That's not much of an answer, Yuyutsu.

>>An atheist could, for example, be inspired to come closer to God by watching nature or listening to music<<

Once more.

An atheist is someone who rejects the notion of a supreme being. Gods fall into this category. Therefore being "inspired to come closer to God" has precisely no meaning whatsoever to an atheist. An external observer might perhaps detect a movement towards virtue and away from vice, but this can be equally easily achieved without God. The insertion of God into the process adds precisely nothing, and subtracts precisely nothing.

>>...all that is needed to bind with God is to get rid of the illusion that distorts our awareness of our true nature<<

Not so.

A prerequisite is necessarily the existence of God in the first place. Whether this existence takes the form of an entity, a concept, an idea, an imagination, a notion, a perception, a sentiment, an archetype, or even a myth, is irrelevant. Without some level of awareness of the bindee, it is impossible for the bindor to make any progress whatsoever. Or, for that matter, for an external observer to detect any "motion towards".

>>What we in ordinary life call "goodness" or "basic goodness", is essential for religion...<<

But the part that you find unable to accept is that while goodness has some of the attributes of the truly religious, religion is not an essential component of goodness.

Suggesting that people who move away from sin and towards goodness are by definition religious is as logical as saying that people who walk away from a train station and towards a bus stop are by definition about to catch a bus.

They might just be looking for a coffee shop.

Incidentally, this is merely disingenuous, Yuyutsu:

>>The fact that whoever coined the word 'paedophilia' in the early 20th century chose to borrow from Latin a word for 'love', along with the fact that their choice was widely accepted by society, just shows how perverse we have become, mistaking sexual attraction for love and church-attendance for religion.<<

As well as fundamentally inaccurate, since the root is Greek, not Latin. "-philus" was only ever a suffix, never a "word for 'love'"

Its origins are with the Greek phileo, to regard with affection. It has been commonly used to indicate a strong affinity for [something], as in Anglophile, bibliophile etc., respectively a high (possibly abnormal) regard for things pertaining to England, or a "love' of books.

So your assertion that is evidence that the concept of "love" has been corrupted into a form of sexual attraction is totally - some might say embarrassingly - wrong.

Homework is useful. Try it sometime.

Dear David,

<<Most of us consider leprechauns, fairies, Zeus, Ra and the Lock Ness monster do not exist. Einstein was one such person. Atheists just add Yahweh and the thousands of other putative gods to that list.>>

So do I, but this is a change of subject. Why should we suddenly be discussing national/tribal lores?

<<It is only the religious who consider they are not agnostic because they have ‘special’ knowledge of its existence.>>

Counter example: an actively paedophile priest is not religious, but most of them still consider themselves as non-agnostic.

As for myself, I don't possess special knowledge about existence. If one is interested to know about existence, then I recommend them the best available tool - science, and science tells us that no gods exist.

<<That you need to do this only demonstrates the extremely weak case you are presenting.>>

That was just my 3rd example following watching-nature and listening-to-music. I could have kept adding all forms of art (watching and creating), long runs, mathematics, and a host of other methods that may bring certain people closer to God.

Dear Pericles,

<<An atheist is someone who rejects the notion of a supreme being. Gods fall into this category.>>

Well I do: God is not a being, hence He cannot be a 'supreme being'.
(does this make me an atheist?)

<<Therefore being "inspired to come closer to God" has precisely no meaning whatsoever to an atheist.>>

Well, according to your last definition I must be an atheist, but I do value and try to dedicate my life to coming closer to God.

<<An external observer might perhaps detect a movement towards virtue and away from vice, but this can be equally easily achieved without God.>>

I agree that a concept of God is not necessary for moving towards virtue and towards God.

<<The insertion of God into the process adds precisely nothing>>

But of course God was not inserted into the process, only a concept of God. A concept of God adds to SOME people's determination to be virtuous, for others it does nothing and for a few it even detracts. For those few, I recommend taking a course at the AFA.

<<Without some level of awareness of the bindee, it is impossible for the bindor to make any progress whatsoever.>>

We ARE already aware of God - there is nothing else to be aware of. Unfortunately our awareness is distorted (so we perceive existence instead). Progress is made as we remove the distortions.

<<Or, for that matter, for an external observer to detect any "motion towards".>>

A sensitive observer who lacks the same distortions, may be able to detect in others when their distortions are removed.

<<religion is not an essential component of goodness.>>

Goodness is a component of religion (because it brings us closer to God), so the whole cannot be a component of the part. Religion starts with goodness, but eventually goes beyond it.

<<They might just be looking for a coffee shop.>>

Sure, but they still come closer to the bus-stop (even if they don't know about it).

<<Its origins are with the Greek phileo>>

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia, "philia" means "friendly love".
For "phileo", see http://www.truthortradition.com/iphone/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=70:four-kinds-of-love&catid=37:love&Itemid=57

>>Einstein wasn’t an agnostic. I quote:

“I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvellous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature. (Albert Einstein, The World as I See It)”<<

More quotes from Einstein:

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."

"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."

"Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things."

Whatever Einstein was he wasn't an atheist. I tend to agree with Einstein: I prefer Spinozan pantheism to atheism and conventional theism but I can never really be certain that Spinoza was right and that Dawkins and Joseph Smith, Confucius, Mohammed etc. were wrong.