What is Christian?

[Ghotty]

What must you do to be a christian?

I believe in the Lord, I believe Jesus is the son of god, and died for my sins. Well, I try to, atleast. Doubt is there.

I live a sin-filled life. But do the things I do for others account? Helping those in need, trying to be honest person?

[Eliahad]

Well when you start off with such a broad label, uh, the answer to all of your questions is 'depends'

[Ghotty]

Well, it's an attempt at having some kind of nice discussion about something. I dunno, shoot me.

[mrmooky]

I guess the broadest definition of "Christian" would be a follower of Christ. You could be one of those without necessarily believing in the resurrection, or that Jesus was the Son of God. You could just agree with a lot of the things he said and try to live by those precepts.

[Crazy Elf]

Oh fuck. You've asked a biggie. But in the vein of attempting to resurect Bulldrek, it should be answered.

Let's quote:

I believe in the Lord, I believe Jesus is the son of god, and died for my sins. Well, I try to, atleast. Doubt is there.

Cool, all fits into the Christian category. Faith is a hard thing to gain and be solid in, but you'll find that a lot of people who claim the Christian title don't necessarily have faith. You've got it down to being a thing of belief rather than birth. Many will claim that they are Catholic because they were baptised as a kid, even though they don't believe in Jesus and don't undertake any Christian practice.

I live a sin-filled life. But do the things I do for others account? Helping those in need, trying to be honest person?

Well sure, those things do count, but the whole "sin-filled life" part doesn't sound very Christian as such. One of the core underlying tenants of Christianity is to live your life in the vein of Jesus, which wouldn't lead to a sin-filled life. Let's hit scripture. I figure that's where you're going to get the best idea of what a Christian is:

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus

To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

This fucks up a lot of people, simply because the large majority of people claiming to be Christian fall well short of that mark. Church leaders say a lot of things that are very anti-Christian, and world leaders claiming Christianity are often blowing the shit out of countries. Persecution is undertaken, and then the Bible is used to justify it.

That's is very anti-Christian. False witness is one of the things that actually pissed Jesus off big time:

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

He goes on until verse 33.

If you're trying to live like Jesus, then you're heading toward a more Christian life. If you're not, then I question your beliefs and wonder why you lay claim to the title of Christian.

Also, another point, to be a Christian there is the aspect of rebirth:

Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart. For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.

He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him."

In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."

"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"

Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

Without the rebirth of spirit, you're not living a Christian life. You may be making steps to it, though. It's sort of hard to define, as there's a whole bunch of different views on it. Some say it's baptism, some say it's a personal revelation, but it's agreed that it must take place in order for you to walk in a Christian manner.

I guess the broadest definition of "Christian" would be a follower of Christ. You could be one of those without necessarily believing in the resurrection, or that Jesus was the Son of God. You could just agree with a lot of the things he said and try to live by those precepts.

Yes and no. If you don't believe in the resurrection and all that, you're not a Christian, you're just living by a series of principles that Jesus lived by. In many aspects you'd be more Christian than a lot if not most Christians, but you couldn't really claim the title completely. How can you be a follower of Christ if you don't believe he was the Son of God?

Okay, now let's do what Bulldrek does.

[Ghotty]

Thats my problem.

See, I like god. I like Jesus. I just really suck at not being a sinner.

I'm helpful to other people. I'm tolerant of other lifestyles. I've turned the other cheek. I try to be honest. I try not to blaspheme. I try to respect my mother(pops is dead, so it's easier). I don't covet too much of my neighbors stuff or wives.

But I still haven't had that epiphany. That moment of truth. When's it happen?

[Crazy Elf]

Can't answer that one for you, Bone. It's an entirely personal experience, and many in the community will debate that it's your psychology playing tricks on you. Still, about as close to Biblical as you can get on when is this:

And ye shall seek me, and find me when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

Seek and ye shall find as they say.

[WillyGilligan]

And it will definitely be in the last place you look.

[Ghotty]

The last person I expected to be helping me with my christianity is CE...

[Crazy Elf]

*shrugs*

Mysterious ways.

[Ghotty]

Why is it Science and religion are so often at loggerheads?

[WillyGilligan]

Religion says that we know everything we need to know and science keeps digging.

[Ghotty]

Care to substantiate that in any way?

