Atheism

[seashale76]

Let's use your 78% and 26%. What makes you think that a significant number of that 52% feel differently from the fringe. I see no evidence of that. Do you?

Uh- yeah? The majority of people don't atheist-bash.

 

[JGG]

Uh- yeah? The majority of people don't atheist-bash.

That doesn't mean their beliefs are different. Just that they don't vocalize them.

I find it telling that in the Barna research 55% held an unfavorable view of Wiccans. How many threads do we see about Wiccans on here? How many bilboards are up? And that's still the majority of Christians.

Why would atheists be less than that? I think it's fair to say that generally speaking, Christians hate atheists a whole lot more than Wiccans.

 

[elephunky]

There is an issue with forming an opinion on atheists and atheism in general from atheists on the internet. One of these reasons being that people portray themselves different online than in real life, without meaning to. Mostly because it is pretty anonymous.

The only sure fire assumption you can really make about an atheist is that they do not believe in any god or gods.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

If there was anything I'd want everyone to know about atheism/atheists (be they theist or atheist), it is the following:

1) Atheism is a lack of belief in gods/deities. That's it.
2) You likely know atheists in real life and like them as people.
3) Most atheists aren't like the villains in a Chick Tract.
4) Being an atheist doesn't magically make one a critical thinker nor does it mean one has any grasp of logic.
5) Being an atheist doesn't make one more intelligent.
6) People are atheists for a variety of reasons, some of which are purely emotional.
7) Atheists don't deserve to be demonized or condescended to.
8) Most atheists are still very much a part of the culture they were born into, and are still influenced even by the religious aspects of it. I don't know about you all, but I've met more than my share of Sola Scriptura atheists on-line, for example.

Chime in, add to this, explain your own views, etc. I'm not atheist bashing, I just happened to notice this scenario again today and decided to comment.

If I may say...

I am not atheist - although many in my family have been (and I was once considering the idea heavily due to many stresses in my life). And on the issue, part of me was thinking at one point how it does seem to be the case that many often seem to make out atheism as if it's akin to not being religious...

But I've seen others note that even atheists can be very militant/religious as well. In example, many who act (as atheists) with hostility to the very idea of gods/goddesses (or a God who made the world) often seem to avoid other atheists saying that "gods do not exist" with the mindset that there are no inherent divine qualities to any beings which may have created the world ...and that any beings worshiped as "gods" are simply higher forms of intelligence that can be explained by science.

Essentially, while one form of atheism says no other beings or powers exist at all, another says that there are other lifeforms out there who were responsible for the development of the world/other things around us and they are what others deem to be "gods" (or God) - with others having freedom to appreciate/respect and look to those beings. This has come up often, especially in films such as "Prometheus" (with the UFO Gospel ideology when it comes to the theory of Panspermia ) and other films that bring that focus out....


Shows like Star Trek - promoted by others who were atheists (Gene Roddenberry) did this often (especially in the ways that the Startrek writers went into religion later on with DS9 was intensive, as I was shocked that they'd bring spirituality into the mix when it came to the Prophets/Emissary theme in DS9) ...and this also occurred with shows such as Babylon 5 when it came to noting how often what others deemed to be "gods/goddesses" were a matter of perspective of what was offered (more discussed in #15, #20, #19 ) - and it is interesting to consider in light of how much of it seemed to bring up the fact that aspects of atheism (when being expressed via methodological naturalism) that deal with metaphysical concepts in the same way as what you'd see with religious paradigms also seeming metaphysical in nature because of having to assume certain concepts needed to explain the world/what's real (more shared here).

But even outside of the religious aspect (as it concerns seeing things deemed as higher powers/beings as another life form to be understood and yet still holding it in high regard), it does seem that atheism can indeed take a religious tone when it comes to celebrating the inherent value of man in such a way as to make his concerns of utmost importance as if there was an intrinsic value to what man has to say simply because we exist - with atheist often seeking protections under religious grounds with the U.S Constitution (more in http://www.christianforums.com/t7802894-2/#post64985662 ).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdzepK-LVtU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AehngsN0dA

There are others who are atheists who note that humanism (secular humanism and transhumanism) are wrong and yet there are also others who are for it since what matters is the improvement of man - a religious value. And even for those who are not religions, it's interesting to see how things can develop. In example, I am reminded of Alain de Botton..one who is a non-believer and yet argues religions have important things to teach the secular world. He's written a book ('Religion for Atheists') explaining ways in which atheists should look to religion for some solutions to contemporary ill - with him doing so in the hopes that people can move the tired old debate between atheists and believers onto more fruitful ground.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9UrPrXv3s4

 

[seashale76]

That doesn't mean their beliefs are different. Just that they don't vocalize them.

