Christian "purpose" and "meaning" in life.

[Coffee Jesus]

I've seen all to often that atheist say all claims need proof...

Citation needed. I have never said this. Has anyone else here ever said this? I think not.

Carl Sagan once said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." What do you think qualifies as an extraordinary claim? If I tell you that I had a sandwich for lunch, is that claim extraordinary?

I interpret "evidence" differently such that some claims can serve as evidence for themselves.

"There's a cat!" is correlated with cats, thus it's evidence of a cat typically.

"There's an act of God!" isn't necessarily correlated with divine intervention, so it's not evidence of it. You could hypothesize that they really witnessed divine intervention, but that's only one hypothesis among many, and you could argue that other hypotheses are better supported.

[Ryantology]

Sure. I can feel that someone is not a true christian, but the final judgement comes from God. The bible tells me what a true christian is. If it looks like a person is not exhibiting that in his actions it's an indicator that he's not.

You're as true a Christian as I am. I just don't pretend to be.

[Godscreated]

[quote='Godschild' pid='673932' dateline='1400699755']
Atheist require proof from Christians and I've given mine, all I ask is the atheist do the same as I was willing to do.

All we've ever asked from is for demonstrable evidence that your god is real, as you claim he is. You have never done this. You would know that you have succeeded when the consensus on here becomes "Yes! Godschild's god is real!" But it's not. Not even close.

You are limiting the statement to, proof of God's existence, in actuality I did not define any limits.
I haven't done it to your satisfaction, for other Christians I think I have, you want physical evidence about a spiritual being and that most likely want happen. How is it that you could believe a non Christian could see and understand spiritual evidence of the God of the Bible.

I've seen all to often that atheist say all claims need proof...

Citation needed. I have never said this. Has anyone else here ever said this? I think not.

What, you require citation from me, you want let me stand on a statement but, I'm suppose to allow you to.

Carl Sagan once said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." What do you think qualifies as an extraordinary claim? If I tell you that I had a sandwich for lunch, is that claim extraordinary?

It is, if you did not have one, I don't care what one eats for lunch. The same goes for being an atheist, but I do care to know that one is what they profess to be.

Christopher Hitchens added an extra line to this already famous quote: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Since your evidence has not satisfactorily justified your claim that a deity exists, all the atheists that have ever spoken to you here continue to dismiss your claims.

That's one's choice, and it's my choice to dismiss your claim to be an atheist without proof.

...am I suppose to just ignore the claim that all claims require proof...

Nope. Know why? Because, as I mentioned earlier, nobody says this. Ordinary claims, such as stating that I am married, or that I drive a car to work, or that I am an atheist, can generally be taken at face value. No need for investigation is needed.

You can claim those things, but what makes those claims true, your word, why? How am I suppose to know if you have an agenda to lie about those things. Is that not a possibility?

But do you know what's great about the examples I listed? I can actually provide demonstrable evidence that all three statements are true. I have a marriage certificate from the state of Arizona, so I am definitely married. I drive a 2013 Ford Mustang, for which I can provide registration to show that it's in my possession and gas receipts to show that I drive it. I'm also an atheist, to which is evidence by the fact that I do not hold a belief in any deity.

Till you get to the atheist part I can accept those things, I can check those out. However how am I suppose to check out what you feel, by your actions and speech. Atheist tell Christians we can't tell whither an person is a Christian or not, we say we can by their speech and actions, but that doesn't seem acceptable to atheist, so why should I grant your claim to be an atheist by your actions and speech, as you note below.

Since actions speak louder than words, I submit to you my online activities: the way in which I engage theists in discussion whether it's here or on social media and my video history on YouTube, to include the many comments that I have left there. My ideology is decidedly one of non-belief, as evidenced by my very apparent lack of belief in a deity.

I suppose I could ask you the same thing: are you really a Southern Baptist? You may have a membership record, but perhaps it's a front. A sham!

But doesn't it sound very silly of me to suggest something so conspiratorial for no good reason?

