Atheism Is a Religion, And Here Is Why

Musicmaster

Musicmaster

A man by the name Ninian Smart (no pun intended) found that atheism, contrary to the declarations of many who lay claim to being atheists, is indeed a branch of religion among many!

He codified seven dimensions of functionality and belief that define religion, and those are:

Ritual
Experiential (emotional)
Mythological (narrative)
Doctrinal (philosophical)
Ethical (legal)
Institutional (social)
Material

The armchair "scholar" among atheists, as stated earlier, flatly deny that their beliefs fall within the ream of "religion," even though they do indeed dabble in at least six of the seven dimensional identifiers of what constitutes falling under the defining parameters of their beliefs being a religion.


For more information, you can read a bot more on each "dimension" at the following, and then share your thoughts here:

www.understandingreligion.org.uk

Seven Dimensions of Religion

The seven dimensions of religion are a framework for exploring and understanding religion, developed by the Scottish scholar of religion, Ninian Smart.
www.understandingreligion.org.uk www.understandingreligion.org.uk

MM
 
Last edited:
As we observe, all across this earth, the culmination of so many prophecies concerning the end times, one of those prophecies specifically mentions the "increase in knowledge."

Daniel 12:4 "But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end; many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.

Ok, so actually, there are two items in the above verse:

1) "...many shall run to and fro..."

This speaks to the massive world-wide travel that far surpasses travel on ships and horse, which kept most from traveling in the sense of the ancient expression of "to and fro." Planes and jets have GREATLY facilitated the fulfillment of that prophecy more than any other technology through all of time.

2) "...knowledge shall increase."

An up-side to this element of what Daniel wrote are all the benefits to reduce suffering and provide means for solving complex problems. The backlash, which in this case is a good thing as well, is the resulting increase in knowledge...specifically in the field of science whereby the ignorant and silly belief from the 18th and 19th centuries the theory of evolution.

It's fascinating that with the advent of greater knowledge, Neo-Darwinism has collapsed as the foolish construct that it always was, and so has origin of life theorists scrambling to try and come up with some plausible explanation how non-complexity brought about complexity. They are racing to try and come up with an explanation that seemingly describes that magical force that nobody has yet discovered that injects the needed information to form not only the simple proteins, lipids, sugars, etc., and THEN combines those molecules into the complex structures of larger molecules necessary to THEN form, in the proper and exact sequences, all the parts of a living cell...not to mention the 3.4 billion letter word we know of as the DNA.

Atheists are seeing more and more that their "pet doctrines" are dying off one after another what once swelled their chests with pride, in that nobody could formerly shine a bright enough light of critical thought upon their foolishness with enough credibility to shake the foundations of the atheistic religion! They are in a panic. Already, some are coming up with some fantastic and even more foolish theories, none of which can be tested in a lab without them cheating by injecting information, which yet again proves intelligent design!

Amen

MM
 
Hello Musicmaster;

When I turned 14 years old and for the next 54 years I was capable of learning about human personalities who made a positive or negative impact in my life. I never once heard of Ninian Smart but I had heard of Jesus Christ who reached my ears at an early age, stayed and grew with me to where I am today.

I did a search on Ninian and he was blessed with his wife Libushka of 46 years, they raised 4 children and had 8 grandchildren. With all his years of (defining or not defining) atheism, his seven dimensions, studies of the ologies, proclaiming his belief as Buddhist / Episcopalian, and Ninian and Libushka being married by Sun Myung Moon, I could not find one mention of Jesus Christ, or sharing the Gospel.

Aside from Ninian's lifetime theory, I arrive at atheism as non-belief in gods but with questions.

Let's say a group of people who believe only in mother nature as their god (worshiping the trees, rain, sun, etc...) does this qualify them as a religion? Then under the same example, would atheism's non-belief in gods be considered a religion?

God bless you, MM, and thank you for sharing.

Bob
 
I've always considered atheism like a religion since its adherents claim to believe in the non-existence of God. True atheism is agnosticism since they at least admit to not knowing.
 
bobinfaith said:
Hello Musicmaster;

When I turned 14 years old and for the next 54 years I was capable of learning about human personalities who made a positive or negative impact in my life. I never once heard of Ninian Smart but I had heard of Jesus Christ who reached my ears at an early age, stayed and grew with me to where I am today.

