About Belief, Religion and God

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
321

[quote]BBriere wrote:
One term I don’t like to hear used is “blind faith.” It’s true that some Christians as well as many others, religious or not, have blind faith. What does it mean? Basically a faith in something that has never been seen or proven. Yes, I realize that in any religion faith in the unseen is necessary. However, if you believe you must be well knowledgable in the essential teachings of that religion. For Christians this means reading the Bible, for Jews the Torah, for Muslims the Koran, Zoroastrians the Avesta, etc. This can also apply to someone who espouses Darwinian evolution but doesn’t know the contradictory scientific findings or that Darwin used his theories to promote racism. Regardless of what you believe, be well versed in it and be ready to defend your beliefs based on your knowledge. In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul holds the Bereans in highest esteem because they test even his writings against what is already written in the Bible. I feel half the television “preachers” such as Joel Osteen would have know leg to stand on if Christians really tested his words against what was in the Bible. I more respect an atheist that is well versed in his theories than any believer that can’t quote the most basic scriptures. Don’t use true “blind faith.” Know what your belief system is based on.[/quote]

I completly agree with this.I dont believe in god but I wouldnt call myself an athiest.I also go out of my way to learn what seems interesting about religion for the sole fact that how can I make a judgment about something I know nothig about.

If religion in this country could benefit from one thing it would be to read and learn the old texts, the bibles around the world still talk about old stories but they have been written out of american bibles.

322

I brought up Joel Osteen because he’s probably the best example of a non-Bible based “Christian.” He puts on a big smile, preaches a message of love and that God wants to give you the best, and rarely if ever actually quotes what scripture these ideas are found in. Sure, God blesses people, but he also tests people. In case anybody has never heard of the Book of Job, it’s all about a man who was put to the test of losing basically everything but his life. I’m not sure how preachers like Osteen work this into their ideas that God is an all giving deity that wants you to be wealthy in material things. Remember, man is here to serve God not vice versa. I’ve always been told, beware of preachers that preach a message that sounds too good to be true. It typically is.

323

[quote]BBriere wrote:
I brought up Joel Osteen because he’s probably the best example of a non-Bible based “Christian.” He puts on a big smile, preaches a message of love and that God wants to give you the best, and rarely if ever actually quotes what scripture these ideas are found in. Sure, God blesses people, but he also tests people. In case anybody has never heard of the Book of Job, it’s all about a man who was put to the test of losing basically everything but his life. I’m not sure how preachers like Osteen work this into their ideas that God is an all giving deity that wants you to be wealthy in material things. Remember, man is here to serve God not vice versa. I’ve always been told, beware of preachers that preach a message that sounds too good to be true. It typically is.[/quote]

I hear you on this - I was just curious because it seemed that a lot of people were discussing him. I was wondering if he had said something or was in the news recently.

324

1024×683 32.4 KB

325

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…not just about Christianity…

I wonder if this guy realizes that all of his arguments only exist within the context of Christianity? What I mean by that is that without christian/western values he has no foundation for what he is saying.

Here are some examples:

  1. Slavery is wrong. Who says? Why not keep slaves?
  2. Tormenting other people is wrong. If they aren’t made in a divine image, what is wrong with hurting others? Perhaps the only reason it even turns your stomach a little bit is because you are so influenced by Christian values and western philosophy?
  3. “I wouldn’t torment my kids, so why should God?” He states himself that this only really applies to visions of hell as being fiery infernos, and doesn’t exist at all in many theological doctrines, but even so, if there is a true judge of the universe who knows more than us, perhaps it is only a weakness in our own understanding that makes this seem disturbing? If we knew the real impact of {insert sin here} perhaps we would see the punishment, however harsh, as just.
  4. “I don’t believe in the concept of sin…” Ok, so how is that not a contradiction to you being ‘moral’. At least in theory, you have no problem with murder, theft and rape, because there are no moral absolutes. Even if you will cite some sort of ‘natural law’ who created it?
  5. “… but if I did, they would be…” Basically being a free thinking person, with a little bit of “not oppressing others” thrown in. So why not oppress others? What value are other people to you? They have no inherent value because there is no being above humanity which establishes it so. This guy might have emotional reasons for not mistreating others, but he couldn’t fault anyone who did.

