Something you'll need to procure in preparation for the impending zombie apocalypse?
Technically, I think it would depend on the actual time and place of their birth.. Age is most accurately calculated based on the current time of wherever one was born.
Depends on how you look at it, but the case could be made, I suppose.
God
gäd/
noun
noun: God; noun: god; plural noun: gods; plural noun: the gods
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
Obviously definition #2 is the most relevant here. So...
P1: Demons and guardian angels are superhuman beings or spirits possessing power over both nature and human fortunes, making them definable as "gods."
P2: Many Christians believe in the existence of guardian angels and demons.
C: Many Christians are polytheistic by definition.
Worship? No.
I would worship no deity whose moral decisions, actions, and overall outlook were not both intelligible and congruent with my own.
Basically, I would have to understand and agree with everything God does to even entertain the idea of worship. And let's just say I have more than a few questions concerning some of Gods exploits.
Impossible standards? Maybe. But then I'd imagine an omnipotent, omni-benevolent being should have no problems fulfilling them.
Since atheism is a position on a particular religious claim, I'd have to say that yes, atheism is inherently religious in nature.
That is not to say, however, that atheism is, in and of itself, a religion. More like an ingredient or a foundation for a religion, requiring at least a few more beliefs, rules, ceremonies, etc. to be fully realized as a religion.
Of course, this could depend on how you go about defining "religion." Just doing a quick search, I see that one definition on Merriam-Webster is "an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group."
Atheism could be a religion under that definition, but then again, so could just about anything. Is fishing a religion? Video games? Debating online?
If you take the position that the Abrahamic (or any other) god is a fictional character, then I don't see the problem. Lots of fictional characters are disliked.
"It has already been established that Atheists have a shorter life span than their religious brethren."
No, it has not been established that atheists have a shorter life span than their religious brethren, and it takes only a few minutes on Google to see this. Any study which leads to such a conclusion is narrowly short-sighted and fails to address the most important variable; society itself.
I'll demonstrate:
First off, lets look at the life expectancies of some of the most religious countries, and compare with some of the most non-religious.
demographics: WIN-Gallup International Poll
Religious:
United States: 78.6
Ghana: 64.2
Nigeria: 51.9
Armenia:73.9
Non-religious:
Japan: 82.6
Czech Republic: 77.9
Netherlands: 81.2
France: 81.7
With very few exceptions, the non-religious countries tend to beat out the more religious countries overall in life expectancy.
From this data, one might come to the opposite conclusion. It would seem atheists have the longer life span while theists live poor, uncivilized and rather short lives. Maybe theists shouldn't be allowed to spread their beliefs?
But, of course, this sort of comparison isn't exactly apples to apples here. Obviously members of a poor, uneducated society will have harsher, more difficult, stressful lives than those in richer, more developed ones. And, as most any health study will show, high levels of stress lead to higher rates of ailments such as heart disease and depression, which, in turn, lead to a shorter life span. To put it in simple terms, more stress generally equals shorter life.
This is important and becomes evident when you do an apples to apples comparison, looking at religious and non-religious people of the same country. Almost all of the data comes from U.S. studies but, in general, religious people have a health advantage when they are part of a majority (like in the U.S.) and lose that advantage if they are in a society where they are in the minority.
It is obviously more stressful to live life as an ostricized and hated minority than it is to live as a member of the socially accepted majority. As many studies have shown, atheists are the most distrusted minority in the United States; in some cases, distrusted even more than rapists. Atheists are also almost completely excluded from participation in politics in the U.S. with some states even having laws specifically prohibiting them from running for public office. Atheists receive little to nothing in the way of public support, and thus, it is not surprising at all to see that they have higher rates of stress and depression as compared to the religious majority. Studies concerning homosexuals will show similar results; I'd say for similar reasons.
The problem is that some societies are too concerned with social cliques and stigmas and not as supportive and accepting of diversity as they may think they are. Look again at places such as Denmark or The Netherlands. These cultures are not entirely atheist by any means, but they place almost no importance on religion at all in society. Religion is a private matter and is rarely mentioned in everyday talk. They're very secular societies and people simply don't care what religion you are; and I think it's no coincidence these countries tend to rank very high in terms of overall happiness and life expectancy. NY Times article on religious culture in Denmark/Sweden.
The issue is not just whether or not you are atheist or theist, the issue is how does society treat you for being atheist or theist, and how does that effect your health.
Sure, it makes sense. You know they are going to be offended and you wish to make it clear that your main intention is to inform, while acknowledging the offensive nature of the information.
You're not trying to prevent the person from being offended, you're just trying to let them know why you're saying what you're saying.
Whether this is useful or not depends on the individual I guess. Motive and intent are important to some people, and not so much to others.
"Matter cannpt be created or destroyed so something must have created it."
Wait, what? How can you assume something created it after just saying it cannot be created? And also, how do we know the universe even came from nothing? What if it didn't come from nothing? What if there is no such thing as nothing?
If it's perfectly reasonable for one to believe in an eternally existing complex deity, then I see no reason why another cannot believe in eternally existing simple natural forces.
Then if it is made up, then there is no point to be afraid of it and, therefore, cannot be scare tactic.
Agreed; but young children are rarely in a position to make that distinction. A very young child will be absolutely dependent upon its parents and will have unwavering trust in their words.
Parents would do well to choose their words carefully during a child's formative years, in my opinion.
"The nice part about being a pessimist is that you are constantly being either proven right or pleasantly surprised."
~George F. Will
While some religions may be atheistic, atheism in and of itself, is not a religion. Likewise, there are many religions which are theistic in nature while theism in and of itself, is not a religion.
If you were to simply identify yourself as a theist when asked which religion you followed, one could only conclude that you believed in a god, at the very minimum. But which god? Maybe you believe in many gods? You could be a Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Jew, or maybe Wicca, or a practitioner of some Hellenistic beliefs. Maybe you believe in and worship the gods found in ancient Norse mythology.
If you identify yourself as an atheist, however, people have a tendency to assume they know exactly what your beliefs are. I suppose this is because religions atheistic in nature are less numerous and therefore are not as well known.