I did a search on Ninian and he was blessed with his wife Libushka of 46 years, they raised 4 children and had 8 grandchildren. With all his years of (defining or not defining) atheism, his seven dimensions, studies of the ologies, proclaiming his belief as Buddhist / Episcopalian, and Ninian and Libushka being married by Sun Myung Moon, I could not find one mention of Jesus Christ, or sharing the Gospel.

Aside from Ninian's lifetime theory, I arrive at atheism as non-belief in gods but with questions.

Let's say a group of people who believe only in mother nature as their god (worshiping the trees, rain, sun, etc...) does this qualify them as a religion? Then under the same example, would atheism's non-belief in gods be considered a religion?

God bless you, MM, and thank you for sharing.

Bob
Click to expand...

Bob, where it's true that most people tend to believe that the prime qualification for anything being classified as a religion must involve a belief in a deity, that is fallacious.

Very simply, in the nut shell, belief in the existence of a Deity one cannot prove the existence of "scientifically" has the same, equal impossibilities for proof as saying that there is not a Deity in existence. In other words, one would have to have Deific powers to scour every particle of the universe and beyond to prove "scientifically" that there is no Deity.

What this leads us to, then, is that the claim that the classification for religious belief goes only in one direction, that is intellectual dishonesty when we consider the amount of power it would take to go in either direction.

The Lord did not ever demand that we prove Him on the grounds of science. That's an arbitrary and subjective demand concocted in the minds of those who know already that science was never geared toward proving anything beyond its own limitations. The Lord stated very simply that by observing the creation all around us is sufficient evidence, and the majority who refuse to accept that level of proof are fools.

So, dare we be totally honest, it's the atheist who religiously believes in what cannot be proven by our own senses, because the antithesis of the atheistic bent is well established throughout the environment within which we all exist.

Atheism, therefore, is so deeply immersed in the practice of raising the bar level for evidence so high that nothing can possibly be lobbed over that bar to reach them.

Although what I've said here is rudimentary compared to what I posted in post #1 from the paleontological vantagepoint, it bears out for us the fact that proof on the level of science in either direction, to the satisfaction of all, is an impossibility.

Does that answer your question?

MM
 
Musicmaster said:
Bob, where it's true that most people tend to believe that the prime qualification for anything being classified as a religion must involve a belief in a deity, that is fallacious. Very simply, in the nut shell, belief in the existence of a Deity one cannot prove the existence of "scientifically" has the same, equal impossibilities for proof as saying that there is not a Deity in existence. In other words, one would have to have Deific powers to scour every particle of the universe and beyond to prove "scientifically" that there is no Deity. What this leads us to, then, is that the claim that the classification for religious belief goes only in one direction, that is intellectual dishonesty when we consider the amount of power it would take to go in either direction.
The Lord did not ever demand that we prove Him on the grounds of science. That's an arbitrary and subjective demand concocted in the minds of those who know already that science was never geared toward proving anything beyond its own limitations. The Lord stated very simply that by observing the creation all around us is sufficient evidence, and the majority who refuse to accept that level of proof are fools. So, dare we be totally honest, it's the atheist who religiously believes in what cannot be proven by our own senses, because the antithesis of the atheistic bent is well established throughout the environment within which we all exist. Atheism, therefore, is so deeply immersed in the practice of raising the bar level for evidence so high that nothing can possibly be lobbed over that bar to reach them. Although what I've said here is rudimentary compared to what I posted in post #1 from the paleontological vantagepoint, it bears out for us the fact that proof on the level of science in either direction, to the satisfaction of all, is an impossibility.
Does that answer your question?
MM
Click to expand...

Hello Musicmaster;

As a Christian what you share sinks in with me. But to most atheists it doesn't or won't penetrate their position.

Atheists are a tough crowd. I find they are one of the most challenging men and women brought up and educated all around. I have suggested to them they are a religion and their response to me would come back with so many variations of self identifying.

The men and women I have spoken or witnessed to claim they are not a religion, are free from worship and covenants and they are protected by the Constitution that hold the same rights as religion.

Though I have enjoyed discussions with some atheists in the community over other topics such as sports, places of interest, work, travel, etc...From time to time I still run into some of these folks and they know I'm a believer who shared my faith with them. At the end of our conversations I feel the Gospel made it's way to them.

God bless you, MM.

