• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Always Atheism vs Christianity?

Walkntune

Walkntune

Well-Known Member
BlandOatmeal said:
Philbo,

This is Religion Education Forum, a place where various religions come together and (hopefully respectfully) compare notes. I have had intimate experience with many religions, including Atheism; and I guarantee that Atheism is not the first religion that chose to define itself in terms not accepted by other religions. Nevertheless, if we are to communicate to one another meaningfully, we need to start on an even playing field.

"Atheism" is dealt with on RF as a religion, alongside many other divergent belief systems and practices. If you don't believe this, please note that Atheism has its own DIR, the "R" standing for "Religion".

You might not like the way I am categorizing your belief system, or the way RF categorizes it; nevertheless, let us try to communicate and put aside insults.

With all respect, you are trying to apply Christian thinking to Atheism. Christianity DEFINES itself by its doctrinal stance concerning the nature of the "divine essence". Their benchmark is, as you probably well know, the Apostle's Creed. Many, or perhaps most, Christians, do not know about this creed, and few could recite it; nevertheless, it is the major criterion by which one is considered Christian or not in most religious circles. I do not accept that creed as valid, for instance, and am not allowed to post on the "Christian Forums" as a "Christian" because of this. In fact, I list my religion on the US census and other polls as "Others or None" because of this, and am thus accounted as an "Atheist/Agnostic/Irreligious" by certain religious polls.

As I said, it is the Christians who classify "religions" according to their doctrine concerning divine beings. Christians have a three-part god, united by a common "essence" or "substance", depending on who is arguing with you. This belief is, of course, close to a common Hindu belief in the unity of Brahman (sp?), Vishnu and Shiva. Jewish belief, on the other hand, is truly monotheist, considering God as a single, omnipresent, omnipotent, invisible being. This is also the case in Islam (and as is my own belief as well). Others are purely polytheistic, believing in two or more relatively equal gods. Still others are pantheistic or animistic, believing an all=permeating divine essence to inhabit things in nature. Atheistic belief is similar to this, holding up "Nature" as a god, with powers defined by scientific concepts.

Whatever your understanding or doctrine concerning the "invisible force" or "essence" that governs this universe, it is, as I have said, only one criterion of one's religion. Many religions in the world do not consider such beliefs as critical to their self-definition. Most religions, in fact, including Judaism and Christianity, self-define their religion on an everyday and practical level not on doctrines at all, but on PRACTICE. As one here has already inferred, most Atheists do not do this; nevertheless, this is the case with most religions; and on RF, we must try to accommodate everyone. Atheists do not govern this thread; it is a GENERAL doctrinal discussion -- under the heading, as it turns out, of

Religious Topics / Religious Debates

I hope this clarifies matters.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Even Einstein recognized this force in the universe.
Hermanns is constantly pushing Einstein to acknowledge his inherent mysticism. He succeeds in getting Einstein to say something that probably few scientists today would say—that there is a vital force or energy in creation. Einstein is willing to associate energy with what are generally seen as spiritual concepts.
INTUITION IN-DEPTH


I pulled out some notes. "Once, in England, I was at dinner with people highly trained in meditation, among them Professor Suzuki who asked me to ask you if spiritual vibrations and electricity have the same original cause or force."
"I believe," Einstein answered, "that energy is the basic force in creation. My friend Bergson calls it élan vital, the Hindus call it prana."​
 
B

BlandOatmeal

Active Member
Hello, Ena and, from wher I live, Good morning!
enaidealukal said:
Why would this make it a religion?
Click to expand...
You can see that the editing box doesn't show me what your question was in reference to; but this doesn't matter much. Your question was part of a more important question, namely, "What defines a religion"? The answer is that there IS no definition that applies to all religions; it is an arbitrary matter. Some religions, such as Atheism and Christianity, define themselves by beliefs (actually dogmas) concerning the existence of a God or gods. Judaism defines its religion by a shared historical experience; Islam defines itself by obedience to Qur'an; Hindus define themselves primarily by their acceptance of the caste system; Buddhists define themselves by their acceptance of the Buddha's teaching. There is no "one size fits all". For the sake of this discussion, though, where Atheism is being compared with Christianity, both of these religions must be compared by criteria that both share. One is the fact that both Christianity and Atheism have had official status, and have persecuted those of other religions.
enaidealukal said:
A red herring and, as above, irrelevant to the point at issue..
Click to expand...
I will stop my reply here, as you have just descended into meaningless insults. "Red herrings" imply intent to decive; and I assure you that I am not trying to deceive anyone here. The fact that you consider what I say "irrelevant" is the result of your attitude toward me, and has nothing to do with what I am saying. The next time you post, try to think beforehand, instead of just spewing out insults.
 
