in what I'm saying.

 

Sorry, but I can only respond to what you appear to be saying. It often isn't clear so I try not to be too definitive in how I am interpreting your statements.

 

 

Post 24 explains what I'm trying to express exactly. But you take a quote from it and express something totally different.

 

You said (no "seemed" if it bothers you) that you always get the same strong reaction from atheist when you make these sort of posts. I was simply pointing out that there have been no strong reactions indicating that people are "defending their faith".

Ok I'm bored with you, you can not respond honestly. Your obsession with words I do not use is kind of strange.

 

You very clearly said there was evidence of God.

Its been fun but time to move on. A forum that creates a section for atheist to expose there faith based beliefs and ridicle the people the section is suppose to be set up for, is silly at best.

 

Where have you been ridiculed?

 

Quite obvious that you are bad people and I'm glad to have seen it early.

 

"Bad" because we are willing to discuss this subject with you?

[Prometheus]

...

 

The word atheism comes from Hindu traditions. The word was mostly associated with rejection of certain texts like Vedas, but also in a rejection to 'God(s) of persona', as I like to use. But rarely against there only being God(universe).

 

I would love to explore this avenue with you and others, but not in this thread. The reason for starting this thread was my observation that if I started a thread to discuss the knowledge of the ages, it would only be hijacked and flooded by atheist faith based believers, who admit they don't know or care about the subject matter, but feel its their duty to interject.

 

No offence to you.

 

I thought the word had Greek roots to reflect those scholars who sought to explain phenomena by natural rather than mythological means.

 

Are you really surprised that people on a science forum would demand evidence for various claims, even in a religious based topic? This alludes to why a Hindu and atheist might come to believe the same thing but by different means. A Hindu might believe because that is what has always been taught whereas an atheist might only believe if some evidence has been supplied.

 

With the scientific method one is able to ask questions of nature and listen for an answer. But with the more traditional, faith based, approaches what nature has to say is irrelevant: instead we impose onto nature what we wish to be true rather than engage in a dialogue with her.

[ajb]

You very clearly said there was evidence of God.

Right, so I did not misunderstand what was said. Or we both misunderstand ;-)

[swansont]

"Bad" because we are willing to discuss this subject with you?

 

 

And have the temerity to disagree.

[EdEarl]

Right, so I did not misunderstand what was said. Or we both misunderstand ;-)

PoPp seemed to dislike almost everything anyone said; his frustration was obvious. He seemed to not understand, but how IDK. He is a mystery.

[Phi for All]

PoPp seemed to dislike almost everything anyone said; his frustration was obvious. He seemed to not understand, but how IDK. He is a mystery.

 

I think his real downfall is thinking that anyone who responds to a religious question is being emotional, no matter what. He misinterprets passion for a subject for a lack of critical thinking, and immediately thinks it's all emotion.

 

We're all geeks and science nerds here. You can't say something demonstrably wrong without getting corrected. It's a break in an established pattern up with which we shall not put. That we apply our critical thinking skills in fervent replies shouldn't be misinterpreted as emotional. It's a deep-seated need for clarity and detail that pursuing explanations via the scientific method ingrains in its users.

[EdEarl]

We're all geeks and science nerds here. You can't say something demonstrably wrong without getting corrected. It's a break in an established pattern up with which we shall not put. That we apply our critical thinking skills in fervent replies shouldn't be misinterpreted as emotional. It's a deep-seated need for clarity and detail that pursuing explanations via the scientific method ingrains in its users.

A few of us seem OCD.

[Phi for All]

A few of us seem OCD.

 

And without some manageable level of OCD, we wouldn't have great scientists, managers, researchers, and accountants, to name a few professions that benefit from an over-the-top level of attention to detail.

[Thorham]

Atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods. It has nothing to do with science, and has nothing to do with believing god or gods don't exist. That's what it means. Why is this so hard to except for religious people?

 

Note: I'm not an atheist. I say that omnipotent and omniscient beings (gods) don't exit, because they can't exist (you can't do everything, and you can't know everything). Of course, anyone who's not omnipotent and omniscient isn't a god, so extremely powerful beings (who may or may not exist) aren't gods. Humans will get on their knees for these guys anyway, of course. Humans will get on their knees for just about anything, and to me that's nonsense.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Thorham

[Strange]

I say that omnipotent and omniscient beings (gods) don't exit, because they can't exist (you can't do everything, and you can't know everything).

 

To side with the OP for a moment () that sounds like a faith-based statement. Why couldn't such a thing exist?