Atheism as Religion?

Originally posted by no1marauder
That is inaccurate; Communist Albania banned religion, period; there was no "state religion".

Therefore promoting atheism, a religion.
How did that work out for them? Just a thought.

Originally posted by clong831
Therefore promoting atheism, a religion.
How did that work out for them? Just a thought.

If atheism is a religion and Albania banned all religion - then didn't they ban atheism too?

Who is proposing the banning of religion here anyways?

Originally posted by clong831
Therefore promoting atheism, a religion.
How did that work out for them? Just a thought.

Atheism is not a religion as others have pointed out.

OK, I guess; they weren't destroyed in a flood or a lake of fire.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
If atheism is a religion and Albania banned all religion - then didn't they ban atheism too?

Who is proposing the banning of religion here anyways?

PP: If atheism is a religion and Albania banned all religion - then didn't they ban atheism too?

LMAO!

Originally posted by Starrman
There are very good reasons to believe the Christian god is a tyrant: the argument from evil, the OT, the threat of force in the form of hell, the paradox of free will etc. Whether you agree or not, it is certainly not a strawman.

An atheist may be well-versed in philosophy, bioengineering, physics, etc., yet have a third-grade understanding of theology and scripture. As such, he should at least be willing to be taught.

Every argument for God being a mean, torturous tyrant is fundamentally flawed. Certainly such arguments can be and are made, but they are still fundamentally flawed. In order to correct the atheist, Christians have to attempt correcting the basic underlying presuppositions which lead to his false conclusions. But if the atheist finds his conclusions sufficient for his own purposes, then the atheist will neither refuse to relinquish them nor consider that his presuppositions might be fundamentally flawed. At which point, his argumentation is fallacious. The atheist finds it is easier to deny God when God is misrepresented as less than the altogether praiseworthy Being which Christians worship in good conscience.

If an atheist were willing to recognize, even if he does not believe, the proper understanding of the God of the Bible, then a prosperous conversation between atheist and Christian could possibly take place. In a similar way, if a Christian were willing to recognize that atheism is not a religion, then he may possibly be able to begin a prosperous conversation with the atheist from a position unclouded by misrepresentation.

Originally posted by Jorge Borges
An atheist may be well-versed in philosophy, bioengineering, physics, etc., yet have a third-grade understanding of theology and scripture. As such, he should at least be willing to be taught.

But not many of the atheists on this site. And why should I, who fully admits to having a third-grade understanding of theology and scripture, be willing to be taught by you - who clearly has a fourth grade understanding of it.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Besides the cherry picking of the parts you liked and disliked...

Please show me where I cherry picked? I quoted the completed definition from the first dictionary I could find.


"1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity "
I tend to look at religion as people's world view, thier foundation views
they have about reality.
It is you that is cherry picking. The emphasis, is on the 'faithful devotion' part as can be seen by looking at all the definitions as a whole and looking at the etymology of the word.

Simply not having a deity does not dismiss your notion that the universe does not have a grand designer behind it, no meaning being instilled into us from the designer that is a grand statement of reality is it not? You without a doubt show great devotion to this belief here, you are always pushing against those that have a different take on reality.
You are incorrect about that. Now, do you show great devotion to the idea that there are no unicorns on earth? Are you a member of the a-unicornist religion?

I dislike using the "religious" to color beliefs or observances when
trying to define religion. It is like using the word to define the word.
No, it is using the root word to explain the compound word. Quite normal is it not?

It does point to more than just a deity that one can be religious
about.
Quite true, and I agree that it is correct to say for example that a student does his studies religiously. However, you cannot call his studying a religion. Do you see it now?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Please show me where I cherry picked? I quoted the completed definition from the first dictionary I could find.


[b]"1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity "
I tend to look at religion as people's world view, thier foundation views
they have about reality.
It is you that is cherry picking. ...[text shortened]... studies religiously. However, you cannot call his studying a religion. Do you see it now?[/b]

"I would go with 2 and 4 as being the usage in this thread.But they depend on the word: "
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
Please show me where I cherry picked? I quoted the completed definition from the first dictionary I could find.


