Atheistforums.com

Hello,

I've seen how a Roman Catholic was excoriated and lynched even before he could begin and so it's not without some fear and trembling that I admit to being a cultural Christian. I have always been a Christian and I've served the church since I was a toddler as an altar boy. The animosity that an atheist has for Christians is, I believe, reserved only for fundamentalist Christians and not cultural or extremely liberal ones.

Cheers,

scroyle

hello and welcome.

I can't speak for others but I do not have animosity towards any one. I think when a christian and atheist get into a debate both are very passionate and that can be misinterpreted as animosity. I believe on a whole atheists do not have animosity towards christians.

Number one reason I don't get out much to go visiting people,  most people I know identify as Christian. If it weren't for that I might be a social butterfly.

that's why I invented the internet! So all atheists could unite and socialize while saving the world  from religion.

Hi there

If we disagree on something or have questions, we can discuss or debate such things. But I won't go out and say why I think you are (most likely) mistaken without any reason or instigation. Everyone can believe what they want. It's only when beliefs are put forth in the free-market space of idea's and used to support something or question something, that they deserve to be called into question and be examined and criticized. I'm not the thought-police, I don't mind you being a Christian.

I'm new here too, but I'd like to say welcome, and nice to meet you.

different colored hair on the same dog. Welcome.

Welcome!

Welcome! A "Cultural christian" would be an atheist/non-christian who (was raised in and) takes part in christian culture btw.

I don't have any animosity towards liberal believers. Doubt any real amount of atheists have. Personally I just think they are brainwashed and would like to "save" them. ;)

Welcome.

Join the age of enlightenment.  We are here to help.

Quote from: La Dolce Vita on April 03, 2014, 04:45:54 PM
Welcome! A "Cultural christian" would be an atheist/non-christian who (was raised in and) takes part in christian culture btw.

I don't have any animosity towards liberal believers. Doubt any real amount of atheists have. Personally I just think they are brainwashed and would like to "save" them. ;)

Hey, people got to explain shit. I never heard of a cultural christian before. thanks for enlightening me.

Quote from: scroyle on April 03, 2014, 01:04:03 PM

I've seen how a Roman Catholic was excoriated and lynched even before he could begin and so it's not without some fear and trembling that I admit to being a cultural Christian.

No, what you saw was a troll who was trying to be a dick. Don't be a dick and you've got nothing to worry about.

Quote from: scroyle on April 03, 2014, 01:04:03 PMThe animosity that an atheist has for Christians is, I believe, reserved only for fundamentalist Christians and not cultural or extremely liberal ones.

This sorta deserves its own thread, but that's not entirely true.

Obviously, I can only speak for myself here, but I'm not terribly fond of any variety of superstitious hookem.  Fundies (and not just the Christian fundamentalists) are some seriously sick and often dangerous people.  I don't like being on the same planet with these people, let alone the same room.  So yeah, disgust and animosity.

But the more liberal varieties are still pretty big on god-of-the-gaps reasoning and are still pretty hostile towards atheists (who, I have been told, are "intolerant" and no different than their fundie counterparts.  Oh the irony).  To their credit, they generally don't hate on gays, don't hate other people simply for being a member of another religion, and are generally supportive of science.  (They're still big on Goddidit, though).  I'd give them a medal for it but you don't get a medal for not being a hateful lunatic.  But their relatively small but numerous failings hurt their rep with me.  Since their beliefs are sort of a mixed bag, my reaction varies from mild dislike to something approximating disappointment.

The thing that really gets me is that these people are generally pretty progressive, intelligent people and it makes me die a little inside to watch these people debate the finer points of the "metaphorical truth" of this or that Bible story in indecipherable Christianese.  Fundies generally say what they mean.  I can respect that.  I can't respect garnishing a mud pie with deep-sounding jargon.  Or pretending that the Emperor isn't naked.

Quote from: scroyle on April 03, 2014, 01:04:03 PM
The animosity that an atheist has for Christians is, I believe, reserved only for fundamentalist Christians and not cultural or extremely liberal ones.

Speaking only for myself, my animosity toward christians is not reserved only for fundamentalist christians and to help you understand why, I will ask you a very simple question. Can you mention the fact that you are a christian to your peers and superiors where you work without it having a negative impact on your treatment, promotability and therefore future pay? Because as an atheist I cannot. My boss is for all intents very much a cultural christian not unlike yourself. But if he had even the smallest clue that I might call myself an atheist, I would not be making what I'm making now.

That is the situation that exists for lots of atheists in this country. So if you want to understand where at least some of the hate toward christians comes from, sit down and make the choice between having to keep your religious affiliation a complete secret to everyone around you or making less money and sacrificing future promotability in your career and see how you like it.

What Hydra said ^

Christian fundamentalists may be more vicious and rabid, but both groups believe in something that cannot be distinguished from the imaginary.  So I don't have much respect for either group.  It's nice that liberal Christians might not be as hateful of other groups and minorities, but the fact that they aren't probably isn't something they reasoned out.  It's just who they are, and says little about their desire to be logical.  And when reason is not involved, a big red flag goes up.  For society to operate without reason is never, NEVER, a good thing.

Quote from: scroyle on April 03, 2014, 01:04:03 PM
The animosity that an atheist has for Christians is, I believe, reserved only for fundamentalist Christians and not cultural or extremely liberal ones.

Hm. Can you tell me a little more about how I feel?

Quote from: scroyle on April 03, 2014, 01:04:03 PMThe animosity that an atheist has for Christians is, I believe, reserved only for fundamentalist Christians and not cultural or extremely liberal ones.

Why would I have any less animosity for someone equally dismissive of my viewpoint?

Quote from: scroyle on April 03, 2014, 01:04:03 PM
Hi, I'm a cultural Christian

A what?

Hi everyone and thanks for the welcome. My MacBook is downloading the latest OS X now so I'm typing on the phone but I'll write more when I can use my proper keyboard which will be soon. I think you misunderstand what a cultural Christian is and it's my fault because there's a whole spectrum and I agree some of them are superstitious. But I'm not a superstitious person even though I'm deeply religious. I don't think atheists will have any need to dispute with me. My computer should be ready soon unless the new OS has a bug. I just thought I should at least thank folks for the warm welcome first. Cheers!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OK, I now have the use of my computer. It's true that some liberal Christians believe in superstitious things like supernatural beings with magical powers and workers of miracles, etc but that's because there are all kinds of liberal Christians.  As I have said, it's a whole spectrum but many of us don't accept anything supernatural.

Many liberal Christians turn anything in the Bible that is wrong into a metaphor. So God didn't create an Adam and an Eve but both Adam and Eve are a metaphor for "early men". But these liberals may still believe that early men were ultimately created by a supernatural being. Evolution becomes a process guided lovingly by a supernatural God being.

But some of us don't just stop there. We see God himself as a metaphor. God is a personification of a quality.  The quality being goodness, truth and justice. Of course I'm not blind to the fact that at one time, the entire church believed God to be a separate entity and not just a metaphor for goodness. But at one time the whole of humanity didn't know better.  Now we do.

I said I have nothing to debate with atheists because when it comes to the "supernatural" there is no dispute.  But there is still a huge difference between us. I'm deeply religious. I have served the church all my life since my toddler years and I continue to serve the church and will do so until I die. Passion Week will be here soon and it means a lot to me.  Factually, I acknowledge that I can't even be certain that Jesus existed historically. There's zilch Roman record of his existence but I think he probably did exist as an anti-Roman apocalyptic zealot. He probably got killed like all apocalyptic zealots and I acknowledge that the church romanticized his death and created a Jesus that's different from the historical Jesus who was probably a devout Jew who hated all Gentiles and would have nothing to do with a pork eating Christian. But the Jesus that I've grown up to love and to weep for in Passion Week as I think of the crown of thorns forced on his head is not the historical Jesus but a creation of the Church. That's the image of Jesus that is significant to me. It's a galvanising force for all the good works within the church that we do for our fellow humans. What is wrong with that? True, atheists are honest people and they can't stand an untruth and this church-created image of Jesus does not accord with history.

But you see, culture is not about scientific or historical truth. Culture is the sum total of our human story complete with all the mistakes that we make, the lies our ancestors told, etc.  As a cultural Christian, I acknowledge that this concept of the Passion of Christ is historically incorrect. He died a traitor to Rome but I'm not bothered about the real Jesus. He was an insignificant man. It means nothing to me when atheists say Jesus couldn't even heal a man with a common cold, far less resurrect Lazarus. I already knew he couldn't.

Two years ago, the new Chaplain of Harvard University said something that I absolutely agree with. It doesn't matter if Christianity is true. What's important is we can make it true by the life we live.  Now, that's liberal Christianity at its finest.

Cheers

scroyle

S'up.

Welcome aboard! Solitary   I don't hate religious people that do good, I hate organized religion that does horrible things in the name of God. Like hating love and something as beautiful as this: (http://i.imgur.com/Ob2bEjS.jpg) (http://imgur.com/Ob2bEjS)

Quote from: scroyle on April 04, 2014, 12:22:50 PM
We see God himself as a metaphor. God is a personification of a quality.  The quality being goodness, truth and justice.

And can he leap tall buildings in a single bound? Seriously, though, have you actually read the bible? If so, how can you honestly say that the god depicted therein is good, just or truthful? I assume your a non-trinitarian; or was Jesus fully human and fully metaphor? Can a metaphor talk to prophets and kings or are all those stories some how metaphors too; metaphors of what?

Quote from: Poison Tree on April 04, 2014, 01:19:08 PM
And can he leap tall buildings in a single bound? Seriously, though, have you actually read the bible? If so, how can you honestly say that the god depicted therein is good, just or truthful? I assume your a non-trinitarian; or was Jesus fully human and fully metaphor? Can a metaphor talk to prophets and kings or are all those stories some how metaphors too; metaphors of what?

Of course God can't leap at all. You've got to be an existing entity to even leap.
Yes, I have studied the Bible carefully and have studied the New Testament using the Nestle Koine Greek text. I am quite familiar with the Bible.
I follow holy tradition which has God expressed as a Trinity.
No, of course a metaphor can't talk. It can't think either. Metaphor of what? I thought I've said it. God to me is the metaphor of goodness, truth and justice.

Quote from: Solitary on April 04, 2014, 12:35:22 PM
Welcome aboard! Solitary   I don't hate religious people that do good, I hate organized religion that does horrible things in the name of God. Like hating love and something as beautiful as this: (http://i.imgur.com/Ob2bEjS.jpg) (http://imgur.com/Ob2bEjS)

Thanks, Solitary. All love is beautiful. So is lesbian love.

Quote from: scroyle on April 04, 2014, 12:22:50 PM
OK, I now have the use of my computer. It's true that some liberal Christians believe in superstitious things like supernatural beings with magical powers and workers of miracles, etc but that's because there are all kinds of liberal Christians.  As I have said, it's a whole spectrum but many of us don't accept anything supernatural.

Many liberal Christians turn anything in the Bible that is wrong into a metaphor. So God didn't create an Adam and an Eve but both Adam and Eve are a metaphor for "early men". But these liberals may still believe that early men were ultimately created by a supernatural being. Evolution becomes a process guided lovingly by a supernatural God being.

But some of us don't just stop there. We see God himself as a metaphor. God is a personification of a quality.  The quality being goodness, truth and justice. Of course I'm not blind to the fact that at one time, the entire church believed God to be a separate entity and not just a metaphor for goodness. But at one time the whole of humanity didn't know better.  Now we do.

I said I have nothing to debate with atheists because when it comes to the "supernatural" there is no dispute.  But there is still a huge difference between us. I'm deeply religious. I have served the church all my life since my toddler years and I continue to serve the church and will do so until I die. Passion Week will be here soon and it means a lot to me.  Factually, I acknowledge that I can't even be certain that Jesus existed historically. There's zilch Roman record of his existence but I think he probably did exist as an anti-Roman apocalyptic zealot. He probably got killed like all apocalyptic zealots and I acknowledge that the church romanticized his death and created a Jesus that's different from the historical Jesus who was probably a devout Jew who hated all Gentiles and would have nothing to do with a pork eating Christian. But the Jesus that I've grown up to love and to weep for in Passion Week as I think of the crown of thorns forced on his head is not the historical Jesus but a creation of the Church. That's the image of Jesus that is significant to me. It's a galvanising force for all the good works within the church that we do for our fellow humans. What is wrong with that? True, atheists are honest people and they can't stand an untruth and this church-created image of Jesus does not accord with history.