I find it telling that in the Barna research 55% held an unfavorable view of Wiccans. How many threads do we see about Wiccans on here? How many bilboards are up? And that's still the majority of Christians.

Why would atheists be less than that? I think it's fair to say that generally speaking, Christians hate atheists a whole lot more than Wiccans.

Hate is a strong word. Most people aren't there. I'm sorry, but I really don't believe that is the case.

 

[bhsmte]

That doesn't mean their beliefs are different. Just that they don't vocalize them.

I find it telling that in the Barna research 55% held an unfavorable view of Wiccans. How many threads do we see about Wiccans on here? How many bilboards are up? And that's still the majority of Christians.

Why would atheists be less than that? I think it's fair to say that generally speaking, Christians hate atheists a whole lot more than Wiccans.

You would be correct. Atheists are distrusted by Christians, based on prejudice, as the researcher points out.

Study: Atheists distrusted as much as rapists – USATODAY.com

 

[Eudaimonist]

So what do athiests believe started the human race? Evolution?

In my case, yes. Most atheists believe that. But this view is not essential to atheism. All that is true of all atheists is that they don't believe in divine beings.

How was everything else created?

My view is that physical reality is uncreated. There was never a time in which physical reality did not exist.

There are many on this forum and I still do not know what they believe. Some believe in Science.

Some atheists are scientific in their approach to understanding the world. I don't know what it means to "believe in Science". I certainly would never phrase it that way.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[JGG]

Hate is a strong word.

What would be a more appropriate word?

Most people aren't there. I'm sorry, but I really don't believe that is the case.

Based on what?

 

[KCfromNC]

If I may say...

I am not atheist - although many in my family have been (and I was once considering the idea heavily due to many stresses in my life). And on the issue, part of me was thinking at one point how it does seem to be the case that many often seem to make out atheism as if it's akin to not being religious...

But I've seen others note that even atheists can be very militant/religious as well.

The two words mean very different things - unless you want to claim that religious Quakers, for example, are militant.

In example, many who act (as atheists) with hostility to the very idea of gods/goddesses (or a God who made the world) often seem to avoid other atheists saying that "gods do not exist" with the mindset that there are no inherent divine qualities to any beings which may have created the world ...and that any beings worshiped as "gods" are simply higher forms of intelligence that can be explained by science.

Seems that avoiding the worship of a higher being would be the exact opposite of what religion normally means.

Essentially, while one form of atheism says no other beings or powers exist at all, another says

Nope. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods. You're describing other beliefs of various atheists on some loosely related topics. Just because an atheist has an opinion about a subject that religion also discusses doesn't make atheism a religion. Nor does it mean that opinion is part of atheism.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The two words mean very different things - unless you want to claim that religious Quakers, for example, are militant.

Seeing that the Quakers in many parts were very aggressive (if aware of the history), of course militant was a term to describe them - just as it is with many atheists.

A basic study on the issue can be found in The Quakers in Great Britain and America: The Religious and Political History of the Society of Friends from the Seventeenth to the Twentieth Century

Seems that avoiding the worship of a higher being would be the exact opposite of what religion normally means.

Not according to what many atheists hold to when it comes to noting that worship (as others do in a religious sense when it comes to believing beings to be divine) is not the same as having high value for others in the same way others worship.

Moreover, there is no escaping the fact that many religions do not believe in higher beings at all - pantheism being one of them among many others. For Pantheism believes that the universe and nature are worthy of the deepest religious reverence - that understanding them, appreciating their beauty, and preserving nature, should be the central focus of our lives. Nearly everyone feels religious feelings when looking at nature or the night sky - and most people explain those feelings in terms of the religion they were taught as children....and pantheism believes that those feelings are older and more basic than any traditional religion, for it sees that they are a natural part of our existence as natural material beings, a recognition of our participation and belonging as members of nature and the universe.

For more, one can go to Pantheism as "Sexed-up Atheism" | World Pantheism - as it concerns Pantheistic Atheism..

