I realized I believed in God, and then immediately remembered that God doesn't believe in atheists, so now I don't believe in my own existence. Thanks, God.

Quote: And yet it moves.

Galileo Galilei

There surely is a straight path.
It surely is connected to Something.
It surely leads to something.
It surely is walked by some.
It surely is to be manifested by some of those.
There surely exists one of those who manifests the straight path which leads to something in this day and age.

That something, yeah, we all know what it is.

(January 5, 2016 at 9:33 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote: And yet it moves.

exactly.

(January 5, 2016 at 3:05 pm)robvalue Wrote: I've come to the conclusion that "Christian" just means that you identify as a Christian, nothing more. For any rule you try to set up there will always be someone breaking it but still saying they are Christian. Since it's all arbitrary anyway, I don't see how anyone has the authority to decide who is and isn't one. I just don't think it's at all well-defined.

Especially considering it's all just statements of belief, which no one is required to actually hold even if they say they do.

When not a word of what they claim is likely the truth, and they have the right to make such claims, when why not let them have at it and call themselves NASA Scientists...oops!

No way.
There is a way.
That leads to a higher way.
Cause it's all in our heads.
It's all in our heads.

No way.
There is a way.
To know the basis of the way.
Cause it's all in our heads.
It's all in our heads.

No way.
There is a way.
To be guided on the way.
Cause it's all in our heads.
It's all in our heads.

No way.
There is a way.
To know the Guide of the way.
Cause it's all in our heads.
It's all in our heads.

No way
There is a way
To know we are a way
Cause it's all in our heads
It's all in our heads.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I right?

(January 5, 2016 at 3:57 pm)*Deidre* Wrote:

(January 5, 2016 at 2:00 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: Some people will tell any lie when it will get them attention, especially paid interviews.

Anybody can claim they are or were atheist, just as anyone can claim to be a devout Xtian. Whether or not they really were, or understood the meaning of the claim they make is usually the first question which should be asked. At least the atheists who understand atheism can clearly define what that means without resorting to dismissing the doubter as willfully ignorant.

On death, it happens to all no matter what they believe. On the nothingness which follows, nothing is something which you should know cannot hurt you - not when there is no neural activity by which one could feel it. On being convinced, this is where you either have a case which has made you believe in one or more gods over many thousands of others, you believe in all of them despite their conflicts, or you have no good reason to believe in any of them. Part of growing up is to stop inventing imaginary friends just because we're lonely, and this is a problem with theists.

I've never dismissed any 'doubters' ...it's just not my thing. You sound like my Christian friends however who when I left the faith for a few years said...'you were never a true Christian.' 
Didn't think this mindset goes on in atheist circles lol

At the end of the day, no one can tell someone else how to live...only share what makes your views, your views. For those who want to chastise people on either side of the fence, their rhetoric falls on deaf ears, as far as I'm concerned.

When you are really playing the game of the No True Scotsman Fallacy, the difference is in whether or not you have confused, or are seeking to confuse the definition of whatever school of thought which you claim. Can you give me a fail-safe definition of that school "Christian"? Would any official teacher in this school say it does not require belief? I was told by my youth pastor, decades ago that being "Christian" literally means "Christ-like". So could one be a Christian by acting just like Jesus, caring just like Jesus, and loving others just like Jesus did but without actually believe the Jesus story? Then there's the rebel factor, and boy was Jesus ever described as this, in fact what he is said to have done would have gotten him in jail much sooner today than it eventually took him to the cross. The guy was a rebel, and in all honesty, a bit of a jerk with people who were just trying to pay their rent by plying their trade. REBEL is what most religious people treat the atheist as, and most religious people have no idea what else it really means. "ATHEIST" does NOT mean one who rebels against god, which is in all likelihood what happens when someone declares themselves atheist, while still believing that god is something other than a myth. OK, I went through attempts I've seen on how Christians define their own group. Would you like it if atheists and other people defined Christianity for you Christians? No? Then please don't define atheism for the atheists. The most straightforward definition is derived from the negation "a" and "theist", which means "believes in a god" - this yields "not a theist". That means exactly what it says on the tin, it doesn't say "rebel who is angry with his god", and that is why I can tell you without laying down any No True Scotsman violations that you are wrong if you say your rebels who stopped going to your church for awhile and started talking shit about your god were "atheists" just for that.

(January 5, 2016 at 2:37 pm)Jehanne Wrote: God of Mr. HankyOn death, it happens to all no matter what they believe. On the nothingness which follows, nothing is something which you should know cannot hurt you - not when there is no neural activity by which one could feel it.

Well stated.  It does not matter what one believes; I, for one, can believe, passionately, that the South won the Civil War.  In any case, I think that the point you're making needs to be emphasized by the atheistic community more.