I don't find my religion and science to be at odds too much. Except for little things like the universe was created by no outside force, and that god doesn't exist.

[Cain]

Religion and science aren't at loggerheads. It's religous people and scientists who can't agree with each other.

[Crazy Elf]

It's religous people and scientists who can't agree with each other.

I'd say that it's fundamentalists on both sides.

[Marius]

I'm not certain what exactly the notion of "fundamentalist scientist" would refer to.

[Ghotty]

Marius, I imagine a fundamentalist scientiest is someone who believes that there is no god, and attacks those who believe in a god. A radical distaste of religion(not just organized religion).

I'm kinda thinkin' someone like Three-Two.

[Marius]

I don't really see what that has to do with science. That sounds like a radical athiest, who may or may not be scientific.

[Cain]

I'm not certain what exactly the notion of "fundamentalist scientist" would refer to.

Stephen Jay Gould comes immediately to mind. I mean, the guy knew his stuff, but he was also an arrogant loudmouth who never knew when to leave well enough alone. Even other evolutionary biologists held the opinion that Gould let politics color his science.

For example:

“Our creationist detractors charge that evolution is an unproved and unprovable charade—a secular religion masquerading as science. They claim, above all, that evolution generates no predictions, never exposes itself to test, and therefore stands as dogma rather than disprovable science. This claim is nonsense. We make and test risky predictions all the time; our success is not dogma, but a highly probable indication of evolution's basic truth.”

[Ghotty]

Doesn't look too fundamental.

[JongWK]

Thats my problem.

See, I like god. I like Jesus. I just really suck at not being a sinner.

I'm helpful to other people. I'm tolerant of other lifestyles. I've turned the other cheek. I try to be honest. I try not to blaspheme. I try to respect my mother(pops is dead, so it's easier). I don't covet too much of my neighbors stuff or wives.

But I still haven't had that epiphany. That moment of truth. When's it happen?

I don't think Christianity, in any of its variants, asks you to *be* Jesus, they just want you to try following his steps, getting up no matter how many times you fall. Judas condemned himself by believing he was beyond redemption.

To put it in one way, the journey matters as much as the destination.


(I might be full of bullshit, mind you. I know I have faith issues)

[Crazy Elf]

I'm not certain what exactly the notion of "fundamentalist scientist" would refer to.

Someone who thinks that science is the be all and end all of existence, and that there is no world outside of the realms of science. George Ellis is articulate on the subject. Check out this essay, in particular "4 The key issue of fundamentalism".

[3278]

That guy's a total idiot, and not just because I think his views are ridiculous.

[Crazy Elf]

I don't think I could ever call George Ellis a complete idiot.

[Marius]

I might.

I mean, really, I don't like to boast, and I don't know that anyone's ever actually seen me post "hey, I'm pretty smart."

But I am pretty smart. I'm not going to put money down on it, but I'd feel pretty confident saying that I'm smarter than George Ellis, conspicuous "Fellow of the Third World Academy of Science."

And Earl's smarter than I am.

[Cain]

That guy's a total idiot, and not just because I think his views are ridiculous.

That's not a useful statement. *Why* do you think his views are so wrong?

[Crazy Elf]

Well you two can claim to be as smart as you like, but for all your intelligence I don't believe either of you has worked with Stephen Hawking, or done any of this:

· NRF A1-rating
· Fellow and Past President of the Royal Society of South Africa (RSSA)
· Member and past member of Council of Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf)
· Past President of the International Society for General Relativity and Gravitation (Berne).
· Fellow of the University of Cape Town.
· Honorary Degrees: Haverford College, Natal University, London University (Queen Mary)
· Herschel Medal (RSSA), Achievement Award (Claude Harris Leon Foundation), Gold Medal (S2A3), Medal (S A Mathematical Society)
· Member of the drafting team of the DACST Green Paper on Science and Technology, which then lead to the White Paper.
· Members of African Institute of Mathematical sciences (AIMS) Advisory Board
· Past Member of the InterAcademy Council (Amsterdam), representing ASSAf.
· Star of South Africa Medal presented by President Nelson Mandela.
· 2004 Templeton Prize winner
· Fellow of the Third World Academy of Science
· NSTF 2004 award for an individual contribution to Science and Technology over a lifetime.

But hey, claim intellectual superiority if you want.