Pantheistic Atheism - YouTube


Also, others such as Neil DeGrasse Tyson has also spoken on the matter when he noted rather directly "I wanted to become an astrophysicist not because I chose it … in a way the universe chose me. [...] I was called by the universe. I had no choice in the matter.":

Neil DeGrasse Tyson - Greatest Sermon Ever - YouTube


Carl Sagan seemed to suggest something similar too, though not completely pantheism. Both of them have been discussed before, as seen here:

The following video captures one of the final scenes from the film. Ellie (Foster) is being questioned by a congressional committee about what she experienced in the machine. She finds herself saying the same thing Palmer had told her about faith, only she had scoffed at it earlier in the film.

Jodie Foster's mystical flight (Contact)
Contact "Testimonial Interogation" - Final Hearing [16:9]

[/INDENT]
The movie itself was based on the work by Carl Sagen....if ever reading the book "Contact" , which the film later came out that starred Jodie Foster. Carl Sagan, noted astronomer and skeptic, macame out kes his opinion on organized religion clear since he is very hostile to it................but with the film/book, he seemed to favour a sort of scientific respect for the universe in the extension of Einstein and others (who believes in God but sees him as distant). Albert Einstein (1879-1955) recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe/saw clearly that there was a design--with nothing simply happening.

Some of the dynamics with how things have been going of late are interesting when seeing the rise of others having faith in what science offers when it comes to meaning for our lives - even though they may not be religious. There was an excellent review on the issue in light of the series by Neil deGrasse Tyson - as seen in Cosmos, Episode One: A Religious Approach to Science and an Unscientific Approach to History | Theological Graffiti - Digital Etchings on Life and Faith from Theological Graffiti - Digital Etchings on Life and Faith

[/INDENT]


Most scientists have deep respect to the vast phenomenon they are exploring, whether it is deep space, biological evolution, or geology - all doing so in the belief that the universe/science give man inherent value and meaning that should be treasured.

Thus, believing in no gods or deities isn't the same as not having a religion. This was discussed best in the following:

Militant Atheism IS a religion! - YouTube

It can be very difficult to tell the difference between one person’s atheism and another person’s pantheism.

Nope. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods. You're describing other beliefs of various atheists on some loosely related topics. Just because an atheist has an opinion about a subject that religion also discusses doesn't make atheism a religion. Nor does it mean that opinion is part of atheism.

None of that deals with what other atheists have already said - seeing how atheism has never been simply a lack of belief in gods or goddesses. And this goes back to the basic concept of how there are many forms of Atheism just as there are many forms of Theism and other variations.

There have already been groups of atheist soldiers who want their own chaplains. When I first heard about it years ago, it dumbfounded me as to why others wanted to talk on God not existing and religion being a crutch...and yet demand for atheist chaplains. For more:

• Chaplains Wanted For Atheists In Foxholes : NPR
• Atheists Seek a Place Among Military Chaplains - NYTimes.com
• April 20, 2012 ~ Godless Chaplains | Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly
• Atheists as Army chaplains is not illogical - Los Angeles Times

The ways that atheism is defined as a religion even though they fight against all things they deem to be "religious" is similar to what you see in comics. Did you ever read Marvel comics? There's a Superhero group in Marvel comics called "the Defenders." The core group is Submerior, Dr. Strange, Hulk, and Silver Surfer.

They say they are not a group. They don't have a name, but they refers to themselves as 'the defenders" which their comic books was called. They don't have a head quarters or rules or formal membership but somehow they manged to get together on a regular basis to battle the same kinds of super villains all the time. All the comic book collection books and reviews and people all them a group, or "non group." They function as a group. So there's no difference in group and non group.

Granted, strictly speaking, atheism does not fit the definition of religion, although it is a part of each individuals personal and unique system of beliefs. For clarity when I talk about religion in a general sense, I use a very effective and attractive, as you will see, test:

If asked the question, “what is your religion?”, the persons answer, whatever it may be, is their religion, and is protected by the 1st amendment.
​

When religious freedom is talked about, atheists often get lost in the mix and their freedom of religion is in a kind of tenuous place. The best way to protect everyone’s religious freedom is to assume everyone has a religion. Mostly because if we do not consider atheism a religion, a scary outcome may be that atheism ends up not being afforded the same protections from government intrusion Christianity, Islam, etc., are. Atheism has been ruled a religion by the Supreme Court . It’s important to realize we have, and need, two different definitions for religion.

