Is Atheism a Religion?

[P1LGR1M]

Thats what I mean with the "acting like Christ" thing Christ was God, with us. The anti christ will do the same. Christ honored a God while He was with us, the God of Abraham. But He also told us that He was "He".

I believe the anti christ will do the same, but from a religion where Christ was "just a prophet", one that preaches that His followers "have it wrong", and one that claims Christ will come to tell us this, and to point to the /real/ messiah.

I believe that version of "Christ" will be the false prophet, though But yeah, he will do as Christ did, claim to be god on earth, but in the name of a false god created by satan.

The thought that Antichrist will be the Mahdi of Islam is something that has in recent years gained popularity, and I can't say, though I have my doubts, that this is an impossibility.

However, it is, in my view, doubtful that the one Islam touts as their messiah will be the one who "confirms the covenant" as we see here:


Daniel 9:24-27

King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]24 [/SUP]Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

[SUP]25 [/SUP]Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

[SUP]26 [/SUP]And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

[SUP]27 [/SUP]And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.


The Mahdi of Islam stands in direct opposition to what Jews believe in regards to the Covenant of Law, which is what I think is the covenant in view here.

Rather, it is much more likely that the Antichrist will be a political figure who, when he confirms the Covenant, acknowledges the right of the Jews to practice their religion to the point that Temple Services are reestablished. We could see a scenario where this Mahdi does so, since Antichrist will be deceitful and crafty, lol, but, again we consider that this would be the exact opposite of the goal of radical Islam, who seeks to completely destroy Israel, and hinders her from practicing their religion.

Antichrist will be someone that the entire world will look to as a "savior" of sorts, and I believe he establishes himself in the first half of the Tribulation by addressing the calamities unleashed on the world through the opening of the Seals and certain Trumpet Judgments. It's kind of like today, where many Political Religionists look to their candidates to solve the problems they see as critical to their lives. For the Pro-Choice, for example, the thought of voting Republican is absurd, because they have historically been in opposition to their world-view.

So too with Antichrist, I just have a problem seeing the world, much less Israel, embrace someone from Islam. It's not impossible, and I do not deny the possibility, but I myself have my doubts.

And I don't see the Antichrist as at first being someone who is considered a messiah in a religious sense, because we know that many in the world stand in opposition to the idea of Christ. Christians make up, from latest statistics I am aware of, of less than ten percent of the World's population. The messiah that arises in the Tribulation will first be political, in my view, and will have the support of the world in majority.

To bring this back to topic, again we realize the religious nature of politics. In a recent thread, a member placed politics above religion as the most volatile subject in regards to debate. I think this might be interpreted as an indication that perhaps politics have a predominant position in their worldview, and based on the Politics Boards I have participated on a number of forums, this is not something unreal, but a reality that Christianity has to face.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

ok ok

it's a religion with it's reward in hell instead of heaven

that should settle it

Doesn't settle anything.

All religions have a reward of Hell...only Christianity has a relationship that provides first union with God and eternal abiding with Him.

All who engage in religion and religious activity, whether it be the Atheist or the Practical Atheist (those who profess to know God but are not known of Him because they have not become obedient to the Gospel)...will go into eternal punishment.

The Religious fancy they have the truth, and it is the "truth" that all religions proclaim that we examine.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Originally Posted by P1LGR1M

That was kind of the point: religious effort should not be equated to genuine relationship with God.

Secondly, that religious effort is not defined by belief in God or gods.

since 'religion' is a word in common usage, imo its usage isn't going to be as tight as, say, ones used in math. So yes, atheism can be seen as a religion... imo, it won't make much impact on atheists to say that since they put effort into something, they are religious...

I would agree, which is why I have pointed out that we have to examine the beliefs of individuals regardless of the group they claim to be associated with.

Adherents will vary from nominal to fanatic, that is seen in every group.

As far as making an impact, I can tell you...it does.

And the most common response is a definition of atheism that neglects a definition of religion. That is, it goes much like a number of responses here have gone, "Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in God or gods."

But Atheism is not founded on a lack of belief, it has it's own beliefs which are distinct. Show me the Atheist that doesn't embrace Evolution, for example.

I can tell you, whether Atheism being a Religion has an impact on Atheists or not is a surety.

Originally Posted by P1LGR1M

That was kind of the point: religious effort should not be equated to genuine relationship with God.

Secondly, that religious effort is not defined by belief in God or gods.
since 'religion' is a word in common usage, imo its usage isn't going to be as tight as, say, ones used in math. So yes, atheism can be seen as a religion... imo, it won't make much impact on atheists to say that since they put effort into something, they are religious...