[b]"1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity "
I tend to look at religion as people's world view, thier foundation views
they have about reality.
It is you that is cherry picking. ...[text shortened]... studies religiously. However, you cannot call his studying a religion. Do you see it now?[/b]

One additional point, I was not attempting to say you were doing
something wrong it is something we all do myself included, some
times with fore thought others not so much.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
But not many of the atheists on this site. And why should I, who fully admits to having a third-grade understanding of theology and scripture, be willing to be taught by you - who clearly has a fourth grade understanding of it.

Don't be a prick. A bit of dialogue, without hostility, would be more entertaining than another display of forum bitching.

Originally posted by Jorge Borges

If an atheist were willing to recognize, even if he does not believe, the proper understanding of the God of the Bible, then a prosperous conversation between atheist and Christian could possibly take place. In a similar way, if a Christian were willing to recognize that atheism is not a religion, then he may possibly be able to begin a prosperous conversation with the atheist from a position unclouded by misrepresentation.

Agreed. So, how to achieve a proper understanding of the God of the Bible?

Originally posted by KellyJay
"I would go with 2 and 4 as being the usage in this thread.But they depend on the word: "
Kelly

That was not cherry picking. Many English words have different usages, I was merely pointing out that the usage being used in this thread was 2 and 4.

If you look at 1 and 3 you will see that the do not refer to the usage that we are discussing in this thread.
For example if I say: "he pursued his studies with religion". I think that would be 3. and it is a usage that is not being used in this thread.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Don't be a prick. A bit of dialogue, without hostility, would be more entertaining than another display of forum bitching.

My apologies.

I'll try again.

The whole thrust of his post appears to be saying: "Atheists are ignorant of theology and scripture and thus should not question it but should bow to the superior knowledge of the theist."
My counter is:
1. Atheists are not always ignorant of those subjects.
2. Theists are not always well versed in those subjects.
3. Since theists disagree about those subjects, whose view should we listen to?

I hope that was a bit more polite.

Originally posted by twhitehead
My apologies.

I'll try again.

The whole thrust of his post appears to be saying: "Atheists are ignorant of theology and scripture and thus should not question it but should bow to the superior knowledge of the theist."
My counter is:
1. Atheists are not always ignorant of those subjects.
2. Theists are not always well versed in those subjects.
3 ...[text shortened]... e about those subjects, whose view should we listen to?

I hope that was a bit more polite.

Well, just look at the different theological approaches of, say, Ivanhoe, FreakyKBH, jaywill, KellyJay, Kirksey, whodey, knightmeister, Duecer and Epiphenehas among Christians currently posting here (and lucifershammer, who is no longer around, or Coletti). Which ones are likely to cry “foul” if you charge them with being Biblical literalists/inerrantists? Which ones acknowledge the validity of alternative hermeneutics? Which ones adhere to a systematic theology (not necessarily a virtue, not necessarily a vice), and which ones take a more exploratory approach?

How many former Christians are there who have a pretty rich background in theology? In Biblical exegesis? I can certainly identify several.

If I identify what appears to be some contradiction in Epi’s exegesis—or he in mine, for that matter—that particular contradiction may not appear in, say, luciferhammer’s reading of the texts, or Nemesio’s.

When I’ve stepped inside the paradigm, I’ve have found myself at different times arguing both with and against Ivanhoe, with and against KellyJay, with and against Nemesio, with and against jaywill—etc., etc. With some of them, points of agreement are rare; with others, points of disagreement are rare.

BTW, like you, I prefer to call myself a non-theist—or, in my case, more often just a non-dualist. I’m not sure the distinction’s that important, though. As many have pointed out, atheism is not a univocal view. Rwingett, for example, once pointed out the difference between his view and bbarr’s (whose stance is much closer to my own, as is No.1 Marauder’s).

Originally posted by vistesd
Well, just look at the different theological approaches of, say, Ivanhoe, FreakyKBH, jaywill, KellyJay, Kirksey, whodey, knightmeister, Duecer and Epiphenehas among Christians currently posting here (and lucifershammer, who is no longer around, or Coletti). Which ones are likely to cry “foul” if you charge them with being Biblical literalists/inerrantists? ...[text shortened]... nce between his view and bbarr’s (whose stance is much closer to my own, as is No.1 Marauder’s).

Besides the spelling, what is the difference between a non-theist and an atheist?