Most of the atheists pray to God secretly but deny him publicly just to remain relevant among the God-deniers

Crapola!

Atheism, properly defined is "without belief in gods" -- denial of existence is not required by lack of belief.

My position is that one or more of the human-proposed "gods" MAY be real; however, I have encountered no evidence to support such claims

If not believing in "gods" is a religion then perhaps not believing in Leprechauns is also a religion



OH? You KNOW that "Most of the atheists pray to god" SECRETLY. Are you omniscient or do you work for NSA? How is it, exactly, that you know what most Atheists do in private?

Exactly!




Yes. Anyone who declares 'atheism is a religion' might be dishonest, and idiot, or have failed to thought the matter through...

...but no intelligent, honest, thoughtful people would say something like this. *theism* is not even 'a religion', so its total nonsense to say that atheism is.



In nations like the USA, where Christians are culturally dominant, and where Christians have a massive amount of influence in public affairs - its actually the other way around.

Many intelligent people do not believe in a God, but pretend to do so publicly for social, political, economic, etc reasons.

I'm a Christian and I do not view Atheism as a religion. Without any other words to accompany it, it doesn't give any information except that the person lacks a belief in God.

There are spiritual atheists who believe in ghosts, etc and there are atheists who don't. Technically, you could still be an atheist and believe in a heaven, although it would be one devoid of a God. So there are no set rules within atheism.

You can make a distinction though between those atheists who are anti-theistic and those who aren't. The former will try to deconvert theists and/or actively seek to undermine belief while the latter will opt out of getting involved in such pursuits.

Every time this tread title pops up, I want to scream CLUELESS!!

Funny thing is that many Fundy-Christians title anyone not of their particular Brand of Religious Persuasion as Atheists!
Nice way to cut short any Debate!
Heck,I forgot the Lake Of Eternal Fire!

Hello ((((( Con ))))) ...The Lake of The Eternal Fire should stay in the bedroom where it belongs!

OH my goodness, let's take the pragmatist's approach and end this shall we? Let's first define 'religion' and apply it to this particular debate. Hopefully when this is over, we'll have one more thing to be thankful for today: the end of this dumb thread.

'Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.[note 1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that are intended to explain the meaning of life and/or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. From their beliefs about the cosmos and human nature, people derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle. According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world.'

This is the most commonly accepted basic definition of religion and the characteristics that define it as such.

First, for Uchea's sake, let's grant to him that Christianity is nothing more than a relationship with their God. We can give him that and still prove he's part of a religion. Because, as you can see, having a relationship with Christ first requires that one accept a collection of beliefs, namely that 1. Christ was resurrected and is still able to communicate. 2. That indeed there is some way he communicates that is inexplicable without faith. 3. that he is immortal, and so on. Your relationship with Him cannot exist without first accepting these premises.

Now here Uchea might say, "In the Bible it is written thus, therefore my beliefs are not beliefs, but certifiable facts that demand acceptance and your premises are false." Which is, we've seen, what Uchea has been doing to respond to arguments he has no way of defending against.

Which now brings us to the unpleasant task of proving to Uchea that the Bible is not an infallible source of knowledge, despite the historical value portions of it present to modern researchers.

Let's start with authorship- To this day it is a certifiable fact that among Biblical scholars not a *single* Bible author is known. In fact, all that the scholars have found thus far is that the writers of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, as well as others, were not in fact- Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. To delve into the matter further, we know that at least two of these authors borrow heavily from a hypothetical document known today as 'document Q' AS WELL as the gospel known as Mark since Matthew and Luke both have words borrowed from Mark and matching words clearly from another unknown document, so the linguists tell us. The point being, these are not original documents, the one nearest to originality being Mark, as far as we know (not to subtly pat myself on the back here).

Continuing on the subject of books of the bible, did you know that there are -17- relevant or related scriptural sources mentioned throughout the old and new testaments that are NOT in the Bible? Where is the book of the generations of Adam? The rest of the the records of the kings? Where the hell are the rest of Paul's letters? Your belief is based on an incomplete and chronologically bungled up record. Why should anyone, I mean ANYONE just up and accept that because of your words? And I'm speaking as a believing mormon here.

I'm not going to take the time to point out all the contradictions in scripture because I'm already tired of writing this silly essay.