Wikipedia

A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.[SUP][note 1][/SUP] Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that aim to explain the meaning of life, the origin of life, or the Universe. From their beliefs about the cosmos and human nature, people may derive morality, ethics, religious laws, or a preferred lifestyle.


Now tell me...which of these cannot be seen a relevant to Atheism?

many atheists have beliefs, but atheism itself doesn't require any beliefs, imo... and some atheists may say that there is no 'order to existence'... that the universe is essentially random...

if religion is defined as any philosophy that impacts one's worldview (or 'life stance')... then again, yes, atheism is a religion... but then we're saying that atheists have a philosophy... I think most atheists would agree with that...

Atheism does require belief, and the distinct belief is that there is no God.

As I said before, Atheism is not a neutral position as Atheists would have us believe, it is a pro-active rejection of the Knowledge of God.

A baby might fit the definition Atheists try to present, but they themselves do not.

Ask an atheist if they believe there is a God, and when they say no, they don't...ask them if they believe that. "Do you really believe there is no God?"

Further, we see in their religious efforts such as preaching, teaching, and evangelizing, that they have many beliefs they seek to replace the beliefs of traditional religionists with.

Creation versus Evolution.

Man's wisdom versus the Wisdom of God.

Finite existence versus infinite.

Spiritual versus electro-Chemical process.

Atheists have Doctrine just as religionists do, and how religious an Atheist is can be evidenced through their works.

I have been a number of Forums that have large atheistic populations, even those which call themselves "Christian Forums." I actually tried to get on one that was begun by an Atheist and a Believer before I chose this forum, but wasn't able to get registered. I'll likely go back to that one when I am done here, and try again, because this is an important field we need to go into (though I do not recommend it for those new to the faith, because many of these Atheists are very convincing and usually have more experience debating than most new believers, and have many arguments that might confuse those new to it (such as the "No True Scotsman Fallacy," which is actually employed by those teaching loss of salvation).

The similarities can be acknowledged, it is just very apparent, and this is why I raise the issue, because it is a good approach when dealing with atheists. We know based on Scripture that "The fool hath said in his heart there is no God," which shows that in view is rejection of a knowledge of God which is known to them. This is reiterated in Romans 1 and 2, yet this is something that the Atheist will do to deny.

They believe that their conclusion is one of logic, based on fact, concluded due to the lack of something.

But it isn't.

You can't be an atheist until you first have a knowledge of God.

So again...Atheism is not a neutral position.

No-one that denies the existence of God is neutral.

And again, we consider their works, after having made their profession, to gauge just how religious they are, lol.

And sorry for seeming to have abandoned the thread, I haven't, just have been tied up. I will return in earnest when I get the opportunity, and again thanks for the participation.


God bless.

 

[Kefa54]

I'm just wondering why I care.

Kefa

 

[P1LGR1M]

I'm just wondering why I care.

Kefa

There is good reason to care. Here is one:


Jude 19-23

King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]19 [/SUP]These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

[SUP]20 [/SUP]But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

[SUP]21 [/SUP]Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

[SUP]22 [/SUP]And of some have compassion, making a difference:

[SUP]23 [/SUP]And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.


God bless.

 

[Dan_473]

I would agree, which is why I have pointed out that we have to examine the beliefs of individuals regardless of the group they claim to be associated with.

ahh, but now you've added beliefs.

Adherents will vary from nominal to fanatic, that is seen in every group.

As far as making an impact, I can tell you...it does.

imo, that would be because of the associations made with religion... if you've had experience with this, did you carefully explain that anything anyone puts effort into is a religion, and that what you're saying about them is that they put effort into something?

And the most common response is a definition of atheism that neglects a definition of religion. That is, it goes much like a number of responses here have gone, "Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in God or gods."

But Atheism is not founded on a lack of belief, it has it's own beliefs which are distinct.

what beliefs are *required* to be an atheist?

if we say atheism plus beliefs equals religion, then yes, I agree...

Show me the Atheist that doesn't embrace Evolution, for example.

many solipsists would fit the bill, though granted there's not a lot of them around... ( humor: 'course, in the end there could only be one).

Atheism does require belief, and the distinct belief is that there is no God.

As I said before, Atheism is not a neutral position as Atheists would have us believe, it is a pro-active rejection of the Knowledge of God.

imo, there would be a difference between 'active' atheism and 'passive' atheism...

sounds like you've had some experiences with the 'active' ones... and I'll agree that most people who call themselves atheists in our culture have common attributes (e.g. humanism) that amount to a religion... but, imo, atheism itself isn't a religion.


how about, if you like, recounting some of your experiences with atheists?