1. Religion as a practice. Essentially that a religion is a set of beliefs held in common within a group, many times having a supernatural aspect, but that isn’t required per-say.


2. Religion as a legal term, defining what is protected by the First Amendment’s freedom of religion. The legal term doesn’t, and shouldn’t, provide for any kind of content, number of adherents, or establishment of any kind of dogma.

​

Although some would deny that secular humanism is a religion, even the Supreme Court has recognized it as such. In Torkoso v. Watkins (1961), the Supreme Court said that "among religions ... are Buddhism ... and secular humanism," etc.

Atheism and Secular Humanism, as a religion, is enforced DAILY on others in school...


Secular humanism is a philosophy that is humanist (meaning a moral philosophy that considers humans to be of primary importance). It advocates human reason, ethics, and justice. It specifically rejects supernatural and religious dogma as being the basis for morality and decision-making. Secular humanism focuses on the ways we can lead good, happy and functional lives. The term “secular humanism” was coined in the 20th century. It was adopted by non-religious humanists in order to make a clear distinction from “religious humanism”. Secular humanism is also called “scientific humanism”. Among the general tenets held by Secular Humanism are: The need to test beliefs, a commitment to use critical reasoning, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry rather than faith. It holds to a tenet of creativity, growth, and fulfillment of individuals and humanity in general as well as a tenet for truth which is seen as a constant search for objective truth. It holds to a tenet of concern for life and to a commitment to making it meaningful by increasing the understanding of ourselves, our history, our achievements, and the views of those who differ from us. It holds to a tenet of advocating ethics and to building a better world with reason, open exchange of ideas, tolerance, and good will.

In 1961 the Supreme Court handed down the Torcaso v. Watkins decision regarding a Maryland notary public who was disqualified from office because he would not declare a belief in God. The Court ruled in his favor. It argued that theistic religions could not be favored by the Court over non-theistic religions. In fact, in a footnote that clarifies what the Court means by non-theistic religions, we read, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others." ( Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495, fn. 11 (1961). )

There's also the Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda 1957. This was a 1957 case in which an organization of humanists, the Fellowship of Humanity, sought a tax exemption on the grounds that they used their property solely for RELIGIOUS WORSHIP. The US Supreme Court determined that the groups activities were analogous to the activites of a mainstream Church and, therefore, they were entitled to such requested tax exemption. This case set the road for secular humanism being deemed as a religion in 1961.

Then there was the Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia 1957. This was a case heard in 1957 involving tax issues. The court ruled that the Society functioned like a Church even though it considered itself a non-theistic religious institution. The Society’s request for tax exemption had been denied by the District of Columbia. The US Court of Appeals reversed the Tax Court’s ruling and defined the Society as a RELIGIOUS organization and granted its request for a tax ememption. This case is often regarded as one that affirms that a religion need NOT be theistic in order to qualify as a religion under US Law.

Finally, there is the Peloza v. Capistrano School District 1994. This was a 1994 case heard by the 9th US Court of Appeals. In this particular case a science teacher argued that requiring him to teach evolution in his school district was forcing him to teach the RELIGION of secular humanism. The Court rejected this claim because neither it nor the US Supreme Court had ever held evolution or secularism to be religions for Establishment Clause purposes. The US Supreme Court refused to hear this case upon appeal. Of course this decision was highly controversial because, in fact, the US Supreme Court had ruled secular humanism to be a RELIGION.

Secular Humanism, which is directly linked to atheism, is a religious view. A religion doesn’t have to posit a god who must be identified or worshiped. Some religions are polytheistic (Hinduism, Mormonism), some monotheistic (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), some non-theistic (Buddhism). New atheists and their religion are “anti-theistic.” But their atheism is religious nonetheless. They have their own worldview since Materialism (the view that the material world is all there is) is the lens through which atheists view the world. [/


If you wish to adhere to atheism in the simplistic definition, that's your choice - but is far from the formal definition.

 

[Zoness]

But the question really is to what extent does this represent mainstream Christianity in even these areas, or just the beliefs of those who put up billboards? I find billboards in general rather cheesy.

Do I think it represents mainstream Christianity? Not at all. Do I think it represents the beliefs in the deep South? Quite possibly. I have nothing to offer besides anecdotal evidence though. It just seems to me that of all the areas in the US, Southern Christians (Southern Baptists) are more likely to equate Atheism with being anti-American.

