I would have to disagree. This is a bit convoluted, but free will and an all knowing god are not mutually exclusive. In the simplest terms you have two choices: to do something or not. Weather or not a 'higher power' knows what choice you decide to make is for all purposes irrelevant to us in any measurable way. I guess it really depends on how you define free will and pre-destination.

Those would probably be people who hold Calvinist views; I'd be considered Arminian. Arminians usually believe that God knows everything, but that God hasn't pre-destined everything (caused it to happen).



From what I saw on a different thread about the denomination you grew up in, they make the Fundamental Independent Baptist types seem normal. I don't think someone's religious beliefs automatically make them intelligent or stupid, although I haven't seen anyone say that in this thread.

I just wanted to post this guy:



Who had Leviticus 18:22 tattooed to his arm.

Clearly he didn't read any further because Leviticus 19:28 says



Hahaha.

Brilliant

I have to say that I've never actually encountered a militant christian outside of the internet and they all seems to be from across the pond. It's really weird.

I also don't know a single person that goes to church that isn't a minister.

I'm not Christian, therefore I can judge without being a hypocrite, unlike those judgmental Christians.

Also your comparison to the logical fallacy makes no sense because I wasn't saying anything about what a 'real Christian' does, only pointing out the hypocrisy rampant in the religion.

That's awesome! So prescient that even 2000 years ago or so they knew tattoos were dumb.

(from back on page one)
No, because you're looking at 2) from a viewpoint that doesn't accept 1).

And btw, no legitimate christian leader would ever encourage his followers to "not bother" to try and discern and understand God's will.

it's not "Yay, I can use the excuse that God's bigger than me so that I won't have to try and understand him. what a load off!" It's "I'm going to do my best to understand God and what he wants for my life, but I still recognize that sometimes things are just not going to make sense to me, and when that happens, I will just have to have faith that He's still in control."

Exactly. Accepting that means you are shifting the burden away from yourself.

There is literally no way you will ever understand what I'm talking about given your current belief system. Your belief system evolved specifically to prevent you from understanding and accepting this kind of argument.

"keeping faith" and accepting that you may not understand something at any given time does not mean that you are settling for never understanding. Acknowledging that you dont understand something that is currently happening and still choosing to keep faith while still striving for understanding is not simply shifting the burden from yourself. Granted what you are talking about does happen, probably a majority of the time.

Then what would you say distinguishes an "actual Christian" from a non-actual Christian?

I think I see where your going. I tend to think of fake Christians as those that will yak and yak about God and Jesus whenever the topic of religion is brought up, but when you ask about their actions, they normally say "well, I don't go to church", "I don't do much community service with my church group" "I've never really read anything in the bible"

Or when you question their religions history they

"dont know much about the crusades or any of that"

"have never heard of *insert terrible atrocity commited in the name of the Christian God*"


Basically they are just idiotic, and only believe in the Christian God because they had parents who never bothered to explore anything beyond what their parents told them and so on.

AND WHATS WITH PEOPLE NOT BELIEVING IN DINOSAURS, A BUNCH OF PEOPLE HAVE TOLD ME THAT "DINOSAUR BONES ARE FAKE AND ARE JUST HUMAN BONES REARRANGED TO LOOK LIKE MONSTERS"...WHAT THE ****...GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS AND GO TO SCHOOL

The thing that I personally don't get is how people who are religious (as in, do more than believe in an abstract "god" which for them is simply another term for "nature") choose which one to believe in.

It also bothers me that the two major monotheistic religions (and variations thereof) reward ignorance rather than questioning.

Since Neil deGrasse Tyson's name recently came up in a different thread, here's a nice article by the good old astrophysicist on the subject. It's called "The Perimeter of Ignorance."

http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/2005/11/01/the-perimeter-of-ignorance

Perhaps you're right. But I could say the same for you. :p

But let me ask you, is it so wrong to let God carry that burden?

Yes, Because he doesn't exist.

Simple. 9/10 times they merely stick to what their parents are. Many of them never really had a choice because any critical thinking skills that they acquired weren't permitted to be directed towards their religion.