 

[P1LGR1M]

Originally Posted by P1LGR1M

I would agree, which is why I have pointed out that we have to examine the beliefs of individuals regardless of the group they claim to be associated with.

ahh, but now you've added beliefs.

Not really, as I said, Atheism is a determined position that is not neutral and demands that certain beliefs be embraced.

It is not "adding beliefs," it is exchanging beliefs.

Paul speaks about this here:


Romans 1:21-23

King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]21 [/SUP]Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

[SUP]22 [/SUP]Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

[SUP]23 [/SUP]And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.



Now the Atheist is going to read that and say "...I don't do that, because I don't believe in God, thus cannot be charged with changing His glory into something else."

And that is a lie.

They do change the glory of God into another image, they exchange truth for a lie. I gave a number of examples in the previous post:

Creation versus Evolution.

Man's wisdom versus the Wisdom of God.

Finite existence versus infinite.

Spiritual versus electro-Chemical process.

For some men the Glory of God is reduced to Scientific Progress, which is attributed to men. If man had payed attention, he would have followed God's example of putting people to sleep when they operated instead of having them "bite the bullet," lol.

Adherents will vary from nominal to fanatic, that is seen in every group.

As far as making an impact, I can tell you...it does.

imo, that would be because of the associations made with religion... if you've had experience with this, did you carefully explain that anything anyone puts effort into is a religion, and that what you're saying about them is that they put effort into something?

We are not making all efforts "religious," we are focusing on those things which take the place of God.

Someone can put much effort into something without it being religious. A career, for example, may have irreligious motive, but, what if that career is the effort of proving there is no God?

And you actually touch on something that is true of the religious atheist, many of them have a hatred for religion itself. It is ironic that their efforts actually become for them a religion.

They become the very thing they despise.

And the most common response is a definition of atheism that neglects a definition of religion. That is, it goes much like a number of responses here have gone, "Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in God or gods."

But Atheism is not founded on a lack of belief, it has it's own beliefs which are distinct.

what beliefs are *required* to be an atheist?

if we say atheism plus beliefs equals religion, then yes, I agree...

We only have to have one belief for one to be an atheist: they believe there is no God.

Again, we distinguish between what is neutral which can, in regards to God, only occur if there is no knowledge of God.

But the moment that someone rejects the Knowledge of God, they assert their own belief.

That is not neutral and it cannot be defined as "the absence of something."

It is an exchange of what Scripture calls truth with a truth they themselves have embraced.

Show me the Atheist that doesn't embrace Evolution, for example.

many solipsists would fit the bill, though granted there's not a lot of them around... ( humor: 'course, in the end there could only be one).

Solipsism is very much a religious belief that can be seen reflected in certain mystical religions. James West, an Apologist who dealt with false religions and cults spoke of an incident in which his friend, who had embraced a view that the world was an illusion, was asked by James "So if I ball up my fist and punch you in the eye I wouldn't really be doing that, right?"

His friend, obviously weak in his faith (lol), asked, "You wouldn't really do that, would you James?"

Believe it or not I have seen what I call "Matrix Theology" embraced by certain people on more than one forum I have visited. It suggests that consciousness is just a dream of sorts, and that what we experience is simply something that pertains to ourselves, everyone else is just an "actor" in our own little reality, which is not, ironically, reality at all, but illusion.

Atheism does require belief, and the distinct belief is that there is no God.

As I said before, Atheism is not a neutral position as Atheists would have us believe, it is a pro-active rejection of the Knowledge of God.

imo, there would be a difference between 'active' atheism and 'passive' atheism...
[/QUOTE]

Not really. All Atheists actively reject the Knowledge of God, and except they have that shared characteristic then they are not dubbed atheists.

They are all of the same belief, they just range in their religious efforts from nominal to fanatical.

sounds like you've had some experiences with the 'active' ones...

Yup, lol.

and I'll agree that most people who call themselves atheists in our culture have common attributes (e.g. humanism) that amount to a religion... but, imo, atheism itself isn't a religion.

And you share the same view most atheists do, though I have actually had some atheists that have yielded to the point, and recognize that by being religious in their efforts and acknowledging that religion is not defined by a demand for belief in God or gods...they were in engaging in religion.

how about, if you like, recounting some of your experiences with atheists?

Have to get going, but one of my favorite things is to engage Atheists in looking at the "contradictions" they perceive in Scripture.

Once, an atheist, pretty proud of himself, stated he had once for all proven that Scripture was a man-made product that was fallible, which denies that God is the Author. His premise? That Math proved this, in regards to the materials David stated he had amassed for the building of the Temple. He said, "Math proves error in the Bible because we can easily see that the materials, even if the Temple was built solid, would not fit in the dimensions we are given in Scripture."