 

[JGG]

While I'm at this, since both terms have come up, Christians could you define the following terms:

Militant atheist
anti-theist.

I've been asking this question a fair bit lately, and am fascinated by the number of different understandings of the terms I'm finding.

 

[cloudyday2]

Secular Humanism, which is directly linked to atheism, is a religious view. A religion doesn’t have to posit a god who must be identified or worshiped. Some religions are polytheistic (Hinduism, Mormonism), some monotheistic (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), some non-theistic (Buddhism). New atheists and their religion are “anti-theistic.” But their atheism is religious nonetheless. They have their own worldview since Materialism (the view that the material world is all there is) is the lens through which atheists view the world.

If you wish to adhere to atheism in the simplistic definition, that's your choice - but is far from the formal definition.

IMO if two ideas are mutually exclusive then they are the same type. So if you can't be simultaneously an atheist and a Christian or Muslim then atheism must be a religion. A form asking for religious belief would need a check box for atheist/none.

And you made a good point about the importance of materialism, secular humanism, pantheism, and other things for many atheists.

What do you think about the idea that everybody is a mix of several mutually exclusive religions? I have several religions that I think might be at least partially true, but I'm not sure about any of them. So when I make decisions I predict outcomes based on all of them. Sometimes my decisions match an ideal atheist. Sometimes my decisions match an ideal Christian. IMO that is how everybody is in reality.

 

[smaneck]

Do I think it represents mainstream Christianity? Not at all. Do I think it represents the beliefs in the deep South? Quite possibly. I have nothing to offer besides anecdotal evidence though. It just seems to me that of all the areas in the US, Southern Christians (Southern Baptists) are more likely to equate Atheism with being anti-American.

Yeah, but I don't think you will find many Southern Baptists putting up these kinds of posters.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

IMO if two ideas are mutually exclusive then they are the same type. So if you can't be simultaneously an atheist and a Christian or Muslim then atheism must be a religion. A form asking for religious belief would need a check box for atheist/none.

It is interesting you noted what you did - in light of the fact that there are already check boxes for what view one has when doing the boxes for belief. There's nothing saying, for example, that checking the box "atheist" or "other" means one isn't spiritual/has values dealing with a metaphysical nature ....

And oddly enough, there actually are groups of people within the camp such as Christian atheism.

If you're aware of people like Thomas Hobbs, there is actually a lot of overt expression with Christian Atheism within the religious ideas of Thomas Hobbes...more discussed within the book known as Religion, Politics and Thomas Hobbes By George Wright and 'Hobbes's Views on Religion and the Church between The Elements of Law and Leviathan: A Dramatic Change of Direction?

More specifically, Christian Atheism is a theological position in which the belief in the God of Christianity is rejected or absent but the moral teachings of Jesus are followed....much of it actually similar to what you'd find in Deism (also known as Moralistic Therapeutic Deism )/much of what the Founding Fathers were about....and similar to what many have spoken about within the world of Christianity when it comes to others who actually claim Christ and yet ignore what he was actually about.

Pastor Craig Groeschel--- Practical Atheist - YouTube
Craig Groeschel - The Christian Atheist Audiobook Ch. 1 - YouTube

And you made a good point about the importance of materialism, secular humanism, pantheism, and other things for many atheists.

Glad it was understood....

What do you think about the idea that everybody is a mix of several mutually exclusive religions?
I have several religions that I think might be at least partially true, but I'm not sure about any of them. So when I make decisions I predict outcomes based on all of them. Sometimes my decisions match an ideal atheist. Sometimes my decisions match an ideal Christian. IMO that is how everybody is in reality.

I do think there's something to be said about interspirituality .....and the dynamic of how many religions may have concepts that cross the board and that are appreciated regardless - even though there are aspects of each religion that are distinct and are not compatible with other systems or able to be removed with the system still standing. Anytime one takes out the concept of Christ being Divine/Savior of all mankind and simply has him as a good teacher, you don't really have Biblical Christianity in the same way that Christ or His Apostles espoused it - but you may end up with a system having the label of "Christianity" (since the term wasn't around in the days of Jesus).....disciples of Christ aren't the same as all things within any system deemed "Christian"..