The only real defense that legitimate portions of the Bible have are convictions that can only come from God Himself. These convictions and the method of assurance from God cannot be tested, measured, shown, or revealed to others. It is a supremely personal thing designed to benefit YOU specifically. Nothing you say will convince anyone that your beliefs are true, if they're well studied and not prone to constant change, like a reed shaken in the wind. So why not leave that to the All-Powerful people who actually have the time and resources to prove what we couldn't hope to prove in a lifetime? We Christians ought to be more worried about the poor, the homeless, the widowed, the fatherless, the people who are actually in need, and be more worried about embracing the Christlike attributes of faith, hope, charity, virtue, knowledge, *humility*, diligence, obedience to truth wherever it can be found, mercy, and all those things that really matter in this world. If by living in accordance with these things someone takes an interest in our beliefs, perhaps that would be a wiser time to share them.

Now for atheism. You've claimed without knowledge or understanding that Atheism is a religion. That it in fact, *is* something. I can assure you Uchea, as surely as it is impossible to form something from nothing (we mormons have a different perspective on creation), atheism cannot be a religion.

Let's consider today's acceptable definition of atheism and compare it to the first-mentioned definition in this little expose and see if we find any red flags you might be interested in.

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."

Please point your attention to the last sentence, where we find not the existence of a belief, but the absence of one. If, as most of us agree, a religion is first and foremost a collection of beliefs, then it follows that atheism cannot be a belief, since atheists have no religious beliefs, none that have to do with the existence of deities anyway. It is not simply believing something does not exist when it does as you suggest Uchea, but it is living without a belief in what appears to not exist in the natural universe. Now to you and I, Uchea, it could appear that these people are refusing to believe in something that does exist because, for example, *I* know that God exists and so then it follows that these other people are denying a truth that could be had by them.. But I assure you, they are not. They don't know Him and frankly a good deal have found convincing reasons that prevent a belief in deity to take root. So theirs is not a denial of knowledge, but an acceptance of appearances.

Here you might say, "But you said they could have that knowledge! Surely God will give them that!" Now we jump into the realm of uncertain assumptions. As a believer myself, I do believe everyone will have the opportunity to know the most important truths, but who the hell are we to say when that is? Do you know how many billions have died without knowing a thing about Christianity as you've defined it? What about them? Will you condemn billions both living and dead for experiences they've never had, for not taking an interest in the beliefs of a group of people who have become characterized by many evil things as well as good? People will know when they will know, in this life or the next, the most important thing for a person like you or I is not to ramble listlessly about the nature truth that our own understanding is so hugely limited in and to sit in God's throne and make His calls. As Jeannie has so aptly put more than once, the ultimate purpose, the real call of the Christians ought to be one of love.

Have you noticed what this thread is sickeningly absent of Uchea? =(

So Atheism is not a religion, but a paradigm, and a very natural one. So let's leave each other be and get to the respective things we find most important.

And let's pretend this thread never existed and have a bloody happy thanksgiving eh?

Cheers everyone,

Mark

I'm an atheist ('weak atheist') and I really appreciate your post!

An intelligent post!

Of course, a religion of non concentration is a religion of confusion.

Coming from a "Rational" Christian no doubt?

Absence of belief = No belief


Atheism = absence of belief


Therefore atheism is not a belief.




Not only is this argument according to all modern parameters valid, but it is also sound in accordance with the current epistemological definition of sound.

i don't hate him by the way .... i don't even know him

i am an atheist Sir , and i don't neither believe in god nor pray for him !

I guess you could say Atheism is relig

explain!
Make your case!

If one is thinking relatively in regards to what one knows in the relative world, of course one might be surprised of supernatural if supernatural is not out of the relative world. Just because certain concepts differ than ideas of secular and Atheistic ideas, one should not disregard understandings of higher importance. One cannot prove that no God exists. Can you oppose? In fact, even in the natural world, patterns are found which apear to be indications that Intelligent Design is real. Doth DNA ring a bell? Might I add, people including Kepler and Newton have been thought of perhaps as scientific building stones /cornerstones inside the community of science. The pursuit of science might have been labeled as a pursuit of a "Divine" understanding and a pursuit of an Intelligent Creator's handiwork. If you want to discredit what early scientists said, your choice is your own. But please note that the existence of the universe might seem to contradict one's idea of relativity...in links to the world. Just because one doesn't see God, an assumption that He doesn't exist would be assuming foolishly. As a poster said, humans have limited knowledge. As a theologian Thomas Aquinas once might have stated or implied: "in order for something to move (in the world) something must be moved by a mover." Also, to claim that the very first movement in the universe happened without a first movement being given, would one not be claiming an illogical idea? And how about the BB theory? If matter and energy never existed, how would have energy or matter have come to be? And if life never existed, does life really come alive from non-living matter? Looking up is not stupid...

Please note: No matter how many series videos you watched, and no matter how many collge courses Iv taken..fact remains.

I mean not to argue with a negative attitude, but perhaps to clearify a point.