I told him his math was wrong. lol

He cursed me and told how his math was (surprisingly) infallible, he had checked and rechecked calculations several times over, and I was an idiot.

I told him again, "Your math is wrong, because nowhere in Scripture do we see that all of those materials were used to build the Temple, the only thing it states is that David had amassed that amount." lol

So you see the math was wrong, because he was calculating figures that are not even relevant. This is like trying to make a word without having the proper letters.

On one forum, believe it or not, two threads I was participating in received well over ten thousand views in less than two weeks. This should show us that many are tuning in to Atheist Forums, and that if the Atheists are drawing more attention than Christian Forums are, this is a problem.

There is always a sigh of relief for me, so to speak, when I finish with some of the forums I go to. Sometimes topics are distasteful (not meaning vulgar, just mean some discussions I hate to have to be part of) and discussion is tough. I have a couple of times returned to a few forums, and have considered returning to that one. I am a little more experienced in speaking with atheists now, and there is always a bit of a challenge that arises from being in a completely hostile environment that we don't always face on Christian Forums. I was grateful, though, when a few members began trying to get me banned and questioning my right to be there, when a Moderator stepped in and told them I had as much right to be there as anyone else. He said basically "This is America and we have freedom of speech, and if you don't like what he has to say you are not forced to talk to him." lol

But there are forums which, after visiting, makes one feel they need a shower, lol. On forums like that, expect foul language, which often results when their arguments break down.

Anyway, have to get going, and once again, thanks for the participation.

Glad you had the chance to enjoy some good weather, enjoy it while it lasts, lol.


God bless.

 

[Dan_473]

Not really, as I said, Atheism is a determined position that is not neutral and demands that certain beliefs be embraced.

It is not "adding beliefs," it is exchanging beliefs.

what I mean is that atheism is literally "not god"... I think you're using "not god plus beliefs"...

imo, then, you and the atheist are using "atheist" differently... leading to misunderstanding... imo, this could be why the atheist sometimes becomes aggressive...

We only have to have one belief for one to be an atheist: they believe there is no God.

Again, we distinguish between what is neutral which can, in regards to God, only occur if there is no knowledge of God.

so, what I'm getting is that a religion is anything that says 'yes' or 'no' to God... imo, that includes all humans...

so, imo, it's a non-standard definition of 'religion'.
which, imo, continues for the rest of your post here.

Given your definition, yes, you have a good logical case. At the same time, imo, for good communication to take place, there needs to be some area of 'common ground' in word usage...

so, imo, it kind of depends on whether one wants to communicate with or 'talk at' the other person...

 

[Dan_473]

And you share the same view most atheists do, though I have actually had some atheists that have yielded to the point, and recognize that by being religious in their efforts and acknowledging that religion is not defined by a demand for belief in God or gods...they were in engaging in religion.

Sounds like you were able to get the atheist to accept that definition of 'religion'...

To me, it's kind of like Jane saying "Jack doesn't have a job, he stays home and takes care of the kids."

Jill says, "Taking care of kids is a job."

Then they go back and forth about whether a job must be work in exchange for money, etc.

So also, imo, many people associate 'religion' with things like 'piety'... if the atheist will remove that association, then they can easily accept being called religious, imo...

If any 'life stance' that says accepts or rejects God is a religion, well, that would be all 'life stances'. So, if everybody clearly understands that what you're saying is that they all have a 'life stance', then sure, any reasonable person would agree with that... imo...

 

[P1LGR1M]

Originally Posted by P1LGR1M

Not really, as I said, Atheism is a determined position that is not neutral and demands that certain beliefs be embraced.

It is not "adding beliefs," it is exchanging beliefs.

what I mean is that atheism is literally "not god"... I think you're using "not god plus beliefs"...

So how do we define "God?"


Here is a Wikipedia article:

The many different conceptions of God, and competing claims as to God's characteristics, aims, and actions, have led to the development of ideas of omnitheism, pandeism,[SUP][14][/SUP][SUP][[/SUP][SUP]15][/SUP] or a perennial philosophy, which postulates that there is one underlying theological truth, of which all religions express a partial understanding, and as to which "the devout in the various great world religions are in fact worshipping that one God, but through different, overlapping concepts or mental images of him."[SUP][16][/SUP]



Now, let's expand the discussion to the New Age Movement:


