Personally, I don’t believe that there is anything too different between atheism and religion. What is atheism? Atheism is considered as a belief in no gods, free thought, and individualism while religion is primarily concerned with the belief of God(s). Notice the similarities yet? In the end, they’re both beliefs.
In fact you could even consider atheism as a form of religion itself. While atheists don’t believe in a deity, scientologists believe that the world was populated from another world. And yet Scientology is considered a religion.
In a conversation with an atheist (let us call him Kurai), I found it fascinating of his view of life, creation, and particularly the afterlife. He believed that while people hung on to the rope God gave them he believed that God was someone who enslaved people to do practice his own set beliefs. Needless to say, it’s quite a good argument.
While many Christians may claim that said person will “go to Hell”, Kurai actually welcomes the idea of going to Hell. In his mindset, he believes that particular place would be Heaven for him because while Heaven for Christians means eternal happiness, Kurai believes Heaven is experiencing reality and a multitude of emotions (sadness, happiness, pain, anger, hope, love, etc.).
What is religion? It is a set of beliefs and practices and is also considered as a way of life. So why not consider atheism as a religion? It also a set of beliefs and a way of life.
I believe to be referred to as an atheist means to have individualism and to form their own set of belief system. True enough, as a group they don’t have a particular set system, but isn’t it the same with every individual in religious societies?
Religious societies do have a set of religious beliefs that was once created by a single person. Consider the Romans and Greeks. They believed in numerous Gods. How about Jesus Christ? He created a belief system during the height of the Roman and Greek Gods. He formed his belief as a single person (whom the Romans and Greeks could arguable consider an atheist) and gathered followers and the result: Take a look at the prevailing religion in modern day society.
At some point in life, we have to disagree with some teachings in our religion and form our own beliefs about that particular subject. As much as religion means to take things into a literal account, we can’t honestly say that we haven’t interpreted a particular Biblical phrase or Church rule to suit our own beliefs.
ouch...let me tell you from either view this can be rough to comprehend...I'm religious and I would never think of classifying atheism as a religion...and I know atheists that have torn people apart for making arguments like that...I mean your theory does have some interesting concepts but I really have to disagree with you
The core of a particular mainstream religion (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) involves having faith and belief in a single deity despite the fact that their is no proof that a God exists. Many religious people hold very firm to their beliefs and often refuse to consider rethinking their idea of God. As far as I'm concerned, devout Muslims or Christians are unable or unwilling to seriously think about spirituality beyond the dogma of the institution to which they subscribe.
In my opinion, true atheists are also people who cling to their beliefs and refuse to open their mind and think seriously about spirituality. They believe that no deity exists, end of story. They have the same faith that devout religious people have. So atheism is a religion because it applies the same principles of blind faith. I don't think any more highly of atheists than I do a "born again" Christians because they have both jumped to absurd conclusions about something they know nothing about. I think "born again" Christians are more absurd because their strongest beliefs and most important aspect of their life, Christianity, is based on nothing more than an untested and unproved hypothesis. In case you can't tell, I'm a proud agnostic.
All atheism means is without theism. It means I don't beleive in god. Atheism doens't rule out agnosticism. The problem with either label is that both come with misunderstandings. I label myself atheist because it more clearly communicates my position.
While the "true atheists" you mentioned certainly exist, they are a minority. I would also take issue with calling them true atheists. Penn Jillete, someone who does hold that beleif said something like "I'm way beyond atheism".
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
I see what you're saying and I have thought about the intertwining of atheism and agnosticism in a similiar sense. If atheism doesn't rule out agnosticism does agnosticism rule out atheism? When people simply say they don't believe in God they are not giving me enough information for me to determine if they are atheist or agnostic or something else. Like you, I don't believe that there is a God (at least in the conventional sense), but there is another part to my beliefs that is equally as important as my lack of belief in a God. That is, I don't believe that there is not a God. Because of those two factors, I am an agnostic rather than an atheist. If I were an atheist, I would have to belive that there is not a God in addition to not believing that there is a God. I know that sounds like a buch of nonsense but just think about it.