I

ImprobableBeing

Active Member
s2a said:
Allow me a most stringent personalized clarification then: No existent doubt, question, nor tenuous reservations abide here.

Any "God" or collection of "gods" are pure bunk, and only reside within wishful thinking. Clear? :)
Click to expand...

This is a belief i do not share nor do even the most vocal atheists like Dawkins or any other reasonable atheist.

I just wanted to make this clear.

You do realize that by making the claim, you have just shifted the burden of evidence onto yourself? You can no longer proclaim that there is insufficient evidence for god/s, you now have to provide evidence for your claim that exactly zero god/s exist.

Somehow i doubt you can do that and thus you hold an active belief about there being exactly zero god/s which isn't based on evidence.

That is faith.
 
B

BlandOatmeal

Active Member
Falvlun said:
I highly doubt that any of the communist countries called atheism the "state religion".
Click to expand...
That is why I said "in fact", the English for "de facto". The Communists did not CALL their state religion "Atheism"; but they also called their main newspaper "Truth" (Pravda). The word de facto is used, because people do not accurately label the things that they are or do.
Falvlun said:
In fact, the reality doesn't support your contention: they purged religion, and replaced it with atheism, indicating that they didn't consider atheism to be a religion.
Click to expand...
"In fact", again, the Soviet Union and other Communist states did not "purge" religion; because religion cannot be "purged". People have a certain worldview, which dictates what they do. You cannot "purge" this worldview, nor the consequent actions; you can only replace it with another worldview and other actions. The Communist regime forbade parents to teach religion to their children, but REPLACED that teaching with atheist doctrine in the state schools.

I dealt with the wrangling over definitions in my previous post. The OP demands that we treat Atheism and Christianity in the same terms. Trying to give Atheism a status on a different plane from other religions does not help in answering that OP. Please stay on topic.
 
Last edited:
I

ImprobableBeing

Active Member
BlandOatmeal said:
That is why I said "in fact", the English for "de facto". The Communists did not CALL their state religion "Atheism"; but they also called their main newspaper "Truth" (Pravda). The word de facto is used, because people do not accurately label the things that they are or do.

"In fact", again, the Soviet Union and other Communist states did not "purge" religion; because religion cannot be "purged". People have a certain worldview, which dictates what they do. You cannot "purge" this worldview, nor the consequent actions; you can only replace it with another worldview and other actions. The Communist regime forbade parents to teach religion to their children, but REPLACED that teaching with atheist doctrine in the state schools.

I dealt with the wrangling over definitions in my previous post. The OP demands that we treat Atheism and Christianity in the same terms. Trying to give Atheism a status on a different plane from other religions does not help in answering that OP. Please stay on topic.
Click to expand...


I'd say that the closest they ever came to actual state religions was the deification of their leaders and proclaiming their words as absolute truth even when in opposition to observable reality.
 
B

BlandOatmeal

Active Member
Walkntune said:
Interesting. Even Einstein recognized this force in the universe.
Click to expand...
Hi, Walk

The "force", of course, was in reference to what I said,

"Whatever your understanding or doctrine concerning the "invisible force" or "essence" that governs this universe, it is, as I have said, only one criterion of one's religion..."