[SUP][97][/SUP] Various creation myths have been articulated in New Age publications outlining how this Ultimate Source came to create the universe and everything in it.[SUP][98][/SUP] In contrast, some other New Agers have emphasised the idea of a universal inter-relatedness that is not always emanating from a single source.[SUP][99][/SUP] The New Age worldview emphasises holism and the idea that everything in existence is intricately connected as part of a single whole,[SUP][100][/SUP] in doing so rejecting both the dualism of Judeo-Christian thought and the reductionism of Cartesian science.[SUP][101][/SUP] A number of New Agers have linked this holistic interpretation of the universe to the Gaia hypothesis of James Lovelock.[SUP][102][/SUP] The idea of holistic divinity results in a common New Age belief that humans themselves are divine in essence, a concept described using such terms as "droplet of divinity", "inner Godhead", and "divine self".[SUP][103][/SUP] Influenced by Theosophical and Anthroposophical ideas regarding 'subtle bodies',[SUP][104][/SUP] a common New Age idea holds to the existence of a "Higher Self" which is a part of the human but which connects with the divine essence of the universe, and which can advise the human mind through intuition.[SUP][105][/SUP]



And when we open up Religion to a fuller understanding of what is accepted as religion, we understand that it is not the generic definition Atheists almost always try to enforce. It is not reasonable to exclude all relevant issues in a discussion about religion, and when we do, we can better define Atheism for what it is, a system of beliefs which necessitate a definitive characterization of Religion.

In the first Star Wars movie, one general rebukes Darth Vader for his superstitious religion, only to nearly be choked to death as an example of the reality of Vader's religion. George Lucas understood that in view was a religion, and there is no God or gods associated with it.

So we have to be able to bring the relevant elements of religion to the table when we talk with atheists, and while this is not the only front in which we meet atheists, it is, I believe, one of the best.

It would be comparable to someone who believes themselves to be Christians finding out they have been merely engaging in religious activity, and have not really been in relationship with the Lord. I know people who have come to this realization, one of them is now an active Forum Missionary who has a particular aspect to his ministry of discussing missions for those engaged in the sin of homosexuality. His testimony is that he sat in a church for decades before realizing he needed to be born again. He was simply...religious. Not a Christian in relationship to Christ.

imo, then, you and the atheist are using "atheist" differently... leading to misunderstanding... imo, this could be why the atheist sometimes becomes aggressive...

Actually, in large part atheists are usually pretty congenial, because they understand the importance of moral character and want to prove that atheists are not the baby eating anarchists they are caricaturized as, lol.

But like any religion, we see a range of nominal to fanatical and reserved to lacking any self control. We see those who control their emotions and those that have no self control.

I have had some great discussions with atheists. Just as I have had discussions where I had to deal with not just their emotions, but my own, lol. But the more we debate, the easier it becomes to refuse to respond emotionally, and actually discuss the doctrine at hand. And sometimes perceived enmity is derived from the volatile nature of the discussion itself. Most people are going to be sensitive about their beliefs, and threatening their beliefs is a threat to their faith (and atheists do have faith in their doctrines, that is for sure), which is ultimately saying...they or we are wrong.

People are just going to get upset.

But we have a more sure foundation, in that our doctrine has not changed for thousand of years. We have said for millennia that the world was under water, and Science has begun to show this is the fact. We have said for millennia that there is life after death, and near death experiences make that a certainty to those who have died and maintained a conscious existence after they were declared dead.

And we have said for millennia that God is the Savior and that HE changes the hearts of men through His Word. The evidence for that is unlimited.

We only have to have one belief for one to be an atheist: they believe there is no God.

Again, we distinguish between what is neutral which can, in regards to God, only occur if there is no knowledge of God.

so, what I'm getting is that a religion is anything that says 'yes' or 'no' to God... imo, that includes all humans...

No, it is a matter of...that is not relevant to Religion itself.

It is by limiting the scope of an issue that people are able to draw conclusions that while sounding reasonable, remain error. This is how every false doctrine of Pseudo-Christianity is derived. This is how people are able to manipulate data and present "evidence" for Evolution, for example...and people buy into it. Never considering that this is like taking a case to trial and having only circumstantial evidence. And just like convictions are made every day with circumstantial evidence, and then later overturned because new evidence justifies the accused, even so the data available which is given as evidence of Evolution is slowly having to be changed to accommodate the facts that bring those previous "truths," not only into question, but as ill-conceived error.

so, imo, it's a non-standard definition of 'religion'.

It's not my definition.

Here is another definition that is not mine:


[h=2]Full Definition of RELIGION[/h]1
a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
— re·li·gion·less adjective


See anything there that limits Religion to a definition of "A belief in God or gods?"

which, imo, continues for the rest of your post here.

That's why we talk about it, and try to bring all that is relevant to this, and any discussion to the table.

If we do not, then we cannot consider our conclusions as valid.

Given your definition, yes, you have a good logical case.