I follow what you're saying and I agree that beleiving that there is no god is farther than one should go, my problem is purely semantics. Atheists, for the most part don't claim that; that is a beleif that has been falsely attributed to them and is one that is hard to unstick, probably because there is no word, specifically, for someone who beleives that. I suppose atheist is technically a fitting word, but if they are atheists, they are (no offense meant to such people, just a numbers comparison), the WBC of atheists, a small extreme minority.
As to agnosticism ruling out atheism, I would say it doesn't. As I mentioned, all atheism means is one with no beleif in any form of god. That defenition fits what you described as your point of view. All agnosticism means is uncertainty; although often used in the context of religion, it isn't limited to it. Most atheists seem to be agnostic, at least to a small degree.
The problem, as I see it, with claiming to be an agnostic atheist, is that in misconstrues a person's beliefs; it makes a person appear on the fence, or at least close to it.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
Technically speaking, there are two types of atheists. At the risk of oversimplifying...A hard atheist actively believes that there is no "god," but a soft atheist merely believes that there is no reason to believe in "god." A hard atheist has reached a conclusion, but a soft atheist is still open to the idea, should any contradictory evidence appear. Most of the modern atheists that I have known are of the latter category. These different branches of the atheistic mode of thought have been around for ages (at least since the Ancient Greeks, anyway), though the actual terms "hard atheist" and "soft atheist" ("strong atheist" and "weak atheist" are another set of terms for this dichotomy) are modern terms that date back to the early eighties, I think.
An agnostic on the other hand, is someone who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not an ultimate cause, or "god" exists. This leaves the question of whether or not "god" exists to be meaningless to true agnostic. In practice, agnostics can (and do) fall down on both sides of the theism/atheism divide, but their denial (or acceptance) of the existence of "god(s)" is based purely on their own preferences.
A soft atheist (which is the category into which most modern atheists fall) by contrast does believe that evidence is possible but merely absent, and that absence of evidence is what drives their skepticism, which is not the same thing as an definitive denial. One of the main reasons for the intellectual difference between "hard" and "soft" atheism is that "hard atheism" does in fact lead one to engage in the kinds of illogical fallacies that poison the well for theism. Surprisingly, even Richard Dawkins (probably the most outspoken atheist in modern popular culture) technically falls into the "soft atheist" category, and I think he puts it very well...
"We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, like those other fantasies that we can't disprove, we can say that God is very very improbable." (LINK)
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Well, I'd say that about covers it...
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
You bring some interesting things to the table, but I can't agree with them. Yes, atheism is a belief system stemming from faith, or rather a lack thereof, but to consider it a religion would, I think, stretch it a little to much. The thing that pretty much separates religion and atheism is the existence of a "god" or a higher being. Atheists generally are opposed to the idea of a higher being, hence why they don't latch onto another religion. They can't find solace in faith, so they find it in sciences, or whatever their particular venue is.
Another thing is that, just because it is a belief system doesn't make it a religion. Our theories on physics, biology, chemistry , etc. etc. could all be classified as belief systems, but if you were to say these were religions, people would laugh at you. The same principle applies here when you compare atheism and religion.
exactly...since when does belief mean religion...never last time I checked
plus I think it's degrading to atheists to lump them with religious people when that's exactly what they're trying to subvert
I'm a Christian but I agree with your statement Vern. If just having a belief means you've created a religion than does that mean that since I believe in toaster-ovens that they are now the basis of a religion? This whole concept is unbelievably flawed. I feel that I could not possibly go into detail with this right now because I have to go to class, but I will likely be back at some point to show the holes in this debate on both sides of the things.
By your definition of religion, in addition to my religion of atheism, I'm also a member of the religions of post-structuralism and libertarianism.
A religion is a belief dealing in spirituality, dogma and some sort of supernaturalism. Atheism has no overriding philosophy or anything. The only thing an atheist need have in common with another atheist is that they don't believe in god.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
"I don’t believe that there is anything too different between atheism and religion."
