Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!uwvax!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: ejh@sei.cmu.edu Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: passive evangelization of "atheists" Message-ID: Date: 13 Nov 89 16:54:37 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 48 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article ELEE6CK%JANE@uhvax1.uh.edu writes: >I have a few questions, naive as they may be: >Isn't atheism essentially simply the act of being contrary, >i.e. the *worship* of the ungod? no. atheism, by definition, is the lack of belief in god, not belief in some ungod. >examples: The Marxist "deification" of Marx, Lenin, et al., is it >simply trading the One True Lord (Jesus Christ) for Marx, Lenin et al.? >The Objectivist "deification" of Ayn Rand and of reason, >ditto the same question. you seem to equate philosophies with religions. while religions are founded to try to address philosophical questions/problems, that does not mean that all philosophical systems are religions. while there may be fanatical objectivists, i don't think they worship reason in the same sense that you worship god. you don't worship the principles espoused by god, do you? also, while many religions have a god or gods, you do not address those that do not. one could argue whether these latter are indeed religions, instead of just philosophies, but then you'd have to come up with a definition of 'religion' with which not everyone agrees. i personally feel there is a fine line, the exact location of which i haven't found yet, between philosophy and religion. it's pretty clear to me that buddhism, which posits no god to be worshipped (correct me if i'm wrong), yet has the notion of a higher plane and higher personage(s) that are not quite in the realm of our notions of physical reality, is a religion. objectivism offers no such things, neither do materialism, rationalism, etc.; these i consider just plain philosophies. this does not mean that i will be able to tell whether the next philosophy that comes along will fall so clearly on one side or the other. >Would appreciate some good informed opinions(perhaps from >theologians or ex-members of the above cults), as I feel the Holy Spirit >is sending me these people so that I may evangelize (or at least inform) >them about the True Love that comes from God. i have no problem with your doing what you feel is right, but you won't get very far by calling them members of cults, at least to their faces. on a last note: one of john galt's major peeves was with incompetent government and its officials legislating initiative right out of human nature, which caused him to adopt a stand-on-your-own-two-feet attitude. i see no reason why a christian could not adopt this attitude; i know many that do. do you really think they are at odds with each other? erik