Whether or not mortals are capable of measuring free will has no bearing on whether or not we have it. That's exactly what many Christians mean when they make the claim that free will is an illusion (the deity has merely given us the illusion of free will). If a deity knows everything, thus knowing your destiny, then pre-destination must be a reality, thus making free will an illusion.

Thank God for Tibby. I guess.

They are still Christians, though. There's no Christian certification.

^Non-practising Christian.

Baptism comes awfully close, as does Confirmation, at least if we're speaking Catholicism. However, just as with any other certification, there's nothing to say that one cannot cheat or otherwise be wrongfully "certified."

Also, what is probably more accurate instead of "fake" and "real" in this case would be "good" and "poor" in regards to following the practices placed down. For instance, I may call myself a Christian and have even been baptized, but I would be following the Christian ways poorly if I did not love my neighbors as myself, feed the poor, or follow any number of teachings Jesus taught.

As for what this thread was originally about, free-will is a tricky thing in this context. Imagine if you were God and you gave people free-will: the choice to do right or wrong. Are you really giving people a choice if you then would use your power to keep people from doing evil? Are you really doing good by allowing people to do evil in the first place? If you were all-powerful and all-good, would you take ANY act -- an act that, by your nature, would impede on the free-will of someone else?

I think there's plenty of reasons not to believe in [the Christian understanding of] God, but most I find do so out of spite against the many who act poorly in the name of God. I'm Christian, and I believe in the practices of love taught by Jesus. And to be a Trek nerd: "If his words hold wisdom and his philosophy is honorable, what does it matter if he returns?"

Live long and gospel

I don't think the clone of Kahless, a Klingon, would like using a Vulcan paraphrase.

I wonder if Obi_Kwiet still thinks that the Catholic Church is liberal.

HI-LA-RI-OUS times.

This has nothing to do with whether a person is a Christian, though. It only pertains to membership with an organised church.


And what one must do to be considered a "good" Christian is up to subjective interpretation.


More importantly, would you give people the intellectual capacity to conclude that there is no reason to believe you exist, provide no viable evidence that you exist, and then punish them for not believing in you?



It is easy for people to attack Christianity on the basis of Christian atrocities, but it is not the primary motivation for not believing in Christianity. That would be the failure of the beliefs to hold up to scrutiny.

I would have to agree with the idea of good Vs. Poor rather than real/not real Christian. Actually being a "Christian" and acting Christian like can be two VERY different things. In mathew, Jesus lays down what is basically how a Christian should conduct themselves, love god with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. You don't have to actually BE Christian to do that, and MANY Christians don't do that.

Honestly, Flirb, now you're being difficult. How do you define a Christian at all then, or hell, ANYONE? Can I go around saying I'm an atheist while telling people to believe in God? You might not believe it, but there's more that defines being a Christian (or a member of any belief system) than just saying "I believe in God!" And I'm not even talking about whether you're a good practitioner of said religion, I'm talking about just various beliefs and practices you claim to follow. I don't think you'd consider me a Muslim, for instance, if I went around saying "I'm a Muslim! Also, I don't believe Muhammad was the one true final prophet of God!"

Also, while there's certainly debate over points of how to be an ideal Christian, to say the matter is entirely subjective is to say the same of being a good German, or a good Democrat, or even a good scientist: they all belong to social groups which are defined by expected behavior, whether it be service to one's country, to one's political ideologies, or one's method of examining evidence. Hell, even good artists aren't completely subjective to define: technical skill, ability to evoke emotion, communicating a message. According to you, you're as much a Christian as I am (and apparently that's the worst insult I could give you </sarcasm>).

Yes to the first two, given my previous hypotheticals. As soon as people are proven the existence of God, they will automatically depend on God to do everything for them (see: every superhero dilemma), which is a problem I think plagues most believers. To your third, I don't believe that to be the case and is more the common belief pushed by the false vocal majority.

Perhaps not for you, but for most I talk to, it's because they were surrounded by people who called themselves Christian and acted against the teachings of Christ and said "I don't want to be anything like these horrible people!"

I'd also like to point out that Christianity does not have the monopoly on hypocrites -- that would be the human race.