In keeping with what I just said to Falvlun, I am not so much interested in endless quarrels about what the "accepted" definition of "religion" is, and of how "atheism" does or doesn't fit into it. In fact, as I said, there is no single definition of "religion" that defines all religions (including atheism) to everyone's satisfaction. What is important here, is that we find SOME category, whether we call it "religion", "worldview" or whatever, that puts Atheism and Christianity on the same plane, so the two can be properly compared.
Walkntune said:
Hermanns is constantly pushing Einstein to acknowledge his inherent mysticism. He succeeds in getting Einstein to say something that probably few scientists today would say—that there is a vital force or energy in creation. Einstein is willing to associate energy with what are generally seen as spiritual concepts.
Click to expand...
I hear you. Whatever Einstein speculated about this or other matters, however, he was still a Jew. He had a Jewish mother, and was a Jew according to halacha. Because Atheists define their own cult (I'm trying to find terms other than "religion") in terms of their speculations, they might try to define Einstein as an Atheist -- though as you say, his belief in a "vital force" puts him in a marginal category according to his speculation. His halachic acceptance as a Jew, however, is not affected one iota by his speculations, whether they be deist, theist , anmimist, pantheist, atheist, or what have you. In his core convictions, Einstein was a Jew:
After the death of Israel's first president, Chaim Weizmann, in November 1952, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion offered Einstein the position of President of Israel, a mostly ceremonial post.[77] The offer was presented by Israel's ambassador in Washington, Abba Eban, who explained that the offer "embodies the deepest respect which the Jewish people can repose in any of its sons".[56]:522 However, Einstein declined, and wrote in his response that he was "deeply moved", and "at once saddened and ashamed" that he could not accept it:
All my life I have dealt with objective matters, hence I lack both the natural aptitude and the experience to deal properly with people and to exercise official function. I am the more distressed over these circumstances because my relationship with the Jewish people became my strongest human tie once I achieved complete clarity about our precarious position among the nations of the world

-- Albert Einstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Falvlun

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
BlandOatmeal said:
That is why I said "in fact", the English for "de facto". The Communists did not CALL their state religion "Atheism"; but they also called their main newspaper "Truth" (Pravda). The word de facto is used, because people do not accurately label the things that they are or do.

"In fact", again, the Soviet Union and other Communist states did not "purge" religion; because religion cannot be "purged". People have a certain worldview, which dictates what they do. You cannot "purge" this worldview, nor the consequent actions; you can only replace it with another worldview and other actions. The Communist regime forbade parents to teach religion to their children, but REPLACED that teaching with atheist doctrine in the state schools.

I dealt with the wrangling over definitions in my previous post. The OP demands that we treat Atheism and Christianity in the same terms. Trying to give Atheism a status on a different plane from other religions does not help in answering that OP. Please stay on topic.
Click to expand...

You are the one who is defining atheism as a religion. So, you are allowed to make such proclamations, but no one else is allowed to comment on that?

You used "atheism was a state religion in communist states" to support your definition. But it turns out that no communist state ever defined atheism as a religion. Therefore, your "evidence" turns out to be nothing more than "In my opinion, atheism was a state religion". Do you see how it is circular to use your opinion that atheism is a religion to prove that atheism is a religion?
 
Enai de a lukal

Enai de a lukal

Well-Known Member
BlandOatmeal said:
I will stop my reply here, as you have just descended into meaningless insults. "Red herrings" imply intent to decive; and I assure you that I am not trying to deceive anyone here. The fact that you consider what I say "irrelevant" is the result of your attitude toward me, and has nothing to do with what I am saying. The next time you post, try to think beforehand, instead of just spewing out insults.
Click to expand...
:facepalm:

Since "red herring" is not an insult, and makes no such implication, you are either hyper-sensitive, in which case you have no business posting on an internet forum, which generally includes many folks far less civil than I, or you were simply looking for a pretext to beat a hasty retreat from this discussion, given that your premise is eminently untenable.

:clap:clap:clap

Either way.
 
I

ImprobableBeing

Active Member
BlandOatmeal said:
Hi, Walk

The "force", of course, was in reference to what I said,

"Whatever your understanding or doctrine concerning the "invisible force" or "essence" that governs this universe, it is, as I have said, only one criterion of one's religion..."

In keeping with what I just said to Falvlun, I am not so much interested in endless quarrels about what the "accepted" definition of "religion" is, and of how "atheism" does or doesn't fit into it. In fact, as I said, there is no single definition of "religion" that defines all religions (including atheism) to everyone's satisfaction. What is important here, is that we find SOME category, whether we call it "religion", "worldview" or whatever, that puts Atheism and Christianity on the same plane, so the two can be properly compared.
Click to expand...

Atheism is neither a worldview nor a religion, it would fit in the category of not believing in claims for which there is no evidence i suppose but other than that it won't fit anywhere.

Atheists don't share a worldview at all, you are trying to define a group of people who only have one thing in common, they don't believe in a god. This does not a religion nor a worldview make no matter how much you'd like it to for sake of your own convenience.