I know that there is.
"In the end, they’re both beliefs."
One is a belief, the other is an organised collection of beliefs, superstitions and dogmatic rituals. The fact that both Theistic religions and Atheism both hinge on one central belief, that doesn't make them equal by any stretch of the imagination. For example, it has never been conclusively proven that the tooth fairy doesn't actually exist, but you wouldn't really call it a moot point unless you were being pedantically super-skeptical.
To suggest that a person who believes the tooth fairy to be real holds a belief of equal value to somebody who doesn't believe in the existence of the tooth fairy would be to spit in the face of reason; thus, it would prevent anybody with any kind of handle on critical thought taking you seriously. That's not to say religious folk won't though, most fall short of the necessary criteria.
"In fact you could even consider atheism as a form of religion itself."
In fact, no you couldn't. Neither Theism or Atheism are religions. Theism spawns religions, but it, in itself, is merely a belief. Atheism is also a belief, but by it's very nature it cannot spawn religions. If you are going to classify Atheists as being religious merely because they hold one common belief, then you must apply that logic to all beliefs. In such a case, any group of people who hold one or more common beliefs are part of a religion, regardless of what the beliefs are in regard to.
"And yet Scientology is considered a religion."
Scientology is considered a religion because they blackmailed the IRS. Scientology utilizes similarly agressive persuasive and mind conditioning tactics to other cults/religions, which to my mind qualifies them as a religion. But that doesn't mean I'm happy about the fact that another shower of scam artists have been granted tax free status and religious rights protection for their criminal enterprise and their war on reason.
"True enough, as a group they don’t have a particular set system, but isn’t it the same with every individual in religious societies?"
All that is required of an Atheist is that they don't believe in God. They are under no duress to disbelieve in any predetermined way, nor are they expected to behave in any manner similar to other unbelievers.
If you are religious, say Christian for argument sake, you are expected to follow the orders of God as outlined in the Bible. Atheists have no such rule books and answer to no metaphysical beings, in fact, there is no onus on an Atheist to agree with his fellow Atheists on anything beyond the non-existence of God. This is not true for religions.
"At some point in life, we have to disagree with some teachings in our religion and form our own beliefs about that particular subject."
Which is the road to Agnosticism and Atheism. Religions don't want you to draw your own conclusions, in fact, many forbid it; people have been burned and hung for such carry on back in the day. When you question a religious belief, unless you are seeking comfort and not truth, you will inevitably become hip to the long con that is religion. If you don't, well, you're probably good with your hands or something....
"As much as religion means to take things into a literal account, we can’t honestly say that we haven’t interpreted a particular Biblical phrase or Church rule to suit our own beliefs."
Which, when you consider that the Bible is meant to be infallible and free from contradiction or hypocrisy, is a little bit telling, isn't it? Mere mortals who think they know better than God's infallible word? To suit their own beliefs, no less? Sounds to me like a bunch of people willfully suspending their disbelief to me. It sounds like some people find discomfort in the cognitive dissonance created by their belief that the Bible is the infallible word of God and their growing awareness that the Bible is rife with error and barbarism. It sounds a lot like a bunch of people who would rather rationalize their ill-conceived and under-supported beliefs rather than think rationally and reach a rational conclusion.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
TUFFGONG
Senior Executive Administrator™
A very good argument. But what speaks for agnosticism in which they believe in some entity or entities but do not conform to a certain religion. And I just read from one of your comments, since when does a belief equate a religion? Granted that belief is the key quality within religion that quality doesn't necessarily encompass religion itself. Either way I think that you made a very good argument.
"agnosticism in which they believe in some entity or entities but do not conform to a certain religion."
This is an inaccurate understanding of what Agnosticism is. A non-denominational Theist is not an Agnostic, neither is a Deist or a Pantheist etc. The kind of believer you describe is just that, a believer; Agnosticism hinges on doubt, which is the opposite of belief.