It's not my definition, it is the definition of Religion when it is not limited to a definition that suits an agenda.

At the same time, imo, for good communication to take place, there needs to be some area of 'common ground' in word usage...

And that is why we bring these things up to the Atheist.

Go to any Forum you choose that has atheists, and start this thread with no comment from yourself (I gave a fuller OP because I have not really seen too many atheists engaging in discussion here), and I will guarantee you that most atheists will respond with "Of course it isn't religion, because we do not believe in God," and, "Atheism is pretty simple, it is simply the lack of belief in God or gods."

They are the ones refusing to allow a true definition for religion. Not us.

Our definition allows for a full definition, rather than one that serves an agenda. We are open about this, they are not.

It is a little like saying "Christianity is that which is taught by the Catholic Church (or any group that has decided they are the one true representative of Christianity)." A Catholic might believe that sincerely, but that doesn't mean that we define Christianity by a groups definition, but we define it by the Word of God.

so, imo, it kind of depends on whether one wants to communicate with or 'talk at' the other person...

It is just going to happen that sometimes people will refuse to have discussion, and we are forced to "talk at them," in the sense that we address the error for the benefit of those that are also participating in the discussion (whether actively or just reading).

But like I said, there are atheists that are willing to have discussions, and these are those that have more faith in their beliefs. Just like we see in discussions with Christians, we are going to deal with those who are weak in faith and subject to emotional response, who will, in not being able to counter the points and arguments that bring what they have faith in under scrutiny, respond in emotional attack. And for Christians, dealing with what can become very vulgar, it isn't for the faint of heart or the more sensitive among us. They are going to blaspheme God in an attempt to evoke emotional response, so this has to be understood in advance. And we had better be on our toes, because these people specialize in apologetics just as much as we do. They are familiar with the arguments and debates, and by reason of use (having experience in debate), they can be very good at both presenting reasonable arguments and addressing our own.

So this topic is a good way to open communications with atheists, and possibly get a few of them to listen.

That atheist that was so proud of his math, when I checked back in on that forum he had stopped participating. While I would like to think this fellow left and turned to Christ, at the very least, any time we can get someone to consider context and take into consideration relevant elements they had not previously considered, I think we are doing a great thing. The context of his proposal was wrong, and simply pointing this out dismissed his proposal.

Okay, sorry for the length, lol, I'll cut if off there.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Originally Posted by P1LGR1M

And you share the same view most atheists do, though I have actually had some atheists that have yielded to the point, and recognize that by being religious in their efforts and acknowledging that religion is not defined by a demand for belief in God or gods...they were in engaging in religion.

Sounds like you were able to get the atheist to accept that definition of 'religion'...

Very few, really, because it cuts to the heart of why many of them have embraced Atheism to being with...anger with Religion.

Not just Christianity, but all Religion. Catholics are evil because of the Crusades, Christians are evil because they burned people at the stake, Muslims are evil because they cut people's heads off.

So for the atheist to admit they can be seen as religious with varying degrees of religiosity, is like a religious person admitting they too are merely religious without relationship with God.

And all issues are going to boil down to Doctrine. And when we examine the Doctrine in detail, bringing everything we know is relevant to the Doctrinal Issues at hand, we are sometimes going to be surprised.

To me, it's kind of like Jane saying "Jack doesn't have a job, he stays home and takes care of the kids."

Jill says, "Taking care of kids is a job."

Then they go back and forth about whether a job must be work in exchange for money, etc.

And we can end this argument: a "job" can be defined different ways, so we have to determine what the context of "job" in the debate is. No-one will deny that a job is work, or that raising kids is some of the toughest work known to man, but, we don't confuse the context which allows for unending debate, we clarify the context and put it to rest.

So also, imo, many people associate 'religion' with things like 'piety'... if the atheist will remove that association, then they can easily accept being called religious, imo...

But we can't divorce morality from Atheism, that's a primary issue.

Here is a definition of piety:


[h=2]Full Definition of PIETY[/h]1
: the quality or state of being pious: as
a : fidelity to natural obligations (as to parents)
b : dutifulness in religion : devoutness

2
: an act inspired by piety

3
: a conventional belief or standard : orthodoxy



Anything we might ascribe to Atheists there?

Here is a definition of pious:


[h=2]Full Definition of PIOUS[/h]1
a : marked by or showing reverence for deity and devotion to divine worship
b : marked by conspicuous religiosity <a hypocrite—a thing all pious words and uncharitable deeds — Charles Reade>

2
: sacred or devotional as distinct from the profane or secular : religious <a pious opinion>

3
: showing loyal reverence for a person or thing : dutiful

4
a : marked by sham or hypocrisy
b : marked by self-conscious virtue : virtuous

5
: deserving commendation : worthy <a pious effort>
— pi·ous·ly adverb



When someone calls someone "pious," these days it is usually a negative term, lol. "Oh don't be so pious!"

