From: "Roland"
Subject: Re: I disagree with you

I am a non-denominational Christian. I believe that Jesus is the Son of God and Lord. However, I am not religious. My definition, as is with all non-denominational Christians, is that religion adds to or takes away from the Bible.

What Roland writes here is not how religion is defined in scholarship on religion. Religion is a system of beliefs centered around a few particular ideas — ideas which non-denominational Christianity typically includes. Ergo, it qualifies as a religion.

It’s not uncommon for self-professed “non-denominational Christians” to claim that their Christianity is not a religion but just about everything else in the world is. Why? I’m not entirely sure. For such Christians (all of whom are typically fundamentalist in orientation), religion almost seems to be a dirty word. What is so awful about labeling Christianity as a religion?

You said, "Some Christians treat him as a genuine historical figure and the New Testament stories as literal accounts while others regard him as simply a wise man and the New Testament stories as only partially reliable." This is completely ridiculous. You cannot be a 'Christian' without believing that Jesus is Lord.

I'm sure that is true according to Roland‘s definition of "Christian." But guess what? Not everyone shares Roland‘s definition of "Christian" and "Christianity." This is exactly what I am communicating with the statement Roland quotes: there is a lot of variety within Christianity and not all Christians define themselves in exactly the same way.

If I were to adopt one of those definitions to the exclusion of all others, I would essentially be taking sides in inter-Christian debates, and that simply wouldn’t be appropriate or justified. I don’t think that Roland‘s understanding of Christianity is any more privileged or “correct” than the understanding characteristic of other, more liberal Christians.

I wrote you to disagree with your analogy that atheism is not a religion. As I stated, religion adds to or takes away from the Bible.

Like I wrote about, this is not how religion is defined in any scholarly or academic source — but what is this about an “analogy that atheism is not a religion”? I don’t offer any analogies about atheism not being a religion. I offer arguments which explain why atheism is in fact not a religion.

Even if I were to meet someone like Roland half-way and accept that Christianity is not a religion (the definition “anything that adds to or takes away from the Bible is simply too absurd for even this format), that still wouldn’t provide a justification to think that atheism is a religion. Any sensible definition of religion would have to acknowledge that it is a system of beliefs. Atheism isn’t even a single belief, much less a system of beliefs. Atheism can be part of a religion, but there is simply no way to argue that it is a religion.

More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...