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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Except I have shown that you did in fact flat out claim that a religious person developed algorithms that made communication possible.
What is the question asked in the thread title? As if all atheists somehow conform to this expectation. As many have remarked, it is all about just having a voice for so many, especially in Islam dominated countries, rather than evangelising - which you seem to see. And actually, how many are doing any perceived evangelising anyway?
I have seen arguments like "this verse in my opinion says this" with no regard to what it means. I mean "dogmatic refusal". I have also seen arguments like "God SHOULD HAVE kept languages without changing" so that we don't have to study an ancient language.
Recently there was an argument about a particular verse where the atheist picked up this argument from a "missionary website" but had no clue about it. Very dogmatic faith in a missionary website. What was more strange is that every single one of these episodes were found with other atheists defending this atheist so tribalistically (If there is such a word). Defend my brethren religiously with no regard to who or what is right. This is blind faith and tribalism.
Generally atheists accuse the "religious" of these same traits, but my opinion is that Atheists display these traits immensely but they so religiously deny it, together. The United Nations publication "State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples" has a definition for religion that has all of these traits as the definition. Its a strange thing. One would find the refusal of this also to be "Highly Dogmatic".
Let me state something from the Islamic point of view. The word used in the Qur'an for "religion" is the arabic word "Dheen". But, in all honesty, these two words are very different in meaning. Of course even this explanation can expect a dogmatic retort from someone who says "no. In my opinion they mean the same". Nope. Try to analyse it rather than making a dogmatic faith statement. After all, atheists are supposed to be analytical and scientific as most would claim.
The etymology of the word “religion” is very different from that of dheen, and are in fact, different concepts. Some maintain, as did Cicero, that it comes from relegere, meaning, “to treat carefully.” Others follow the fourth-century Christian apologist Lactantius, who maintains that it derives from religare, “to bind.” As Lactantius writes, “We are tied to God and bound to Him (religati) by the bond of piety, and it is from this, and not, as Cicero holds, from careful consideration (relegendo), that religion has received its name. In Arabic, the word dheen means "way or system" in its essence. There have been usages where statements are made like "submission is a system based on reason". In that sentence, submission and system should be replaced by the words Islam and Dheen. The reason to adopt the famous word religion is because people are "bound" together. Does one not see that Atheists display the same symptoms? Maybe they display traits to the word religion more than a so called "religious" person would because its "dheen" for them, not religion. But I have noticed that most atheists do not with to analyse the meaning of the word Religion because they do not want to be associated with it, so they will resort to evangelical methods of denial of simple language. Also may argue that "etymologies dont matter". Actually, whatever argument that they could muster up to deny this. Thats dogmatism. The Romans used this same word as a binding to the state. Not religion. The famous Roman scholar who lived in the 1st century BC called "Cicero" accordingly used a rendition like "to select". So this is what you selected if his rendition is the "one".
One of the signs of religiosity we may observe today is this dogmatic worship of "science". Some atheists seem to claim science for themselves and deny the walking ability of science and religion together. What this seems to bring up is that dogmatic denial of a persons exegesis of his religion to be aligned with science by "hook or crook". This is a dogmatic faith that blinds reason. I address those who deny by default, and never even try and understand someones explanation but just deny no matter what. By Hook or Crook.
The general missionary response of atheists to "Religere" is that "religion is worshiping a divinity, and we don't" or something similar. But general refusal to analyse the meaning of it, and that they fit the bill in itself shows their religiosity and binding to the faith that "we are not religious". I think this is the definition of being "religious".
Another phenomenon of this level of dogmatic religiosity is the blind denial of facts when trying to blame religion for all the violence in the world forever. I have noticed that scholars who are also atheists dont do this because obviously they are more aware and I honestly have found them to extremely pragmatic and not so dogmatic. Yet, I am speaking about scholars, not evangelists and apologists that atheists seem to follow more.
Of course I expect some ad hominem and character assassination attempts even in this thread which is almost a norm. But in this matter, most atheists in this forum are pretty nice people. Yet at least one or two posts could be seen trying to attack the character of the person rather than analyse the point made in the OP. Thats ad hominem, and shows the character of the person doing it, not the other way around. One of my favourite sayings in the New Testament comes to mind: "Why do you look at the thimble in my eye when you have a plank in yours".
Anyway, this post was made as a general one and I can plead you not to get offended but try and make an analysis of what was said and provide your insight. I will truly appreciate it.