I think it's cute how some Christians think that they're more Christian than others. The fact of the matter is that your holy text (all 10 billion translations) can be interpreted to mean just about anything (there are hundreds, if not thousands, of denominations in just Christianity). You may think that baptism is a great litmus test but then many Atheists (including myself) have been baptized. I know a few thousand fundamentalists that think you're going to hell because you haven't spoken in tongues & therefore haven't received the gift of the holy spirit. Your holy text is a convoluted, inconsistent & often cryptic cluster**** & to pretend that ANYONE can somehow make enough universal sense out of it to be able to define who's Christian & who isn't is absolutely ludicrous & even arrogant. Turning water to wine would be easier (you guys can't even come to a consensus on whether or not drinking alcohol should be permitted).

I'm going to be arrogant here & make the claim that Gebohq's Atheist associates aren't true Atheists.

Exhibit A:
n. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ.

Therefore anyone who does not follow the teachings of Christ is by definition not a Christian, and are either lying, or- more likely- blinded and deluded by their own agenda.



Of course. You being an atheist doesn't preclude other people believing in God, and you could even accept or propose that, for someone else, believing in God could work for them. [Just like the military is good for some people and not for others]. Your, or anyone else', belief in God doesn't damage or diminish my capacity for atheism.



Clearly. See exhibit A.

I used to wonder if I believed in a christian god, but decided not to accept his teachings anyway, would I be a non-practising atheist?

non-practicing? I think you are just an atheist

which is NOTHING to ever feel apologetic about or feel like you have to hide.

being atheist is awesome, its the most freeing feeling in the world

Right after switching from briefs to boxers.

Well, maybe it's the most freeing feeling for women, with a close second for men?

Why do all atheist provide valid arguments for their beliefs, opposed to religious people, who come up with scientifically impossible claims to support their belief, or fall back on the argument 'you couldn't understand'/'god is beyond our grasp'?

Edit: Also, Kroko, way to go with starting this thread!

How about whether they consider themselves to be Christian? It's not difficult.
Now, a person can claim to be Christian and be lying, but that's besides the point.


You'd either be lying (and thus not a Muslim) or you'd be a Muslim with a very unconventional interpretation of Islam (and thus a very atypical Muslim).




The scientific method is clearly defined. Being a German is not, however, defined by expected behaviour. It's a nationality. You're good at being German if your nationality is German.


I don't identify as Christian, so, no, I'm not.


Very well—but it is the interpretation of Christianity that Kroko is taking issue with in the original post (from what I can tell), which is why I bring it up.


Maybe it varies by region. As far as I know, I haven't met anyone who rejected Christianity for that reason. Everyone I've talked to either wasn't raised Christian or just found too many flaws in the belief system itself.

I'm going to ignore my own original post and say something that I actually mean when I say it. We can be stupid regardless of what we use as a prebuilt foundation for that stupidity. We are also capable of using a weak foundation for reasonable ideas. Thus, being Christian doesn't make you stupid or smart, but the foundation that your ideas lie upon, to me as an atheist, crumbles before you even open your mouth, and for you to have chosen or been guided toward such a foundation in the first place, I feel that it's only natural of me to expect that the strength of your ideas would match the strength of their foundation. And when they don't, when you come off as a clearly intelligent person, you're still pushing aside that the basis for your ideas is shoddier than those power converters you always need to replace by getting new ones from the Tosche station.

So I don't think I'm better than you, I just think you've bought into nonsense. That can happen to anyone, especially if everyone they know has bought into it as well and it's been sold to them since they were a child.

Yeah, ignore them. Here's the real answer :

Jesus told his followers how they were supposed to behave. If you don't behave that way, you aren't Christian. If Jesus would not do it, and the 'Christian' does, then he is no true Christian.

As to the free will crap : Smullyan already said everything that needed said in 1977. http://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/godTaoist.html

@JM: Basically my point below. The "No True Scotsman" fallacy isn't actually fallacious if the person in question is not in fact a Scotsman.

Isn't it obvious to you how easily this leads to irreconcilable denominational factionalism, in which every denomination claims the name "Christian" for itself and only for itself? Doesn't that seem like a problem?

It's very clearly a case of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, because you don't have a reliable way to measure what is or isn't Christ-approved behavior. (No, your own interpretation of the Bible isn't good enough.)