The problem is the relation between religious faith and the meddling with / taking of lives for said religious causes. Wars are started over religious ideals, as well as by secular idealists. Don't confuse the idealist with the person who does not believe in a god, and would not be first to jump on the war wagon for the next Stalin without thoroughly examining reasons why he should do so first, including whether it would make this world any better.

(January 5, 2016 at 10:07 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(January 5, 2016 at 3:57 pm)*Deidre* Wrote: I've never dismissed any 'doubters' ...it's just not my thing. You sound like my Christian friends however who when I left the faith for a few years said...'you were never a true Christian.' 
Didn't think this mindset goes on in atheist circles lol

At the end of the day, no one can tell someone else how to live...only share what makes your views, your views. For those who want to chastise people on either side of the fence, their rhetoric falls on deaf ears, as far as I'm concerned.

When you are really playing the game of the No True Scotsman Fallacy, the difference is in whether or not you have confused, or are seeking to confuse the definition of whatever school of thought which you claim. Can you give me a fail-safe definition of that school "Christian"? Would any official teacher in this school say it does not require belief? I was told by my youth pastor, decades ago that being "Christian" literally means "Christ-like". So could one be a Christian by acting just like Jesus did but doesn't actually believe the Jesus story? Then there's the rebel factor, and boy was Jesus ever described as this, in fact what he is said to have done would have gotten him in jail much sooner today than it eventually took him to the cross. The guy was a rebel, and in all honesty, a bit of a jerk with people who were just trying to pay their rent by plying their trade. REBEL is what most religious people treat the atheist as, and most religious people have no idea what else it really means. "ATHEIST" does NOT mean one who rebels against god, which is in all likelihood what happens when someone declares themselves atheist, while still believing that god is something other than a myth. OK, I went through attempts I've seen on how Christians define their own group. Would you like it if atheists and other people defined Christianity for you Christians? No? Then please don't define atheism for the atheists. The most straightforward definition is derived from the negation "a" and "theist", which means "believes in a god" - this yields "not a theist". That means exactly what it says on the tin, it doesn't say "rebel who is angry with his god", and that is why I can tell you without laying down any No True Scotsman violations that you are wrong if you say your rebels who stopped going to your church for awhile and started talking shit about your god were "atheists" just for that.

Dude, chill. I'm not really much of a debater...anymore. You can believe anything you wish, but let me believe as I wish to believe, too. You seem to have the issue, not me. lol

(January 5, 2016 at 10:21 pm)*Deidre* Wrote:

(January 5, 2016 at 10:07 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: When you are really playing the game of the No True Scotsman Fallacy, the difference is in whether or not you have confused, or are seeking to confuse the definition of whatever school of thought which you claim. Can you give me a fail-safe definition of that school "Christian"? Would any official teacher in this school say it does not require belief? I was told by my youth pastor, decades ago that being "Christian" literally means "Christ-like". So could one be a Christian by acting just like Jesus did but doesn't actually believe the Jesus story? Then there's the rebel factor, and boy was Jesus ever described as this, in fact what he is said to have done would have gotten him in jail much sooner today than it eventually took him to the cross. The guy was a rebel, and in all honesty, a bit of a jerk with people who were just trying to pay their rent by plying their trade. REBEL is what most religious people treat the atheist as, and most religious people have no idea what else it really means. "ATHEIST" does NOT mean one who rebels against god, which is in all likelihood what happens when someone declares themselves atheist, while still believing that god is something other than a myth. OK, I went through attempts I've seen on how Christians define their own group. Would you like it if atheists and other people defined Christianity for you Christians? No? Then please don't define atheism for the atheists. The most straightforward definition is derived from the negation "a" and "theist", which means "believes in a god" - this yields "not a theist". That means exactly what it says on the tin, it doesn't say "rebel who is angry with his god", and that is why I can tell you without laying down any No True Scotsman violations that you are wrong if you say your rebels who stopped going to your church for awhile and started talking shit about your god were "atheists" just for that.

Dude, chill. I'm not really much of a debater...anymore. You can believe anything you wish, but let me believe as I wish to believe, too. You seem to have the issue, not me. lol

Oh, puLEEEEEZZE don't pretend you weren't trying to throw the stinky my way! I happen to be perfectly cool about it, not mad at all. I expect no more from theists who choose to spend their time here, and you happen to impress me above most in that category. What does matter, and what I will not let slide is when Christians hit-and-run, leaving misinformation behind. I'm not completely sure that you misunderstand (or did) the difference between a NTS fallacy and a distinction which is well-applied because the title in question is specifically-defined, and then I wanted to help you understand what that is.

You're welcome.