But you see, culture is not about scientific or historical truth. Culture is the sum total of our human story complete with all the mistakes that we make, the lies our ancestors told, etc.  As a cultural Christian, I acknowledge that this concept of the Passion of Christ is historically incorrect. He died a traitor to Rome but I'm not bothered about the real Jesus. He was an insignificant man. It means nothing to me when atheists say Jesus couldn't even heal a man with a common cold, far less resurrect Lazarus. I already knew he couldn't.

Two years ago, the new Chaplain of Harvard University said something that I absolutely agree with. It doesn't matter if Christianity is true. What's important is we can make it true by the life we live.  Now, that's liberal Christianity at its finest.

Cheers

scroyle

This might come as a shock to you, but you are an atheist. The bolded part (and your entire post) explains why. I'm happy you used "Cultural Christian" correctly. You can be an atheist and religious at the same time. In fact there are plenty of atheist religions like Buddhism. I have no clue why you'd want to have anything to do with christian culture. It is quite vile IMO. But as long as you don't believe in any woo your only likely difference from most members here will be ideological. In that sense you'll fall in the same scope as the communists and Ayn Rand-followers that occasionally could drop by an atheist forum.

You rather missed the thrust of my comment, so let me try to be more blunt.
You say god is a trinity (ie, Jesus is god, holly spirit is god) but that god is a metaphor. So what does it mean that "[Mary] was found to be pregnant through [a metaphor for goodness, truth and justice]"? or "an angel of [a metaphor for goodness, truth and justice] appeared to [Joseph] in a dream and said"? Or that Mary gave birth to (1/3rd of) a metaphor for goodness, truth and justice? OR that the Romans crucified (1/3rd of) a metaphor for goodness, truth and justice?

How could a metaphor for goodness, truth and justice appear to Abimelech and tell him that Sarah was Abraham's wife? You said

Quote from: scroyle on April 04, 2014, 01:24:56 PM
No, of course a metaphor can't talk.

So what do you do with all the bible *stories* where god talks or acts? Did a metaphor for goodness, truth and justice tell Noah to build an ark and then send a flood to kill every living thing out side the ark? If not, then what do you make of *that story*? Are all those *stories* also metaphors? If so, what is the meaning of the *metaphoric stories* where a metaphor for goodness, truth and justice tells the children of Israel to commit ethnic cleansing? What's the point of detailed and repeated instructions on the proper way to sacrifice animals to a metaphor for goodness, truth and justice? What does it mean that a metaphor for goodness, truth and justice smelled the pleasing aroma of animal sacrifices? How can a metaphor for goodness, truth and justice fast in the desert for 40 days and be tempted by Satan? If these are all just stories, why bother studying them, in Greek or not? Why not devote your life to Aesop's fables--I'd say there is more good in them than the bible and you'd work your self into less knots inventing decent interpretations of Aesop's fables than trying to force metaphoric interpretation on all the bible stories

Even speaking metaphorically, would a metaphor for goodness, truth and justice order ethnic cleansing or kill every living thing outside of a magical boat?

Quote from: scroyle on April 04, 2014, 12:22:50 PMBut some of us don't just stop there. We see God himself as a metaphor.

So let me see if I'm reading this right. You're saying that you're a christian but that you also believe that god does not exist. Do I have that right?

There are culturally jewish atheists and even culturally muslim atheists, so I don't see why a culturally christian atheist would make waves. I guess he sees the bible stories all moral tales. No clue how he can support such morality, but then again I guess he only picks what he likes.

Your quotations from the Bible don't mean a thing. Of course the writers of the Bible believed in a supernatural being that's capable of independent thought and speech. They're ancient folks and all ancient folks believed in that.

I've read atheistic books and I find it amusing that some atheists take objection to the immoral parts of the Bible. Richard Dawkins, for example, went to town about how Isaac was a victim of extreme child abuse and what horrid psychological trauma he would have suffered. But if you look at legends and fables, they are all quite violent and by our modern enlightened understanding of morality, quite immoral. That's because our human cultures are ancient and ancient men thought differently and were more unjust and violent. Naturally, their stories are violent and unjust too. Just look at the entire story of Christ's Redemption of mankind. Without any intention of being disrespectful to people's feelings, the entire blood process is barbaric. It's the kind of story that Genghiz Khan or Attila the Hun might have come up with on a cold winter's night after having slaughtered a whole village.

I know many atheists have thought of me as an atheist but my definition of an atheist is slightly different. An atheist is one who will not follow a religion. He probably finds the stupidity, ignorance and barbarism of a religion unbearable for him. I understand that ancient folks could not help believing in things that aren't true. But religion helped them organise their society. Religion gave them some sense of right and wrong, warped though some of these may be to us today. But the church became a galvanising force for good and it still is.

If you look at charitable institutions all over the world, you will find that the majority of them belong to the Church. I now live in a country where Christians only form a very small percentage of the population but just about every orphanage, old folks' home, hospice for the destitute, etc is owned by the Church. However much you may want to laugh at a culture that is based on a book that is terribly flawed (atheists usually attack the Bible which is silly because of course when you pick a book that's this ancient, it's bound to be flawed), you can't deny that the good that it does to the world is immeasurable. Atheists will point out the paedophile crimes of the RC church. I agree that is unpardonable but let's not throw away the baby with the bath water. There's is a whole lot of good that the Church has done all over the world.

I hope you don't think I'm belittling humanist societies when I say that the good they do don't even come up to the ankles of the good that the church does. I've read the news about atheist associations in the US and the way they spend their money is appalling. They take legal action against schools that want to distribute toys to poor children on Christmas because it's religious and schools cannot get involved in religion - they have separation of State and church. A interviewer asked the president of the atheist association if his atheist group would get toys for poor children now that they had successfully stopped the school for doing that charity work. His reply was shocking. His atheist association spends their money suing people who do charity work in the name of religion but their money is not meant to be used as charity. The interviewer rightly pointed out that that was cold comfort for the children.

What surprised me was Richard Dawkins seemed to think the interviewer was harsh. I go the entire link to the article and the video of the interview from Dawkins' website. But that's the part of atheism I detest. They don't do any charity but they will stop others from helping poor children because of their rabid hatred for Christianity. And why do they hate Christianity? Because the Bible gets many facts wrong and ancient folks believed in supernatural beings. And they throw away an entire institution that has been in place with all its charitable works and infrastructure.  Who would work in a hospice for destitute people with no remuneration? It may be true that people who are willing to sacrifice their time and money doing these things also believe they will be rewarded after their death but the fact is they still do good work.

If you see how atheist groups function in the US, it's abominable. I'll probably listen to them more if they were to fight less and do more good. But when they go round suing those who do good and rejoicing when they can stop charity work, they do make themselves out to be quite disagreeable and I wouldn't want to be a part of them.

Perhaps one day atheist societies will stop fighting and start doing real charity work. Until that day comes, the world still needs the Church.

Quote from: scroyle on April 04, 2014, 07:59:27 PM
Your quotations from the Bible don't mean a thing. Of course the writers of the Bible believed in a supernatural being that's capable of independent thought and speech. They're ancient folks and all ancient folks believed in that.

I've read atheistic books and I find it amusing that some atheists take objection to the immoral parts of the Bible. Richard Dawkins, for example, went to town about how Isaac was a victim of extreme child abuse and what horrid psychological trauma he would have suffered. But if you look at legends and fables, they are all quite violent and by our modern enlightened understanding of morality, quite immoral. That's because our human cultures are ancient and ancient men thought differently and were more unjust and violent. Naturally, their stories are violent and unjust too. Just look at the entire story of Christ's Redemption of mankind. Without any intention of being disrespectful to people's feelings, the entire blood process is barbaric. It's the kind of story that Genghiz Khan or Attila the Hun might have come up with on a cold winter's night after having slaughtered a whole village.

Of course, but mostly atheists just say that they are therefore not good lessons to blindly draw your morals from. They would say the same to other violent myths. They don't claim the violence in the myths are a reason not to believe. We just meet less people that would say the myth of, for example, prometheus was a good guide to morality and the proof of the goodness of a creator. If people didn't put the bible forth as a non-immoral book, we wouldn't bother pointing out that it's immoral.

[/quote][/quote]

Quote from: scroyle on April 04, 2014, 07:59:27 PM
I know many atheists have thought of me as an atheist but my definition of an atheist is slightly different. An atheist is one who will not follow a religion. He probably finds the stupidity, ignorance and barbarism of a religion unbearable for him. I understand that ancient folks could not help believing in things that aren't true. But religion helped them organise their society. Religion gave them some sense of right and wrong, warped though some of these may be to us today. But the church became a galvanising force for good and it still is.

I can't force you to accept a definition, but concider what the word 'a-theism' means. It means 'without god', not 'without religion'. In essence it's just the lack of being convinced by any case made for any God.
And though I understand your reasoning for this second part, it's important to also look at it from the other side. It's more likely that you're accurate if you say that people gave religion a sense of right and wrong, rather than the other way around. And if that's the case, you don't need religion. Mayhaps back then (though I'm not convinced), but certainly not now.

[/quote][/quote]

Quote from: scroyle on April 04, 2014, 07:59:27 PM
If you look at charitable institutions all over the world, you will find that the majority of them belong to the Church. I now live in a country where Christians only form a very small percentage of the population but just about every orphanage, old folks' home, hospice for the destitute, etc is owned by the Church. However much you may want to laugh at a culture that is based on a book that is terribly flawed (atheists usually attack the Bible which is silly because of course when you pick a book that's this ancient, it's bound to be flawed), you can't deny that the good that it does to the world is immeasurable. Atheists will point out the paedophile crimes of the RC church. I agree that is unpardonable but let's not throw away the baby with the bath water. There's is a whole lot of good that the Church has done all over the world.

I hope you don't think I'm belittling humanist societies when I say that the good they do don't even come up to the ankles of the good that the church does. I've read the news about atheist associations in the US and the way they spend their money is appalling. They take legal action against schools that want to distribute toys to poor children on Christmas because it's religious and schools cannot get involved in religion - they have separation of State and church. A interviewer asked the president of the atheist association if his atheist group would get toys for poor children now that they had successfully stopped the school for doing that charity work. His reply was shocking. His atheist association spends their money suing people who do charity work in the name of religion but their money is not meant to be used as charity. The interviewer rightly pointed out that that was cold comfort for the children.

What surprised me was Richard Dawkins seemed to think the interviewer was harsh. I go the entire link to the article and the video of the interview from Dawkins' website. But that's the part of atheism I detest. They don't do any charity but they will stop others from helping poor children because of their rabid hatred for Christianity. And why do they hate Christianity? Because the Bible gets many facts wrong and ancient folks believed in supernatural beings. And they throw away an entire institution that has been in place with all its charitable works and infrastructure.  Who would work in a hospice for destitute people with no remuneration? It may be true that people who are willing to sacrifice their time and money doing these things also believe they will be rewarded after their death but the fact is they still do good work.

Perhaps one day atheist societies will stop fighting and start doing real charity work. Until that day comes, the world still needs the Church.

Again, the book is only a problem if some claim it isn't flawed and that it is absolute truth. At least to me.
And yes, the Church (and to make it broader: religion as a whole) has done a lot of good over the years. But you don't need religion to do good. Though there are some things only tried to be excused by the hand of religion.
And if you want to talk about 'spending their money', be sure you want to open this pandora's box. These atheist organizations aren't the ones hoarding billions while preaching the merrit of poverty. They aren't the ones spending money on spreading the message that condoms help the spread of aids destroying lives throughout the world. They aren't the ones demanding money go to the restauration of buildings that it's messiah deemed unnessecary rather than hospitals in which it's followers can go and do some actual charity work. They aren't the ones who've had millenia of time to actually do something about it, but fail to. They aren't the ones that are wide-spread either, after all: if you have 85% of the people be religious, for instance, you can't expect 15% of people to make an equal amount of charity-organizations with an at least equal effect as those of the vast majority.

And one more thing on 'charity work'. Charity work is admirable, by far. It really is beautifull. But it wasn't untill secularized organisations and institutionalized social security and other such recent and enlightened projects took off, that poverty, disease and other social problems have truly been countered (not yet beaten, but countered). Before, the poor houses did nothing to relieve the poor. These victories are the fruits of enlightenment, not religion.
There is a reason why charity work is not our main goal, for charity work is not universal nor secure enough. It is dependent on the willfullness of flawed men and women rather than an impartial system. Charity work is simply not effective enough, there are better ways of helping the world.

Charity work is extremely important. It shows very clearly what's important to the person. As I have always declared, the one thing atheists have is truth. We have to give it to them. They are truthful about reality more so than religion can possibly be. No doubt about that. But they haven't got the heart to go with the truth.