Now the atheist is going to post definitions 1:B in the first entry and 1:A and 2 in the second, and he is not going to want the full definition of piety and pious brought to the table. Just as they don't want the Cretaceous Seaway brought to the table when they ridicule the belief of the Biblical Flood.

It is manipulating the data to further an agenda, and the truth is...everyone does that. But we shouldn't. We should be prepared to stand in faith at any objection, proposal, or even attack thrown at us.

If any 'life stance' that says accepts or rejects God is a religion, well, that would be all 'life stances'. So, if everybody clearly understands that what you're saying is that they all have a 'life stance', then sure, any reasonable person would agree with that... imo...

It's a matter, no matter who our antagonists are, of getting to the Basis of Belief of the Individual.

James states, "You believe there is one God, you do well...devils also believe this."

We don't leave it at that, we ask, "Why do you believe there is One God? Why do you believe there is no God?"

Everyone has a Basis of Belief, because everyone has beliefs.

Belief is not neutral, it has a basis somewhere.

For some atheists, the basis of their beliefs can be traced back to some perceived error, similar to the example of our math genius. He believed the Bible to be in error (which is not a neutral position it is not only pro-active it is an offensive maneuver designed to attack the beliefs of others) but the Basis of that Belief was in error. And all it took to show him that was to point out his error was contextual, and he was imposing into the text something that was not even there. And we are going to find that most errors of Atheists, in regards to Scripture, are contextual, and easily dealt with. But we have to first have a faith in the Word of God that understands that when there is error, it is not in Scripture, it is in the one proposing that error. And in order to gain that faith...

...we must be diligent in study and lean on God to grant to us the wisdom and understanding only He can give.


God bless.

 

[Dan_473]

So how do we define "God?"

I'd use 'a powerful supernatural being'.

I agree that New Age and Star Wars are religions.

I'll be honest, I didn't understand how your response followed what I wrote...

maybe this will help: I don't think atheism is a religion, because 'a religion' is singular, and atheism could apply to many religions.

But like any religion, we see a range of nominal to fanatical and reserved to lacking any self control.

right. what I was getting at was that if we say:
all humans have knowledge of God,
anyone who rejects this knowledge is practicing a religion,

then we have a good, logical case... if the atheist will accept that they have knowledge of God. If they don't then imo there's no common ground for use of the word 'religion'.

 

[Dan_473]

say, P1LGR1M, how about if we go with these definitions of religion and atheism:

religion: any worldview that deals in some way with God or gods.

atheism: a worldview that rejects the knowledge of God that all humans have.

 

[Dan_473]

No, it is a matter of...that is not relevant to Religion itself.

ok... not following you here... are you saying God or gods are not relevant to something being a religion?

See anything there that limits Religion to a definition of "A belief in God or gods?"

no. I thought that earlier you said that anything that deals with God in some fashion (accepts or rejects) is a religion.

how about you say what definitions of religion and atheism you're using on this thread?

 

[Dan_473]

And we can end this argument: a "job" can be defined different ways, so we have to determine what the context of "job" in the debate is.

Yes! exactly... and I hope we're moving in that direction here...

But we can't divorce morality from Atheism, that's a primary issue.

there's general statements that are true for most atheists here in the usa, and then things that are required by the definition of atheism... imo, yes most atheists have a morality, and are huminists... but, imo, those things are not required for a person to be an atheist.

Everyone has a Basis of Belief, because everyone has beliefs.

see now, I agree with that... but I've met atheists that don't... but sure, if you can get them to agree that they have beliefs, then agreeing they have a religion shouldn't be too hard...

 

[P1LGR1M]

Originally Posted by P1LGR1M

So how do we define "God?"

I'd use 'a powerful supernatural being'.



I agree that New Age and Star Wars are religions.

Is that how the Buddhist or New Ager would define God?

I'll be honest, I didn't understand how your response followed what I wrote...

I'll be honest as well, because there is no quote of what you are speaking of...neither do I, lol.

maybe this will help: I don't think atheism is a religion, because 'a religion' is singular, and atheism could apply to many religions.

"Religion" is not singular. The Muslim, Mormon, and Christian all have differing beliefs. All fall under that singular category.

And just as principles or teachings of Christianity could be seen as applying to many religions, so too do we recognize the diversity of Atheists and their beliefs.

But, we could also say that Atheists are all in agreement in regards to Creation and the Origin of Life. We will not find an atheist that denies Evolution.

