Typical theists versus typical atheists

[vorlon13]

Yes, and by me telling somebody I am an atheist it's often funny to see the many things they will then assume about me and my other beliefs. My atheism jut tells you I don't believe in gods, it doesn't tell you squat about anything else I believe, disbelieve or my worldview or any ideology I may or may not hold. That all requires a whole host of further discussion the is too often assumed.

But when somebody say, tells me they are  Christian, I am quite happy to take them at their word and discuss beliefs, the funny times is when you meet another one who tells you that what the first one had said means they are not a really a Christian. Does anybody have a reliable "Credible Member of their Faith" detector?

Nope. The definition of Christian is clearly fluid. And that fluidity seems to be specifically so they can label other people as "not really Christian"


Cheers
TheBeardedDude

and it works both ways.

Someone clearly not or un Christian by a vast overwhelming majority view of folks in the US in the 1960s is now the standard bearer for Christianity in 2017.

And ENORMOUS sea change just in my lifetime.  Only other religion I can think of with that 180 degrees of flexibility would be Mormonism.

[KerimF]

[1]
A typical theist doesn’t mind believing in miracles, said religious if approved by certain religious people, privileged by the high class.
A typical atheist doesn’t mind believing an idea, beyond his personal experience, if said scientific and approved by certain scientists, privileged by the high class.
 
[2]
A typical theist doesn’t mind obeying rules if said inspired by a god and approved by certain religious people, privileged by the high class.
A typical atheist doesn’t mind obeying rules if said inspired by certain great ancestors (who are usually supposed representing ideals for the human race) and approved by privileged Elite.
 
Even from these two points, one may conclude that while a typical theist is made ready to accept being a follower/supporter of a certain heavenly ruling system, an atheist prefers to be a follower, if not a supporter too, of an earthly ruling system he used to know.
 
In the ‘real’ world (far from the great speeches, religious or political and as I see it), the role of religions (of various heavenly ruling systems) and politics (of various earthly ruling systems) are much alike. In both camps, minds of the faithful believers/followers are driven cleverly to where they are supposed to be. For example on one hand, a person is made ready to risk his life for a god. On the other hand, a person is made ready to risk his life for a flag (actually, the ideals it represents).

In other words, religions and politics complement each other, so that the most powerful/rich families in every region in the world can legitimately be served by the men on bottom who can choose freely to be theist or atheist.

There's a VERY important difference.  The "typical atheist" you describe, which is not really an atheist but a layperson believer of science, has one belief that you do not, and cannot, hold: he believes that if he wants to, he can pick up the trail, follow all the science, and duplicate any of it that he wants to.  He's been given at least enough examples of this in school, where he has done scientific experiments, and gotten similar results to those expected: same measurements, same chemical changes, same motions of objects through space, and so on.  And if he wants to follow up further, he will be embraced by the scientific community for his efforts, and will likely be allowed access to universities and other contexts in his pursuit of the truth.

The theist, on the other hand, warmly embraces the fact that he CANNOT retrace the steps of the religious greats.  He cannot walk on water.  He cannot expect to talk to burning bushes, or to multiply fish, or to have a direct communication with God.  In fact, if he demonstrates a need or even a desire to see proof that his religious authorities really do have access to the Lord, he will be accused of lacking faith.  If he doubts that any of the miracles described in his Holy Book of choice really happened as described, he may be excommunicated or worse.  How many times has a "typical atheist" been outcast or threatened with bodily harm because he doesn't believe in a particular scientific experiment, result or conclusion?  Plenty-- but only by those religious institutions accusing him of lack of faith!

In short, while you're not wrong about laypeople having a certain faith in particular scientific results (I have never been in a rocket or triggered a nuclear bomb), there is no demand of faith IN THE INSTITUTION or IN THE PROCESS.  That's why the "typical atheist" as you describe it cannot be said to equivalent to the "typical theist" as you describe it.  You have faith because there is nothing for you to have BUT faith-- there is no process for you to follow to verify the "truths" you are made to believe.

First, I agree with you on what you kindly presented.

I like adding that, in the real world and in general, both theists and atheists have a scientific education which helps them gain their daily bread in the least.