As I have said, I live in a country where Christians are a small minority. No more than 10% of the population. A large percentage (almost 50% in the last census) described themselves as "free-thinkers". I've spoken to the people and generally, most people are impressed with charitable organisations run by the church. Almost all good charity homes are run by the Church or Christian organisations.

It's true that we don't need religion to do good. It's also true that atheists are good people. But when left on our own, even good people tend to do nothing. That's a fact and atheists, as rational people, should be able to understand that. The church is different. It's got its liturgy, its teachings and its constant exhortation to do unto others the way we want to others to do unto us. Yes, the fables aren't factual but is that all we can talk about? I will ignore the RC church again because the RC church is really the bugbear in any discussion - it's so rotten inside out that it's always thrown into an argument to clutter things up and confuse the issues.

I was talking the other day to a taxi driver who's a Buddhist. He said one of his relations was in an old folks' home run by a church. I asked him if he had objection to that and why didn't he pick a Buddhist home? He said the Buddhist charity houses were penny-pinching and everyone knew that. He said they gave very good meals in Christian homes - better than what he ate himself. He went on to say that there had to be something about the Christian God that made its people so charitable.

Of course I know that's rubbish. The good works that the church does has nothing to do with a supernatural being who doesn't exist. How much of it is due to a BELIEF in the existence of a supernatural being is something we can't tell.  All we know is when it comes to charity, you have to give it to the church.

I've said good people when left on our own, won't do very much and that's a fact. There was a time in my life when I became an atheist to the utter dismay of my parents who are extremely devout Christians. I stopped going to church but I made it a point to continue to send donation every month to the social arm of the church. As time went on, the monthly donation became quarterly and the amount sometimes dipped a little until I stopped giving totally. It's easy to forget to send in a donation when there is nothing to prompt you to do so. And then I returned to Holy Church and it was really obvious to me. There are so many opportunities to be of service to others. I'm a lazy chap and I am one of those who will always have use of any spare cash (for my own selfish purposes) but the ample opportunities the church provides are all there and even a person like me could be led to give lessons to juvenile delinquents and to contribute to the destitute. I would never have dreamt that I would teach juvenile delinquents. I mean who can arrange for that sort of thing but a highly organised institution?

And I thought to myself no doubt it's true atheists are good people but good people need infrastructure to do good. You can't just do good at home.  A lot of atheists are spending their energy in the wrong direction. Instead of benefiting mankind, they are spending their time and money attacking religion. I can understand the need to want to tell people there are no fairies in the garden but why do that when the fairy believers together with their fairy beliefs are doing a lot of good to the world?  Why throw the spanner in the works?

We are all good people but it's better to have good people worshipping fairies and doing good than good people not worshipping anything and doing nothing. Or just about nothing.

Quote from: scroyle on April 04, 2014, 09:52:01 PM
I've said good people when left on our own, won't do very much and that's a fact.

Good people tend to do nothing when poked and prodded, too. It's almost as if people in general tend to care about them and theirs first.

I bring this up because you seem to be under the impression that whether or not someone reaches out to help those less fortunate is related to how seriously they take the scrawlings of ancient desert nomads.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on April 04, 2014, 11:09:57 PM
Good people tend to do nothing when poked and prodded, too. It's almost as if people in general tend to care about them and theirs first.

I bring this up because you seem to be under the impression that whether or not someone reaches out to help those less fortunate is related to how seriously they take the scrawlings of ancient desert nomads.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You obviously haven't read what I've written.

But not reading what I've written is nothing new. I once explained in a forum that I was a cultural Christian and how flawed religion was and the reason for their being flawed - antiquity, etc. Someone wrote that because I was a Christian, I must believe in a talking snake and so there - prove to him that a snake could talk. I just didn't know what to say in reply.

The scrawlings of ancient desert nomads must of course be wrong. They must be violent and unjust by our standards today. Doing good deeds has nothing to do with the scrawlings. It's the liturgy, the rituals where good deeds are written into them.  Or I should say an exhortation to the people of faith to do good deeds.  This is drummed into people's heads every week.  The Church is full of different ministries or social arms that can reach out very effectively to the world. When the Asian tsunami happened, churches could send out aids through other churches in Indonesia even before Red Cross got the green light from the Indonesian government. The Church can do what no other institution can. No Humanist Society or atheist group can do even a fraction of what the church can do. If what we have seen of atheist groups in the US is anything to go by, they don't do charity - their money is reserved to fight religion and to stop charities that are done in connection with religion. Read what I have posted earlier. It's all there. Don't be so jaundiced in your view of Christians that you must go on a warpath and assume we all believe in the talking snake or that the desert writings are inerrant. Don't confuse fundamentalists with cultural Christians.

The problem I see with atheists especially US atheists is the trauma that they seem to have from their earlier years. True, it doesn't help that Americans are insanely superstitious and from what I've read 50% of them believe in creationism. It doesn't help that American Christians are so incredibly arrogant, wrong, ignorant and belligerent.

Many atheists were once fundamentalist Christians. When they got out of fundamentalism which traumatised them, they became totally and blindly anti-Christianity. They can't even see a drop of good that the Church has done. They are blind to anything that doesn't fit in with their deep conviction that the Church and Christianity are evil.

Now, that is just as bad as fundamentalism. It's as irrational as a belief in the superstitious part of religion. The moment they see "Christian" attached to your name, they'll attack you. You can tell them that you are a different sort of Christian but they are convinced you believe in a Hebrew carpenter who could work miracles. I've tried many times to explain that I don't believe in miracles or in anything supernatural but to no avail. They insist that as long as I'm a Christian, I believe in the talking snake, the talking donkey and a bearded man who can raise the dead to life.   

So religion is flawed? A perfect God with perfect understanding can't somehow cook up a system with an orderly and logical methodology- like, say, science, or math. And can't produce a history that actually proves the religion to be true, or an all knowing and prescient god can't make prophecies that come true?

You need to understand something. there are some scholarly people on here. Our scholarship has taught us that religions, all religions, are created by men. That might explain why there are so many of them. If one true god created one religion, why are there so many other religions and why are there so many sects of each religion?

Your own Bible is a case in point. It is historically inaccurate, full of fantastic fables and what any person who understands literature would know is allegory, yet accepted as fact. It is also full of contradictions and events that didn't or could not have happened. Exodus is a complete fabrication. Events surrounding the advent of Jesus never happened. Religion is a whole cloth, either it is or it isn't. Guess what? It isn't.

Quote from: scroyle on April 04, 2014, 11:38:26 PM
The problem I see with atheists especially US atheists is the trauma that they seem to have from their earlier years. True, it doesn't help that Americans are insanely superstitious and from what I've read 50% of them believe in creationism. It doesn't help that American Christians are so incredibly arrogant, wrong, ignorant and belligerent.

Many atheists were once fundamentalist Christians. When they got out of fundamentalism which traumatised them, they became totally and blindly anti-Christianity. They can't even see a drop of good that the Church has done. They are blind to anything that doesn't fit in with their deep conviction that the Church and Christianity are evil.

Now, that is just as bad as fundamentalism. It's as irrational as a belief in the superstitious part of religion. The moment they see "Christian" attached to your name, they'll attack you. You can tell them that you are a different sort of Christian but they are convinced you believe in a Hebrew carpenter who could work miracles. I've tried many times to explain that I don't believe in miracles or in anything supernatural but to no avail. They insist that as long as I'm a Christian, I believe in the talking snake, the talking donkey and a bearded man who can raise the dead to life.   

A. You don't know how atheists think because we all think differently. an atheist is a person who doesn't believe in gods or supernatural forces, period. And you don't know about "trauma from their early years" because many were never religious.

B. Baby and the bath water. Either your religion is all one thing or it isn't. If you try to separate myth and superstition from religion you are pretty much left with fables or philosophy. Religion implies a supernatural creator/being with supernatural abilities. Religion by definition accepts supernatural origins and happenings. Call it superstition, myth, whatever, it is still implied in a religion that supernature is built in.

Quote from: stromboli on April 04, 2014, 11:54:35 PM
A perfect God with perfect understanding can't somehow cook up a system...

You speak of God as a real entity with independent thought and capable of understanding anything but that's precisely what I keep saying is not the position.

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 12:14:48 AM
You speak of God as a real entity with independent thought and capable of understanding anything but that's precisely what I keep saying is not the position.

Then you believe your god is a fiction. you are not a Christian. "god" implies certain traits and abilities. If you don't believe your god has those abilities then you don't believe in a god. Christianity is a religion that believes in a specific god. If you don't believe in that specific god then you are not a Christian.

I really don't understand what you are saying. Belief in a non specific god is called deism. I think you have given yourself a label but really aren't what you claim.

Quote from: stromboli on April 05, 2014, 12:03:05 AM
Religion implies a supernatural creator/being with supernatural abilities.

Of course. It's the same with any culture from any part of the world. It's ancient and ancient folks were superstitious. Are you saying that because religion has a superstitious origin, we must flee it today?

We all know religions evolve all the time. A religion that doesn't evolve at all is probably a highly dangerous religion where you'll find all kinds of killing for the most insignificant transgression against the religious law. Christianity is not such a religion and it's got 2000 years of evolving from one thing to another.

Quote from: scroyle on April 04, 2014, 11:19:53 PM
You obviously haven't read what I've written.

Typical response to being called out on one's bullshit. Why am I not surprised?

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 12:51:01 AM
Of course. It's the same with any culture from any part of the world. It's ancient and ancient folks were superstitious. Are you saying that because religion has a superstitious origin, we must flee it today?

We all know religions evolve all the time. A religion that doesn't evolve at all is probably a highly dangerous religion where you'll find all kinds of killing for the most insignificant transgression against the religious law. Christianity is not such a religion and it's got 2000 years of evolving from one thing to another.

So basically you just call yourself a Christian so you can hang out with Christians. Oh, OK. I'm done.

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 12:51:01 AM
Of course. It's the same with any culture from any part of the world. It's ancient and ancient folks were superstitious. Are you saying that because religion has a superstitious origin, we must flee it today?

Well, it is a belief system centered around a supernatural being that you apparently don't believe in.  Seems like a pretty bad framework for well, just about anything.

QuoteWe all know religions evolve all the time. A religion that doesn't evolve at all is probably a highly dangerous religion where you'll find all kinds of killing for the most insignificant transgression against the religious law. Christianity is not such a religion and it's got 2000 years of evolving from one thing to another.

Christians in Africa still kill suspected witches.  Christians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull) in the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Camp) ..*shudders*  Christianity hasn't moved forward as much as you (or anyone) would like.

But I do like the evolution analogy.  It's actually very accurate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN38hgUJVvM).  Unfortunately, evolution can only do so much with what it has to work with and some really crappy traits tend to get locked in.  Nowadays, we can do better than that.  We can build from the ground up.  Better, stronger, faster...

Quote from: scroyle on April 04, 2014, 09:52:01 PMI will ignore the RC church again because the RC church is really the bugbear in any discussion - it's so rotten inside out that it's always thrown into an argument to clutter things up and confuse the issues.

Must be convenient to simply throw out a plurality (if not out right majority) of Christians when they don't fit your argument. But you can't stop there. Got to throw out the money gifting faith healers, the creationist, bible thumpers of all ilks. Which brings me back to the question, why not throw out christianity itself? You already dismissed the bible as wrong thinking by primitive folks. You already have no god--but somehow cling to Jesus as part of a trinity

If charity is so important to you, why not donate your time and money to one of the many secular charities who you've been ignoring. You know, organizations which--unlike churches--exist only to do charity work. I don't know about whatever county your from, but here in America religious organizations don't even manage a half assed job of charity. The United Methodist Church--which seems to be the best of the lot in this regard--don't even manage to give 30% of revenue to charities. Any secular charity trying that wouldn't survive the first news segment. Mormons don't even get to one percent--to busy spending cash on missionaries.

If it is not too much trouble, I'd actually be interested in the links to the Dawkins stuff you mentioned.

Quote from: scroyle on April 04, 2014, 11:38:26 PMMany atheists were once fundamentalist Christians. When they got out of fundamentalism which traumatised them, they became totally and blindly anti-Christianity. They can't even see a drop of good that the Church has done. They are blind to anything that doesn't fit in with their deep conviction that the Church and Christianity are evil.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/Hydra009/Chat/broad_brush_zps954c8c7a.jpg)

Are you sure about that?  Because atheists tend to come from all walks of life.  Though seeing as how Christianity is the predominant Western religion, Christian deconverts are heavily represented here.  But Christian deconverts weren't necessarily former fundies.  Some were mainline Protestant.  Some were Catholics.  Some were even liberal Christians.  So the "trauma" angle doesn't really hold up and is about as insulting as saying that homosexuals are homosexuals because of some sort of hetero romantic trauma.