Agnosticism is the assertion that nobody knows either way whether or not there is a God or Gods; the crux of Agnosticism is doubt, until such doubt is neutralized by the requisite amount of demonstrable evidence . An conscious Agnostic asserts that no man has special knowledge that can prove their case conclusively either way, based upon the fact that all have failed so far to do so.
There is a lot of confusion regarding what Agnosticism actually is. Many view Agnosticism as meaning that a person doesn't know whether there is or is not a higher power and simply doesn't care either way, but that would be better described as Ignosticism.
Others, usually devout religious believers or a minority of embittered material Atheists like to view Agnosticism as a fence-sitting middle ground where the Agnostic is purported to believe that everybody from Christians to Muslims, to Atheists have equally valid arguments. This is simply inaccurate, most conscious Agnostics have a sliding scale of credibility which leans towards the best argued point of view; usually Atheism, Deism or Pantheism, in my experience, with Theistic beliefs seldom garnering much credence.
Ultimately, Agnosticism is a philosophy of doubt, not belief. Many Atheists are essentially Agnostics who lean very heavily towards the evidence available which supports an Atheist conclusion. I'm Agnostic myself and I would lean towards this point of view, just not so heavily as to identify myself as an Atheist; this is simply because I still have my doubts regarding the infallibility of a materialistic Atheist conclusion.
Similarly, many people who would be described as moderate believers, when pressed will admit that they too do not know for certain whether what they believe is in fact true; they will assert that this is simply the explanation they lean towards, for whatever reason.
The 'fence-sitting' accusations usually derisively slung at people who identify themselves as Agnostics by various Theists and certain Atheists amounts to people who are into picking teams being disgruntled by the fact that others have refused to jump on a band wagon; some people get upset when others refuse to validate their views; believers thrive on belief and don't embrace doubt like the Agnostic. Agnosticism is a perfectly reasonable position to hold, it represents doubt in the face of unsubstantiated belief. It is not a 50-50 system of credence dealt out to every opinion and hypothesis equally, it is skeptical in it's very essence.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
TUFFGONG
Senior Executive Administrator™
Atheism, the absence of religion, isn't far off from religion in the same way that black, the absence of color, is often confused for a color. In that respect, I'd say that your argument could be plausible.
But if Kurai really believes in a God, benevolent or not, and heaven or hell, then he's not an atheist. It's possible, though, that he's using God and hell as hypothetical examples of hypocrisy in religion i.e. "If God were real, this would be the case..." in order to justify why he doesn't agree with religion. As an atheist, I've done this before.
I don't think it's degrading to refer to atheism as a religion, however. I personally don't agree, but tt's refreshing to see someone put atheists on the same level as religious people, rather than lower them to something parallel to "godless immoral heathen".
Black is perceived as a color, and takes the place of color when no color is present thus it is thought of as a color though you are quite correct that it is in fact only the absence of color.
Similarly the blank on the form into which you might write the word 'Atheist' is labeled:
religion.
"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."
- George Bernard Shaw
...and I think that most of us would not fill in the "religion" blank the way you suggest. A more realistic observation would likely find the following:
Religion: NONE
Likewise, the color black isn't technically the absense of color, but rather the absense of reflected light which occurs most commonly in objects which technically contain ALL colors and thus absorb the full spectrum of light. To extend the metaphor, then, religion is a philosophy which "reflects" those ideas which it cannot absorb, and thus is perceived as "colorful" when in fact it is fractional philosopy which accepts only the spectrum of understanding which it is built to encompass and subsequently perceived and defined by that which it rejects, rather than that which it explains.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Do you recall this statement you made when I implied that Atheists would check 'None' or 'No preference' on such a form?
Someone who has "no preference" in a religious sect is NOT the same thing as an atheist.
---
"Likewise, the color black isn't technically the absense of color, but rather the absense of reflected light which occurs most commonly in objects which technically contain ALL colors and thus absorb the full spectrum of light. ..."
If no light is reflected then there is no light. Only when a non-reflective object is present does this represent an absorption of all colors, which is far different from 'containing all colors'. Such objects are exceedingly rare, while empty space represents the vast majority of blackness we can perceive.
