An idea occurred to me about the methods that religions use to proselytize the faith. More specifically, whom do they proselytize to? I am only diffusely aware of the general teaching of each specific faith, so I don't profess to be an expert or to have done any research to justify the observation I am going to make. I'm going to assert 3 observations as to what is the real threat to religion: 1.) In religious doctrine; people of an opposite faith are to be shunned or exterminated. The doctrinal assumption is that these people are already 'lost' and are considered enemies of your specific faith. 2.) Nonbelievers are a pool of undecideds that can be converted. These are what we would call the agnostics. They are the pawns in the religious game. They are generally proselytized to (in the old holy books), because they have not chosen a side yet. They are still resources that can be mobilized if proselytized to convincingly. 3.) The Nonbeliever movement (New Atheist Movement) effectively orientates itself as "a Religion" from the perspective of the religions. Taking the stance of "rationally prove it to me", obviously should look doctrinal to religion. The "New Atheist" have very specific methods for determining what they believe to be true, and the religious have very specific methods for what they believe to be true. When the "New Atheists" are challenged with other doctrines, they respond with arguments of their own doctrine and expect to be answers to fit in that paradigm, and vice versa. Conclusion: It should be easy to understand why modern day atheism is conflated with being a religion. It's because there are specific beliefs that an atheist uses to determine truth. The religious will of course determine that this is doctrinal. There is little threat to religious belief from the passive concept of agnosticism. They are a clean slate, awaiting God to bring them to the flock. But Atheism, is a doctrine that is in direct defiance of God. They have all sorts of doctrines to keep God out. Makes sense why the religious would claim atheism to be a religion.
1. There is a small percentage of predestination believers, but even they don't profess to know who is chosen. The Great Commission would not be possible if we shunned people of other faiths. That would be a direct contradiction of one of the most basic precepts of Christianity. 2. You make it sound so nefarious. You'll have to show me what part of being born again is so bad for someone. 3. I don't care much about all of that. Definitions and affiliations mean nothing. God knows our hearts.
You can't act like religion believes that it is not threatened. It's entire doctrine is forged in believing that it is under threat. Pick a religion and it will be true.
Atheists do not share any common stance or beliefs . Atheism is not a dogma because it does not dictate . A big chunk of agnostics simply don't care or don't need a god so it's existence or not is irrelevant . Heathens are a rather big group in the west and specifically in Europe with the appearance of *modern* paganism, they have consciously rejected monotheism. It is quite rare for Infidels to jump from another form of nonsense to the other . Not that it matters but proselytizing is illegal in Greece.
By your logic everyone would be religious because we are all guided "specific beliefs" that we use to "determine truth". How does one defy that which they believe does not even exist? What use is there in having a doctrine to keep out something that one does not believe even exists? I think Christians call atheism a religion because they know it gets under the skin of some atheists... which doesn't seem very Christian to me. I have a number of atheist friends and not a single one affiliates themselves with a religion, nor do they ever try to dissuade me from my Deistic belief... which is more than I can say for the Christians in my life.
Obviously I don't think atheism is a religion. When I usually see it said, I just reflexively ignore it as the absurdity it is. But I just decided to entertain the thought that if this is a legitimate argument, then what is the reasoning behind it? I've never heard one of them fully explain their reasoning behind the statement. But it might be as simple as you say, Christian trolling Atheists.
Why EVER would I CARE if it feels itself threatened? Let the Religious crash their waves against the shores of apathy borne of reason...without end.
Could you tell me what the atheist's doctrines are ? I'm an atheist (more of I-Don't-Care-ist) and all I need to be one is the fact that I don't believe in a god or gods. I do not belong to any organization or group or cult....
Religious people have rights and make laws. Make believe is cool until you start nominating Supreme Court Justices because of their empathy.
There is another thread that explores the topic. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=335932 I am not interested it what is, I am interested in why is. Assuming that this is not a tactic to agitate atheists, we have to assume that the religious have a rationale for saying that atheism is a religion. What is going through their heads that make them use a tactic that we just shrug and ignore, yet they find so very compelling?
Thread: The REAL threat to Religion. From what I can tell, the biggest threat to organized religion (here in the U.S. at least)....would be the followers of the faith. Vocal Christians in general, come off as unpleasant and holier than though...which drives many away from them and thus what they stand for rather than bring people in. Catholicism has pretty much destroyed its credibility through corruption and a seeming inability to adapt to the times. Islam is mostly seen as violent, backwards, and culturally dirty. None of "Big Three" have anything to offer the on the fence crowd but anger and hatred.