But isn't it clear that when I say atheists I am not referring to every religion that denies the existence of God or gods, or holds beliefs that do not include a Supreme Being?

Does this not distinguish those we typically think of when we speak of atheists from other religions?

But like any religion, we see a range of nominal to fanatical and reserved to lacking any self control.

right. what I was getting at was that if we say:
all humans have knowledge of God,
anyone who rejects this knowledge is practicing a religion,

That is fairly close to what I "we" have been saying, Dan.

But what we are also saying is that Atheists will deny that they are religious.

then we have a good, logical case... if the atheist will accept that they have knowledge of God. If they don't then imo there's no common ground for use of the word 'religion'.

So if the thief does not accept that he is a criminal we have no common ground to assert that they are still criminals?


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

say, P1LGR1M, how about if we go with these definitions of religion and atheism:

religion: any worldview that deals in some way with God or gods.

Because this is not the definition of religion.

Religion does not have to acknowledge God or gods.

atheism: a worldview that rejects the knowledge of God that all humans have.

This too limits the full definition of Atheism. Atheism is not just a rejection of the knowledge of God, that is the point.

Atheism can be seen not just to be a rejection of the knowledge of God, but oftentimes can be seen to have associated doctrines and practices which a re not only common among Atheists, but parallel the efforts of other religions.

They have evangelists, preachers, teachers, missionaries, apologists.

They have common doctrines in regards to the origin of life, morality, what they consider "truth" and "holy writings" they revere.

So we do not make the same mistake most atheists do and try to limit definitions to that which suits our own views, but we examine all relevant elements in regards to the issue.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Originally Posted by P1LGR1M

No, it is a matter of...that is not relevant to Religion itself.

ok... not following you here... are you saying God or gods are not relevant to something being a religion?

Not sure about the quote, not enough there to affirm whether that was what was being said, but yes, that is precisely what I am saying, it is error to say that "Religion demands a belief in God or gods."

See anything there that limits Religion to a definition of "A belief in God or gods?"

no. I thought that earlier you said that anything that deals with God in some fashion (accepts or rejects) is a religion.

how about you say what definitions of religion and atheism you're using on this thread?

You would have to quote what it is that gave you the impression.

As far as definitions of religion, you can review the OP and several posts in this thread already. I gave more in the posts you are responding to now.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Originally Posted by P1LGR1M

And we can end this argument: a "job" can be defined different ways, so we have to determine what the context of "job" in the debate is.

Yes! exactly... and I hope we're moving in that direction here...

Me too, lol.

But we can't divorce morality from Atheism, that's a primary issue.

there's general statements that are true for most atheists here in the usa,

That is true, but could you list some of those "general statements?"

I would like to see what you have in mind.

and then things that are required by the definition of atheism...

Could you list those things as well?

imo, yes most atheists have a morality, and are huminists...

Everyone has morality, lol, it's just a matter of perspective as to whether it is actually moral or not.

For example, some feel it is immoral to impose on a woman the view that she does not have the right to murder her children.

Some feel it is immoral to tell someone that homosexuality is sin.

Their morality is in opposition to what other's feel is moral.

And again, I use these two because they are prominent issues debated among atheists and believers, and sadly, among those professing to be Christians.

but, imo, those things are not required for a person to be an atheist.

Morality and Secular Humanism?

Everyone has a Basis of Belief, because everyone has beliefs.

see now, I agree with that... but I've met atheists that don't...

You've met atheists that do not have beliefs?

but sure, if you can get them to agree that they have beliefs,

It's not really a matter of getting them to agree, it's simply a matter of examining the issues.

We might be able to change someone's mind, but someone can come behind us and change it right back.

But if God speaks to the heart, then the potential for conversion becomes better. Some will reject truth, but that is not in our hands.

So we discuss these issues and look at everything relevant and let God do the rest.

then agreeing they have a religion shouldn't be too hard...

Like many who are indoctrinated, most will argue until they are blue in the face that "Atheism is simply the lack of belief in God or gods."

And that is simply not the case.

If that were true we would not have the many atheist Organizations we have today.

If that were the case we would not have seen certain agendas change the landscape of the world.

And unless we are prepared to speak to the Religious Atheists of this world, we will continue to see the landscape of this world change even more.


God bless.

 

[JessP]

Hi there,

I am an atheist and I would not class myself as religious. If I met another Atheist I would not presume anything in common with them except the lack of belief in a God or Gods.

Many Atheists believe in things I do not. They have different morals to myself, different world views, political beliefs and understanding of the world.

Is it the existence of Atheist organisations that leads you to call Atheism a religion?