---
"...To extend the metaphor, then, religion is a philosophy which "reflects" those ideas which it cannot absorb, and thus is perceived as "colorful" when in fact it is fractional philosopy which accepts only the spectrum of understanding which it is built to encompass and subsequently perceived and defined by that which it rejects, rather than that which it explains."
Is any philosophy, except an absence of philosophy, not fractional in the light of thousands of years of later added knowledge?
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends upon the unreasonable man."
- George Bernard Shaw
These two statments...
...and...
Are not (as you attempt to imply) contradictory. For one, you are taking the first of these statements wildly out of context, as it was in response to your specific attempt to categorize everyone who expressed no preference in a religious study as atheists.
The second second statement is what someone who is actually an atheist would (in my experience as one) place on a form that asked him to list his religious preference. The two comments are discussing different things, and neither makes any context consistent assertion which would contradict the other.
If no light is reflected then there is no light. Only when a non-reflective object is present does this represent an absorption of all colors, which is far different from 'containing all colors'. Such objects are exceedingly rare, while empty space represents the vast majority of blackness we can perceive.
Color is a physical property of an object that expresses the wavelength(s) of light that it will absorb. What we see as a "red" ball is acutally a ball that absorbs every color except "red," which it reflects. In order for an object to fail to reflect ANY wavelength of light, it must possess ALL of the gradients along the spectrum of visible light. Only when an object absorbs the ENTIRE spectrum of visible light will that object appear to us as "black."
Is any philosophy, except an absence of philosophy, not fractional in the light of thousands of years of later added knowledge?
I think you are (not surprisingly) misunderstanding the metaphor. What makes religion a "fractional" philosophy is similar to the way that light is "fractional." Religions define themselves by arbitrary precept and must (because of the nature of faith-based belief) reject out-of-hand any argument or evidence which contradicts their theological postulates. Because of this, religions are essentially defined by listing the various tenets which require the believer to reject what would otherwise be considered as valid by any rational, objective person.
For example, the most central and essential assertion of any religiously "christian" system is a belief that the character known as "Jesus" died, was buried and then arose from the dead 3 days later. When one examines people in the real world, they don't die for three days and then pop back alive again. Thus, this belief that rejects everything that we know about humans and what happens to our bodies and minds when we die becomes the defining assertion of the religion...just like we see "red" because "red" is the only color which ISN'T a part of a "red" object.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
""For example, the most central and essential assertion of any religiously "christian" system is a belief that the character known as "Jesus" died, was buried and then arose from the dead 3 days later."
So horribly, foolishly, laughably (purposefully?) wrong.
Are you more of an authority on Christianity than Jesus?
Mathew ch 22:
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
And since you also purposefully ignore it he repeatedly says God IS (=) Truth.
Some unduplicatable occurance (AKA miracle) is not even a portion of the teachings of Jesus, let alone the center of those teachings.
I love the way you twist (the truth) and shout (lies) baby.
"There is but one indefectibly certain truth, and that is the truth that pyrrhonistic scepticism itself leaves standing, — the truth that the present phenomenon of consciousness exists."
- William James
Are you more of an authority on Christianity than Jesus?
Considering that the "Jesus" character as presented in Matthew is more mythological than historcial, and considering that the quotes you attribute to that character cannot be reliably attributed to the actual historical person on which that character is based, I would suggest that your counter-point lacks weight. Of course, even if we DID accept your interpretation, you seem to be missing the point that the passages you quote were chronologically (according to the story) BEFORE the death and resurrection.
The FACT is that the vast majority of modern christian faiths define themselves according to the elements espoused in a series of creeds. The most common of these is the Apostle's Creed, which defines the core beliefs of christians as:
There are various sects that differ on one point or another, but to the best of my knowledge there is no sizable sect that identifies itself as "christian" but denies the doctrine of the resurrection.
If you are using some OTHER definition, then it is you who is significantly out of step with the commonly accepted definition of the term "christian."
