The OP. You conclude that, any axioms used for religious proofs would surely beg the question. How did you arrive at this conclusion? The term "Christian god" is not God. It is only comprehended, if you are aware of the Christian religion. The real question should be... What axioms would you suggest for proving that God exists? Then we have to define what God is, because the term "God, God" is a generic term. An axiom is an irreducible primary. It doesn't rest upon anything in order to be valid, and it cannot be proven by any "more basic" premises. A trueaxiom can not be refuted because the act of trying to refute it requires that very axiom as a premise. An attempt to contradict an axiom can only end in a contradiction. That's like adding to, a baffling case of trying to figure out who stole the jewels, the statement that some theives exists. Neither would a theist. Define religious beliefs? Let's replace "religious beliefs" with "secular humanist beliefs". Secular humanism posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god. ... Many secular humanistsderive their moral codes from a philosophy of utilitarianism, ethical naturalism, or evolutionary ethics, and some advocate a science of morality How do the essential component of belief, and/or faith differ? The very reason an atheist is an atheist, is because God is not acceptable. It's like a white supremecist asking a person who just sees the human being, as a human being, despite the varying shades, features and culture, to provide him with proof that black people should be accepted as equally human as themselves. There is nothing that the neutral person can say, regardless of whether or not he is speaking the truth. Or reason-based points, using good logic. IOW, we are not without presupposition. The question is how do we arrive at these suppositions. Jan.