He has turned western values and ideas into a religion unto themselves. His entire “moral” code is sure to change constantly. This is not a morality, but an excuse to do what he pleases.

He also “proves” nothing, as proving a negative (the idea that something does NOT exist) is almost impossible. Can he claim to know the entire content of the universe to know what does and doesn’t exist? He says that there is doubt cast on God’s existence, which is certainly true, but should render him an agnostic, not an atheist, and his thesis that God doesn’t exist remains just as unproven (and perhaps moreso) as the contention that God does exist.

He has his own biases and talks on the phone to redneck idiots thinking he has proven something.

And Ephrem, this video is only about Christianity as these arguments don’t even make sense in the context of other religions. He mainly argues against blind faith and lack of conformance to modern western ethics. Do Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism or new age religions even discuss these things? A Muslim can say “I know slavery is ok because God says so.” It is only a Christian who has to be both the contemporary liberal and believer in the literal translation of the bible.

326

I’ve been involved in these types of threads in the past and I know how the atheists value intelligence over faith. Many further claim that those who believe in God are not unintelligent. I usually don’t get involved with these types of threads any longer but I couldn’t help but post the following quote from Chris Langan the smartest man in the world who has an IQ of between 195-210:

"you cannot describe the universe completely with any accuracy unless you’re willing to admit that it’s both physical and mental in nature"12 and that his CTMU explains the connection between mind and reality, therefore the presence of cognition and universe in the same phrase.15 He calls his proposal a true ‘Theory of Everything’, a cross between John Archibald Wheeler’s ‘Participatory Universe’ and Stephen Hawking’s ‘Imaginary Time’ theory of cosmology."9 In conjunction with his ideas, Langan has claimed that “you can prove the existence of God, the soul and an afterlife, using mathematics.”

It’s also interesting to note that memebrs of Mensa (organization for those with high IQ’s) are mostly made up of those who believe in God. In fact only 3.6% are atheists.

“49% Christian, 3% Unitarian, 9% Jewish, 7% agnostic, 3.6% atheist, 9% no religion.”

Metropolitan Washington Mensa

327

Wow, this is an interesting thread. I have alot of catching up to do, I have to make breakfast before tackling it.

328

[quote]jglickfield wrote: I wonder if this guy realizes that all of his arguments only exist within the context of Christianity? What I mean by that is that without christian/western values he has no foundation for what he is saying.

Here are some examples:

  1. Slavery is wrong. Who says? Why not keep slaves?
  2. Tormenting other people is wrong. If they aren’t made in a divine image, what is wrong with hurting others? Perhaps the only reason it even turns your stomach a little bit is because you are so influenced by Christian values and western philosophy?
  3. “I wouldn’t torment my kids, so why should God?” He states himself that this only really applies to visions of hell as being fiery infernos, and doesn’t exist at all in many theological doctrines, but even so, if there is a true judge of the universe who knows more than us, perhaps it is only a weakness in our own understanding that makes this seem disturbing? If we knew the real impact of {insert sin here} perhaps we would see the punishment, however harsh, as just.
  4. “I don’t believe in the concept of sin…” Ok, so how is that not a contradiction to you being ‘moral’. At least in theory, you have no problem with murder, theft and rape, because there are no moral absolutes. Even if you will cite some sort of ‘natural law’ who created it?
  5. “… but if I did, they would be…” Basically being a free thinking person, with a little bit of “not oppressing others” thrown in. So why not oppress others? What value are other people to you? They have no inherent value because there is no being above humanity which establishes it so. This guy might have emotional reasons for not mistreating others, but he couldn’t fault anyone who did.

He has turned western values and ideas into a religion unto themselves. His entire “moral” code is sure to change constantly. This is not a morality, but an excuse to do what he pleases.

He also “proves” nothing, as proving a negative (the idea that something does NOT exist) is almost impossible. Can he claim to know the entire content of the universe to know what does and doesn’t exist? He says that there is doubt cast on God’s existence, which is certainly true, but should render him an agnostic, not an atheist, and his thesis that God doesn’t exist remains just as unproven (and perhaps moreso) as the contention that God does exist.