Not just, but it is better to make such clear. I don't fall into the evangelical category.
I have seen arguments like "this verse in my opinion says this" with no regard to what it means. I mean "dogmatic refusal". I have also seen arguments like "God SHOULD HAVE kept languages without changing" so that we don't have to study an ancient language.
Recently there was an argument about a particular verse where the atheist picked up this argument from a "missionary website" but had no clue about it. Very dogmatic faith in a missionary website. What was more strange is that every single one of these episodes were found with other atheists defending this atheist so tribalistically (If there is such a word). Defend my brethren religiously with no regard to who or what is right. This is blind faith and tribalism.
Generally atheists accuse the "religious" of these same traits, but my opinion is that Atheists display these traits immensely but they so religiously deny it, together. The United Nations publication "State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples" has a definition for religion that has all of these traits as the definition. Its a strange thing. One would find the refusal of this also to be "Highly Dogmatic".
Let me state something from the Islamic point of view. The word used in the Qur'an for "religion" is the arabic word "Dheen". But, in all honesty, these two words are very different in meaning. Of course even this explanation can expect a dogmatic retort from someone who says "no. In my opinion they mean the same"
The etymology of the word “religion” is very different from that of dheen, and are in fact, different concepts. Some maintain, as did Cicero, that it comes from relegere, meaning, “to treat carefully.” Others follow the fourth-century Christian apologist Lactantius, who maintains that it derives from religare, “to bind.” As Lactantius writes, “We are tied to God and bound to Him (religati) by the bond of piety, and it is from this, and not, as Cicero holds, from careful consideration (relegendo), that religion has received its name. In Arabic, the word dheen means "way or system" in its essence. There have been usages where statements are made like "submission is a system based on reason". In that sentence, submission and system should be replaced by the words Islam and Dheen. The reason to adopt the famous word religion is because people are "bound" together. Does one not see that Atheists display the same symptoms? Maybe they display traits to the word religion more than a so called "religious" person would because its "dheen" for them, not religion. But I have noticed that most atheists do not with to analyse the meaning of the word Religion because they do not want to be associated with it, so they will resort to evangelical methods of denial of simple language. Also may argue that "etymologies dont matter". Actually, whatever argument that they could muster up to deny this. Thats dogmatism. The Romans used this same word as a binding to the state. Not religion. The famous Roman scholar who lived in the 1st century BC called "Cicero" accordingly used a rendition like "to select". So this is what you selected if his rendition is the "one".
One of the signs of religiosity we may observe today is this dogmatic worship of "science". Some atheists seem to claim science for themselves and deny the walking ability of science and religion together. What this seems to bring up is that dogmatic denial of a persons exegesis of his religion to be aligned with science by "hook or crook". This is a dogmatic faith that blinds reason. I address those who deny by default, and never even try and understand someones explanation but just deny no matter what. By Hook or Crook.
The general missionary response of atheists to "Religere" is that "religion is worshiping a divinity, and we don't" or something similar. But general refusal to analyse the meaning of it, and that they fit the bill in itself shows their religiosity and binding to the faith that "we are not religious". I think this is the definition of being "religious".
Another phenomenon of this level of dogmatic religiosity is the blind denial of facts when trying to blame religion for all the violence in the world forever. I have noticed that scholars who are also atheists dont do this because obviously they are more aware and I honestly have found them to extremely pragmatic and not so dogmatic. Yet, I am speaking about scholars, not evangelists and apologists that atheists seem to follow more.
Of course I expect some ad hominem and character assassination attempts even in this thread which is almost a norm. But in this matter, most atheists in this forum are pretty nice people. Yet at least one or two posts could be seen trying to attack the character of the person rather than analyse the point made in the OP. Thats ad hominem, and shows the character of the person doing it, not the other way around. One of my favourite sayings in the New Testament comes to mind: "Why do you look at the thimble in my eye when you have a plank in yours".
Anyway, this post was made as a general one and I can plead you not to get offended but try and make an analysis of what was said and provide your insight. I will truly appreciate it.
My issue is that instead of naming them, you went off into left field about how you did not make the claim.
You have gone out of your way to make the OP nothing more than a self fulfilling prophecy.
Most atheists neither evangelize nor regularly discuss their lack of belief. After all, they have no doctrine or ideology to push, plus subject rarely comes up.