But again, I appreciate ideas/thoughts from many differing systems because I believe Truth is Truth - that all truth is God's Truth...even though I do see/understand Christianity/following what Jesus said to be highly distinct from all other systems in what they advocate and that Christ was very exclusive at multiple points while acknowleding where all men were made in the Image of God and affirmed many things which have been noted in multiple parts of humanity.

Everyone has a worldview and I agree with you that everyone is in some way impacted by what another person believed or believes currently.

 

[Zoness]

I find Christian Atheism interesting because as Gxg noted, it seems to be a cousin of Deism. Some [modern] Deists would scoff at the notion of a relationship between the two but other [classical] Deists may be more open to the idea. I first discovered that it was an actual group of identity on reddit of all places. It definitely gets a lot of questions from people on there, putting it lightly.

 

[BL2KTN]

What type of deist are you, Zoness?

 

[Zoness]

What type of deist are you, Zoness?

I bias slightly towards classical, but I'm eh...neutral? I've only been articulating my Deist belief for a little while so I'm still studying up.

 

[cloudyday2]

I do think there's something to be said about interspirituality .....and the dynamic of how many religions may have concepts that cross the board and that are appreciated regardless - even though there are aspects of each religion that are distinct and are not compatible with other systems or able to be removed with the system still standing. Anytime one takes out the concept of Christ being Divine/Savior of all mankind and simply has him as a good teacher, you don't really have Biblical Christianity in the same way that Christ or His Apostles espoused it - but you may end up with a system having the label of "Christianity" (since the term wasn't around in the days of Jesus).....disciples of Christ aren't the same as all things within any system deemed "Christian"..

But again, I appreciate ideas/thoughts from many differing systems because I believe Truth is Truth - that all truth is God's Truth...even though I do see/understand Christianity/following what Jesus said to be highly distinct from all other systems in what they advocate and that Christ was very exclusive at multiple points while acknowleding where all men were made in the Image of God and affirmed many things which have been noted in multiple parts of humanity.

Everyone has a worldview and I agree with you that everyone is in some way impacted by what another person believed or believes currently.

Interesting, I had never heard of Christian Atheists. You agree with splicing together hybrid religions by dropping the areas of conflict such as the divinity of Jesus. What do you think about preserving the areas of conflict as possibilities with probabilities?

As an example, let's say I'm in a situation where I need to deal with the bread and wine left over after the Eucharist. I can either casually dump it in the trash or I can do something more respectful - maybe just dump it in the trash respectfully instead of casually. Maybe I only assign a 1% probability to a historical Jesus existing, but the cost of being respectful is so small that I might behave more like a Christian than an atheist in this scenario.

It seems so sensible to me. Why should I only have one coherent religion when there is no way to be certain about anything? Maybe atheism, maybe atheism plus psi, maybe animism, maybe Hinduism, maybe Christianity.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Interesting, I had never heard of Christian Atheists. You agree with splicing together hybrid religions by dropping the areas of conflict such as the divinity of Jesus. What do you think about preserving the areas of conflict as possibilities with probabilities?

To be clear, I have never advocated dropping the Divinity of Jesus. As a believer in Christ, that is not an option - even though I still work with others in differing groups who may disagree.

Although I am aware of those who claim to be Christian Atheists, it should be noted that I don't think that it is something that really reflects Christ in what He advocated overall. There are aspects (as it concerns teachings He noted which do have an aspect of encouraging a social perspective - things which others have also practiced/seen much change like with theologians such as Dr. Martin Luther King in how he related to others...more here, here).....

But one cannot truly advocate Christ as He is without acknowledging/proclaiming His Deity - one can try to take aspects of him (and in that sense say it is "Christian"...more so in a cultural sense of what's promoted)...but they really cannot claim to be a Christian from a Biblical perspective as the Lord Jesus noted. Within Christianity, one can acknowledge other aspects of differing religions so long as they do not go against/diminish the importance of seeing that Christ was truly Divine/God - and this has been done in differing places, be it with Christians within the Hindu/Buddhist context (and missionaries leading the way such as E.Stanley Jones - more shared in #65 ..as well as #182 , #282 , #355 , #94 ) or the Muslim context ( as it concerns those known as Muslim Background believers or those known as Messianic Muslims ..both of whom follow Isa as the Messiah) - others are similar to what was present with President Barack Obama as they are inclusivist . ...and one more than understanding of the ways God used people in imperfect ways to show who He was ..all the way to the Finished work of Christ.