There is absolutely NOTHING that puts christianity and atheism on the same plane, nothing what so ever.
 
B

BlandOatmeal

Active Member
ImprobableBeing said:
I'd say that the closest they ever came to actual state religions was the deification of their leaders and proclaiming their words as absolute truth even when in opposition to observable reality.
Click to expand...
Hi, Improbable.

As in other posts, I need to add what you are referring to, but to which the reader of this may be unaware. You were responding to my assertion that Atheism is the de facto "state religion" of communist countries.

Concerning whether or not one could be considered a true worshipper of God, Jesus said, "By their fruits ye shall know them". Likewise, in determining whether or not the communists had a "state cult" -- similar to the Roman Catholic Church during the Spanish Inquisition, for example -- is by considering what they both produced:
  • The rule of fear to speak one's mind
  • Doctrinal conformity
  • The exercise of torture to exact confessions
  • Control over what parents taught their children concerning religion
  • Severe restrictions on dissenters, in terms of assembling, holding office, etc.
We can call the state "official doctrine" of, say, the former USSR, a "religion", a "cult", an "ideology" or whatever we want; but it is of the same NATURE as the state ____ of Sixteenth Century Spain.

As you noted, another striking similarity between (gnostic) Atheists and (gnostic) Christians is the conviction of both that they are absolutely right and the other is absolutely wrong. I will note here, that this is not the case with all religions. Some religions, such as certain Buddhists and Hindus, practice a form of meditation in which they attempt to "empty their minds" of concepts of right and wrong, and of anything else, so they might break through to a state of "enlightenment".

It is this very conviction that they and they alone are "right" that makes both Atheists and Christians ardent proselytizers. Few here doubt that Christians prosyletize, but some Atheists may deny that they do. Atheists post on RF in the same numbers as Christians, though Christians outnumber Atheists many times over in the real world; and the tenor of their posts is generally dogmatic and evangelical.

There is another similarity between Christians and Atheists, which I have already mentioned: they both define themselves by their speculations concerning the existence and nature of God. In practice, not even the Jews do this. Though they proclaim themselves to be monotheists and reject the Trinity, they do not define "who is a Jew" by these terms. In fact, roughly half of American Jews doubt the existence of God.

Once more, referring to the OP, "Why is it always Atheism VS Christianity?", an answer that comes to my mind is,

"Because they're so much alike".
 
Last edited:
B

BlandOatmeal

Active Member
Falvlun said:
You are the one who is defining atheism as a religion... Do you see how it is circular to use your opinion that atheism is a religion to prove that atheism is a religion?
Click to expand...
I've covered the "definition" business exhaustively, and will not waste my time repeating it yet again for you. Concerning "circular reasoning", I am not doing this. I am defining both Atheism and Christianity by the same criteria, and in nearly all of those criteria they exactly match. That is a perfectly logical reason for putting both in the same category. You may call that category whatever you want; but if you insist that Christianity is a "religion", then so must Atheism be. Shall I call both "cults"? "ideologies"? "worldviews"? Choose your own term.

Consider this: In its DOCTRINE CONCERNING GOD, there is more difference between Monotheism and Animism than there is between Monotheism and Atheism. Atheism (in its usual, scientific form) posits that the world is governed by invisible forces, under the dominion of immutable laws, as does Monotheism. Animism and Polytheism, on the other hand, do not posit rule by immutable laws; they are essentially catastrophist. Are Animism and Polytheism religions? Choose whatever answer you will; that's your right. But don't accuse me of circular reasoning; you have no ground to do that.
 
Last edited:
Cephus

Cephus

Relentlessly Rational
nash8 said:
This belies your belief that love is always letting people live. If that were the case then we would have one overcrowded planet. Have you ever heard of Diesm?
Click to expand...

Not "diesm". Deism, yes. Why? That has nothing to do with what you're talking about.

So the objective reality is only dependent upon how it affects the majority of people.... BRILLIANT. :facepalm:
Click to expand...

No, reality affects everyone regardless. It doesn't take into regard the majority or the minority, it affects everyone equally. Yes, I think it is rather brilliant.
 
Enai de a lukal

Enai de a lukal

Well-Known Member
BlandOatmeal said:
I've covered the "definition" business exhaustively
Click to expand...
No, you've avoided applying any reasonable definition of religion to atheism- because the result would contradict your (eminently false) assertion.

