If the Bible were to suddenly disappear. . . .

What wing says is true, Darfius. Religion IS the opiate of the masses.
However, wing confuses religion to Christianity.
wing, the Bible is not a study on religion. It is a revelation of God, His Son Christ Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. It is penned by man inpired by God.
The Bible is just one of many ways God reveals Himself to humanity.
Religion is man's interpretation of the Bible. Without the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the interpretation of the Bible, men errs in their interpretation; hence, we have rampant religiosity and cults.
On the other hand, Christianity is a way of life. "Christians" are ordinary people who strive to walk in the way Christ did according to the Bible and guided by the Holy Spirit in their walk.
Do Christians fall? You bet. However, Christians, through the love of God, is able to stand back up again, stronger and more faithful in Christ.

I think... maybe... this should be in another thread.

Kris

Originally posted by krisvictor
What wing says is true, Darfius. Religion IS the opiate of the masses.
However, wing confuses religion to Christianity.
wing, the Bible is not a study on religion. It is a revelation of God, His Son Christ Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. It is penned by man inpired by God.
The Bible is just one of many ways God reveals Himself to humanity.
Religion is m ...[text shortened]... and more faithful in Christ.

I think... maybe... this should be in another thread.

Kris

Religion is not synonymous with christianity in that there are other, non-christian religions. But christianity is a religion. I've seen other christians who want to claim that christianity somehow transcends being a mere religion because they claim it is "a relationship with Christ" or a "revalation of god", but this is nonsense. Christianity is a religion, just as Hinduism and Islam are religions. And they are all the opiates of the masses.

Please give us your definition of "religion".

Originally posted by krisvictor
Please give us your definition of "religion".

Religion
1a: the service and worship of god or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
1b: the state of a religious <a num in her twentieth year of ~>
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

Originally posted by rwingett
Religion
1a: the service and worship of god or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
1b: the state of a religious <a num in her twentieth year of ~>
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

Then I propose atheism and agnosticism are both religions, based on number 4 in those definitions.

Originally posted by rwingett
Religion is not synonymous with christianity in that there are other, non-christian religions. But christianity is a religion. I've seen other christians who want to claim that christianity somehow transcends being a mere religion because they claim it is "a relationship with Christ" or a "revalation of god", but this is nonsense. Christianity is a religion, just as Hinduism and Islam are religions. And they are all the opiates of the masses.

Rwingo: "And they are all the opiates of the masses."

..... but Rwingo, it all depends how one uses one's religion. You can indeed use it as a drug, to dream away reality. But please answer me Rwingo how you should interprete Christian religion as a drug of the masses when this religion says: "Pick up your cross and follow Christ", meaning take the burden of reality; your sorrow, your fears, your worries on your shoulders and follow Chist.

No dreaming, no escapism .... nothing of the sort.

Originally posted by Darfius
Then I propose atheism and agnosticism are both religions, based on number 4 in those definitions.

Atheism has no beliefs, nor does it have any use for faith.

Originally posted by rwingett
Atheism has no beliefs, nor does it have any use for faith.

Atheists don't believe to know that God does not exist?

Originally posted by Darfius
Atheists don't believe to know that God does not exist?

No, they don't. I don't know how many times I've gone over this, but people keep insisting that atheists claim to "know" that god doesn't exist. Atheists make no such claim.

Originally posted by rwingett
No, they don't. I don't know how many times I've gone over this, but people keep insisting that atheists claim to "know" that god doesn't exist. Atheists make no such claim.

Atheists don't believe God does not exist?

Originally posted by rwingett
Atheism has no beliefs, nor does it have any use for faith.

I just want to get a handle on "weak" and "strong" atheism:

1) There is no sufficient evidence that warrants a (rational) belief that there is a god. (Weak.)

2) There can be no sufficient evidence to warrant a (rational) belief that there is a god. (Medium)

3) The evidence is sufficient to conclude ["prove"] that there is no god. (Strong)

Is this fair?

Originally posted by Darfius
Atheists don't believe God does not exist?

Atheists do not believe in the existence of god. They see nothing to indicate that the theist's claim for the existence of god is true. Therefore the claim must be doubted. But that doesn't prove anything. Atheists freely admit they could be wrong, but think the chances are low. The burden of proof belongs on the christian to prove his claim. If he cannot do so then the claim must be doubted. If some new evidence were to come to light, then the question would have to be reconsidered.

Originally posted by rwingett
Atheists do not believe in the existence of god. They see nothing to indicate that the theist's claim for the existence of god is true. Therefore the claim must be doubted. But that doesn't prove anything. Atheists freely admit they could be wrong, but think the chances are low. The burden of proof belongs on the christian to prove his claim. If he cannot ...[text shortened]... d. If some new evidence were to come to light, then the question would have to be reconsidered.

Rob, do you find any purpose in the "mystical?" I know that there are some people who meditate to lower their blood pressure and promote a sense of well-being. I'm not arguing for God in this, but rather a tangible outcome of a chosen "higher power."

Originally posted by vistesd
I just want to get a handle on "weak" and "strong" atheism:

1) There is no sufficient evidence that warrants a (rational) belief that there is a god. (Weak.)

2) There can be no sufficient evidence to warrant a (rational) belief that there is a god. (Medium)

3) The evidence is sufficient to conclude ["prove"] that there is no god. (Strong)

Is this fair?

I've never heard anyone use the term "medium" atheist. It's beginning to sound like a menu item:

Excuse me, sir, but how would you like your atheist cooked? Medium Rare? Very good, sir.

I suppose no. 1 and no. 2 are fairly accurate, although I might quibble a bit with no. 2.

Originally posted by rwingett
I've never heard anyone use the term "medium" atheist. It's beginning to sound like a menu item:

Excuse me, sir, but how would you like your atheist cooked? Medium Rare? Very good, sir.

I suppose no. 1 and no. 2 are fairly accurate, although I might quibble a bit with no. 2.

LOL!! Yeah, I made it up, to try to cover a middle-position than was "stronger than weak" but not "strong."