And yes, even strongly anti-religious people like me see the good that the Church ordinary Christians do in the world.  My criticism is that it's some good amidst a sea of pious lunacy, childish superstition, and horrendously harmful behavior that is - unfathomably to me - encouraged/rewarded.  Sure, there's some good (which could and does easily exist independently of religion), but there's a whole lot of evil (which could not otherwise exist, like witch-burning).  The good does not wash out the bad, nor the bad the good.  Each should have its own reward.

QuoteNow, that is just as bad as fundamentalism. It's as irrational as a belief in the superstitious part of religion. The moment they see "Christian" attached to your name, they'll attack you. You can tell them that you are a different sort of Christian but they are convinced you believe in a Hebrew carpenter who could work miracles. I've tried many times to explain that I don't believe in miracles or in anything supernatural but to no avail. They insist that as long as I'm a Christian, I believe in the talking snake, the talking donkey and a bearded man who can raise the dead to life.

Of course they assume that.  The sorts of beliefs that you have listed are pretty common Christian beliefs.  So when you say that you're a Christian, people naturally assume that you believe what Christians typically believe.  Duh!

Quote from: scroyle on April 03, 2014, 01:04:03 PM
Hello,

I've seen how a Roman Catholic was excoriated and lynched even before he could begin and so it's not without some fear and trembling that I admit to being a cultural Christian. I have always been a Christian and I've served the church since I was a toddler as an altar boy. The animosity that an atheist has for Christians is, I believe, reserved only for fundamentalist Christians and not cultural or extremely liberal ones.

Cheers,

scroyle

Your post says a good bit about why you are where you are, and some incorrect observations, along with some correct ones.

You have not been a christian all your life, as like everyone else you were born an atheist, but by your own admission your training began early in your life, at the time when you are the most impressionable.  I did not have the misfortune of having parents that trained/programmed/brainwashed me with the nonsense of gods through religions created by man, thus my moniker.

The animosity that I do have toward religious people (christians don't have a monopoly) is toward those that are best described a fundie's, for they are the ones that make serious efforts to force their willful ignorance* onto society, regardless of what one believes.  I really don't care what anyone believes, though it does cause some concern on election days, but when they want to impose their willful ignorance on anyone else, they I do get my back up.

Religion should be treated like your penis, it's alright to be proud of it, but it should not be brought out in public, and sure as hell should not be forced on anyone, especially children.

*willful ignorance - the belief in the impossible in light of a huge amount of fact and science to the contrary.  God(s) definitely fall into that category, and the really extremely willful ignorance, specifically creationists and young earth believers set a stunning high level of ignorance.

Quote from: stromboli on April 05, 2014, 12:47:14 AM
Then you believe your god is a fiction. you are not a Christian. "god" implies certain traits and abilities. If you don't believe your god has those abilities then you don't believe in a god. Christianity is a religion that believes in a specific god. If you don't believe in that specific god then you are not a Christian.

I really don't understand what you are saying. Belief in a non specific god is called deism. I think you have given yourself a label but really aren't what you claim.

It's not a label I've created for myself. My priest is very amused every time I tell him about how in forums, atheists declare that I'm not a Christian and that I'm an atheist. He says if atheists and not the Bishop has the right to excommunicate, a lot of us Christians would be excommunicated and declared to be not a part of Holy Church. But thankfully, atheists are not even communicants of the Church and they have no standing or right to decide who is or is not a Christian.

The position I hold is known to all the hierarchy of my church right up to the Archbishop. I am a part of the flock of our Lord and the Church declares that to be so. I maintain Communion with the Church. Mind you, the Church will refuse atheists the Sacrament. It's considered sacrilegious to administer the Sacrament to atheists and those who are not within the Church, the Bride of our Lord.

So, who has jurisdiction to decide if someone is a Christian or not? An atheist who can't even take the Holy Sacrament without defiling it or the Bishop who holds immense episcopal authority?

But this is a free world and you are very welcome to decide who is a Christian and who is a Muslim and who an atheist might be. That's your prerogative but how important is your decision on who is or is not a Christian? Compare that with the power of the Church and I'm sure you will agree that as far as who is or is not a Christian, it makes more sense to leave that question to Christ's holy church led by the clergy.

Quote from: scroyle on April 04, 2014, 09:52:01 PM
Charity work is extremely important. It shows very clearly what's important to the person. As I have always declared, the one thing atheists have is truth. We have to give it to them. They are truthful about reality more so than religion can possibly be. No doubt about that. But they haven't got the heart to go with the truth.

Please tell me more about what I've not got the heart to do.

I'm pretty sure that just because someone doesn't believe in god, doesn't mean that they aren't a christian. If they follow the teachings of christianity, I thought that is part of what makes them a christian. It's like following the teachings of The Doctor in Doctor Who if you're a Whovian, except the lessons in christianity aren't relevant to reality.

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 02:19:27 AMI maintain Communion with the Church. Mind you, the Church will refuse atheists the Sacrament. It's considered sacrilegious to administer the Sacrament to atheists and those who are not within the Church, the Bride of our Lord.

So, who has jurisdiction to decide if someone is a Christian or not? An atheist who can't even take the Holy Sacrament without defiling it or the Bishop who holds immense episcopal authority?

Ha!  Jokes on you!  I have skillfully infiltrated many a Bride of God Lord of his most Holy Lord Redeemer and Vapid Jargon congregation and defiled many a meager cracker and grape juice meal with my unholy stomach acids and gut bacteria.  None may stop my gastrointestinal rampage!  Juice for the juice god, crackers for the cracker throne!  Let the galaxy bake!  Bite, chew, swallow!  Bite, chew, swallow!  Do you hear the voices too?!!

Quote from: Hydra009 on April 05, 2014, 03:15:39 AM
Ha!  Jokes on you!  I have skillfully infiltrated many a Bride of God Lord of his most Holy Lord Redeemer and Vapid Jargon congregation and defiled many a meager cracker and grape juice meal with my unholy stomach acids and gut bacteria.  None may stop my gastrointestinal rampage!  Juice for the juice god, crackers for the cracker throne!  Let the galaxy bake!  Bite, chew, swallow!  Bite, chew, swallow!  Do you hear the voices too?!!

Let us pray.  Ohhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmm

Sent via Internet Explorer

Quote from: Jason78 on April 05, 2014, 02:57:31 AM
Please tell me more about what I've not got the heart to do.

You are absolutely right to point that out. I'm sorry it came out that way and it's clearly wrong and I didn't mean to make it sound like that.  Let me rephrase that sentence which is apparent from the rest of what I've said.

Atheists and Christians are good people. No real difference. Atheism has truth on its side. Christianity, because of its ancient origin and the accretion of centuries of dogma based on ancient beliefs and superstitions (like all cultures) has a lot of fables and legends. So, on the point of truth and factual accuracy, of course atheism trumps Christianity.

But when it comes to good works, atheism loses out in a big way. It's wrong to say they have no heart. I must confess that when I read that short excerpt you quoted from what I wrote, I'm a little shocked I put it that way. But I have made it clear elsewhere that atheists are as good as Christians and there is no difference. The only difference lies in the OPPORTUNITY and ENCOURAGEMENT.  Atheists have neither the opportunity nor the encouragement or incentive to do good deeds as much as a Christian who is exhorted EVERY week to do something.  Plus the social arm of the church is bigger and stronger than that of any other organisation. 

Quote from: Hydra009 on April 05, 2014, 03:15:39 AM
Ha!  Jokes on you!  I have skillfully infiltrated many a Bride of God Lord of his most Holy Lord Redeemer and Vapid Jargon congregation and defiled many a meager cracker and grape juice meal with my unholy stomach acids and gut bacteria.  None may stop my gastrointestinal rampage!  Juice for the juice god, crackers for the cracker throne!  Let the galaxy bake!  Bite, chew, swallow!  Bite, chew, swallow!  Do you hear the voices too?!!

It doesn't require much skill. Of course it's easy to get the Eucharist from any church. Anyone can pretend to be a communicant. And of course it's no big deal because it's just a bit of flour and a bit of bad quality wine. If it makes you happy, why not. When I say sacrilege, I don't mean it in a cosmic sense which is what you are implying. Nothing happens of course. What I wanted to show is that an atheist is not a part of the church and so his opinion on what makes a person a Christian is of no importance whatsoever. I've read PZ Myers' Eucharist Challenge and I was supportive of him actually. I was dead opposed to the RC church for threatening the student. As a cultural Christian, I revere human culture but up to a point. If someone goes against the culture, it's all right to sacrifice the culture but it's not all right to threaten that person. So, the student who stole the Eucharist may have done a discourteous thing but it's too small a matter to have any reprisal. What the RC church did was disgusting. They tried to get PZ Myers sacked. They threatened the student and insisted that he returned the wafer. To go through all that is really taking the culture too far.At that point, I supported PZ Myers' call to desecrate the sacrament in principle. But I wouldn't do it myself because it's a silly thing to do and American RCs who are also a pretty belligerent bunch, would only have more excuse to be nastier than they already are.

But if you enjoy taking a bit of tasteless wafer and poor quality wine, go ahead. Just don't disrupt the service or I'm sure the police would be called. Disruptive behaviour would be wrong anyway. Superstitious people won't be hurt because they don't know you're not a communicant. Of course I don't like hurting people in any event and I'm sure atheists are decent people who don't go round looking for people to hurt.

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 03:21:10 AM
You are absolutely right to point that out. I'm sorry it came out that way and it's clearly wrong and I didn't mean to make it sound like that.  Let me rephrase that sentence which is apparent from the rest of what I've said.

Atheists and Christians are good people. No real difference. Atheism has truth on its side. Christianity, because of its ancient origin and the accretion of centuries of dogma based on ancient beliefs and superstitions (like all cultures) has a lot of fables and legends. So, on the point of truth and factual accuracy, of course atheism trumps Christianity.

But when it comes to good works, atheism loses out in a big way. It's wrong to say they have no heart. I must confess that when I read that short excerpt you quoted from what I wrote, I'm a little shocked I put it that way. But I have made it clear elsewhere that atheists are as good as Christians and there is no difference. The only difference lies in the OPPORTUNITY and ENCOURAGEMENT.  Atheists have neither the opportunity nor the encouragement or incentive to do good deeds as much as a Christian who is exhorted EVERY week to do something.  Plus the social arm of the church is bigger and stronger than that of any other organisation.

Exactly what I was getting at earlier. In most parts of the world atheist and secularists are minorities. Religious organizations just have more funds and a wider netwerk of followers to create charity organizations. But that does not mean that if secular or non-religious charity organizations had the same oppertunities, they would get less done.

But it is and interesting point of study, and I hope that if I ever am allowed to do it as a future sociologist to perform a study after which organizations get the most out of it in respect to what they put into it. I mean, which are most 'profitable' for the charity, relative to their size etc. That's an interesting study right there and I haven't heard of one like it before.

But it is true that we do not have as much charity systems as the religious do. But just because we are fewer, more dispersed and less-funded does not make us relatively less effective. And if more people become atheist or agnostic or whatever, more charities in those names will most likely be created and further develloped and better funded.

The fact that there are so few non-religious relative to religious  charity workers has to be looked at skeptically for another reason too. It's not just that non-religious don't yet have as much funds to go international, waste all their money on missionaries (even those that do not try to convert someone are generally a waste of resources, you'd be better of sending tools and crops) nor the people to send. But there's a different aspect. In your defense for cultural religion, you brush the church or Christianity as if it is that for al people. (I don't think you're trying to do this, but it comes across as such.) But some christians or other religious people are some of the most selfish in the world. Another addition to this study that you've inspired thus would take a look at how many percentage of the grander 'christian', 'muslim', 'atheist' ... populations actually were actively involved in charity work. My point is that say you have a thousand religious people and a hundred atheists living in one area. And news-crew drives by, sees a charity, thinks 'hey this is a story' and starts interviewing peopl. Now say that this charity-bunch is a 25 people. And 22 of them are Christians and only 3 are atheists. What will most of the interviews give you the impression? Christians saying God lead them to this? Or atheists saying 'There is no God compelling me to do this, but I thought it was the right thing?' As a viewer you'll get the impression that relatively more Christians are doing good work, yet of their respective populations atheists, in this hypothetical example, have sent a relatively greater share of workers.