You may call that category whatever you want; but if you insist that Christianity is a "religion", then so must Atheism be.
Click to expand...
No, because all of the traits which Christianity shares with other religions, in virtue of which they are considered religions at all, are NOT shared by atheism- shared teachings or doctrines, rituals, any organization or structure, and so on. You've simply pointed out a few superficial similarities, and declared atheism a religion as a result. Needless to say, this is arbitrary and non-sequitur. Basketballs and oranges are both orange, but it doesn't follow that basketballs are a fruit.
 
B

BlandOatmeal

Active Member
enaidealukal said:
:facepalm:

Since "red herring" is not an insult, and makes no such implication, you are either hyper-sensitive, in which case you have no business posting on an internet forum, which generally includes many folks far less civil than I, or you were simply looking for a pretext to beat a hasty retreat from this discussion, given that your premise is eminently untenable.

:clap:clap:clap

Either way.
Click to expand...
You forgot to think beforehand. What you wrote here is thoughtless, childish noise.
 
B

BlandOatmeal

Active Member
enaidealukal said:
No, you've avoided applying any reasonable definition of religion to atheism- because the result would contradict your (eminently false) assertion.

No, because all of the traits which Christianity shares with other religions, in virtue of which they are considered religions at all, are NOT shared by atheism- shared teachings or doctrines, rituals, any organization or structure, and so on. You've simply pointed out a few superficial similarities, and declared atheism a religion as a result. Needless to say, this is arbitrary and non-sequitur. Basketballs and oranges are both orange, but it doesn't follow that basketballs are a fruit.
Click to expand...
There ARE no traits shared by all religions. Voodoo has no shared teachigs; Evangelical Christianity has no shared rituals; Hinduism has no shared organization, (as you say, "and so on"). Atheism and Christianity, on the other hand share more with one another than any two world religions.

Again, you need to think before posting.
 
I

ImprobableBeing

Active Member
BlandOatmeal said:
Hi, Improbable.

As in other posts, I need to add what you are referring to, but to which the reader of this may be unaware. You were responding to my assertion that Atheism is the de facto "state religion" of communist countries.

Concerning whether or not one could be considered a true worshipper of God, Jesus said, "By their fruits ye shall know them". Likewise, in determining whether or not the communists had a "state cult" -- similar to the Roman Catholic Church during the Spanish Inquisition, for example -- is by considering what they both produced:
  • The rule of fear to speak one's mind
  • Doctrinal conformity
  • The exercise of torture to exact confessions
  • Control over what parents taught their children concerning religion
  • Severe restrictions on dissenters, in terms of assembling, holding office, etc.
We can call the state "official doctrine" of, say, the former USSR, a "religion", a "cult", an "ideology" or whatever we want; but it is of the same NATURE as the state ____ of Sixteenth Century Spain.

As you noted, another striking similarity between (gnostic) Atheists and (gnostic) Christians is the conviction of both that they are absolutely right and the other is absolutely wrong. I will note here, that this is not the case with all religions. Some religions, such as certain Buddhists and Hindus, practice a form of meditation in which they attempt to "empty their minds" of concepts of right and wrong, and of anything else, so they might break through to a state of "enlightenment".

It is this very conviction that they and they alone are "right" that makes both Atheists and Christians ardent proselytizers. Few here doubt that Christians prosyletize, but some Atheists may deny that they do. Atheists post on RF in the same numbers as Christians, though Christians outnumber Atheists many times over in the real world; and the tenor of their posts is generally dogmatic and evangelical.

There is another similarity between Christians and Atheists, which I have already mentioned: they both define themselves by their speculations concerning the existence and nature of God. In practice, not even the Jews do this. Though they proclaim themselves to be monotheists and reject the Trinity, they do not define "who is a Jew" by these terms. In fact, roughly half of American Jews doubt the existence of God.

Once more, referring to the OP, "Why is it always Atheism VS Christianity?", an answer that comes to my mind is,

"Because they're so much alike".
Click to expand...

So basically you're saying "no, the deification of the leaders and treating their ideologies as holy scripture is not religion but atheism is cuz i says so"?

Either that or you didn't even touch on the subject i brought up.

I am an Asheknazi Jew, i'd say it goes beyond "doubting" and i'd say it goes beyond half. Being an Atheist Jew i still adhere to some (well almost all) religious traditions and i do the same with other cultural or religious traditions where i see fit.
 