Bob
 
bobinfaith said:
Hello Musicmaster;

As a Christian what you share sinks in with me. But to most atheists it doesn't or won't penetrate their position.

Atheists are a tough crowd. I find they are one of the most challenging men and women brought up and educated all around. I have suggested to them they are a religion and their response to me would come back with so many variations of self identifying.

The men and women I have spoken or witnessed to claim they are not a religion, are free from worship and covenants and they are protected by the Constitution that hold the same rights as religion.

Though I have enjoyed discussions with some atheists in the community over other topics such as sports, places of interest, work, travel, etc...From time to time I still run into some of these folks and they know I'm a believer who shared my faith with them. At the end of our conversations I feel the Gospel made it's way to them.

God bless you, MM.

Bob
Click to expand...

Bob, the problem with many atheists is that they are not as intellectual as they would like to think. They absolutely cannot escape the reality that their beliefs are rooted in what they too cannot prove. It's a cop-out for them to rely on the vacuum belief in there allegedly being no deity when, in fact, they are shackled with the same difficulties as theists in proving the existence of God or the non-existence of God. Either way, if they think that they are effectively escaping the charge of their possessing faith in their beliefs, then perhaps they would explain how their faith in a vacuum is any better than a faith in what we believe to be filled, and that both require the same level of power to prove either way. This gives us an edge in the origins of life discussion that they are more and more being trained to avoid.

Additionally, they so desire to own the discussion by laying claim to ownership over the key terms, and with them as the only authorities for defining those key terms, but that's just not going to work against Christians who know better.

MM
 
Musicmaster said:
Additionally, they so desire to own the discussion by laying claim to ownership over the key terms, and with them as the only authorities for defining those key terms, but that's just not going to work against Christians who know better.
MM
Click to expand...

Amen, MM, and that's my position.

On the extreme side I've seen some atheists smirk and others say, "curses to you" (most likely it will happen again.) These souls are within themselves in a lost world but we must press on.

It's imperative that we who know Christ have to know better.

God bless you, brother.
 
Atheists claim to follow truth and verifiable facts. Therefore they only adhere to what their minds can comprehend and in that way, make themselves the god of their lives. Narcissists at their core, really, as only they can be the judge.
 
Musicmaster said:
Bob, the problem with many atheists is that they are not as intellectual as they would like to think. They absolutely cannot escape the reality that their beliefs are rooted in what they too cannot prove. It's a cop-out for them to rely on the vacuum belief in there allegedly being no deity when, in fact, they are shackled with the same difficulties as theists in proving the existence of God or the non-existence of God. Either way, if they think that they are effectively escaping the charge of their possessing faith in their beliefs, then perhaps they would explain how their faith in a vacuum is any better than a faith in what we believe to be filled, and that both require the same level of power to prove either way. This gives us an edge in the origins of life discussion that they are more and more being trained to avoid. Additionally, they so desire to own the discussion by laying claim to ownership over the key terms, and with them as the only authorities for defining those key terms, but that's just not going to work against Christians who know better.
MM
Click to expand...
Big Moose said:
Atheists claim to follow truth and verifiable facts. Therefore they only adhere to what their minds can comprehend and in that way, make themselves the god of their lives. Narcissists at their core, really, as only they can be the judge.
Click to expand...

Hello MM and Big Moose;

Getting back to the verb of this topic, after reading your posts it made me think more. It says to me Atheists are contradicting themselves. They actually name themselves Atheist church in parts of California, Washington, Texas and elsewhere with chapters and visions.

God bless you, brothers.

Bob
 
bobinfaith said:
Hello MM and Big Moose;

Getting back to the verb of this topic, after reading your posts it made me think more. It says to me Atheists are contradicting themselves. They actually name themselves Atheist church in parts of California, Washington, Texas and elsewhere with chapters and visions.

God bless you, brothers.

Bob
Click to expand...

Yes, they absolutely are dabbling in the absurd; one reason being that the Greek root word for "church" is ekklesia, which means, "Called out ones." They claim that there is no Deity to "call" anyone out, so why are they using the term "church" if there is no Deity to call them out? Some might admit the drive toward antagonism, but what this does is betray their wickedism dare we put a finger on the -ism at play among them.

Just like much of modern culture, hypocrisy is the main characterization of their values, or lack thereof.

