"I do not believe in God because I do not see from religions except violence." with other meaning, we do not know God only through religions. ...
Of people who was an atheist - for example he believe in god Perhaps from a small scientific issue .. Then he look for religion that supports it ..
The first problem I have is not in religion .. I look for existence or ..non existence .. but Not from , bias or emotions

Please provide an example of a religion that does not use faith (belief without evidence).

@NoMagicCookie So far as organized religions, Generally New Thought churches do not require belief, although they do set forth a God concept. I believe that the Quakers require no belief. Also, there is the Unitarian Church which requires no belief, and which is attended by many atheists. Buddhism is not about belief in God. I don’t know that they require anything except meditation.

In the way of personal, private religious sentiment, there are many people who describe themselves as “spiritual” and who do not view their spirituality as a belief or faith. Einstein, for example, sometimes said that he was an atheist, yet we have this:

“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

Finally. You say that faith is belief without evidence, and I don’t agree with that. In almost every case there is at least some evidence. It might not be the testable evidence that you require, but it is evidence nevertheless. We all make decisions daily based on evidence that is not air-tight.

What I am saying is that there are a lot of people who are critical thinkers, courageous and intelligent who follow a religious path.

@WilliamFleming New though churches 1st core belief is "God or Infinite Intelligence is "supreme, universal, and everlasting"; FAITH

Quakers believe "sense of Christ's direct working in the soul" FAITH

Buddism core belief "There is an afterlife.' FAITH

Strike three you're out! You do realize it only takes a few seconds to fact check incorrect assertions? Right?

so Einstein Metaphorically re-defines religion to suite himself and does not include faith. His honest relationship with reality is not by accepted standards, a religion.

"In almost every case there is at least some evidence. It might not be the testable evidence that you require," Evidence is defined as "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." We are back to "Truth" defined as things that can be demonstrated. You failed attempt to redefine evidence does not add Merit to your argument.

"What I am saying is that there are a lot of people who are critical thinkers, courageous and intelligent who follow a religious path."

I agree. They exist. I often wonder how much better off those for the most part critical thinkers would be if they didn't have to deal with the cognitive dissidence many religious impose?

@NoMagicCookie Maybe you are the one who has struck out. [google.com]

You can advocate for certain concepts without requiring belief. Scientists do that all the time.

I don’t have to redefine evidence, and I have not done so. In a court of law you have all sorts of evidence. There’s eyewitness testimony, expert opinion, circumstantial evidence, material evidence, etc. All those are evidence. In a laboratory most of those types could not be used, but they are still evidence. We are not in a laboratory.

@WilliamFleming

Where did you find the non-theistic Quakers (a modern subset of Quakers) defined as a religion? I have found them sited as a "movement", and "organization" but despite much time reading, have yet to find a single reference recognizing this "Group" as a religion.

I did find some questions about non-theistic Quakers being a religion . . ."Can an atheist claim with integrity to be a “birthright Friend” if one has abandoned faith in the God, when the historic heart and soul of the Quaker movement has diminished all else in service to a dynamic relationship with the Living God?"

I once had a good relationship with a woman (she left the state) her parents were Quakers. She asserted Quakers were not a religion as they did not require faith (belief without evidence).

"You can advocate for certain concepts without requiring belief. Scientists do that all the time." So science demonstrates with evidence patterns that support concepts (theory) and do not require you to believe the facts that support the patterns.

Yea, so what? Science does not dictate belief. Just as you are free to believe nonsensical things that can not be demonstrated, You are free to not believe things that can be demonstrated to be true.

Are you actually asserting facts necessarily dictate belief? I wish. If that were the case, we would have no religion as faith (belief without evidence) would not be evident.

"I don’t have to redefine evidence, "
You really are missing the point.
Credible, testable, falsifiable evidence has merit, to assert "In almost every case there is at least some evidence." Some evidence includes such nonsense as "I just felt the spirit" Face-Palm.

Science most certainly lacks the answers, and freely admits this. But consider the alternative. Can we rationally expect religion to offer answers for which science remains ignorant? Must we resort to a gap-filling faith rather than simply say, we don't know, and neither does religion?

