Uyi Iredia:
Mere opprobriums. There was nothing worth replying here save for this: that the concept of purgatory is central to an aspect of Christianity (i.e Catholicism)

Uyi Iredia:
I was urging not forcing you. Evolution is indeed central from a theological standpoint since it clearly gives a different account of creation. The very obvious question for the atheist who doesn't believe in evolution is this: Where does life originate from ?

Uyi Iredia:
Let's see. We have i) Secular marriages ii) secular burials iii) secular naming ceremonies etc A common emphasis in these rites is an aversion towards the mention or implication of anything religious. There even so-called secular priests whose purpose it is is to oversee such. But all your comments miss the point which is: underlining the fact that atheism is taking the very steps which underscore most religions which include codification of their beliefs & proselytization of it)

Uyi Iredia:
You are simply quibbling. Let me help you structure your reply with a question: How is pantheism opposed to Christianity ? Keeping in mind Rom 1:20 which bears clearly pantheist implications.

Purist:

. . . , I'll like you to fill in the gaps. All atheists believe in __________. This belief in __________ is central to atheism. If you don't believe in ___________, you cannot possibly be an atheist. E.O.D.

jayriginal:

See here.


You isolated the last statement whereas, they are meant to be taken together. Do you read a difference in meaning now that the two statements are paired ?


Now minus the struck out part (which is a matter of opinion on this issue) what is the problem with the statement ?

jayriginal:

Oya Uyi, over to you.

Uyi Iredia:

I DID NOT isolate the last statement. I took a group of statements including the last statement of a paragraph. Besides my point was holistic in that it could safely be extended to all the points you made therin, never mind the fact that I was focusing on a particular aspect of your statement. Taoism and Zen Buddhism (in particular) in fact included non-worship of deities, however over time it did include this aspect. BTW, I am not excluding the struck out part. Except you have changed your mind as regards it.

jayriginal:
There have been dictionaries and reference materials that hold that religion does not necessarily include the supernatural. I call bullsh1t on that.

jayriginal:
Most fail to see that when the logic by which atheism is a religion is applied impartially, non atheism is also a religion. Non worship of every and any deity also becomes a religion.

Purist:

But you wouldn't call purgatory a Christian teaching, would you? That's the point. By extension, you simply cannot label something as wholly atheistic, just because certain atheists indulge in it.

Purist: You didn't understand my comment. I said evolution is not central to any theological standpoint. Meaning, it is neither an "atheist" thing, nor a "Christian" or "Buddhist" thing. Also, your question presupposes that all atheists concern themselves with the question of the origin of life. This again validates my point that you do not fully understand the concept of atheism. I repeat, the only thing atheists have in common universally is their non-belief in deities. Period. That is why the term "atheism" is a mere descriptor and not what you wish it to be. There are numerous atheists that do not know how or where life originates from, and they do not pretend to know. They simply do not care. Not every atheist is conversant with science. You need to stop seeing atheism strictly through the eyes of the atheists you know or read about. You should quit assuming that once a person does not believe in God, then they must be a cosmologist, astrophysicist or evolutionist of some sort, that they would be able to answer questions about life and its origin.

Purist: One doesn't need to be an atheist to engage in any of those rites. You forget that there are deists and many other irreligious group out there. You still fail to show how any of these things are peculiar or exclusive to atheism. I'll give you an example: All Christians believe in Jesus as the son of God and as their personal lord and saviour. This belief in Jesus is central to Christianity. If you don't believe in Jesus this way, you cannot possibly be a Christian. E.O.D.


Based on the foregoing, I'll like you to fill in the gaps. All atheists believe in __________. This belief in __________ is central to atheism. If you don't believe in ___________, you cannot possibly be an atheist. E.O.D.

@the bold part: Even if somehow we manage to overlook the semantics and obvious fallacy, and assume for the sake of argument that you are right, your argument would only be valid if you presented it as "atheism could be a religion some day", rather than "atheism IS a religion".

Purist: It bears clearly pantheistic implications because that's how you have chosen to interpret it. We all know that 20 people will read the same verse in the bible and come up with 20 different interpretations. Marrying a belief in an impersonal God with a belief in a personal God is paradoxical. You can twist and turn as you like, but it wouldn't change that. Take it up with your Christian brethren if you feel the need to convince anyone otherwise.

Uyi Iredia:

Of course I would call it a Christian teaching. Any Catholic would and I will because it is advocated for by Christians albeit of a particular Christian sect.

Uyi Iredia:
In a limited sense it is an atheist thing or a materialistic thing to be more precise.