Also earlier, you said something about that it's a fact that people who are good but not prodded by religion tend to do nothing. And as a proof you forth your own experiences. Personal experiences don't go far. Now let me give you mine, I've done more charity work, given more to poor people and donated more blood and plasma after I became atheïst. Personal experiences don't go far. My sister went to Ninos de la luna in peru for half a year, not a religious organization. (She's also an atheist.) Personal experiences don't go far.
Show it's a fact and I'll grant your hypothesis. I won't agree that that means only religion can build up such a system, but at least you'll part way).

Also, as far as your denomination as 'cultural christian' goes, well sure if you think you are one,  then call yourself that by any means. But if I understand you correctly, you are not a theist nor a deist. If you don't believe in any Gods, you're also an atheist, on top of being a cultural christian. I don't mind you calling yourself a cultural christian, but the interpretation you stated earlier about what an 'atheist' means in your experience just does not correspond with the true definition of the word.

Hi Mr Obvious,

I think you missed that part where I said that I now live in a country where there are only about 10% Christians and almost half consider themselves "free-thinkers" in the last census. But charitable homes are almost all run by churches and Christian groups. Forget the other religions. From what I see in a few non-Christian countries, only the Church is serious about social work.

But I don't want to belittle the work of atheists. I have said it many times that atheists are wonderful people. I talked about myself because I'm the more common kind - lazy and more self-centred. So when I became an atheist and stopped going to church, the charity I did became zilch and the donation I made to society dwindled significantly. But it's easier to do good deeds when you're in church. There is infra structure all over for that. If you want to work with autistic children and help out, there are ministries for that. If you want to help in palliative care, you could go to the many hospices run by the church. It's all there for you to choose the areas you want to help in. It's a lot more difficult if you're outside the church.  For us Christians, it's almost the done thing because we attend Church every Sunday and we keep hearing the exhortation from the pulpit, etc.

Good atheists would do a lot more than what I do if they are half exposed to the kind of encouragement the church gives and have access to the wonderful charity network that the Church has.

You must not confuse the social arm of the church with giving to missionaries and church buildings. Social work is in addition to religious work. The fact that we run the most charities in a country where we are a small minority speaks a lot about how our religious work does not take away the funding for our social work.

I didn't miss it, but it doesn't stop christianity from operating on an international level. There is a lot of charity work in Uganda, for example. Uganda's branch of christians did not raise that kind of money. Look beyond the borders. And if you earlier wanted to dismiss the RC (the largest group of christians), and now dismiss other religions beyond 'the Church', you're not left with much. And I would say you are too dismissive of the work, labour and intent of other groups. But that's normal, we all live in a world biased by information relative to our personal lives. I won't hear much about Hindu-fundamentalist, for instance, so I'll see Muslims or Christians as 'worse' options, but true research shows many poisonous fundamentalists in Hinduïsm. Same goes for the best in religion, namely charity work.

And I could agree with you on the positive influence of a working structure. But I don't follow you in saying that is a good reason to keep the church with it's large number of people who don't take it 'culturaly' rather than investing in systems which would give the poor a bowl of soup without a lecture first, sort of speak. It is more difficult, I agree. But that in no way lends credit to the churches.

You've said don't throw the child away along with the bathwater. Well, agreed. Keep the structure, build something positive if you must. But throw away the misgiven authority, the belief in these myths being true and other unessecary and ultimately poisonous ideas. The charity work in this case, would be the child. But it doesn't need religious mumbo-jumbo to opperate. It might well be better off without it.

The people who own, run, contribute to and serve in the church all want to have the same creeds said, the same prayers recited, the same rituals conducted. And that includes cultural Christians. We honour our past and the foundation of the church. To suggest that we only work on the social arm of the church and get rid of the myth part of it is to suggest that you get OUTSIDERS who never had a part to play in any contribution to the church to take over the church. But why should we give what's ours to outsiders? Why can't these outsiders start their own social work on their own without taking what doesn't belong to them?

I hope you see my point here.  The good that the church does is inextricably woven into the entire church culture and tradition. To all of us in the church, the religious culture is important. We are opposed to division and schism and so we won't do anything to offend the superstitious part of the church and I admit there are quite a lot of people in church who truly believe in the superstitious side of faith.

If you break Christians from our religious culture, social work will just fizzle out. And for the same reason, I don't think atheists can come up with a comparable structure that can rival the church. They won't have enough funding or voluntary work, etc. In this country where Christians are a small minority and free thinkers almost half the population, the Humanist Association is a small little group that can barely do anything. Why is that so? Because it's as hard to herd atheists as it is to herd cats. That's what Dawkins said with pride of atheists. But it becomes a huge problem when you want to organise good works.  You can't have it both ways. It's the religious culture and charity or no religious culture and no charity.

Again, just in case people misunderstand me, this is not a criticism of atheists. Atheists are good people but atheism is too disorganised and atheists too individualistic for there to be any effective charity organisation that's as extensive and far-reaching as the social arm of the Church and other Christian groups.

I know people here won't like what I say but it's true if you think about it and atheists are rational people - you know I'm speaking the truth even if you don't like it or don't want to admit it.

Quote from: scroyle on April 04, 2014, 07:59:27 PM
Your quotations from the Bible don't mean a thing. Of course the writers of the Bible believed in a supernatural being that's capable of independent thought and speech. They're ancient folks and all ancient folks believed in that.

I've read atheistic books and I find it amusing that some atheists take objection to the immoral parts of the Bible. Richard Dawkins, for example, went to town about how Isaac was a victim of extreme child abuse and what horrid psychological trauma he would have suffered. But if you look at legends and fables, they are all quite violent and by our modern enlightened understanding of morality, quite immoral. That's because our human cultures are ancient and ancient men thought differently and were more unjust and violent. Naturally, their stories are violent and unjust too. Just look at the entire story of Christ's Redemption of mankind. Without any intention of being disrespectful to people's feelings, the entire blood process is barbaric. It's the kind of story that Genghiz Khan or Attila the Hun might have come up with on a cold winter's night after having slaughtered a whole village.

Yes. Most if not all ancient morality tales are vile and immoral, that does not excuse yours. You seem to think it does, why? So you are a christian but dismiss:

1. Everything that defines a christian: Accepting Jesus Christ as your personal lord and savior
2. Reject the content of the bible as immoral

What the hell is left?

QuoteI know many atheists have thought of me as an atheist but my definition of an atheist is slightly different. An atheist is one who will not follow a religion. He probably finds the stupidity, ignorance and barbarism of a religion unbearable for him. I understand that ancient folks could not help believing in things that aren't true. But religion helped them organise their society.

You can't just randomly redefine atheism. Atheism is lack of belief in a god/rejection of the god claim. What you referring to would be a non-religious atheist or more likely an apistevist.

QuoteReligion gave them some sense of right and wrong, warped though some of these may be to us today. But the church became a galvanising force for good and it still is.

The church is a force for evil. Always has, always will be. It spreads prejudice and hatred and is to blame for the oppression to this day - and that's only in the western world. In Africa the church still burns children as witches. The catholic church still helps to spread AIDS through the abhorrent and evil politics.

Ok, you might have removed everything it means to be a christian, but as long as you label yourself a christian you are giving credibility to what the rest your evil religion does.

QuoteIf you look at charitable institutions all over the world, you will find that the majority of them belong to the Church. I now live in a country where Christians only form a very small percentage of the population but just about every orphanage, old folks' home, hospice for the destitute, etc is owned by the Church. However much you may want to laugh at a culture that is based on a book that is terribly flawed (atheists usually attack the Bible which is silly because of course when you pick a book that's this ancient, it's bound to be flawed), you can't deny that the good that it does to the world is immeasurable. Atheists will point out the paedophile crimes of the RC church. I agree that is unpardonable but let's not throw away the baby with the bath water. There's is a whole lot of good that the Church has done all over the world.

And these institutions tend to want to brainwash and convert the people they are helping. It's immoral. Why not help people for the sake of helping them instead? Is that so hard? And as christians, generally speaking, actually believe in the bilble, as they actually believe in an actual god, and your an extreme minority within the church, of course we have to attack the bible. The bible is the entire basis of your religion. Take away the bible and it's not a religion anymore.

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 03:21:10 AM
But when it comes to good works, atheism loses out in a big way. It's wrong to say they have no heart. I must confess that when I read that short excerpt you quoted from what I wrote, I'm a little shocked I put it that way. But I have made it clear elsewhere that atheists are as good as Christians and there is no difference. The only difference lies in the OPPORTUNITY and ENCOURAGEMENT.  Atheists have neither the opportunity nor the encouragement or incentive to do good deeds as much as a Christian who is exhorted EVERY week to do something.  Plus the social arm of the church is bigger and stronger than that of any other organisation. 

Well, socialist Scandinavia is primarily atheist and both in regard to redistribution of wealth and care within our own countries and in regard to donation to the 3rd world we are doing quite great. If you need an institution and higher authority to create better living condition what better than a secular state, which will actually use the money for good in the sake of goodness rather than for the sake of dogma, which is what the extreme majority of people who label themselves christian embrace.

You are also very confused about your anti-atheist charity claims. Atheist organizations exist to protect atheists and protect the hugely important separation between church and state. They should not to charity, that is not their function. Atheists do charity through humanist/secular organizations, and sometimes even religious ones.

I am ok with you calling yourself a christian, but you are an atheist. You cannot laugh that off. You are "without belief in a god". That is the definition of atheism. I see you have made an incorrect definition not based on any rules of grammar, but that is not a definition an atheist is likely to use. It's something else entirely. Plenty of atheists who identifies as such beliefs in a huge portion of supernatural nonsense, and they are atheists all the same.

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 02:19:27 AM
It's not a label I've created for myself. My priest is very amused every time I tell him about how in forums, atheists declare that I'm not a Christian and that I'm an atheist. He says if atheists and not the Bishop has the right to excommunicate, a lot of us Christians would be excommunicated and declared to be not a part of Holy Church. But thankfully, atheists are not even communicants of the Church and they have no standing or right to decide who is or is not a Christian.

The position I hold is known to all the hierarchy of my church right up to the Archbishop. I am a part of the flock of our Lord and the Church declares that to be so. I maintain Communion with the Church. Mind you, the Church will refuse atheists the Sacrament. It's considered sacrilegious to administer the Sacrament to atheists and those who are not within the Church, the Bride of our Lord.

So, who has jurisdiction to decide if someone is a Christian or not? An atheist who can't even take the Holy Sacrament without defiling it or the Bishop who holds immense episcopal authority?

But this is a free world and you are very welcome to decide who is a Christian and who is a Muslim and who an atheist might be. That's your prerogative but how important is your decision on who is or is not a Christian? Compare that with the power of the Church and I'm sure you will agree that as far as who is or is not a Christian, it makes more sense to leave that question to Christ's holy church led by the clergy.

This post makes me wonder if you are nothing but a poe. That means a fake, or a troll if you will. You state not to believe in superstition but now you are calling things "holy" and believe that an "atheist"(though I guess by your definition, i.e. non-christian/non-religious) would defile eating a cracker ... You earlier stated that you thought nothing of this ceremony at all and that you did it out of cultural duty. Now you are speaking of it being defiled ... That's a huge contradiction. Too huge for me to be sure I can take you seriously.

Quote from: La Dolce Vita on April 05, 2014, 07:13:34 AM
This post makes me wonder if you are nothing but a poe. That means a fake, or a troll if you will. You state not to believe in superstition but now you are calling things "holy" and believe that an "atheist"(though I guess by your definition, i.e. non-christian/non-religious) would defile eating a cracker ... You earlier stated that you thought nothing of this ceremony at all and that you did it out of cultural duty. Now you are speaking of it being defiled ... That's a huge contradiction. Too huge for me to be sure I can take you seriously.

Now, you are confused. Of course I accept things that are holy should be treated with respect. That's why I'm a cultural Christian. Sigh!  Is it so hard for people to accept the position of a cultural Christian? The altar is holy. I wouldn't step on it for example. When I enter a church, I make a sign to show my respect towards the altar of Christ. The sacrament is holy. I wouldn't throw it away. I'd put it in my mouth and swallow it. But "holy" doesn't mean it's got some magical power. It simply means something people have revered for a long time. When I spoke about an atheist defiling the sacrament, I was just illustrating why an atheist has no jurisdiction to decide who is or is not a Christian. They can't even take the Sacrament without defiling it (I think that's what I said). So how can they rule on who is or is not a Christian? Only the Church can decide on that, surely?

But again, it doesn't mean there is something magical about the Sacrament. Where is the contradiction?

You obviously attach very strict meaning to words like "holy". Religious words have a deeper meaning for you than they have for me.

When I say the Creed, I turn to one direction. At one part of the Creed, I bow. The Creed is holy. But that's not because it's got some supernatural power or that God exists as a supernatural being. It's because I'm a cultural Christian and I show deep reverence to my own religious culture.  How is that contradictory?