But a 'private religion?' A religion of one? By all means! But we all know that this is not what most people associate when asked. But then, most people are not like my avatar, who said,
"My own mind is my own church," and "The World is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion." I long for a world where such values were supreme.

@pnfullifidian Great quote from your avatar. I like that very much.

“Can we rationally expect religion to offer answers for which science remains ignorant? Must we resort to a gap-filling faith rather than simply say, we don't know, and neither does religion?”

Of course not. Religion is not a set of beliefs or faith about nature, or ought not be. There are some very deep and profound mysteries about reality that are not even addressed by science, and are perhaps unknowable by the human mind. The role of religion IMO is to foster awareness, appreciation, and gratitude. To say that God did it is no answer at all.

IMO it is perfectly legitimate to discuss and speculate about the possibility of a higher intelligence beyond our human realm. Discussion of the unknown is an integral part of science. How would science ever learn anything new if scientists only studied things that were already accepted and proven?

Granted that some religious organizations have put forth a lot of false information, but that in no way invalidates the concept of a higher intelligence. That question is still open.

@WilliamFleming “There are some very deep and profound mysteries about reality that are not even addressed by science, and are perhaps unknowable by the human mind.”

Each “deep and profound” mystery--a word that raises red flags with me, due to its overuse by religion--should be examined on a case-by-case basis. I would ask you to name several ‘mysteries’ that science does not address, and further ask that, if they truly are unknowable, of what use is it to make any claim or assertion regarding them?

“The role of religion IMO is to foster awareness, appreciation, and gratitude.”

Really?! According to whom? As a secular humanist, I see religion as having, on the whole, disqualified themselves for holding a monopoly on such positive behaviors.

“…it is perfectly legitimate to discuss and speculate about the possibility of a higher intelligence beyond our human realm.”

It stands to reason that, in a universe of billions of galaxies and trillions of star systems, there would be a vast number of intelligences higher than our own. Such speculations and discussions are most certainly within the realm of science.

“How would science ever learn anything new if scientists only studied things that were already accepted and proven?”

Agreed. And this is the polar opposite of religion and faith, which claims to already have answers.

@pnfullifidian

“I would ask you to name several ‘mysteries’ that science does not address, and further ask that, if they truly are unknowable, of what use is it to make any claim or assertion regarding them?”

In the introduction to his book titled “QED”, Richard Feynman discusses the limits of science. Feynman had worked out an elegant mathematical model that accurately predicts the probability of various paths followed by photons. It is a very intriguing and unexpected model, leading to questions about why things should be that way. Feynman warns against asking why. He says that no one knows why and will probably never know why. When students ask why, they are told to shut up and compute.

There are various profoundly deep questions not addressed by science. Why does anything exist at all? What is the nature of deep conscious awareness and how does it arise. The enigma of personal identity: Why am I me? How can we have free will if we are only material bodies? How did life get started? In the final analysis, IMO nothing at all is truly understood except superficially.

There are those who sit on their golden thrones of scientific knowledge, thinking that they understand just about everything there is to know and looking with condescension upon anyone who dares mention metaphysical ideas. Yet those people haven’t the slightest idea of who or what they are, or of the nature of their only vehicle for knowing, conscious awareness. They take for granted the very nature of existence itself: according to quantum gravity theory there are no “things”. Reality is not made out of matter. Time does not exist. Space is granular.

It’s not a matter of making claims and assertions. Some churches do make unfounded claims and assertions, and I join with you in criticizing them, But their doing so does not invalidate or impugn metaphysical speculation in general, intuitive ideas, or deep awareness, appreciation, and gratitude for reality.

@WilliamFleming your examples are examples science DOESN'T know, not examples it CAN'T know. in 1300 AD, when science as an actual discipline was forming, they didn't know about germs, and they couldn't, given the technology and available knowledge of the day. that did not make germs a think science "couldn't answer", it made them something science "hadn't answered".

"Why does anything exist at all" is the one question in your "examples" that might actually be beyond the limit of human science, and that is because to measure "reality" at it's core would require tools so small, so fast, and so precise that they themselves would be unusable for us.

the nature of conscious awareness IS being studied, and we are making leaps and bounds. the nature of "self" is being studied, and we are developing a greater and greater understanding of how "self" is constructed from the various feedback loops in our brain wiring. free will is being understood better and better on a daily basis, as are it's roots in subconscious process and probability driven heuristics. How did life get started? being studied, inroads into the processes of abiogenesis are being made regularly.

this is the fallacy of thinking everything we can know we already know. time and time again metaphysical claims have been debunked by scientific process and understanding, and time and time again the metaphysicists have had to retreat farther and farther into what's left not known YET.

