I don't see any ''Lodgers'' actively going around trying to destroy other world views, or in the case of Dawkins, openly stating his agenda (to kill Christianity).
So when Coke tries to eliminate Pepsi, that makes it a religion? When Microsoft and Apple battle for supremacy, that's a religion?
Just because your faith is aggressive does not mean that aggression is a defining value of religion.
As for the 'Facebook' analogy... wtf?
It wasn't an analogy. I was demonstrating the error in your assertion that social groups are religions. If that were true, then Facebook would be a religion, since it fits your description.
My point is that modern atheism is definately asserting itself in every aspect of our lives, and vehemently trying to destroy every other creed that it deems unfit for the future of human beings. In this way it is most def, a religion, albeit a godless one. Alot of people regard themselves as religious, and purport a belief in God, but their lives don't reflect that, so while they are ''religious'', they don't actually believe in God.
You don't get to assert your own personal definition of the term "religion," for one. Secondly, this is a blatant mischaracterization of atheism. While people like Dawkins (and myself) would love to see superstition fall to the wayside, their complaints about religion are not in their existence, but in their insistence upon imposing themselves upon society.
I have talked to alot of people who make these claims, and when their actions are put on the table, they themselves realise that the amount of belief they actually have, is as good as none.
I honestly don't know what the point of this comment is.
Regarding some aspects of the religions of the world, I myself am atheist, in that (a) I don't believe in what they believe and (b) I think some are flat-out wrong. But my atheism is aimed at their belief system and alot of what it contains, not God, or to be more specific, the oneness of the character and personality of the supreme being we find in scriptures.
Again, you are asserting your own personal definitions of these words, and that's not going to fly. A Mormon is not an atheist as it relates to Catholicism. A Sunni is not an atheist as it relates to Shia. It could be said colloquially that one is an atheist "as it relates to" certain gods they don't believe in, but again, that's a colloquial application of the term (I believe Dawkins used it). It would be like calling yourself a rock star at work; you're not
really a rock star. At any rate, this wouldn't change the definition of the word, it would simply be a less-clear way for a theist to explain their beliefs.
Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. It's not a difference of opinion regarding holidays or the which kind of meat you can eat on a Friday.
IOW, ''atheism'' is alot more complicated than we give it credit for, as is ''theism''. And unless we can strip everything down, all conclusions are subjective.
You make it more complicated than it is by expanding it's definition beyond it's
actual definition.
The thing is, theists can feel comfortable in the presence religions different to their own. The feeling of discomfort is usually of a social, political, racial, and material making. The Christian who says ''if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your personal saviour'' you are going directly to Hell, is not making a God-based statement, it is a statement he has learned from his religion/group, and so, will come up against hostility if he is amongst a group of muslims.
That's right form the Bible, so how isn't it a God-based statement? And anyway, I thought you meant "feel at home" in an intellectual sense. If you're talking simply in a social sense, it's absurd to say that an atheist couldn't feel at home around religious people. My mother's religion, and I certainly don't feel uncomfortable around her. And the bigwigs you like to trash (Dawkins, Hitchens, et al) each have deeply personal friendships with not only religious people, but religious leaders.
One only has to read the same scripture he claims to basing the statement off, to realise that is not what it says, and what it does say is NOT offensive to anyone, let alone muslims, who honour Jesus Christ.
Nonsense. It is made quite clear in the Bible that if you do not follow Jesus, you're going to hell.
There's a difference between ''modern atheism'', and ''atheist''.
A real atheist may tap into ''atheism'' if he is required to give a reason for his views. But otherwise doesn't give a toss. As far as he is concerned he is just going to live is life how he wants to, only paying respect to the law, social etiquette and customs, trying
Again, these are stipulations of your own invention. For example, the "atheist who doesn't give a toss" can exist today, so why do you define the proactive atheist as "modern?" Makes no sense. And being a proactive atheist doesn't preclude you from living your life, paying respect to the law and social etiquette. I think if there's one thing a vocal atheist might do differently is ask why faith--which imposes itself upon society regardless of what a person believes--is immune to criticism, and given respect. Questioning these norms does not mean that atheists therefore call babies ugly and ask women their age.
You don't know what the evidence of God, is, and as such are just using that as a reason for your position (whatever that may be).
There
is no evidence of God. None.
What's laughable about your claim here--and the accusations of theists in general--is that theists, who pride themselves in their faith being strong enough to withstand any argument, are accusing atheists, who have arrived at this intellectual position through reason, of having faith. It's absurd.
No. Read the question again.
jan.
No, I read the question. If you meant something other than what you wrote, by all means, clarify.