He has his own biases and talks on the phone to redneck idiots thinking he has proven something.

And Ephrem, this video is only about Christianity as these arguments don’t even make sense in the context of other religions. He mainly argues against blind faith and lack of conformance to modern western ethics. Do Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism or new age religions even discuss these things? A Muslim can say “I know slavery is ok because God says so.” It is only a Christian who has to be both the contemporary liberal and believer in the literal translation of the bible. [/quote]

…oh, where to begin? Can you explain to me why you would have trouble acting morally without a religious imperative? Or, can you explain to me why you’d find it difficult defining morality without religion spelling it out for you? Can you not be a moral person for the sake of being moral without the promise of reward or the threat of punishment?

329

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’ve been involved in these types of threads in the past and I know how the atheists value intelligence over faith. Many further claim that those who believe in God are not unintelligent. I usually don’t get involved with these types of threads any longer but I couldn’t help but post the following quote from Chris Langan the smartest man in the world who has an IQ of between 195-210:

"you cannot describe the universe completely with any accuracy unless you’re willing to admit that it’s both physical and mental in nature"12 and that his CTMU explains the connection between mind and reality, therefore the presence of cognition and universe in the same phrase.15 He calls his proposal a true ‘Theory of Everything’, a cross between John Archibald Wheeler’s ‘Participatory Universe’ and Stephen Hawking’s ‘Imaginary Time’ theory of cosmology."9 In conjunction with his ideas, Langan has claimed that “you can prove the existence of God, the soul and an afterlife, using mathematics.”

It’s also interesting to note that memebrs of Mensa (organization for those with high IQ’s) are mostly made up of those who believe in God. In fact only 3.6% are atheists.

“49% Christian, 3% Unitarian, 9% Jewish, 7% agnostic, 3.6% atheist, 9% no religion.”

Metropolitan Washington Mensa

[/quote]

…your fallacious appeal to authority is noted ZEB. Did the smartest man prove God yet?

330

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…oh, where to begin? Can you explain to me why you would have trouble acting morally without a religious imperative? Or, can you explain to me why you’d find it difficult defining morality without religion spelling it out for you? Can you not be a moral person for the sake of being moral without the promise of reward or the threat of punishment?
[/quote]

Yeah, I can explain it really simply. Morality is concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles. You agree right? If there is no God, then there CANNOT BE an absolute moral code, because who established those principles? The discussion never begins. The atheist paradigm necessitates complete moral relativism. If everything is, or could be, moral then nothing is.

Another obvious problem is that what happens when my morality isn’t yours? Tolerance only goes so far if one person’s morality allows you to sell drugs to kids, have slaves, and beat your wife, right?

Your assumption is that there is some external force in the world called “morality” and one does not need to fear punishment or desire reward to be in line with this morality. Ever think that that morality might be called God and you might be expressing ‘theism?’

331

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’ve been involved in these types of threads in the past and I know how the atheists value intelligence over faith. Many further claim that those who believe in God are not unintelligent. I usually don’t get involved with these types of threads any longer but I couldn’t help but post the following quote from Chris Langan the smartest man in the world who has an IQ of between 195-210:

"you cannot describe the universe completely with any accuracy unless you’re willing to admit that it’s both physical and mental in nature"12 and that his CTMU explains the connection between mind and reality, therefore the presence of cognition and universe in the same phrase.15 He calls his proposal a true ‘Theory of Everything’, a cross between John Archibald Wheeler’s ‘Participatory Universe’ and Stephen Hawking’s ‘Imaginary Time’ theory of cosmology."9 In conjunction with his ideas, Langan has claimed that “you can prove the existence of God, the soul and an afterlife, using mathematics.”

It’s also interesting to note that memebrs of Mensa (organization for those with high IQ’s) are mostly made up of those who believe in God. In fact only 3.6% are atheists.

“49% Christian, 3% Unitarian, 9% Jewish, 7% agnostic, 3.6% atheist, 9% no religion.”

Metropolitan Washington Mensa

[/quote]

…your fallacious appeal to authority is noted ZEB. Did the smartest man prove God yet?
[/quote]

Did anyone disprove God yet either? No? So it looks like you are about on equal footing.