I sense that for most of you, a person is either a strident atheist or he's a fundy Christian. You can't have someone who doesn't accept the supernatural and at the same time shows deep respect to his religious tradition. That's why you people find it so hard to understand what a cultural Christian is.

How can they defile it? What does it mean to defile it?

And as I said, you're an atheist, by textbook definition, do you defile it?

Also, what country do you live in? The countries with the highest amounts of atheists are in Scandinavia, and they don't have the low christianity stats that you describe. This is also not a place where most homes for the elderly or orphanages, etc. are run by religious organizations.

Quote from: La Dolce Vita on April 05, 2014, 07:30:57 AM
How can they defile it? What does it mean to defile it?

And as I said, you're an atheist, by textbook definition, do you defile it?

OK, now I know what you mean.  I sounded offensive and I didn't even think of it. To say that atheists defile the Sacrament is highly insulting and I'm really sorry to have said that. But the truth is the Church does declare that a non-Communicant (and that includes atheists) who takes the Sacrament defiles the holy sacrament of Christ. It's the language used by the Church but it's not meant to be insulting. Now that I think of it, it does sound terrible. It's like treating non-Christians as lepers or something. But that's not what I meant. I'll be more careful to use the language the church normally uses in such matters.

By Holy Tradition, the Sacrament of the Eucharist can only be taken by a Communicant of the Church. Of course I can take it. I'm required to take it because I'm a Communicant of the Church.  The Church actually has a register of Communicants and my name is in it.  If you are ex-communicated, you will no longer be a Communicant and you will defile the Sacrament if you take it.  Nothing sinister in what I said and it was really not intended to offend.

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 04:56:32 AM
The people who own, run, contribute to and serve in the church all want to have the same creeds said, the same prayers recited, the same rituals conducted. And that includes cultural Christians. We honour our past and the foundation of the church. To suggest that we only work on the social arm of the church and get rid of the myth part of it is to suggest that you get OUTSIDERS who never had a part to play in any contribution to the church to take over the church. But why should we give what's ours to outsiders? Why can't these outsiders start their own social work on their own without taking what doesn't belong to them?

I hope you see my point here.  The good that the church does is inextricably woven into the entire church culture and tradition. To all of us in the church, the religious culture is important. We are opposed to division and schism and so we won't do anything to offend the superstitious part of the church and I admit there are quite a lot of people in church who truly believe in the superstitious side of faith.

If you break Christians from our religious culture, social work will just fizzle out. And for the same reason, I don't think atheists can come up with a comparable structure that can rival the church. They won't have enough funding or voluntary work, etc. In this country where Christians are a small minority and free thinkers almost half the population, the Humanist Association is a small little group that can barely do anything. Why is that so? Because it's as hard to herd atheists as it is to herd cats. That's what Dawkins said with pride of atheists. But it becomes a huge problem when you want to organise good works.  You can't have it both ways. It's the religious culture and charity or no religious culture and no charity.

Again, just in case people misunderstand me, this is not a criticism of atheists. Atheists are good people but atheism is too disorganised and atheists too individualistic for there to be any effective charity organisation that's as extensive and far-reaching as the social arm of the Church and other Christian groups.

I know people here won't like what I say but it's true if you think about it and atheists are rational people - you know I'm speaking the truth even if you don't like it or don't want to admit it.

Again, you assume it will fizzle out, but that does not make it so. Secularist, atheists, humanists, agnostics, they all do a lot of great deal of charity work. So you have said, and I'm not denying you acknowledge that.
Ninos de la luna, Oxfam, Medicins Sans Frontieres, Amnesty International, Goodwill Industries and so many more... these are all effective and secular organizations. These effective ways show it is possible to build an effective and opportune system without the religious bits and the preaching of dogma etc.

The reason why you think it doesn't compare, however, is because you don't see you're comparing apples and oranges, to put it blunt. I've given you ample reasons in my previous retorts, I think, as to why this is. From resources to manpower to the time they have been in effect to (and I haven't mentioned this one yet) the hostile environment they work in (I know of one atheist charity work that couldn't even donate their money because they people they wanted to give it too didn't want money from an atheist group, their choice and loss I suppose) to the preoccupation with institutionalized and formal versions of 'relief' rather than picking up a shift in the 'soup kitchen' (which is very admirable but does not do much on the whole). They are not on equal footing, but this does not mean one is clearly better than the other. There is no reason to think that if secular institutions had the time, manpower and funds that religions have had throughout the millenia, that the secular organizations would achieve less and be less effective.

No one is interested in taking over the church. New secular organizations focused on charity are building something entirely new modelled after the few good ideas of the church and without all the extra weight and poisonous idea's and false authority. What you say that we should do, start our own thing, is exactly what I've been advocating all along. So throw away the bathwater and keep the child. But don't tell me, without there being any proof in favor of your claim, that you need the bathwater to keep the child.

But even if you were to manage to prove your claim of 'fizzeling out', there is still something very important to keep in mind.
As harsh as it may seem, if I were to be given the choice between living in a world in which no charity existed but the social security systems and institutionalized care and solidarity was available or a world in which only charity existed and no versions of these socialized and institutionalized solidarity, I would pick the former. Formal and institutionalized solidarity has simple yielded much better results and done so much more against the world's problems.
Of course we can have both, but moving more to institutionalized solidarity is simply better even if it inadvertedly breaks down some  religious forms of charity (though new and secular ones pop up more and more to take their place). And I use 'inadvertedly' because both the decline of religiousness as the growth of instititutionalized solidarity find their birth in the enlightenment.

Secular or non-religious charities are NOT atheistic charities.  Let's get that straight. A lot of people who are in some of these groups are Christians. Christian charities are owned and run by the Church, pure and simple. Secular charities are run by people regardless of religious affiliation.  They are NOT atheistic charities. The paucity of atheistic charities makes it necessary for you to lump secular charities as if they were atheistic concerns but that's a mistake.

Right, so they work without religion or the notion of God. A charity in the name of 'atheism' is weird in itself. But as the monopoly of religion on charity breaks, which it has started to do in the West after the dark ages, secular organisations take their place. And they are without the bathwater. Without false authority. Without religious claims. Without the self-entitled rightousness and without the moral-guilt-trip or pressure. And their structure and infrastructure is used by both atheists as theists and deists alike.

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 07:37:21 AM
OK, now I know what you mean.  I sounded offensive and I didn't even think of it. To say that atheists defile the Sacrament is highly insulting and I'm really sorry to have said that. But the truth is the Church does declare that a non-Communicant (and that includes atheists) who takes the Sacrament defiles the holy sacrament of Christ. It's the language used by the Church but it's not meant to be insulting. Now that I think of it, it does sound terrible. It's like treating non-Christians as lepers or something. But that's not what I meant. I'll be more careful to use the language the church normally uses in such matters.

By Holy Tradition, the Sacrament of the Eucharist can only be taken by a Communicant of the Church. Of course I can take it. I'm required to take it because I'm a Communicant of the Church.  The Church actually has a register of Communicants and my name is in it.  If you are ex-communicated, you will no longer be a Communicant and you will defile the Sacrament if you take it.  Nothing sinister in what I said and it was really not intended to offend.

I wasn't offended, I was wondering what one would be defiling, how one could defile it and what "defile" means to you, because it sounded like it was important, as if something actually happens, as if it was ruined for the rest, etc. - but if it's nothing more than a cultural ritual with no magical component, how could it be? What are the consequences?

Also, again, what country are you from? I'd like to fact check your info.

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 12:51:01 AM
Of course. It's the same with any culture from any part of the world. It's ancient and ancient folks were superstitious. Are you saying that because religion has a superstitious origin, we must flee it today?

No. What is being is that you don't become a Christian just because you show up every sunday. An athiest that attends mass every week is still an atheist. A christian that never goes to church is still a christian. Its not about your attendance record, its about what you believe. In your own words, you do not believe that god exists. Case closed. We're done here.

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 08:02:39 AM
Secular or non-religious charities are NOT atheistic charities.  Let's get that straight. A lot of people who are in some of these groups are Christians. Christian charities are owned and run by the Church, pure and simple. Secular charities are run by people regardless of religious affiliation.  They are NOT atheistic charities. The paucity of atheistic charities makes it necessary for you to lump secular charities as if they were atheistic concerns but that's a mistake.

This is why you are confused. "Atheism" is not an ideology. It is not a creed. Atheists are just people who do not believe in a god, like yourself. As atheists are oppressed in many places of the world there are atheist organization to protect their rights, but aside from this, the "label" atheist has no value. Therefor your point makes no sense, and can even be seen as dishonest. Furthermore atheists can and do donate to christian charities as well.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 05, 2014, 08:06:31 AM
Right, so they work without religion or the notion of God. A charity in the name of 'atheism' is weird in itself. But as the monopoly of religion on charity breaks, which it has started to do in the West after the dark ages, secular organisations take their place. And they are without the bathwater. Without false authority. Without religious claims. Without the self-entitled rightousness and without the moral-guilt-trip or pressure. And their structure and infrastructure is used by both atheists as theists and deists alike.

Of course there are atheist groups. Nothing strange at all. And they do try to get some charity going although not quite so successfully. Secular Humanist Groups are usually (by their Constitutions) atheistic/agnostic in character. These groups are usually accepted as atheistic in nature. Religious people usually will stay clear of such groups. I don't know of a single orphanage or hospice run by Secular Humanist group while there are thousands upon thousands of charitable homes in a single country alone run by churches. Again, I'm not running down atheists. This is not an indication that they are bad or uncaring. No, they aren't. But it does go to show that it's not practical for a group of atheists to organise charity the way the church does it.

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 08:24:55 AM
Of course there are atheist groups. Nothing strange at all. And they do try to get some charity going although not quite so successfully. Secular Humanist Groups are usually (by their Constitutions) atheistic/agnostic in character. These groups are usually accepted as atheistic in nature. Religious people usually will stay clear of such groups. I don't know of a single orphanage or hospice run by Secular Humanist group while there are thousands upon thousands of charitable homes in a single country alone run by churches. Again, I'm not running down atheists. This is not an indication that they are bad or uncaring. No, they aren't. But it does go to show that it's not practical for a group of atheists to organise charity the way the church does it.

Humanism is not atheism, it just happens to be predominantly atheist/agnostic. There are atheist organizations doing charity work, specifically labeled as atheist rather than secular. One of the points of this seem to be to actually show that specifically atheist groups can do good, as a lot of people, particularly in countries where atheists are belittling/oppressed need to fight prejudices. I'd rather it was done in a secular fashion personally, because when you attach belief you limit the amount of people who can participate. Sad that Christians would stay clear of humanist charity because they connect it to those evil, evil atheists. Humanism is secular as well however. They are not holding charity ransom demanding belief in "atheism", nor is any specific atheistic organization as far as I'm aware.

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 08:24:55 AM
Of course there are atheist groups. Nothing strange at all. And they do try to get some charity going although not quite so successfully. Secular Humanist Groups are usually (by their Constitutions) atheistic/agnostic in character. These groups are usually accepted as atheistic in nature. Religious people usually will stay clear of such groups. I don't know of a single orphanage or hospice run by Secular Humanist group while there are thousands upon thousands of charitable homes in a single country alone run by churches. Again, I'm not running down atheists. This is not an indication that they are bad or uncaring. No, they aren't. But it does go to show that it's not practical for a group of atheists to organise charity the way the church does it.

orphanage: orphan coalition (orphancoalition.org)
hospice: ninos de la luna
Now you do know. (About two minutes of research online.)

And you're confusing me. Are you now saying that secular organizations are atheist organizations, because you were the one saying they weren't. Not trying to be funny, you're just not making sense to me.

And we know you're not running down atheists like you and me. You've been saying so this entire time. But you are also concluding atheists are inept at organizing charity for completely bad and flawed reasons that you just don't accept being bad and flawed reasons. Though I and many others here have pointed them out again and again.

Quote from: La Dolce Vita on April 05, 2014, 08:34:01 AM
Humanism is not atheism, it just happens to be predominantly atheist/agnostic. There are atheist organizations doing charity work, specifically labeled as atheist rather than secular. One of the points of this seem to be to actually show that specifically atheist groups can do good, as a lot of people, particularly in countries where atheists are belittling/oppressed need to fight prejudices. I'd rather it was done in a secular fashion personally, because when you attach belief you limit the amount of people who can participate. Sad that Christians would stay clear of humanist charity because they connect it to those evil, evil atheists. Humanism is secular as well however. They are not holding charity ransom demanding belief in "atheism", nor is any specific atheistic organization as far as I'm aware.