There are many who do not believe in my God and they are not atheist, the rest was answered above.
I can't put my name onto the membership list, only a qualified member can do that, I have to be qualified to become a Southern Baptist, besides what I say I must also be physically baptized in water. So to have my name listed with the Southern Baptist I must be confirmed through my speech and actions in front of the church, a written statement want get it.

...or do atheist believe that only applies to Christians, personally I do not think that was the meaning.

Then why ask if that's what we think? The burden of proof is on anyone making a claim. Not all claims require the same level of proof.

But you've only written how you feel, you have submitted no proof your an atheist.

By the way I'm not doing this out of mistrust and the way you answer my posts we get nowhere any way, so if you believe it's mistrust I'm showing it wouldn't matter in our discussion anyway.

So...what? You're doing this to prove a point? I'm actually glad you brought this up. I think you're actually getting a much better handle on what the "burden of proof" is than some other people that grace these forums. Something of us must actually be rubbing off on you, and I likes what I sees.

Yes I'm trying to prove a point. I've always known what the burden of proof is, it is to my amazement that some atheist here (not you that I can remember) claim they know what the burden of proof is, yet when challenged on a point for proof, skirt around producing it or give an excuse that it's not necessary in some cases, I love subjective proof don't you. Okay what point have I been after, it's this Christians are not allowed to use their feelings as proof of somethings while atheist can on whatever tickles their fancy. We are to bring proof at every turn while others here do not, an excuse is all that's required of them and the others will come to their defense. You do the same to the writers of the NT, you can say you do not or they are not real, just because you have no proof of them. Shakespeare is accepted here as a real person, no one has ever proven he actually existed, the one man who had that name did not have the same hand writing. No one named William Shakespeare wrote those volumes of works, someone did but not Willy. I can't wait to see the excuses fly on this one.
Christians here are told continually hoe they feel, but when a Christian tells an atheist how they feel a cry of unfair rings out and then you can't do that you can't know how I feel. It gets tiresome of the double standard that goes on here, now prove you're an atheist.
GC

[Ryantology]

Christians here are told continually hoe they feel, but when a Christian tells an atheist how they feel a cry of unfair rings out and then you can't do that you can't know how I feel. It gets tiresome of the double standard that goes on here, now prove you're an atheist.

Unlike atheists, Christians have a book which tells anyone who wants to read it how Christians are supposed to feel, think, and behave. So, it's really, really obvious when you're not.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Christians here are told continually hoe they feel,

but when a Christian tells an atheist how they feel a cry of unfair rings out and then you can't do that you can't know how I feel. It gets tiresome of the double standard that goes on here, now prove you're an atheist.
GC

It's probably because anyone who disagrees with a given theist is "an atheist" with "beliefs x, y, z" and "a naturalist" -- even when it comes to scientific claims, which methodological naturalism is the default underpinning of -- without being asked, and as if anyone can reject methodological naturalism while advancing scientific claims, but reject it and call foul whenever it doesn't support their beliefs.

You know what? If theists don't like being told what your beliefs are, they should stop changing them to suit each individual argument.

[Tonus]

Till you get to the atheist part I can accept those things, I can check those out. However how am I suppose to check out what you feel, by your actions and speech. Atheist tell Christians we can't tell whither an person is a Christian or not, we say we can by their speech and actions, but that doesn't seem acceptable to atheist, so why should I grant your claim to be an atheist by your actions and speech, as you note below.

I think the difference is that we would judge a person as being atheist or not based on a single criteria: do they believe in god(s). There can probably be areas of quibbling, but that's the gist of it. We see Christians from various denominations claim that other self-identified Christians are not Christians at all, and those will make the same claim right back. Some people claim to be Christian but not members of any particular religion, using the Bible as their guide and avoiding any other affiliation. Nearly every Christian that I've seen, regardless of denomination, could reference scripture to explain why they were true followers of Christ and why others were not.

For JWs and Mormons (and similar groups) it seems easy to disqualify them, as they have either added to scripture or modified it to support discordant beliefs. But most Christian denominations only use the Bible and so the differences between them is down to interpretation. Your stated view that a person's devotion to Christ is more important than any affiliation is the most sensible one to me, but probably not to other Christians and faiths.