[AtemHutlrt]

I've always thought I'm a damn bit funnier than Jim Carrey, but, come to think of it, I didn't star in Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls. Now I don't know what to believe.

[Anguirel]

"Fellow of the Third World Academy of Science."

South Africa, at least the white part he's from, is not Third World in any sense. He's also been professor in London, Chicago, Boston, and several other places...

[3278]

That guy's a total idiot, and not just because I think his views are ridiculous.

That's not a useful statement. *Why* do you think his views are so wrong?

Because he's continually redefining words - like fundamentalism - and making absurd and axiomatically untrue statements like, "Atheism is a religion just as much as say Christianity, as it is an unprovable belief system claming to clarify the meaning of life."

I don't see a great utility in engaging in a point-by-point refutation of the ridiculousness of many of his views - and let's be clear that I don't find all of his views to be ridiculous - but if you feel like engaging in a point-by-point defense of them, please, be my guest. I submit it'd be a huge waste of time, personally.

[Cain]

Because he's continually redefining words - like fundamentalism - and making absurd and axiomatically untrue statements like, "Atheism is a religion just as much as say Christianity, as it is an unprovable belief system claming to clarify the meaning of life."

Actually, his definition of fundamentalism isn't that far from the dictionary definition: "A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism."

As far as atheism goes, he is correct. Leaving aside the philosophical implications, atheism is the religious belief that there is no "higher power". It is a matter of doctrine, not objective evidence-- we can't even agree on the nature of "God", so we can't formulate a scientific method of testing his/her/it's existance.

Most atheists *hate* having this pointed out to them-- that their views are as much based on faith as any "believer". But the best science can do is tell us that a "higher power" may not be necessary for the development of the universe as we know it. That does not preclude the existance of such a being, however.

Now, I don't exactly believe in "god"-- or goddess, or gods, or anything else along those lines. However, I'm willing to admit the truth: that, ultimately, these beliefs are just that-- beliefs. I don't have some special knowledge of how the cosmos works, nor do I have the arrogance to suppose that I can comprehend the complexity of existance.

It is the height of intellectual dishonesty and self-delusion to assume that you have any special understanding of the nature of the universe. It doesn't matter if it's a fundamentalist Christian, an extreme Islamist, or a rabid atheist-- they are all equally unreasoning, dogmatic individuals, who refuse to consider anything outside their preconcieved notions.

[Marius]

Leaving aside the philosophical implications, atheism is the religious belief that there is no "higher power".

Hmm, yes. In exactly the same way my belief that there are no sentient extraterrestrial life forms in the trunk of your car is a religious belief.

[3278]

Because he's continually redefining words - like fundamentalism - and making absurd and axiomatically untrue statements like, "Atheism is a religion just as much as say Christianity, as it is an unprovable belief system claming to clarify the meaning of life."

Actually, his definition of fundamentalism isn't that far from the dictionary definition: "A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism."

Except that's nothing like his definition at all. That definition is what fundamentalism is; his definition is self-serving and revisionist.

As far as atheism goes, he is correct.

He's not. Atheism is, by definition, not a religion. [How many times have we been through this?] And if it is "an unprovable belief system claming to clarify the meaning of life," then so are taoism, humanism, and believing ET's not in your trunk, none of which are religious beliefs, except under a seriously revisionist definition. Using the dictionary definition, those things could only be considered religious under the 4th definition, which is also the figurative one. None of those definitions are "an unprovable belief system claming to clarify the meaning of life."

Leaving aside the philosophical implications, atheism is the religious belief that there is no "higher power".

By definition, that's not "religious." It might be believed in "religiously" - see definition 4 - but it's not religious.

Most atheists *hate* having this pointed out to them-- that their views are as much based on faith as any "believer".

This grouping of atheists in one pot and then assuming they're mostly "hard atheists" is ridiculous. Do you have any proof of that?

But the best science can do is tell us that a "higher power" may not be necessary for the development of the universe as we know it. That does not preclude the existance of such a being, however.

Yeah, we know. That's why we're "soft atheists."

[Salvation122]

As far as atheism goes, he is correct.

He's not. Atheism is, by definition, not a religion. [How many times have we been through this?]

Three.

[Crazy Elf]

Hmm, yes. In exactly the same way my belief that there are no sentient extraterrestrial life forms in the trunk of your car is a religious belief.