But while an atheist cannot be fooled anymore by a religious authority, I am afraid he is not completely immune against being deceived (with other millions, theists and atheists) by his political authority which has all the means (lot of money and very advanced tools) to create stories (if not events, claimed natural) and prove them being real and true by evidences, well prepared/edited on videos that can reach almost all houses in the world (via satellites).

Kerim

[SteveII]

Why do all theists think atheist = science?

Yes, and by me telling somebody I am an atheist it's often funny to see the many things they will then assume about me and my other beliefs. My atheism jut tells you I don't believe in gods, it doesn't tell you squat about anything else I believe, disbelieve or my worldview or any ideology I may or may not hold. That all requires a whole host of further discussion the is too often assumed.

But when somebody say, tells me they are  Christian, I am quite happy to take them at their word and discuss beliefs, the funny times is when you meet another one who tells you that what the first one had said means they are not a really a Christian. Does anybody have a reliable "Credible Member of their Faith" detector?

There is such a detector. It's called the NT. If it isn't in there, it is not important in the definition of a Christian.

[KerimF]

[1]
A typical theist doesn’t mind believing in miracles, said religious if approved by certain religious people, privileged by the high class.
A typical atheist doesn’t mind believing an idea, beyond his personal experience, if said scientific and approved by certain scientists, privileged by the high class.
 
[2]
A typical theist doesn’t mind obeying rules if said inspired by a god and approved by certain religious people, privileged by the high class.
A typical atheist doesn’t mind obeying rules if said inspired by certain great ancestors (who are usually supposed representing ideals for the human race) and approved by privileged Elite.
 

[1]: Darwin kept his theory secret until near his death. It was not received well by the elite. Einstein toiled in obscurity until experiments revealed his genius. Public money / taxes now fund science in the U.S. The days of patronage by elites and monarchs are long gone.

[2] : Rules? can you be more specific?

You are right the way you understood my word 'Elite'.
I chose this word (Elite in case of non-religious) to refer to the top decisions makers in the world, speaking politically and scientifically as well.
Politics that was started in the form of religions is the oldest art known by men by which a few persons can control legitimately the rest of their society with minimum problems. Today, the political artists (producers and directors working behind the scenes, also their great actors called politicians) use religions as a cover up of their diabolic plans; the best one, so far, is their international endless daily series known as 'War on Terror'. We all witnessed how in less than 24 hours the previous bogyman 'Communists' was replaced by 'Terrorists'. This was possible when both the American and Russian Elite agreed, under the table of course, to divide the main resources of the world between them. And the men on power of every other country were instructed to present themselves as ally to America or Russia, but not both. And they are promised to protect their positions if they play well in the series 'War on Terror'. So, one country after another, the unbeatable/unreachable terrorists are allowed to be raised locally or be imported from abroad so that they can spread the 9/11 terror against the powerless men on bottom, civilians.
On the other hand, the terrorist crimes against millions of people (we are just at the beginning of the World Terror War against civilians, as the American and Russian administrations keep telling) are now fully justified after sacrificing, in daylight and as high as possible in order for the entire world to witness, just a few thousands of innocent citizens in NYC (since no one in the world dares even to imagine attacking America, mainly a silly attack against its civilians). In other words, believing that the heroes of the 9/11 terror are psychopaths and the actual uncounted number of terrorist groups (actually forming a huge army prepared from 2002 to 2010) are trained, supported and funded (to the point they are threatening the two greatest nations!) by psychopaths too, won't differ a lot from believing that the human race started by Adam & Eve. As the latter story has its defenders in millions, it is natural that the story of the new incredible psychopaths has also its great defenders (theists and atheists, I guess).

---

Religion is a tool meant to get political power.

In other words, they are twins when a nation has both.
Today's Chinese are likely the most rational people. They are supposed to be guided by one ruling system; an earthly one.

[SteveII]

In other words, they are twins when a nation has both.
Today's Chinese are likely the most rational people. They are supposed to be guided by one ruling system; an earthly one.

LOL, I agree. China is probably the most rational people since China is exploding with new Christians every year and is expected to pass the US in total numbers in the near future. 