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Wow... You are wrong on so many levels my friend. How can you say that the Jesus "Of Matthew" (By the way if you did your research Jesus is mentioned in more than just Matthew, he was even mentioned in the Old testament which was written long before he was even born) is a mythical being when it is clear in history that he was a real person. It isn't just the Bible that says so. So the FACT is that Jesus did exist.
Next, the use of the term "the vast majority of modern Christian faith..." is totally against everything that was said. What you usually see are Christians who are not actually Christians. Jesus clearly states that our commandment is to love. And seeing as the Bible is the direct source of the Christian faith wouldn't that be what we should go by? Not what you see most Christians do?
And also, most sects of Christianity do not use the Apostle's Creed. Seeing as it is not from the Bible. Get your facts right before you try and make an argument. You aren't making yourself look better
... but blackout can do a more than respectable response on his own.
Looking forward to it.
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Wow... You are wrong on so many levels my friend.
I'm assuming you're new here, so I'll take it somewhat easy on you...just this once.
How can you say that the Jesus "Of Matthew" (By the way if you did your research Jesus is mentioned in more than just Matthew, he was even mentioned in the Old testament which was written long before he was even born) is a mythical being when it is clear in history that he was a real person. It isn't just the Bible that says so. So the FACT is that Jesus did exist.
Because I actually have studied the bible in a scholarly context (in multiple languages including as much of the original Greek and Hebrew as my less than fluent mastery of the ancient dialects will allow), I can say with some confidence that your dismissal of my competence with these subjects is unjustified.
As to your specific comments...
I commented on the "'Jesus' character as presented in Matthew" because my opponent specifically quoted passages from the Book of Matthew. Nothing in my comment suggested that there were not other references to that character elsewhere in the collection of books commonly referred to as the bible.
Also, while it is generally accepted in scholarly circles that there was a real person behind the Jesus myth, the stories in the bible regarding that character do not rise to the level of historical accuracy which would allow them to be reasonably considered as factual, historical accounts. None of the references to the character come from primary sources, and even the earliest of the four gospels (Mark) wasn't written until at least 35 years after the death of the semi-historical figure behind the tales, and the last (John) dates to as late as 110 b.c.e., 75-80 years later. Only an inept or religiously overzealous scholar would seriously suggest that these accounts are literally accurate, and in fact even most mainstream christian scholarship recognizes that there is are no actual primary source references to this semi-historical figure.
I also have to take you to task over your claim that, "was even mentioned in the Old testament which was written long before he was even born." I challenge you to cite references to support this claim, since in fact there is no such reference anywhere in the old testament which could support that assertion to any degree of reasonable scholarly certainty.
Next, the use of the term "the vast majority of modern Christian faith..." is totally against everything that was said. What you usually see are Christians who are not actually Christians. Jesus clearly states that our commandment is to love. And seeing as the Bible is the direct source of the Christian faith wouldn't that be what we should go by? Not what you see most Christians do?
Horsepuckey. One the one hand, the definition of the term christian has meaning which is not determined by the whim of one group of adherents' arbitrary judgements regarding the moral worth of other adherents. From a sociological persepctive, christianity is defined by the most common characteristics of the people who identify themselves as such.
And on the other, of what worth is a religion if it does not actually provide its followers with the tools necessary to adhere to its precepts at least to the point that an observer could identify, anyway? As a non-believer who is observing those who claim membership in the “body of christ,” I must say that actions speak louder than words, and it is the actions of those who wear that religion on their sleeves that informs many of my opinions regarding their sects.
And as for "the bible," which "the bible" do you mean? The typical protestant bible contains 66 books, while the catholic version has 73. The Greek orthodox sects usually include 78 books in their "the bible" and the Ethopian bible has 81. It is inaccurate to refer to "the bible” as if it were a single, consistent and unchanging document. In reality, “the bible” is a generic term refering to the often very different collections of myths and histories belonging to various christian sects. These accounts have been subject to some rather “creative” translation and editing. And even if we refrain from any detailed criticism of the internal contraditions and factual inaccuracies found in the individual translations, there is enough gross variance to bring the veracity of the entire series into question.