332

[quote]jglickfield wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…oh, where to begin? Can you explain to me why you would have trouble acting morally without a religious imperative? Or, can you explain to me why you’d find it difficult defining morality without religion spelling it out for you? Can you not be a moral person for the sake of being moral without the promise of reward or the threat of punishment?
[/quote]

Yeah, I can explain it really simply. Morality is concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles. You agree right? If there is no God, then there CANNOT BE an absolute moral code, because who established those principles? The discussion never begins. The atheist paradigm necessitates complete moral relativism. If everything is, or could be, moral then nothing is.

Another obvious problem is that what happens when my morality isn’t yours? Tolerance only goes so far if one person’s morality allows you to sell drugs to kids, have slaves, and beat your wife, right?

Your assumption is that there is some external force in the world called “morality” and one does not need to fear punishment or desire reward to be in line with this morality. Ever think that that morality might be called God and you might be expressing ‘theism?’
[/quote]

…even God-imposed morals are relative, and not absolute. From my POV, society decides what’s moral and what not, and society bases that morality on it’s culture and law. Both are subject to change, and thus morality is subject to change…

333

[quote]jglickfield wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…your fallacious appeal to authority is noted ZEB. Did the smartest man prove God yet?
[/quote]

Did anyone disprove God yet either? No? So it looks like you are about on equal footing[/quote]

…how can you disprove something that exists nowhere else but in beliefs? And that which exists in beliefs only needs no proof, otherwise if someone, at one point somewhere, had found a way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that [a] God exists, you’d no longer need faith and beliefs to sustain your religion, and atheism would no longer exist…

334

[quote]jglickfield wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’ve been involved in these types of threads in the past and I know how the atheists value intelligence over faith. Many further claim that those who believe in God are not unintelligent. I usually don’t get involved with these types of threads any longer but I couldn’t help but post the following quote from Chris Langan the smartest man in the world who has an IQ of between 195-210:

"you cannot describe the universe completely with any accuracy unless you’re willing to admit that it’s both physical and mental in nature"12 and that his CTMU explains the connection between mind and reality, therefore the presence of cognition and universe in the same phrase.15 He calls his proposal a true ‘Theory of Everything’, a cross between John Archibald Wheeler’s ‘Participatory Universe’ and Stephen Hawking’s ‘Imaginary Time’ theory of cosmology."9 In conjunction with his ideas, Langan has claimed that “you can prove the existence of God, the soul and an afterlife, using mathematics.”

It’s also interesting to note that memebrs of Mensa (organization for those with high IQ’s) are mostly made up of those who believe in God. In fact only 3.6% are atheists.

“49% Christian, 3% Unitarian, 9% Jewish, 7% agnostic, 3.6% atheist, 9% no religion.”

Metropolitan Washington Mensa

[/quote]

…your fallacious appeal to authority is noted ZEB. Did the smartest man prove God yet?
[/quote]

Did anyone disprove God yet either? No? So it looks like you are about on equal footing.[/quote]

Oh Jesus.

That shit again?

Prove to me that there is no invisible unicorn watching over us?

You cant?

Want me to make up other stuff you cannot disprove?

You cannot prove a negative and thats that.

Well, at least not that kind of negative.

335

[quote]jglickfield wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’ve been involved in these types of threads in the past and I know how the atheists value intelligence over faith. Many further claim that those who believe in God are not unintelligent. I usually don’t get involved with these types of threads any longer but I couldn’t help but post the following quote from Chris Langan the smartest man in the world who has an IQ of between 195-210:

"you cannot describe the universe completely with any accuracy unless you’re willing to admit that it’s both physical and mental in nature"12 and that his CTMU explains the connection between mind and reality, therefore the presence of cognition and universe in the same phrase.15 He calls his proposal a true ‘Theory of Everything’, a cross between John Archibald Wheeler’s ‘Participatory Universe’ and Stephen Hawking’s ‘Imaginary Time’ theory of cosmology."9 In conjunction with his ideas, Langan has claimed that “you can prove the existence of God, the soul and an afterlife, using mathematics.”

It’s also interesting to note that memebrs of Mensa (organization for those with high IQ’s) are mostly made up of those who believe in God. In fact only 3.6% are atheists.