[JackRussell]

Yeah, because repressed people have never struck out in surprising ways just to piss off the authorities, and a lie that promises better life is never alluring.

Communism=bad check
Christianity=I am uneducated and this sounds better than my present situation. check

Educated to a level to address these claims rationally -- WAH WAH MAJOR FAIL

[vorlon13]

Yes, and by me telling somebody I am an atheist it's often funny to see the many things they will then assume about me and my other beliefs. My atheism jut tells you I don't believe in gods, it doesn't tell you squat about anything else I believe, disbelieve or my worldview or any ideology I may or may not hold. That all requires a whole host of further discussion the is too often assumed.

But when somebody say, tells me they are  Christian, I am quite happy to take them at their word and discuss beliefs, the funny times is when you meet another one who tells you that what the first one had said means they are not a really a Christian. Does anybody have a reliable "Credible Member of their Faith" detector?

There is such a detector. It's called the NT. If it isn't in there, it is not important in the definition of a Christian.

We can also detect by observing results of their molesting dangerous serpents and swilling poison.

And even some of the other stuff that's in the NT that was important in the definition when I was a kid are emphatically not part of the definition today.


Conspicuous by their absence they are . . .

Of course, one needs to be pushing 60 and to have been paying attention all along to notice.

[JackRussell]

Yes, and by me telling somebody I am an atheist it's often funny to see the many things they will then assume about me and my other beliefs. My atheism jut tells you I don't believe in gods, it doesn't tell you squat about anything else I believe, disbelieve or my worldview or any ideology I may or may not hold. That all requires a whole host of further discussion the is too often assumed.

But when somebody say, tells me they are  Christian, I am quite happy to take them at their word and discuss beliefs, the funny times is when you meet another one who tells you that what the first one had said means they are not a really a Christian. Does anybody have a reliable "Credible Member of their Faith" detector?

There is such a detector. It's called the NT. If it isn't in there, it is not important in the definition of a Christian.

Well i know that's not true. Have spoken to NT Christians that have disagreed upon that. I have spoken to a NT Christian about my works as a decent monkey and he gave me a pass, sincerely. Another said, sorry but no free pass, despite doing good. Both backed with scripture.

[SteveII]

Yeah, because repressed people have never struck out in surprising ways just to piss off the authorities, and a lie that promises better life is never alluring.

Communism=bad check
Christianity=I am uneducated and this sounds better than my present situation. check

Educated to a level to address these claims rationally -- WAH WAH MAJOR FAIL

You are taking your bias and applying to an entire people group and telling us WHY they become Christians by the tens of millions. That is highly condescending and vacuous.

---

There is such a detector. It's called the NT. If it isn't in there, it is not important in the definition of a Christian.

Well i know that's not true. Have spoken to NT Christians that have disagreed upon that. I have spoken to a NT Christian about my works as a decent monkey and he gave me a pass, sincerely. Another said, sorry but no free pass, despite doing good. Both backed with scripture.

It really isn't difficult to ascertain that one does not get a free pass on works alone. It is literally in just about every chapter of the NT.

---

There is such a detector. It's called the NT. If it isn't in there, it is not important in the definition of a Christian.

Well i know that's not true. Have spoken to NT Christians that have disagreed upon that. I have spoken to a NT Christian about my works as a decent monkey and he gave me a pass, sincerely. Another said, sorry but no free pass, despite doing good. Both backed with scripture.

It does not follow (ever) that if you got two different answers to the same question then there are two different answers to the same question. It is decidedly unchristian (in a very big way) to think you can get salvation through works alone and is not a belief held by any knowledgeable person.

[vorlon13]

Yeah, because repressed people have never struck out in surprising ways just to piss off the authorities, and a lie that promises better life is never alluring.

Communism=bad check
Christianity=I am uneducated and this sounds better than my present situation. check

Educated to a level to address these claims rationally -- WAH WAH MAJOR FAIL

Well, I'm putting a flag on the communism one there.

God slew Ananias and Sapphira for not being good communists.  Taking heed of that the Pilgrims who came to Plymouth Rock to colonize followed Scripture to the letter in that regard and killed half their flock demonstrating how poorly motivated they were to follow the Divine Plan.