I don't know about other Christians or whether they do help out in humanist groups. But for me personally, whenever I donate money to a charity, I would choose a Christian charity even if it's not one by my Church specifically. I do that not because I consider atheists evil. I certainly don't. I don't believe any Christian is that stupid and nasty as to consider atheists evil. I give to a Christian group only because I'm more familiar with Christian groups. Besides, Christian charities always benefit humanity as a whole and they're not like the Muslim charities I know in this particular country I'm living in now that only bother about helping other Muslims. I'm familiar with Christianity and I know Christian groups don't discriminate against non-Christian people who deserve the charity. It's not wrong to give to a group that you are familiar with and you can be more certain about their objectives (eg non-sectarian). That's all.

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 08:46:35 AMI don't believe any Christian is that stupid and nasty as to consider atheists evil.

(http://m.memegen.com/amqeo4.jpg)

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on April 05, 2014, 09:42:37 AM
(http://m.memegen.com/amqeo4.jpg)

I gave up, HB. Don't think Scroyle has a full grasp of what he is talking about.  :biggrin:

I can't help wonder if much of this discussion is being generated by some rather idiosyncratic definitions of things like what is meant by holy or atheist or whatever.  Idiosyncratic definitions lead to confusion, and I get the feeling there is a lot of confusion here.  I'm feeling it in myself and am reluctant to join in.  Others seem to be attempting to sort out the confusion, and I don't think I could do any better or offer anything more.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on April 05, 2014, 09:42:37 AM
(http://m.memegen.com/amqeo4.jpg)

That's nothing. I'm totally unfazed. I'm used to atheists and I'm aware that for some of you, when you drop your religious culture, you drop all culture and courtesy but that's ok. Using memes to communicate may appear so unintellectual in the polished circles I move in but hey, I can take atheistic excesses. :)  Let's have more of your memes. I know that's how you communicate and I'm eager to see more.

Quote from: SGOS on April 05, 2014, 10:00:34 AM
I can't help wonder if much of this discussion is being generated by some rather idiosyncratic definitions of things like what is meant by holy or atheist or whatever.  Idiosyncratic definitions lead to confusion, and I get the feeling there is a lot of confusion here.  I'm feeling it in myself and am reluctant to join in.  Others seem to be attempting to sort out the confusion, and I don't think I could do any better or offer anything more.

I don't see what's so idiosyncratic about my definition of a Christian. I'm saying that the right party to decide what a Christian is must surely be the Church. You guys are saying it's for the atheist to decide. I dispute that of course. It's ludicrous that atheists get to decide who a Christian is. Nothing can be more nonsensical than that. It's the church that should decide and that's that. Surely you can see that?

(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view4/4061682/go-fuck-yourself-with-a-cactus-o.gif)

Hijiri, I must confess I was a little angry with you at first but you are a strange character and you do have an unusual sense of humour.

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 10:14:55 AM
Hijiri, I must confess I was a little angry with you at first but you are a strange character and you do have an unusual sense of humour.

Thanks, I do try.

Oh brother, 6 pages of stuff to read! :-)

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 10:02:22 AM
Using memes to communicate may appear so unintellectual in the polished circles I move in but hey, I can take atheistic excesses. :)

I really don't know how "polished" the circles you move in actually are, but I get the impression they are somewhat limited.

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 10:07:52 AM
I don't see what's so idiosyncratic about my definition of a Christian. I'm saying that the right party to decide what a Christian is must surely be the Church. You guys are saying it's for the atheist to decide. I dispute that of course. It's ludicrous that atheists get to decide who a Christian is. Nothing can be more nonsensical than that. It's the church that should decide and that's that. Surely you can see that?

I really don't care what a christian is. Arguing the definition of things is a waste of time. Appeals to authority, especially authority of questionable merit, are no indication of truth.

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 10:07:52 AM
I don't see what's so idiosyncratic about my definition of a Christian. I'm saying that the right party to decide what a Christian is must surely be the Church. You guys are saying it's for the atheist to decide. I dispute that of course. It's ludicrous that atheists get to decide who a Christian is. Nothing can be more nonsensical than that. It's the church that should decide and that's that. Surely you can see that?

Did I not mention that many of us here have been Christians? I was a Christian for 16 years. I ran a youth ministry for 2 years. I get to decide who Christians are because I was one. You don't get it. We are in an adversarial position with religion because religions have put us there. there are laws on the books of many states against atheists even holding office, and atheists are attacked and protested against in the media and on the internet. Watch Fox News for a few days. The only people attacking you are people that have been attacked. 99.9% of all congressmen identify as Christians. 75-80% of citizens in the U.S. identify as Christians. There are no laws anywhere that directly attack your religion, except where your religion has adversely affected the rights of others.

Women in the Bible Belt can't get birth control because of religion. In all of Texas there are only 3 clinics that still provide abortions- and yes there are medical reasons where abortion is necessary for life saving. Your religion tries to force Creationism and other idiotic beliefs on school children, whether they be Christian or not. A Buddhist in a Louisiana elementary school won a lawsuit recently for being prejudiced against; forced involvement with Christian religion in a public school.

The last atheist meet in Washington was picketed against by several religious groups. we don't go picketing churches on Sunday for their beliefs. What we do is reactionary. Your view is myopic, to say the least. I guarantee that we have a more objective view than you do because we are an aggregate of both former believers and non believers. You need to get outside your myopic little box before you start laying judgment on us.

Quote from: scroyle on April 03, 2014, 01:04:03 PM
I have always been a Christian

Quote from: scroyle on April 04, 2014, 09:52:01 PM
There was a time in my life when I became an atheist

Quote from: scroyle on April 04, 2014, 07:59:27 PM
I know many atheists have thought of me as an atheist but my definition of an atheist is slightly different. An atheist is one who will not follow a religion.

Your just shitting us, right?

stromboli, if you look at the posts so far, you will see that I have not laid judgment on atheists as you wrongly claimed. I've only defended myself as a Christian when people call me an atheist. I did say something arrogant in reply to Hijiri's obscenely vituperative meme but as I explained subsequently, I was a little miffed with him initially. You seem very riled about the fact that in the US, the feelings of atheists are needlessly hurt but I do have feelings too and they can be hurt as much as an atheist's can. You need to get out of your accusatory little box and tell me what it is I have accused atheists of. I don't see why I can't defend my standing with the church and I don't see why you should take that to be an attack on atheists.

I can understand a little the persecution complex that you might have. But please understand that I'm not an American and I don't have the same fundamentalist pugnacious zeal that the Religious Right in the US have. I find them obnoxious as much as I find Fox News incredibly offensive. I have seen how William Lane Craig argues for Christianity and I despise him from the bottom of my heart. American Christians can be repulsive in every sense of the word. My fear is many of you assume I'm just like your regular Bible Belt Southern Baptist Bible-thumping fire-and-brimstone preacher. I'm NOT.

When I said atheists could not come up with the same sort of charity that the church has, I did not mean it as an accusation against atheists. I made it very clear that atheists are good people. I've said that repeatedly. All I've said is atheists do not have the huge infra-structure that the church has. And you've got to admit it. Atheists are individualistic and you can't herd them the way the Christian flock can be herded. I've read how some atheists tried to start a Sunday worship equivalent but it failed. There were many atheists who hated the idea. This is not an indication that atheists are bad. By no means.

Even I have burned with anger when I saw online jokes about atheists having their official day on 1st April. It's very infuriating but this is not the work of all Christians. It's unfortunate that the most scientifically advanced nation on earth is also the most superstitious with 50% of the people (or so I've read) believing in creationism. I suppose if I were an atheist in the US, I'd be livid too. But you must never think all Christians are the same. It's unfortunate that in the US, there are so many fundies but let me assure you, it's not like this in many other parts of the world. Certainly not at all like this in Britain and many parts of Europe.

Quote from: Poison Tree on April 05, 2014, 11:06:14 AM
Your just shitting us, right?

Yes, I believe that would be the case.

O lordy mama. I need some coffee.

Quote from: Poison Tree on April 05, 2014, 11:06:14 AM
Your just shitting us, right?

When you pick pieces and post them, you are doing precisely what Bible-thumping preachers love to do. Let me explain. Yes, I've been a Christian all my life.  But like I've said, there was a period in my life when I decided to stop going to church and at that time I did embrace atheism. But I returned to the faith. How am I kidding you?

Honestly, what is your beef? You can't stand the idea that a Christian can be without any superstition? The idea that a Christian can be totally rational and reject the supernatural as something that offends your worldview? What is the problem? Really?

Quote from: SGOS on April 05, 2014, 10:00:34 AM
I can't help wonder if much of this discussion is being generated by some rather idiosyncratic definitions of things like what is meant by holy or atheist or whatever.  Idiosyncratic definitions lead to confusion, and I get the feeling there is a lot of confusion here.  I'm feeling it in myself and am reluctant to join in.  Others seem to be attempting to sort out the confusion, and I don't think I could do any better or offer anything more.

Well stated. Too much mental sorting going on here on a Saturday morning. Coffee time.  :biggrin:

Or perhaps you want to be able to tease me about the talking snake and the jabbering donkey? Or that a dead man can rise again? Or Jesus can walk on water and turn water into wine? And it defeats everything if I find all that equally laughable? So, it's important for you to establish that I can't be a Christian even though the church confirms me as one?

Quote from: stromboli on April 05, 2014, 11:22:18 AM
Well stated. Too much mental sorting going on here on a Saturday morning. Coffee time.  :biggrin:

Bye!  Let's not tax your pretty little head too much. :) Anyway, it's not important. I just wanted to explain what a cultural Christian was and I think I've done that. If people don't think we cultural Christians exist, that's fine. No need to go through all that mental sorting.

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 11:20:41 AM
Honestly, what is your beef? You can't stand the idea that a Christian can be without any superstition? The idea that a Christian can be totally rational and reject the supernatural as something that offends your worldview? What is the problem? Really?

Possibly the fact that it's a contradiction in terms.

In other news, I am a Muslim who does not believe in Allah or the Quran.

I can understand if you're a tad busy. Lot of questions and such flying your way. And I understand if you can't adress it any time soon, but could you please adress my last comment. You really confused me with the answer I quoted and responded to. (It's on page 5 or 6 and perhaps it slipped by unnoticed, but I'm anxiously awaiting a reply.)

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 05, 2014, 11:27:49 AM
I can understand if you're a tad busy. Lot of questions and such flying your way. And I understand if you can't adress it any time soon, but could you please adress my last comment. You really confused me with the answer I quoted and responded to. (It's on page 5 or 6 and perhaps it slipped by unnoticed, but I'm anxiously awaiting a reply.)

Sorry, I've just looked back at page 5 and I saw your question. No, I'm not saying atheists are inept or inefficient or dumb or in any way inferior in not being able to organise charity the way the church has done. It's just that atheists haven't got the infra structure of the church. We have a huge connection. While it's true that there are many different churches, but when it comes to charity work, we work together most of the time. Minor differences in doctrines are usually overlooked when it's social work. And besides, we are all aware that although different, we are united by one Creed, one baptism and one Lord. That makes it easy to work together not because we want to be different from others. Like when there was some problem in Sri Lanka (I can't remember what it was but it could be another tsunami), my church got in touch with a different church and somehow help could be sent there even before the Red Cross could get cracking. It's a very useful connection for opportunities to do good.

Atheists haven't got that kind of network. An atheist might write to another atheist but he might not bother because atheists are disparate individuals. There's no special religious culture and even religious fables to unite you.

I hope you understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying atheists are inept. You just need religious culture to get things done sometimes.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on April 05, 2014, 11:27:58 AM
Possibly the fact that it's a contradiction in terms.

In other news, I am a Muslim who does not believe in Allah or the Quran.

I'm not sure if you wrote that sarcastically. Yes, I imagine you'd be a Muslim if you perform Muslim rituals, take Muslim sacraments and are recognised by the Muslim priests as a Muslim. Belief in the precise nature of God - whether he's a being or a mere metaphor are insignificant. The question is do you submit to the Mosque?  I'm of course assuming that the position in Islam is the same as that in Christianity. If the Church rules you to be a Communicant, you're a Christian and you participate in the full rituals and Sacraments of the Church. It doesn't matter what others say.