Although a fair simile to play in relation to the categorisation of religious belief, this is a preposterous analogy to draw in comparison to the existence of God. I can see that any debate on religion is going to get bogged down with this sort of thing.

That definition is what fundamentalism is; his definition is self-serving and revisionist.

His definition is to coin a new term of phrase that works. What Ellis is calling science fundamentalism is in exitance. If you don't like the semantics, then okay, but you can't dispute what he's claiming to be evident isn't.

He's not. Atheism is, by definition, not a religion.

But you still have to take hard atheism on faith, religion or no. Agreed on that at least?

[Cain]

Atheism is, by definition, not a religion. [How many times have we been through this?] And if it is "an unprovable belief system claming to clarify the meaning of life," then so are taoism, humanism, and believing ET's not in your trunk, none of which are religious beliefs, except under a seriously revisionist definition. Using the dictionary definition, those things could only be considered religious under the 4th definition, which is also the figurative one. None of those definitions are "an unprovable belief system claming to clarify the meaning of life."

Both definitions 3 and 4 apply to atheism; just look at the cult of personality that Madeline Murray built up. Atheism clearly suggests certain beliefs, values, and practices, all predicated on the nonexistance of a higher being. Definition 2 can also apply, since certain athiest organizations are equivalent to secular "religious orders".

In any event, you're just being pedantic to avoid the topic at hand. An atheist is one who holds the religious belief that there is no "higher power", agreed?

Hmm, yes. In exactly the same way my belief that there are no sentient extraterrestrial life forms in the trunk of your car is a religious belief.

Wrong. That is an objectively testable statement, not a belief. Note that while certain religions might make statements that are actually objectively testable, the overall existance of a "higher power" isn't one of them.

[Marius]

Wrong. That is an objectively testable statement, not a belief. Note that while certain religions might make statements that are actually objectively testable, the overall existance of a "higher power" isn't one of them.

No, it's not objectively testable. First of all, I don't even know where your car is parked. Second, even if I did, exactly like in the case of god my failure to observe a sentient extraterrestrial life form fails to prove the nonexistence of one.

It is also a belief. I believe that there are no sentient aliens in your car just as much as I believe there are no invisible monsters under the bed of the Prime Minister of Japan, and just as I believe that there is no god. I have exactly the same amount of rigorous proof-worthy evidence for the nonexistence of each of these things.

[Marius]

Although a fair simile to play in relation to the categorisation of religious belief, this is a preposterous analogy to draw in comparison to the existence of God. I can see that any debate on religion is going to get bogged down with this sort of thing.

Of course I meant it in relation to the categorisation of beliefs. But then, I don't think it's particularly preposterous. In fact, based on any reasonable evidence I can think of, I find the idea of sentient extraterrestrials a vast stretch more likely than that of omnipotent supernaturals. Although I admit it's hard to imagine why either one would be in Cain's car.

[Marius]

Both definitions 3 and 4 apply to atheism; just look at the cult of personality that Madeline Murray built up. Atheism clearly suggests certain beliefs, values, and practices, all predicated on the nonexistance of a higher being. Definition 2 can also apply, since certain athiest organizations are equivalent to secular "religious orders".

Definition four could apply, but as has been noted it is not a substantive definition and is merely included as a figurative usage.

Definition three could not possibly apply without silly overreaching. You can't arbitrarily redefine 'atheism' as "Anne Murray's Atheism," or whatever the fuck. We're talking about atheism, the disbelief or denial in the existence of god or gods, not the Church of the Enlightened Friends of Michael Newdow.

Definition two cannot apply at all without begging the question and using a disastrously circular argument all at once.

[Crazy Elf]

In fact, based on any reasonable evidence I can think of, I find the idea of sentient extraterrestrials a vast stretch more likely than that of omnipotent supernaturals.

Depends entirely on how you define God. If you want to focus on only the silly definitions then I guess it would be. If you want to look at what people who think about it have to say, then you may have a little more trouble. If you want to then talk to people who've had a numinous experience then it gets harder again, and when you yourself have had one you end up having to take it on faith.

[3278]

That definition is what fundamentalism is; his definition is self-serving and revisionist.