“49% Christian, 3% Unitarian, 9% Jewish, 7% agnostic, 3.6% atheist, 9% no religion.”

Metropolitan Washington Mensa

[/quote]

…your fallacious appeal to authority is noted ZEB. Did the smartest man prove God yet?
[/quote]

Did anyone disprove God yet either? No? So it looks like you are about on equal footing.[/quote]

Lol.

336

[quote]orion wrote:

You cannot prove a negative and thats that.

Well, at least not that kind of negative.

[/quote]

I know, I mentioned that before, which is why atheism is completely irrational. A person with doubts should be an agnostic, because he should not have a theology based upon something with no proof whatsoever (atheism). Not being able to prove negatives is a flaw in the atheist argument, not an excuse for atheists to make to avoid proving their own point.

Comparing belief in God to giant unicorns is a little bit weak when there is actual evidence to God’s existence. However little you wish to acknowledge its validity you must admit that it is there, and if it was about any other issue you would at least say you didn’t know one way or the other.

I have never seen the aurora borealis. I have never seen the surface of jupiter. I have never seen the president. I don’t doubt their existence because so many people have. About 2.5 million people were at Mount Sinai, more were with Elijah at Mount Carmel. So while this may not be sufficient evidence for you, you must recognize it as some degree of evidence. Given that there can by definition be NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER for atheism, who is irrational?

337

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]jglickfield wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…oh, where to begin? Can you explain to me why you would have trouble acting morally without a religious imperative? Or, can you explain to me why you’d find it difficult defining morality without religion spelling it out for you? Can you not be a moral person for the sake of being moral without the promise of reward or the threat of punishment?
[/quote]

Yeah, I can explain it really simply. Morality is concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles. You agree right? If there is no God, then there CANNOT BE an absolute moral code, because who established those principles? The discussion never begins. The atheist paradigm necessitates complete moral relativism. If everything is, or could be, moral then nothing is.

Another obvious problem is that what happens when my morality isn’t yours? Tolerance only goes so far if one person’s morality allows you to sell drugs to kids, have slaves, and beat your wife, right?

Your assumption is that there is some external force in the world called “morality” and one does not need to fear punishment or desire reward to be in line with this morality. Ever think that that morality might be called God and you might be expressing ‘theism?’
[/quote]

…even God-imposed morals are relative, and not absolute. From my POV, society decides what’s moral and what not, and society bases that morality on it’s culture and law. Both are subject to change, and thus morality is subject to change…
[/quote]

These are your opinions. You are welcome to them, but don’t believe that just because this is emotionally satisfying to you it has any basis in logic.

How are “God imposed morals” relative? Please prove what you are saying.

Besides, I was not responding to your personal opinions, but the one of the man in the video. He says that he believes that slavery was always wrong. That isn’t “morality subject to change”.

So in other words, you have said nothing other than a few poorly thought out personal opinions.

338

[quote]jglickfield wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

You cannot prove a negative and thats that.

Well, at least not that kind of negative.

[/quote]

I know, I mentioned that before, which is why atheism is completely irrational. A person with doubts should be an agnostic, because he should not have a theology based upon something with no proof whatsoever (atheism). Not being able to prove negatives is a flaw in the atheist argument, not an excuse for atheists to make to avoid proving their own point.

Comparing belief in God to giant unicorns is a little bit weak when there is actual evidence to God’s existence. However little you wish to acknowledge its validity you must admit that it is there, and if it was about any other issue you would at least say you didn’t know one way or the other.

I have never seen the aurora borealis. I have never seen the surface of jupiter. I have never seen the president. I don’t doubt their existence because so many people have. About 2.5 million people were at Mount Sinai, more were with Elijah at Mount Carmel. So while this may not be sufficient evidence for you, you must recognize it as some degree of evidence. Given that there can by definition be NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER for atheism, who is irrational?[/quote]

…let me explain this to you: atheism is not an active disbelief on the existence of God, but the absence of belief in God. IOW, as an atheist i do not believe God doesn’t exist, that would indeed be illogical. Instead, i simply have no beliefs in this regard…

339

[quote]jglickfield wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]jglickfield wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…oh, where to begin? Can you explain to me why you would have trouble acting morally without a religious imperative? Or, can you explain to me why you’d find it difficult defining morality without religion spelling it out for you? Can you not be a moral person for the sake of being moral without the promise of reward or the threat of punishment?
[/quote]

Yeah, I can explain it really simply. Morality is concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles. You agree right? If there is no God, then there CANNOT BE an absolute moral code, because who established those principles? The discussion never begins. The atheist paradigm necessitates complete moral relativism. If everything is, or could be, moral then nothing is.