I

ImprobableBeing

Active Member
BlandOatmeal said:
There ARE no traits shared by all religions. Voodoo has no shared teachigs; Evangelical Christianity has no shared rituals; Hinduism has no shared organization, (as you say, "and so on"). Atheism and Christianity, on the other hand share more with one another than any two world religions.

Again, you need to think before posting.
Click to expand...


This is demonstrably false.

Atheism and theism are diametrically opposed positions that share nothing at all while all theists of all religions share at least one thing, the belief in god/s.

I still think you're not getting this, atheists only have one thing in common, the lack of belief in god/s, we have no worldview, we disagree on whether we have a soul, we disagree on all forms of politics, we disagree on an afterlife, we disagree on abiogenesis/panspermia/evolution/directed evolution/and pretty much EVERYTHING but one thing.

You think atheism is a belief system and that is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE.
 
Enai de a lukal

Enai de a lukal

Well-Known Member
BlandOatmeal said:
You forgot to think beforehand. What you wrote here is thoughtless, childish noise.
Click to expand...
This is an evasive non-response. Your lack of a cogent reply is telling- I guess you concede that "red herring" is not an insult nor an accusation of deception, and that you simply had no good reply so you substituted this twaddle instead.

BlandOatmeal said:
There ARE no traits shared by all religions. Voodoo has no shared teachigs; Evangelical Christianity has no shared rituals; Hinduism has no shared organization, (as you say, "and so on"). Atheism and Christianity, on the other hand share more with one another than any two world religions.

Again, you need to think before posting.
Click to expand...

And once again, you need to take your own advice. Not every religion has all of those traits- but some conjunction of them is characteristic of a religion as such (Wittgenstein's notion of "family resemblances" is extremely helpful here). The claim that atheism and Christianity are more similar than, say, Christianity and Judaism, or Christianity and Islam, is patently ludicrous, and doesn't require any rebuttal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
B

BlandOatmeal

Active Member
ImprobableBeing said:
This is demonstrably false.

Atheism and theism are diametrically opposed positions that share nothing at all while all theists of all religions share at least one thing, the belief in god/s.

I still think you're not getting this, atheists only have one thing in common, the lack of belief in god/s, we have no worldview, we disagree on whether we have a soul, we disagree on all forms of politics, we disagree on an afterlife, we disagree on abiogenesis/panspermia/evolution/directed evolution/and pretty much EVERYTHING but one thing.

You think atheism is a belief system and that is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE.
Click to expand...
Improbable,

You seem to be trying to obfuscate things, rather than come to an understanding. Granted, this is not a cut-and-dried matter. "Atheism", restricted to the sublimely estoteric definition of "not believing in gods", does not pertain to any group of people. It is an ELEMENT of religions, SEVERAL religions. When trying to describe "Atheists" as a GROUP, however, as the OP seems to be doing, it is describing a RELIGION that has atheism as its primary doctrine and doctrine as its primary identification.

You are either an Atheist or an Ashkenazi Jew. Which is it? Being Jewish does not preclude having atheist beliefs; but being Atheist precludes being part of any religion other than Atheism. So what are you? Are you an Atheist? or an Ashkenazi Jew. It seems to me that you could "pass" as either; but your heart can only be in one place or the other. Einstein was definitely Jewish in his heart, and his support for Israel showed this. There are many atheists who are bent on the destruction of Israel. Israel generously considers them "Jews", but in their hearts they are not. By the same token, the Roman Catholic church no doubt continues to keep me on their rolls because of my childhood baptism; but I am certainly not a Catholic at heart, and haven't attended Mass for some 45 years. In my theology, moreover, I am quite Jewish; but this does not make me Jewish.


The bottom line is, that the dividing lines are not as neatly black-and-white as you pretend they are. Concerning Atheism (the religion, not the speculation), there are actually two main varieties:
  • Western Atheism, founded in France in the late 18th Century, and
  • Confucian Atheism, with roots going back to East Asian history.
An excellent website describing these two religions is at:

Most atheists are not white & other non-fairy tales
By Razib Khan | November 18, 2010 2:46 am

These are not even different "sects" of Atheism; they are completely different religions. The one is rooted in Christianity (This is the one the OP is about); the other is rooted in Confucianism.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top