His definition is to coin a new term of phrase that works. What Ellis is calling science fundamentalism is in exitance. If you don't like the semantics, then okay, but you can't dispute what he's claiming to be evident isn't.

I can and I do. Of course, since he's not calling "science fundamentalism is in exitance," that doesn't matter much. No, I don't like his revisionist semantics; yes, I acknowledge that some scientists are fundamentalists. Science, however, is not, nor are the majority of scientists, any more than the majority of theists are fundamentalists.

Personally, I don't find anything wrong with fundamentalism in religion, although in science I feel it's obstructive to the basic nature of science.

He's not. Atheism is, by definition, not a religion.

But you still have to take hard atheism on faith, religion or no. Agreed on that at least?

Hard atheism is a completely logically untenable position that must be accepted on faith alone, correct. It has no more to defend itself than Christianity, save for some arguments about likelihoods, any of which can fall prey to simple application of nihilism.

[3278]

Both definitions 3 and 4 apply to atheism; just look at the cult of personality that Madeline Murray built up.

4 can apply to certain atheists, but does not apply necessarily to atheism. I'm an atheist, for example, and I don't pursue that with any real zeal, although I once did. But it's not an absolute characteristic of the belief - which is, really, a lack of belief - any more than disbelief of ET in the trunk is automatically zealous.

3 doesn't apply at all. Atheism is inherently not applicable to spiritualism. Madeline Murray O'Hare isn't spiritual, and she certainly isn't "atheism."

Atheism clearly suggests certain beliefs, values, and practices, all predicated on the nonexistance of a higher being.

No. It's a lack of belief in a thing, not an active belief in the absence of a thing. It doesn't suggest beliefs, values or practices, except to suggest a lack of reason for beliefs, values, or practices predicated on theism.

Definition 2 can also apply, since certain athiest organizations are equivalent to secular "religious orders".

2 does not apply, because atheist groups are not religious orders. One could say they are "like" religious orders, and from that be able to accurately say, "some atheists group together in religious-like groups," but that wouldn't say anything about atheism, and wouldn't apply to many atheists, and still wouldn't make them "religious," except in such a way that sometimes some of them get together.

An atheist is one who holds the religious belief that there is no "higher power", agreed?

No. An atheist is one who believes there is no higher power. It's not a religious belief, but rather the absence of one.

Hmm, yes. In exactly the same way my belief that there are no sentient extraterrestrial life forms in the trunk of your car is a religious belief.

Wrong. That is an objectively testable statement, not a belief.

But it's an /invisible/ alien.

Note that while certain religions might make statements that are actually objectively testable, the overall existance of a "higher power" isn't one of them.

Actually, it sometimes is. Many faiths contain action-reaction conditions, such as, "Pray for something and you get it," which can be objectively disproven. The problem is that people's faith blinds them to the possibility when it's show to them, and then the proof is handwaved and rationalized by saying things like, "God does strange things." But as an overall rule, I agree that the notion of a higher power can easily be excluded from objective testing by simply thinking of esoteric conditions for their existence, much like saying, "It's an /invisible/ alien."

[Crazy Elf]

No, I don't like his revisionist semantics;

I don't like the term, "It's all good", but some things you just have to live with.

I acknowledge that some scientists are fundamentalists.

Then we're on the same page. I agree that some scientists are fundamentalists also, but don't believe all of them to be. Ellis was used as clarification on a term.

It has no more to defend itself than Christianity

Careful. It's easy to dismiss Christianity, but it does come with a wide range of personal numinous experiences, as well as healings both physiological and psychological. So do other religions. It's hard to say that hard atheism is on the same level of evidence. You can attempt to discount all those happenings as rubbish, but it's still a whole bunch of extra levels that need to be discounted first.

[3278]

Careful. It's easy to dismiss Christianity, but it does come with a wide range of personal numinous experiences, as well as healings both physiological and psychological. So do other religions. It's hard to say that hard atheism is on the same level of evidence. You can attempt to discount all those happenings as rubbish, but it's still a whole bunch of extra levels that need to be discounted first.

Absolutely. I was speaking from a purely logical perspective, and not a real-world one. It is certainly true that the high incidence of numinous phenomena worldwide does require some degree of explanation or justification before one could even logically embrace atheism.