The one thing that actually does underlie much of their reasons for disbelief in God is that they literally hate God. Most will never admit it, just as that professor in God's not Dead II. Many have suffered pain and loss and subsequently falling victim to the irrational question of, "If God is so powerful and good, then why does He allow such suffering." Others are nothing more than rebellious bandwagoneers.

I heard William Lane Craig in a video the other day grappling with the "problem of harm" question that so many ask, and he claimed that there are not "simple" answers, and therefore this being a complex topic. Well, within the framework of trying to pacify as many people's feelings, he launched into a massive dissertation in an attempt to hit as many "targets" as possible in his lengthy answer, which I found highly dissatisfying and crass because of it hitting every margin of the target paper outside of the bullseye.

One need only consider the alternative to God allowing suffering and evil. Were evil not present, then what better alternative could there be to test people for their chosen character. The outflow of each one's character determines the choices they would make. That is how people are tested, very similar to the parable of the wheat and tares. Jesus spoke of the landowner instructing the harvesters to allow the growth of all the crop so that THEN the good wheat would not be uprooted with the tares until the harvest time where they would THEN be separated and the tares thrown into the fire. Tried and true. Also, the Lord withholding an ability to choose evil would be a level of control over freedom that none would ever want to live under.

The bottom line is that the Lord gave to mankind the guidebook that outlines the only ways to minimize suffering, and yet mankind chooses the path of inflicting evil and suffering upon others. Living under slavery is not what the Lord chose for mankind. Relationship demands freedom, because love offered under the power of force is not love at all. God is of a Character that He desires a level of purity in love that can only arise from freedom. What's unfortunate is that in the midst of suffering and evil, most people can't see the love behind the allowance for such.

Granted...someone suffering greatly may become more "disenchanted" about pursuing God, and thus become more distant from a potential love for God if given that answer, but what they fail to realize is that when they allow the hurt to define for them their own reaction to the stimuli of evil and suffering, they have given themselves over to the very force they loathe. This is one reason Jesus said that we MUST be born again. Suffering and evil are the acid testes for what people are made of, and if the settled upon inner stuff of a man or woman be inferior, then it is like the sacrificial animals for the nation's sins, which had to be without blemish as a closer representation of Christ. The blemish of compromises is not the kinds of people He wants in His Kingdom. No king wants a servant in his palace who might put a knife in his back, or poison in his food and drink. All must be tried and true, and this world of evil and suffering is the perfect means by which that testing is achieved. Nothing else would work.

MM
 
LearningToLetGo said:
I wouldn't paint with such a wide brush. Sure, some are narcissists but others are simply lost, don't see a pathway forward and need our compassionate help.
Click to expand...
The question would be then, why would those who are simply lost, as if by accident, call themselves an atheist? Isn't there a thought out choice going on in that respect? We have a term for those who just don't know if God exists, agnostic. If you are agnostic, then you wouldn't call yourself atheist. An atheist is making a statement that there is no God. They are making a choice. Could there be fake atheists out there who are really just agnostic? Sure, that is possible. But then, I would not label them an atheist. True atheists have considered the fact of God and refused it. Those are the narcissists that I was referring to.
 
Big Moose said:
The question would be then, why would those who are simply lost, as if by accident, call themselves an atheist? Isn't there a thought out choice going on in that respect? We have a term for those who just don't know if God exists, agnostic. If you are agnostic, then you wouldn't call yourself atheist. An atheist is making a statement that there is no God. They are making a choice. Could there be fake atheists out there who are really just agnostic? Sure, that is possible. But then, I would not label them an atheist. True atheists have considered the fact of God and refused it. Those are the narcissists that I was referring to.
Click to expand...

Hey Big Moose;

Atheists have a whacked out definition of their disbelief in gods. Some mix atheism with agnostic which is like oil and water, so to speak. Others are atheist but believe there is a "higher power." At times I have received bleak explanations from atheists and their belief, or disbelief.

This is why it's so important that Christians study and learn even the fundamentals of Scripture so we can consistently share what we believe.

God bless you, brother.


 
Musicmaster said:
So, the former says that there may be other god(s), just not believing in the one we believe in, with the latter saying there is no God anywhere.

Is that what you're saying?

MM
Click to expand...
"I don't believe in God" is a description. "I believe in no God" is an assertion.

It's like saying about a fruit, "I don't believe that is healthy" verses saying, "I believe that is not healthy".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top