But with Christ, truly, one cannot put him into pieces if one wishes to say they will honor Him for what he stood for. And I agree with C.S Lewis in what he noted in his book "Mere Christianity" ....

[2]:

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg--or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

That said, I do believe there's much to be said on the subject of practicing interspirituality - for the Christian, it is done within the bounds of a Biblical/Christological (or Christ-centered) worldview first and foremost rather than saying one can practice anything and it doesn't matter if claiming Christ what is practiced can be done so long as it harmonizes with what Christ/the culture he was raised in advocated. This also goes for things found outside of scripture - something being extra biblical isn't the same as it being unbiblical...

For a practical example of this, one can consider Kurisumala Ashram - a Cistercian Monastery in Syro-Malankara Catholic Church. (and spearheaded by Francis Acharya - with Francis's work DRASTICALLY different from Fr. Bede Griffithswho took things later into a New Age direction with groups trying to mirror what began with Francis when Fr. Bede helped in the initial stages....even though Kurisumala has been brought back into safety early on for its protection due to what Francis did - for it was begun in early 1958 in the Syro-Malankara Diocese of Tiru- valla and was incorporated into the Cistercian Order in July 1998)

​

Others who were missionaries within the Eastern world have experienced the same (as with the Nestorian Christians when interacting with differing religions - and great figures such as Ghenghis Khan).

And other believers have noted this when it comes to noting the distinctions of Christianity while showing where there are connections. As referenced to another, one can go to as God is not Odin, God is not Zeus, God is not Marduk | Eclectic Orthodoxy and The Christian Distinction: God + World â‰[bless and do not curse] 2 | Eclectic Orthodoxy and St Gregory the Theologian: Oration 39 (part 1) | Eclectic Orthodoxy

This dynamic also occurs within Christians who came from Atheistic backgrounds - if someone in the world of atheism developed a method of examination or a musical form/cultural expression, there's nothing saying one couldn't be Christian while also appreciating/utilizing aspects of what the atheistic mind developed....and vice versa for the atheist. Nonetheless, the atheist couldn't say that appreciating aspects of what the Christian was about meant that they WERE truly Christian in the way that early believers understood it - just as Christians couldn't say they were 100% atheist in all regards since they believe in monotheism.

But there can be appreciation. I, for example, am not a huge fan of the French Revolution which was based heavily on Nihilism and the Enlightenment Era with so much of its angst toward religious thought (and the violence that was seen as a means to change things) - but I appreciate other principles that were developed from it...many of which helped Black Christians in Haiti fight for their freedom

Hope that makes sense...

As an example, let's say I'm in a situation where I need to deal with the bread and wine left over after the Eucharist. I can either casually dump it in the trash or I can do something more respectful - maybe just dump it in the trash respectfully instead of casually. Maybe I only assign a 1% probability to a historical Jesus existing, but the cost of being respectful is so small that I might behave more like a Christian than an atheist in this scenario.

It seems so sensible to me.

Within Orthodoxy and Ancient Christianity, you'd never deal lightly with the Bread/Wine from Eucharist (with the wine never left over anyhow). Dumping in the trash has not been an option nor was it ever since there was already awareness of the spiritual reality being what needed to be respected.

And in the scenario you noted, the cost of being disrespectful would be high and you'd not really be acting more like a Christian if choosing to simply dump the bread/Eucharist...you may line up with modern examples of what's called "Christian" today - but according to the Early Church, which took Eucharist seriously, it'd be evident where you weren't really acting as a Christian in the scenario.

Why should I only have one coherent religion when there is no way to be certain about anything? Maybe atheism, maybe atheism plus psi, maybe animism, maybe Hinduism, maybe Christianity.

I don't think one has to be of the mindset that one cannot be certain of anything - and there are really ways of being able to know whether things are the most coherent.

I've appreciated others who have spoken on the subject more in-depth like Ravi Zacharias and others such as Dr. Stephen Myers ( a Cambridge University-trained philosopher of science, the author of peer-reviewed publications in technical, scientific, philosophical and other books and journals...and one who has noted in good detail the ways that one can be certain of specific things such as morality needing a basis in theism in order to be the most relevant/consistent):

A Response to the New Atheists - Ravi Zacharias - YouTube
Return of the God Hypothesis - Stephen C. Meyer, PhD - YouTube
Morality Presupposes Theism (1 of 4) - YouTube