Uyi Iredia:
I did not presuppose anything, hence, your second-guessing falls flat. I'm well aware from discussions I've partook of and read that some atheitst are apathetic. My question was to illuminate the fact that the atheists who doesn't concern himself with humans origins is disenfranchised from a theme which is common to most humans and the theme in question is: human's origins.

Uyi Iredia:
Atheism describes a philosophy which has evolved over the years in direct proportion to the evolution of religions (Christianity in particular). To say that atheists don't bother about how humans come about is VERY DECEPTIVE given the common theme of logic and reason that underlines most atheists thoughts and_this is very critical_ what demographics reveals about the atheist community. A huge percentage of them are in the educated class. You doubtless have witnessed arguments based on this fact. Arguments along the lines that atheists are smarter than theists.

Uyi Iredia:
Lastly, if an atheist doesn't care about humanity's origins I should say such a person is inane because this is a question even our primitive ancestors asked themselves as seen in the mythologies they espoused.

Uyi Iredia:
True. But I'm talking about how they've been specifically tailored for atheists and you are diverting the issue by saying the bolded. The simple fact that these rites are made for atheists answers the question of whether it is exclusive to atheists.

Uyi Iredia:
Not all Christians believed that Jesus was the son of God, some were even pagans. Once again you show poor knowledge of the religion. Gnostics believed Jesus was a mere human. Arianism (which persists till today) introduced the concept of Jesus as being lesser than the father, the Ebionites (whom Paul fought) who believed one had to follow Judaism to be saved etc. There are even Christian atheists.See more here or read 70 Great Christians by Geoffrey Hanks. Christianity on the whole is lacks the same rigidity found in Islam.

Uyi Iredia:
I have already completed your sentence. BTW, I presented both arguments. Read my opening arguments well I clearly talked of atheism BECOMING a religion & talked of why I believed the term religion can be safely applied to atheism. Also check the topic 'Atheism Is A Religion" where my initial argument was poor but strengthened as the debate wore on. I especially want you to read a long reply I gave to Deep Sight in the first section of the thread.

Uyi Iredia:
put the phrase 'non-existence of God/gods' and you are set. You can also put in the phrase 'the invention of religion by man'. Most IMHO religions are believed to be divinely inspired.

Uyi Iredia:
No. Most people agree with that conclusion (i.e the pantheistic implications). Not quite, Spinoza's God isn't entirely impersonal. Are you willing to argue against this ?

jayriginal:

No I havent changed my mind.
What you didnt get is that I already acknowledged the existence of 'religions' that do not include the supernatural.

My calling bullsh1t on that is probably what you have misread and thats why I struck it out for easy comprehension. Is there anything wrong with the statement ?

This here

is quite easy to decipher. I cant imagine you missed it (even if you dont agree) except you are arguing for the sake of it.

Purist:

Your reason for admitting you'll call purgatory a Christian teaching is suspect - "because it is advocated for by Christians...". Seriously? I thought what qualifies anything to be a Christian teaching is when it is in line with the bible. Here is your argument in a more simplified form:

It is advocated for by Christians (. . . of a particular sect)
Ergo, it is a Christian teaching.

Do you wish to re-evaluate this statement before I give it a proper rebuttal?



HOW so?



Believe it or not, not everyone goes around thinking day and night about where they came from. Even from your submission, you admitted this by saying "most humans", and not "all humans". Yes, every human being may, from time to time, have some passive curiousity about the origin of the universe, the origin of life, etc. But not many, in fact, I dare say most, do not actively concern themselves or preoccupy their minds with such thoughts.



The only VERY DECEPTIVE thing here is you twisting my words to score brownie points. There is a big difference between "numerous atheists don't bother" and "atheists don't bother". Again, you assume that every atheist is a thinking one. And you assume again that every thinking atheist must constantly think along those lines. How about atheists who deliberately choose to not concern themselves about such questions as the origin of humans because they feel that such knowledge cannot possibly be obtained? You are again already unloading assumptions on a group of people by attempting to define what they must think and should not think. Get this straight: Atheists are different - just as theists are different - and barely have anything in common, save for their non-belief in deities. You need to get off this your "I know many atheist groups", "I have debated many atheists", etc.


Your opinion, and you're of course entitled to it. Whether such persons are "inane" or not is a matter of opinion and doesn't change the fact that there really are people who don't concern themselves with such thoughts. Hence, your "very obvious question for the atheist who doesn't believe in evolution" is, well, not "very obvious". At the very best, the very obvious answer would be "I don't know."



Who "specifically tailored" them for atheists? Which organization or body is responsible for such "tailoring"? How exactly are they specifically tailored for atheists? You keep throwing words and terms around without explicating any of them.