And also, most sects of Christianity do not use the Apostle's Creed. Seeing as it is not from the Bible.
I suppose it depends on how you define a sect. If you give the same weight to the thousands of street corner, one church denominations that you do the roman catholic church, you might be right. However, if you vew the sects in terms of their alignment with the major sectarian divisions (roman catholicism, eastern orthodoxy, anglicanism, anabaptism, restorationism, oriental orthodoxy and the assyrian church), then most christian sects DO in fact cite the apostle’s creed as defining declaration of their beliefs.
Of course, the point of my earlier comment was to note that the belief in the ressurection of the Jesus character was in fact a common belief to ALL of the major (and virtually all of the minor) christian sects. The same belief is likewise stated in the nicene creed (the OTHER major christian creed), and in most if not all of the less common liturgical statements of faith. Only a very few sects (such as the Quakers and a few others) do not include some sort of similar creedal statement in their core theology.
Get your facts right before you try and make an argument. You aren't making yourself look better.
I would suggest that the old adage advising people who live in glass houses not to throw stones is applicable, here. I am quite well informed on the theological and historical arguments both for and against the chrisitan religion, both from my time as a believer and religious student, and later as an outside observer and independant scholar. Despite your claim below to having completed “plenty of research,” I can tell from your brief insertion into this discussion that your own experience is probably limited, though it may seem otherwise to one who has only been instructed in the cherry-picked conclusions of their own close family of sectarian dogmas. You almost certainly have never delved deeply into the historicity of the biblical accounts, and much less into any serious literary or textual criticism of “the bible.”
TTFN,
Blackout
---
What is a "Real American?"
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the ProU community.
This is a PERFECT argument chillibill! It's very funny the way people take only the parts of the Bible that suit them... or is it that they haven't done any research? Christians are often called close-minded, but how can that be? Personally I have done plenty of research in not only Christianity but also many other religions and even looked at things from the non-believers perspective. The more I research and "open" my mind the more I come to realize how great the Lord my God is!
Theism is a belief in supernatural forces and powers, often referred to as "god" or "gods." Atheism is a lack of belief in these things. A simple analogy that should answer your question is this...
Do you call someone who does not bake a "baker?"
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
If their lack of practical experience makes the non-Baker think that they know more about baking than the baker does....
We call them a food critic.
"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."
- George Bernard Shaw
That was pretty funny, dude. Good one.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
being religious and non-religious people are different, faith in something greater and either good or bad, is a key thing...I don't know enough about atheism to tell you much other than that what I do know about theism is that, you have to believe in something such as a person, or a book, and what the person and book says.
What do atheists have, they have ideas and thoughts and other things. I don't think there is a book, jsaj or blackout can help people more out but theism is very different from a-theism
aah- i spoke too soon without reading the comments. they have mostly cleared up the confusion already, thank you much for that
“You cannot wean away an addict from the drug. It is not possible for me to walk away from Ranjha. If it is our destiny to be together then who, other than God, can change it?”
she's a spaceman, no walker, dreamer...maybe
Obviously not -- it's a juvenile attempt to try to claim equivalency.
...since in MOST cases, it isn't the atheist who tries to claim that atheism is in any way equivalent to religious belief. In fact, atheism is (by definition) a LACK of religious beliefs. The usual way that this comparison comes up is when some religious person attempts to paint atheism as a form of religion so that it can be criticized for (supposedly) making the same kinds of assertions which are inherent to all religious arguments, thus diminishing the thought process that leads to non-theism to some mere rebellion from the presumed "truth" of whichever religion the person who made the comparison follows.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Well if religion is a set of beliefs and practices that means atheism cannot be a religion. There isn't a set of beliefs and there are no practices. It's just simply not believing in god. And your friend Kurai couldn't be an atheist if he believes god exists but is enslaving people, unless you meant he thinks of god as a concept, almost like god is the religion itself, controlling people to do his bidding. lol. So no, atheism is not a religion.
Thinking too much about life can drive a person crazy...