[Cain]

No, it's not objectively testable. First of all, I don't even know where your car is parked. Second, even if I did, exactly like in the case of god my failure to observe a sentient extraterrestrial life form fails to prove the nonexistence of one.

"Objectively testable" means that an experiment can be designed, not that it's practical to conduct. That's why many things about human physiology are still theoretical-- ethcially, we're not permitted to run certain experiments. Similarily, black hole theory is objectively testable, even though we have yet to actually experiment on a black hole.

Definition three could not possibly apply without silly overreaching. You can't arbitrarily redefine 'atheism' as "Anne Murray's Atheism," or whatever the fuck. We're talking about atheism, the disbelief or denial in the existence of god or gods, not the Church of the Enlightened Friends of Michael Newdow.

Why not? You're lumping Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, and Seventh-Day Adventists under "all Christians". Definition three applies to distinct groups, which athiesm definitely has.

Definition two cannot apply at all without begging the question and using a disastrously circular argument all at once.

It can, if you allow for equivalents. I mean, if it quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it might just be a duck, even if it claims it's a lion.

[Marius]

"Objectively testable" means that an experiment can be designed, not that it's practical to conduct.

Thank you, I'm aware of what it means. I'm also aware that it's impossible to design an experiment that will me to prove there are no sentient extraterrestrials in the trunk of a particular car, the location of which (and the existence of it, really) is totally unknown to me.

Why not? You're lumping Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, and Seventh-Day Adventists under "all Christians". Definition three applies to distinct groups, which athiesm definitely has.

We may or may not be lumping all those groups into Christians, and whether we are or not is completely immaterial. The overarching category of Christianity specifically and definitively includes only religions. In fact, every theist dictum is definitively a religion. Atheism as a category is no such thing. If some atheists make a religion of atheism, then they have made an atheistic religion. But that does not make all atheism a religion, nor atheism a class of religions.

It can, if you allow for equivalents. I mean, if it quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it might just be a duck, even if it claims it's a lion.

No, it cannot, and your equivalence nonsense isn't going to change that. You're trying to claim the following: "Atheism is a religion because it meets definition 4, in that 'Atheism' describes the life or condition of a member of a religious order." That's only true if athiesm is a religious order. Totally begging the question. Totally circular reasoning.

"Well, it quacks like a religious order."

No, it bloody does not! It's clear that it doesn't meet any of the definitions of religion. It is not a religion, much less a religious order, and it quacks not at all.

[Cain]

3 doesn't apply at all. Atheism is inherently not applicable to spiritualism. Madeline Murray O'Hare isn't spiritual, and she certainly isn't "atheism."

As I pointed out to Marius, 3 doesn't apply to all Christians, either. There are many subsects, all of which acknowledge different persons as their "spiritual leader". Atheism is inherently applicable to spiritualism, albeint in a negative fashion. Madeline Murray O'Hare is an example of a "spiritual leader" within atheism, just like the Pope is an example of a spiritual leader within Christianity.

No. It's a lack of belief in a thing, not an active belief in the absence of a thing. It doesn't suggest beliefs, values or practices, except to suggest a lack of reason for beliefs, values, or practices predicated on theism.

Oh, atheism-- at least as practiced by some people-- definitely suggests certain practices and beliefs. For example, remember that flap last year about the "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Atheism, as practiced by Newdow, certainly suggests that hearing "Under God" daily is detrimental to his daughter.

Now, you're going to try and argue that this doesn't apply to all atheists. So what? It doesn't apply to all religious people, either. All Christians don't have to agree on a thing to make their beliefs religious in nature.

No. An atheist is one who believes there is no higher power. It's not a religious belief, but rather the absence of one.

A negative interger is still an interger. An absence of belief means you haven't considered the question in any fashion. You're describing a negative response, not a nonexistant one.

Actually, it sometimes is. Many faiths contain action-reaction conditions, such as, "Pray for something and you get it," which can be objectively disproven. The problem is that people's faith blinds them to the possibility when it's show to them, and then the proof is handwaved and rationalized by saying things like, "God does strange things." But as an overall rule, I agree that the notion of a higher power can easily be excluded from objective testing by simply thinking of esoteric conditions for their existence, much like saying, "It's an /invisible/ alien."

I wouldn't quite go that far, but I get what you're saying. Still, I'd say that applies more to specific religions, and not the Theism in general.