@HereticSin perhaps you are right, and someday science will provide some of those answers. No one knows the future, so such musings fall into the category of speculation or faith.

Neuroscience can study nerve impulses until doomsday, but they’ll be no closer to understanding the nature of conscious awareness IMO. They might catalog some of the nuts and bolts, but as long as they are stuck in the materialist rut all their explanations will be superficial.

On the other hand, cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman has an intriguing theory. Perhaps there’s hope.

I don't know if science will ever provide those answers. but to claim that us not having the tools means religious woo is a viable alternative is kind of ridiculous. scientific speculation is based on what we've achieved, and what we know. metaphysical explanation is based on "wow, this is really deep, must be transcendent."

@HereticSin I have never thought of religion as an alternative to science. They are in different categories.

Science has come a long way, but at its core science is superficial. I don’t know what you mean by transcendent but if you mean supernatural you are not describing what I think, unless you say that all of nature is supernatural.

“Wow, this is really deep” does not even begin to describe what I experience in regard to the staggering implications of the mystery of existence.

@WilliamFleming okay

@WilliamFleming I have yet to meet an honest scientist or student of science who condescends from a golden throne as you’ve described. We know of no end to the process of learning, in greater and greater detail, about the universe and the phenomena by which we are surrounded. Any scientist worthy of the title realizes that all of our understanding is, more or less as you say, superficial. Science works on the edges, or frontiers of our knowledge, which appear almost boundless.

Some of the deep questions you pose are clearly in the realm of science, and will eventually be answered—perhaps in our lifetime. Through the advancement of neuroscience and the development of artificial intelligence, we will eventually understand the mechanisms which result in personal identity and self-awareness, and we are much closer today than we were during Darwin’s lifetime to understanding the chemical processes which resulted in abiogenesis.

But science seeks the answers to ‘how’ questions, not ‘why’ questions. Why questions imply agency or an unknown actor, the evidence for which has yet to be detected. To quote one of my favorite philosophers, Neil Peart,

Why are we here?
Because we're here
Roll the bones
Why does it happen?
Because it happens
Roll the bones

There is clearly some randomness in our being here, and repeatedly asking 'why' is, after all, rather childish. Best that we roll up our sleeves and do the heavy lifting of finding out 'how.'

"Faith and superstition, again, aren't the same thing." Please give me an example of the use of religious foundation of faith defined as "Belief without evidence" as NOT a product of superstition.

"When life forces us to act in the absence of adequate knowledge the only choices available to us are faith or despair. " FALSE DICHOTOMY!

I am perfectly comfortable recognizing there are things I (and current science) do not understand. I'm not sure if you understand what a lame excuse this falsehood appears to be - a sad attempt to legitimize faith (Belief without evidence) make-stuff up so we "don't feel "despair" I often teach "I don't know" is a perfectly good answer.

Faith, in my opinion is a fact. Fine. The existence of the brain state defined as faith exists. - - - what's your point?

"Nothing humans do can degrade the beauty of reality." I really wish this was true. There are so many examples that demonstrate the opposite of your assertion I could fill pages with examples. In keeping with the context of faith degrading the beauty of life, please explain how, during the Salem Witch Trials, the 19 that were found guilty and hanged did not have their beauty or reality degraded. If you wish to stick to non-lethal outcomes, It greatly saddens me when theists (once de-converted) tell me of how regretful they are when they look back- that they wasted so much of their lives living in fantasy land. . . How much more truth they are free to recognize and appreciate the beauty and diversity of reality. I can recall several once theists I helped see the light of truth over faith express this observation.

To explain the origins or religion, I am rather fond of this quote: “Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.” ― Mark Twain.

@NoMagicCookie And that's politics as usual.

@freeofgod Well played.

Those people are downright scary.