And you think I am not aware of those other sects? lol. See, you cannot deny the divinity of Jesus and claim to be a practicing Christian. You either accept Jesus TOTALLY as stipulated in the bible and be considered a Christian, or you reject some/all aspects and give yourself another name. The very reason why all those sects you mentioned do not believe in Jesus the Christian way, is the same reason they're not referred to as Christians. Duh!




You did not say anything new, but instead, you only confirmed what I've been saying so far. "Non-belief in deities is the only thing atheists have in common." The invention of religion by man is a notion that is held by virtually all irreligious people, and isn't peculiar to atheism.



Most people from your church, perhaps? And no, I'm not willing to argue that, as it will lead nowhere. I'll let this one pass.

Uyi Iredia:

* Your anticipation of my reasoning is correct. I await a proper rebuttal.

Uyi Iredia:
* Nonsense ! The only irreligious people I know are atheists. Agnostics don't count because theirs is an epistemological position not a metaphysical one.

Uyi Iredia:
BTW, it's obvious you don't agree with my points given thus far.

Uyi Iredia:

* Okay. It's good to know that you agree that the scope of religions are much wider than its contextual definition in a dictionary. Noywithstanding your fraudulent use of the tern non-atheism which can be taken to mean theism. Note that in one breath you acknowledged that the supernatural doesn't have to exist for a thing to be a religion & yet you scorned dictionaries for not acknowledging this. Besides, the simple fact is that there are religions which do not involve worship of deities. I hope you are willing to stretch your logic to include atheism as a religion.

Purist: Just few issues I feel I should address:



My "proper rebuttal" has faded already. You keep disappearing for days, only to suddenly show up and then disappear again!

However. . . I do hope you understand the implication of your logic here. I have a feeling you only said that in order to appear consistent with your persuasions and arguments on this thread, and not because you really believe it to be so. I'll rebut with two examples:

(1) There is a growing number of Christians who strongly support and advocate for the doctrine of Universalism. Bear in mind that this doctrine is barely supported, if at all, by the bible. Yet, it is advocated for by Christians. Would you, in all honesty, consider this to be a Christian teaching? Remember that you mentioned here previously that you believe in the concept of Hell Fire - eternal torment & damnation - (which runs antithetical to this doctrine), and which I believe YOU consider to be THE true Christian teaching.

(2) There are currently many gay churches and gay Christians who actively oppose the Church's stand on homosexuality. This set of Christians not only believe that homosexu[i]a[/i]lity is NOT a sin, and that the bible does not condemn it, they also actively advocate for the establishment of gay marriages. Based on this, and going by your reasoning, I guess it safe to assume that the belief that homosexuality is NOT a sin is a ratified Christian teaching; and that homosexuality is perfectly okay, and gay marriage is totally in line with the ideals of Christianity. After all, these things are advocated for by Christians. If you disagree, then I expect that you'd easily see the flaw in your own argument all along. If you agree that it is a Christian teaching, then I'd be forced to consider you as plain dishonest.

Purist: How dare you forget the deists?!

Purist: <<< On a solemn note now. . . >>>

Dear Uyi,

Frankly speaking, I must confess that I have lost steam for this argument already. I find that I have repeated virtually the same points over and over, but we seem to be on separate planes as regards this discourse, thus, making it impossible for us to reach an accord. Should the discussion take a new dimension eventually, or another angle be introduced later on, I may be willing to chip in a few things, meaning I will continue to monitor this thread for new developments. But for now, I think I'm done.

I still maintain my stand though, that it is absolutely fallacious to argue that atheism is a religion. The acts, practices and/or opinions of individual atheists do not suffice to categorize atheism as a religion, otherwise, we might just as well label every other secular/mundane practices as religious. Proselytizing does not suffice either.

I also find it slightly amusing that despite admitting to being 'perfectly aware' of the different types of atheists there are, you still persist with your argument. It would be completely absurd, for example, to put the religion tag on an apathetic agnostic, all in a bid to accommodate atheism as a religion.

Purist: Lastly, I apologize for the harsh words I used on you previously in this discourse. #ImpetuousUtterances. . . you know.

Peace!

Purist: ^^ Tentative? Even better. I do, in fact, think you'll be an agnostic/atheist in a matter of time. Just keep searching.

Uyi Iredia:

That's practically impossible. But surprises occur.

Uyi Iredia: Reading this thread makes me wanna scream atheism is a religion again. I was, at least, fairly consistent (as Purist noted). I even said deism (which I now proclaim) is a religion. Lemme try suggest it in another manner. Atheism and Deism are tending to orthodoxy's.

Purist:

By the way (and for the umpteenth time), atheism is NOT a religion... neither is deism.