Another obvious problem is that what happens when my morality isn’t yours? Tolerance only goes so far if one person’s morality allows you to sell drugs to kids, have slaves, and beat your wife, right?

Your assumption is that there is some external force in the world called “morality” and one does not need to fear punishment or desire reward to be in line with this morality. Ever think that that morality might be called God and you might be expressing ‘theism?’
[/quote]

…even God-imposed morals are relative, and not absolute. From my POV, society decides what’s moral and what not, and society bases that morality on it’s culture and law. Both are subject to change, and thus morality is subject to change…
[/quote]

These are your opinions. You are welcome to them, but don’t believe that just because this is emotionally satisfying to you it has any basis in logic.

How are “God imposed morals” relative? Please prove what you are saying.

Besides, I was not responding to your personal opinions, but the one of the man in the video. He says that he believes that slavery was always wrong. That isn’t “morality subject to change”.

So in other words, you have said nothing other than a few poorly thought out personal opinions.[/quote]

…yes, hmmm… here we go: whenever you make exceptions to a certain rule, that rule becomes relative. For instance, “Thou Shall Not Kill”. There are several exceptions to that commandment which allows christians to kill others. That means that portion of religious morality is not absolute. OTOH, you probably mean something different with absolute morality?

…i also think that slavery is wrong, and that under no circumstance another human being should be enslaved. History teaches us that this wasn’t always the case, and thankfully that changed. Society [people] changed it’s morality to reflect a change in perception…

340

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]jglickfield wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

You cannot prove a negative and thats that.

Well, at least not that kind of negative.

[/quote]

I know, I mentioned that before, which is why atheism is completely irrational. A person with doubts should be an agnostic, because he should not have a theology based upon something with no proof whatsoever (atheism). Not being able to prove negatives is a flaw in the atheist argument, not an excuse for atheists to make to avoid proving their own point.

Comparing belief in God to giant unicorns is a little bit weak when there is actual evidence to God’s existence. However little you wish to acknowledge its validity you must admit that it is there, and if it was about any other issue you would at least say you didn’t know one way or the other.

I have never seen the aurora borealis. I have never seen the surface of jupiter. I have never seen the president. I don’t doubt their existence because so many people have. About 2.5 million people were at Mount Sinai, more were with Elijah at Mount Carmel. So while this may not be sufficient evidence for you, you must recognize it as some degree of evidence. Given that there can by definition be NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER for atheism, who is irrational?[/quote]

…let me explain this to you: atheism is not an active disbelief on the existence of God, but the absence of belief in God. IOW, as an atheist i do not believe God doesn’t exist, that would indeed be illogical. Instead, i simply have no beliefs in this regard…
[/quote]

A belief which is completely irrational. If there exists any proof whatsoever your thesis is shot. You are still in the “unicorns or no unicorns” framework. If there is evidence you cannot choose to ignore it. You can choose to see it as insufficient to merit conscious religious behaviors on your part, but not ignore it.

Given this, any rational person is either a person of faith (meaning they choose to interpret events in a way which validates their beliefs) or a skeptic. But a skeptic cannot be a person who “has no beliefs in this regard” because he has to handle the evidence against him. Thus he is left with agnosticism, at least a weak form of it, in which a person may believe that there is a God, but is not sure given the available evidence and chooses inaction.

But to say “I ignore you evidence (however scant I may find it), have none of my own, and still know that you must be wrong” is complete irrationality.

So in other words, if someone in the mall asks you for a survey and asks your religion and you say “I have none, I don’t believe in this” and they say “well what about the evidence in favor of God’s existence?” You may say “it is insufficient to warrant action on my part” but dismissing it, without any counter-evidence whatsoever is more fundamentalist than any world religion I know of.