I Find It Offensive; How About You

[Statler Waldorf]

[Faith No More]

Misusing Christianity isn't Christianity would you agree?

Yes, but defining what is misusing Christianity is opening a can of worms. Every Christian believes there to be scriptural basis for their interpretation.

Would you include following the words of the commercially successful atheists like Dawkins? I suppose you do. Kudos

I guess that depends. I'm sure plenty people follow Dawkins because they agree with him and like that he speaks out publicly. Anyone who hangs on his every word and never questions what he has to say though, would definitely be included.

[fr0d0]

Misusing Christianity isn't Christianity would you agree?

Yes, but defining what is misusing Christianity is opening a can of worms. Every Christian believes there to be scriptural basis for their interpretation.

There are limits though. I can accept interpretation even though I know it to be wrong to the best of my understanding. We all learn, and the basic belief is what matters. If you're clearly doing the opposite of what Jesus taught then I can't ever see that could be described as following him. I fail at that all the time... that doesn't make me non Christian, just human. It doesn't make my non Christian acts Christ like either. Just sayin'

[The Grand Nudger]

And what, exactly, did jesus teach? Wouldn't you have to definitively show a consistent message to conclude that there is some minimum bar of entry with regards to being a christian, or conducting your life in a christian manner. If you believe you have done this, there are, at present approx 30000-40000 denominations of christianity which are sorely in need of your insight.

Statler, since we have our split thread now I'm going to repeat a statement that was moved, for the benefit of lurkers here. YOU have defined atheism as a positive belief in the non-existence of gods because it is a convenient way for you to shift the burden of proof upon those who do not agree with you.

It is a word with greek roots where "a" means "without" or "not"; and where "theos" means god. There is in fact a greek word for belief, "pisteuo" and I would like to kindly point out that it does not appear anywhere within the confines of the word "atheist". It has already been defined, and is not open to a re-translation for the purposes of supporting your argument.

[fr0d0]

It doesn't matter how many denominations there are that agree on the central concepts. Just like with translations of the bible, it has to be relevant to you in your place. If it isn't, you have to re-state it to apply to you. Ergo: the message is constant.

[The Grand Nudger]

Radio Jerevan receives a question from a listener. "Is it true that cars are being given away in Red Square in Moscow."
That is correct, except for a few small errors.

First, it isn't Moscow, but Leningrad.
Second, it isn't Red Square, but the banks of the river Neva.
Third, it isn't cars but bicycles.
Fourth, they're not given away, but stolen."

[fr0d0]

When atheists have to distort the truth to make a point, the validity of their position suffers.

[Statler Waldorf]

[Epimethean]

The preferred Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes no such claim:

"Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God."

Succinct, to the point, and therefore less a playtoy for theists.

Nonbelief =/= belief

[Violet]

Ummm... "Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God."

Means precisely a belief.

Avoid dictionaries myself... usually moronic.