It's not that I don't think you are a Christian, but that so many Christians seem to assume the authority to deny the legitimacy of others, and vice-versa.

[Godscreated]

Till you get to the atheist part I can accept those things, I can check those out. However how am I suppose to check out what you feel, by your actions and speech. Atheist tell Christians we can't tell whither an person is a Christian or not, we say we can by their speech and actions, but that doesn't seem acceptable to atheist, so why should I grant your claim to be an atheist by your actions and speech, as you note below.

I think the difference is that we would judge a person as being atheist or not based on a single criteria: do they believe in god(s).

That would be a reasonable criteria, but how can you prove one actually holds to that belief, there are no requirements for non-belief, other than one says so. How do you prove something that's void of facts and anything tangible.

There can probably be areas of quibbling, but that's the gist of it. We see Christians from various denominations claim that other self-identified Christians are not Christians at all, and those will make the same claim right back.

I do not do that to any denominations as a whole except the Mormons and JW, there doctrine actually changes parts of the Bible, they add to Christianity things not possible according to scripture. I have problems with some of the Catholic Church doctrines, however I know Catholics I believe I will see in heaven.
The infighting among the denominations is one of the greatest harms to Christianity, it's existed nearly from the beginning and I suspect it will go to the end, unfortunately.

Some people claim to be Christian but not members of any particular religion, using the Bible as their guide and avoiding any other affiliation. Nearly every Christian that I've seen, regardless of denomination, could reference scripture to explain why they were true followers of Christ and why others were not.

I think you're exaggerating a bit, most Christians accept other denomination, there are disagreement but few doubt each other are Christians. Yes there are some denominations that set themselves above all others and claim they are the only real Christians, they think more of themselves than the One they are to serve. What's wrong with those who decide to live in a relationship with Christ apart from a denomination, seems to me they are trying to live a life for Christ without the distraction of infighting, could be they base their beliefs on love. Something many Christians could have in their lives, including me.

For JWs and Mormons (and similar groups) it seems easy to disqualify them, as they have either added to scripture or modified it to support discordant beliefs. But most Christian denominations only use the Bible and so the differences between them is down to interpretation. Your stated view that a person's devotion to Christ is more important than any affiliation is the most sensible one to me, but probably not to other Christians and faiths.

It's good to see a non-believer who actually tries to understand Christianity and what goes on within the denominations.
Yes, it does get down to interpretation, unfortunately most interpretation comes down to self desire in this day and time, I'm not sure of the intent of the originators of the denomination, I will err to the side of honest intent.

It's not that I don't think you are a Christian, but that so many Christians seem to assume the authority to deny the legitimacy of others, and vice-versa.

I'm only going to look at individuals actions and their speech to make a determination of their claim of Christianity, I believe we are allowed that to protect the church, I see it as a responsibility of Christians to the church and scriptural at that, we should never abuse this right out of personal feelings.

GC

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

So there really is such a thing as a True Christian™! How would you go about determining that they haven't followed the guidelines in the Bible and are not living the way you think they should, and what should you do about it?

---

As I stated earlier in the thread - God knows who his followers are and who are not. Nobody else on his earth knows whether I'm a true christian except me. It's between God and us.

If a person is a true Christian then he can do all of the things Jesus did and much more. If you haven't done those things then you aren't a true Christian.

[Godscreated]

---

---

As I stated earlier in the thread - God knows who his followers are and who are not. Nobody else on his earth knows whether I'm a true christian except me. It's between God and us.

If a person is a true Christian then he can do all of the things Jesus did and much more. If you haven't done those things then you aren't a true Christian.

Please reference the material that proves your statement, I would believe the only place that could supply such references would be the Bible.

GC

[Mudhammam]

If a person is a true Christian then he can do all of the things Jesus did and much more. If you haven't done those things then you aren't a true Christian.

Please reference the material that proves your statement, I would believe the only place that could supply such references would be the Bible.

GC

You mean such references can't be supplied by a bright light and a voice from heaven anymore?