All theistic "faith" leads to the same road, a suspension of critical thinking. The most egregious damage done by religion is to teach that "faith" is a virtue. Almost every, if not every, theist I have ever met is in that state because they have been convinced that "faith" is a virtue.

@intrepid65 There's all sorts of faith. I'd suggest we distinguish between unreasoning faith that drives religions, political movements, any other unfounded social activities vs. the faith we all have that we can trust people, ideas, and things that have been shown to be valid and useful..

@jerry99, I did that. I specified "theistic faith" which is different than confidence or trust one has from critical thinking coupled with experience.

Brilliantly stated. I could not agree with you more.

Even under the Umbrella of "the reality of the Catholic belief system" there is a great deal of variation (different interpretation of the "truth" ). The young woman who killed herself to live forever with Jesus and her dead father was a Catholic. This was her faith based belief under her understanding of her Catholic based upbringing. Likewise, the "time to fix things after I die" is an understanding of heaven by more then one Catholic that I know.

@NoMagicCookie very true, but that just strengthens my point. Everyone picks and chooses the dogma that best fits what they want/desire. And just because the people in the pews believe it, doesn't make it official church doctrine. IF the "universal church" and the "infallible Pope" were truly as legitimate as they want people to believe, then that would be the truth/the way things are, and what Johnny Catholic "believes' hardly matters.

However, since it's all brilliant shenanigans (my replacement for bs, which I am determined to make happen ) anyway, it hardly matters.

Science doesn't care what you believe, the facts are the facts. In religion, everyone has their own personal beliefs, and none of them seem to match fully.

Wait - doesn't the Catholic religion teach that suicide is a mortal sin and a suicide will never get to heaven? Aren't they the ones that wouldn't even let suicides be buried in hallowed ground? So how the heck does a Catholic think suicide will let them be with Jesus?

@exilesky . . . and the Catholic church also teaches that good people who have not been exposed to the "Truth" of Jesus and god will not burn in hell forever because they did not have the opportunity to learn the "Truth" of their saviour. Now, take this information and look at the church's promotion of indoctrinating people into their faith. If they are 50 percent effect in "converting people into Catholics" by their definition, they have also condemned to burn in hell forever those that did not know about Catholicism . Does this not place Catholic missionaries in the revered position to damn people to hell? What a moral organization the Catholic church is. - - and yes, in the (insert expletive catholic dogma here) your body belongs to god not to you so if you kill yourself you have taken from god. But as noted earlier, even under the umbrella of Catholic church, not all believe the same (faith) (belief without evidence) based assertions.

@exilesky And don't forget the baby selling scam from the fifties and early sixties.

@NoMagicCookie , the 'no exposure theory' you just sited wasn't what the catholic college I went to was teaching in the early eighties. Then it was 'I/we don't know'.

But aren't there also a lot of people who do evil things in the name of religion (war, bigotry, conversion therapy, shunning, crazy people killing their kids, etc.)? And what about those who have no problem hurting people in this world thinking they will just ask for forgiveness from their sky daddy later (I'm looking at you, GOP)? Yes, religion keeps some people from a life of crime, but it also enables others. Maybe it's a wash.

@dkp93 Spot on!

As a side note, I'm not sure how you manage maintaining your non-theist sanity living there in the Greenville area!

@Coppersmith1965 It's not so bad. I think I must put out a non-religious vibe or something. No one ever asks me what church I go to. When someone does say something religious, like my sweet neighbor who says stuff like "I asked god to please tell me what to do", I just smile and nod. I can tolerate their crazy as long as they aren't trying to shove it down my throat, and no one is doing that for the most part. I have several good friends who are religious, but we all know not to discuss it. That said, not a day goes by that I don't get ticked off for a minute or so by some religious nonsense I witness, maybe a billboard or news story, etc. I guess I just learned to deal with it and not let it affect my life too much.

@dkp93 You are absolutely correct, most of the wars in this world have been religion related. I was referring to a specific group of people.

@dkp93 I wonder what it would be like if I were to go back and run into my former fundy friends. It would be awkward, I'm sure. It's ironic that my most recent neighbor up near Traveler's Rest was a liberal democrat who never spoke a word to me in the eight years I lived next door. Perhaps she would be less angry if she knew me now.

@Coppersmith1965 So you're from the Greenville area then?