However, the argument against the objective testing for a higher power comes from an inability to define exactly what said higher power is supposed to be. It might be a simple as a metaphor for existance: the concept of a supreme guiding intelligence as a starting point for understanding the universe. Stephen Hawking said as much, in A Brief History of Time, when he was describing the concept of Unified Field Theory: "If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason--for then we would know the mind of God."

[Marius]

Atheism, as practiced by Newdow, certainly suggests that hearing "Under God" daily is detrimental to his daughter.

It's not atheism which suggests that. It's Newdow's particular understanding of cognitive psychology and a queer morality that has nothing - in any definitive sense - to do with athiesm. He happens to think that it's bad to convince children of the existence of things that aren't real. That ethical rule is fully indpendent of his belief that God isn't real. The word "atheism" describes only his belief about God, not any ethical conclusions he draws from it. Unless what you're really talking about is the Church of the Invisible Green Enlightened Friends of Michael Newdow's Blue Right Testicle, which as I understand it holds services in your spare tire.

[Crazy Elf]

Absolutely. I was speaking from a purely logical perspective, and not a real-world one. It is certainly true that the high incidence of numinous phenomena worldwide does require some degree of explanation or justification before one could even logically embrace atheism.

I take it that your views are somewhat atheistic, although I'm not entirely sure on the extent of them. What then is your take on numinous experience?

[Cain]

I'm also aware that it's impossible to design an experiment that will me to prove there are no sentient extraterrestrials in the trunk of a particular car, the location of which (and the existence of it, really) is totally unknown to me.

Easily done. Simply check, by visual and tactile inspection, the trunk of every car in the world. The experiment is impractical, to be sure-- but it is objectively testable. Since the experiment can be performed, despite the impractibility, it becomes objective.

The overarching category of Christianity specifically and definitively includes only religions. In fact, every theist dictum is definitively a religion. Atheism as a category is no such thing. If some atheists make a religion of atheism, then they have made an atheistic religion. But that does not make all atheism a religion, nor atheism a class of religions.

Then by that definition, all Christianity is not a religion-- certain people do follow Christ's teachings as a moral code, but reject any of the spiritual elements. Atheism, as a category, makes a theist dictum-- namely, that there is no supreme being. Again, a negative interger is still an interger; a statement that dictates that there is no god is still a theist dictum.

You're trying to claim the following: "Atheism is a religion because it meets definition 4, in that 'Atheism' describes the life or condition of a member of a religious order."

You just said that some athiests "make a religion out of atheism". Said people form organizations to spread their word, and act in very similar ways to religious organizations. Therefore, definition 4 applies.

It's not atheism which suggests that. It's Newdow's particular understanding of cognitive psychology and a queer morality that has nothing - in any definitive sense - to do with athiesm. He happens to think that it's bad to convince children of the existence of things that aren't real. That ethical rule is fully indpendent of his belief that God isn't real.

Wrong. In Newdow's case, he argued for an exception based on religious grounds-- namely, that saying "Under God" impinged on his (and his daughter's) religious freedom. His arguments were basically centered on the thought that his daughter shouldn't be exposed to anything contrary to his views-- similar to the way Kansas schools tried to stop the teaching of evolution. You can look up the transcript yourself. Let me cite p30, lines 18-21:

But the Government is not allowed to take a position on that. Government is saying there's a God. Certainly the child doesn't have to affirm that if there weren't the coercion we see in --"

Or on p 40-41, lines 22+:

And here, I want to be able to tell my child that I have a very valid religious belief system. Go to church with your mother, go see Buddhists, do anything you want. I love that-- the idea that she's being exposed to other things, but I want my religious belief system to be given the same weight as everybody else's. And the Government comes in here and says, no, Newdow, your religious belief system is wrong and the mother's is right and anyone else who believes in God is right, and this Court--

Newdow's testamony makes frequent references to the Establishment clause and the First Amendment; his main argument was made on religious grounds. So, we see that his case was entirely based on his personal religious views, which happen to be atheistic. Further, his beliefs are what leads him to conclude that certain beliefs and values are desireable.

What's more, he flat-out admits that his atheistic views constitute a "religious belief system". And, the Supreme Court justices accept this view without hesitation. So, in the eyes of our court system, atheism is a religion. That may or may not sway you; but that's how our legal system views it.