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 11:39:45 AM
Sorry, I've just looked back at page 5 and I saw your question. No, I'm not saying atheists are inept or inefficient or dumb or in any way inferior in not being able to organise charity the way the church has done. It's just that atheists haven't got the infra structure of the church. We have a huge connection. While it's true that there are many different churches, but when it comes to charity work, we work together most of the time. Minor differences in doctrines are usually overlooked when it's social work. And besides, we are all aware that although different, we are united by one Creed, one baptism and one Lord. That makes it easy to work together not because we want to be different from others. Like when there was some problem in Sri Lanka (I can't remember what it was but it could be another tsunami), my church got in touch with a different church and somehow help could be sent there even before the Red Cross could get cracking. It's a very useful connection for opportunities to do good.

Atheists haven't got that kind of network. An atheist might write to another atheist but he might not bother because atheists are disparate individuals. There's no special religious culture and even religious fables to unite you.

I hope you understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying atheists are inept. You just need religious culture to get things done sometimes.

I think it's already clear we won't come to a consensus about wether or not secular organizations can be at least as effective as religious ones. Suffice to say I don't think any of your claims is supported by anything sound and you don't think my objections are valid to break your view. We can discuss this much further and much longer, and we probably will.
But what I was confused about was that you seemed to be saying that secular charity organizations are atheist organizations after you, just a few posts earlier, made a big deal about them not being atheist organizations. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting, but I'd like to get that point clear.

Hey scroyle, how often do you crap and fart?

Sent via Internet Explorer

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 11:43:24 AM
I'm not sure if you wrote that sarcastically. Yes, I imagine you'd be a Muslim if you perform Muslim rituals, take Muslim sacraments and are recognised by the Muslim priests as a Muslim. Belief in the precise nature of God - whether he's a being or a mere metaphor are insignificant. The question is do you submit to the Mosque?  I'm of course assuming that the position in Islam is the same as that in Christianity. If the Church rules you to be a Communicant, you're a Christian and you participate in the full rituals and Sacraments of the Church. It doesn't matter what others say.

Sarcasm is a foreign language to you, I see.

You've also shown that you have zero knowledge of philosophical positions outside your own, if you actually believe any Muslim would accept that bs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 10:02:22 AM
That's nothing. I'm totally unfazed. I'm used to atheists and I'm aware that for some of you, when you drop your religious culture, you drop all culture and courtesy but that's ok. Using memes to communicate may appear so unintellectual in the polished circles I move in but hey, I can take atheistic excesses. :)  Let's have more of your memes. I know that's how you communicate and I'm eager to see more.

The meme was a reaction to your blatant lie that no christians consider atheists evil. Legions of christians do and publicly state so, including ministers. They say atheists will burn in hell. They say atheists should burn in hell. They think atheists are of the devil, and so on. Are you truly so out of touch  with your religion?

Yes, some people here have stated that you are not a christian. You can define yourself however you want, but you do not fit most christians' definition of a christians. Like you said, the evengelicals and fundamentalists would certainly not consider you a christian. Belief in an actual god tends to be the tenant of basic christianity as well. Do any poll and you'd find this to be the supreme defining mark of the religion, regardless of denomination. I don't see how you can be religious without superstition. Every religion, including the atheistic ones, are based on superstition and beliefs. Without that you'd be embracing modernized liberal Christianity as a philosophy rather than a religion as far as I'm concerned - but as long as your church is ok with you being an atheist christian, you certainly belong to your church. And as long as you embrace the ideology you can certainly make a rational case for yourself being an atheist christian as well.


And again, what country do you live in??? I'm really interested.

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 11:13:33 AM
stromboli, if you look at the posts so far, you will see that I have not laid judgment on atheists as you wrongly claimed. I've only defended myself as a Christian when people call me an atheist.

You ARE an atheist by the definition atheists use, the definition you will find in any dictionary (including the offensive and incorrect ones) and by the laws of grammar themselves. No definition of atheism has ever connected it to a lack of or rejection of religion. You do not believe in a god, therefor you are an atheist. When we say you are an atheist we only say what the word means: "someone who does not believe in gods". You have already stated this multiple times, so you cannot defend yourself from it.

QuoteWhen I said atheists could not come up with the same sort of charity that the church has, I did not mean it as an accusation against atheists. I made it very clear that atheists are good people. I've said that repeatedly. All I've said is atheists do not have the huge infra-structure that the church has. And you've got to admit it. Atheists are individualistic and you can't herd them the way the Christian flock can be herded. I've read how some atheists tried to start a Sunday worship equivalent but it failed. There were many atheists who hated the idea. This is not an indication that atheists are bad. By no means.

We have secular charities! Why on earth would we want specifically atheist charities??? I find this offensive actually. You talk to atheists as if we were an ideological group with similarities when we in fact are not. Asking for specific atheist charity is like asking for specific charity from non-hindus or specific charity from non-football fans. It makes no sense. The secular/humanist charities are the charities without religion/dogma and therefor the charities most atheists will choose. Plenty of (non-religious) atheists likely donate to  red cross, etc. too though.

Quote from: La Dolce Vita on April 05, 2014, 12:00:41 PM
The meme was a reaction to your blatant lie that no christians consider atheists evil. Legions of christians do and publicly state so, including ministers. They say atheists will burn in hell. They say atheists should burn in hell. They think atheists are of the devil, and so on. Are you truly so out of touch  with your religion?

Yes, some people here have stated that you are not a christian. You can define yourself however you want, but you do not fit most christians' definition of a christians. Like you said, the evengelicals and fundamentalists would certainly not consider you a christian. Belief in an actual god tends to be the tenant of basic christianity as well. Do any poll and you'd find this to be the supreme defining mark of the religion, regardless of denomination. I don't see how you can be religious without superstition. Every religion, including the atheistic ones, are based on superstition and beliefs. Without that you'd be embracing modernized liberal Christianity as a philosophy rather than a religion as far as I'm concerned - but as long as your church is ok with you being an atheist christian, you certainly belong to your church. And as long as you embrace the ideology you can certainly make a rational case for yourself being an atheist christian as well.


And again, what country do you live in??? I'm really interested.

I've only read about American Christians saying atheists will burn in hell. I've seen something to that effect in the Westboro Baptist Church's picketing. But in all my ENTIRE life as a Christian right through my altar boy days, I've NEVER heard such nonsense from any priest in my church or any other churches. Oh yes, I met some people in Leicester Square who told me I'd go to hell because I'd gone to St Paul's that morning.  I imagine they'd say the same thing about atheists too but you guys aren't the only ones who they say will burn in hell. They said my entire church and the entire royal family too. LOL. But honestly, I've not heard any normal sane Christian saying atheists will burn in hell.

I can tell you what country I grew up in but I'd rather keep my current location under wraps.

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 03:34:58 AM
It doesn't require much skill. Of course it's easy to get the Eucharist from any church. Anyone can pretend to be a communicant. And of course it's no big deal because it's just a bit of flour and a bit of bad quality wine. If it makes you happy, why not. When I say sacrilege, I don't mean it in a cosmic sense which is what you are implying. Nothing happens of course.

Good to hear that.  If you got upset over me eating a cracker (like Catholics in droves apparently do), you'd be the lunatic, not me.

QuoteI've read PZ Myers' Eucharist Challenge and I was supportive of him actually. I was dead opposed to the RC church for threatening the student. As a cultural Christian, I revere human culture but up to a point. If someone goes against the culture, it's all right to sacrifice the culture but it's not all right to threaten that person. So, the student who stole the Eucharist may have done a discourteous thing but it's too small a matter to have any reprisal. What the RC church did was disgusting. They tried to get PZ Myers sacked. They threatened the student and insisted that he returned the wafer.

Yes, it was disgusting behavior.  Childish superstition, rage, and even the potential for violence.  Bare that in mind the company you keep when you go to services and exactly what you are saying when you call yourself a member of this (not very) enlightened and progressive religion.

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 11:39:45 AM
I hope you understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying atheists are inept. You just need religious culture to get things done sometimes.

Incorrect, you just need structure. If we need your religious structure so badly, how come Scandinavia is doing so great? Utilization of socialism and secular (non-religious) means seems to do quite well. You keep ignoring the point, but secular charities do wonders too, and they are not religious.

Quote from: Hydra009 on April 05, 2014, 12:18:15 PM
Childish superstition, rage, and even the potential for violence.

Well, religion is ultimately childish, so pridefully childish behavior from the religious is expected.

You know, I thought pride was a sin. They must all be going to hell.

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 12:16:12 PM
I've only read about American Christians saying atheists will burn in hell. I've seen something to that effect in the Westboro Baptist Church's picketing. But in all my ENTIRE life as a Christian right through my altar boy days, I've NEVER heard such nonsense from any priest in my church or any other churches. Oh yes, I met some people in Leicester Square who told me I'd go to hell because I'd gone to St Paul's that morning.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/Hydra009/seriously.jpg)

QuoteI can tell you what country I grew up in but I'd rather keep my current location under wraps.

Suit yourself, Carmen Sandiego.  But everyone knows that Leicester Square is in London, England.

Quote from: La Dolce Vita on April 05, 2014, 12:25:40 PM
Incorrect, you just need structure. If we need your religious structure so badly, how come Scandinavia is doing so great? Utilization of socialism and secular (non-religious) means seems to do quite well. You keep ignoring the point, but secular charities do wonders too, and they are not religious.

Scandinavia is doing well because it's socialist in structure and the State funds these things. I don't think you can compare a State funded charity with private enterprises. The church is private.

Quote from: Hydra009 on April 05, 2014, 12:30:29 PM
Suit yourself, Carmen Sandiego.  But everyone knows that Leicester Square is in London, England.

Hee! :D

Quote from: Hydra009 on April 05, 2014, 12:30:29 PM
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/Hydra009/seriously.jpg)
Suit yourself, Carmen Sandiego.  But everyone knows that Leicester Square is in London, England.

But that was what I was prepared to tell.

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 12:16:12 PM
LOL. But honestly, I've not heard any normal sane Christian saying atheists will burn in hell.

What would your definition of sane be? There no secret that this is being stated from many a pulpit, and these people live relatively average lives despite their prejudices. I wouldn't call them insane personally.

QuoteI can tell you what country I grew up in but I'd rather keep my current location under wraps.

A country is a pretty sizeable "location". No one would have any clue of where in the country you would be.  I just want to check if your claims about your country are correct as so many of your arguments have been built on the situation, and it's a bit hard to argue against them when you are in the dark like that.

Quote from: scroyle on April 04, 2014, 07:59:27 PM
I've read the news about atheist associations in the US and the way they spend their money is appalling. They take legal action against schools that want to distribute toys to poor children on Christmas because it's religious and schools cannot get involved in religion - they have separation of State and church. A interviewer asked the president of the atheist association if his atheist group would get toys for poor children now that they had successfully stopped the school for doing that charity work. His reply was shocking. His atheist association spends their money suing people who do charity work in the name of religion but their money is not meant to be used as charity. The interviewer rightly pointed out that that was cold comfort for the children.

What surprised me was Richard Dawkins seemed to think the interviewer was harsh. I go the entire link to the article and the video of the interview from Dawkins' website. But that's the part of atheism I detest. They don't do any charity but they will stop others from helping poor children because of their rabid hatred for Christianity. And why do they hate Christianity? Because the Bible gets many facts wrong and ancient folks believed in supernatural beings. And they throw away an entire institution that has been in place with all its charitable works and infrastructure.  Who would work in a hospice for destitute people with no remuneration? It may be true that people who are willing to sacrifice their time and money doing these things also believe they will be rewarded after their death but the fact is they still do good work.

If you see how atheist groups function in the US, it's abominable. I'll probably listen to them more if they were to fight less and do more good. But when they go round suing those who do good and rejoicing when they can stop charity work, they do make themselves out to be quite disagreeable and I wouldn't want to be a part of them.

Perhaps one day atheist societies will stop fighting and start doing real charity work. Until that day comes, the world still needs the Church.

You are taking one fact out of context and not looking at the whole situation.  You should not look just at atheists being against schools giving toys to children on Christmas but the reason why atheists fight christians, which is to make sure that the US remains a secular society. The christians are fighting this on many fronts: they want to restore prayers in the schools, they want creationism to be taught in the science class on equal footing with evolution, they want all abortion clinics to be closed and deny women to make their own decision about their bodies, they are against Obamacare because firms must provide insurance that include coverage of contraceptives, they are against gay rights and gay marriage, they are against stem cell research, and for many, they are totally anti-science to the point that they deny not only evolution but climate change due to human activities, of which 95% of scientists have shown that it is happening right now. So before you condemn atheist actions in the US, please look at the whole picture.

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 12:32:48 PM
Scandinavia is doing well because it's socialist in structure and the State funds these things. I don't think you can compare a State funded charity with private enterprises. The church is private.

You do realize many churches and religious organizations receive money from the governments of the countries they are in, right? They are state funded, at least to an extent, definitely in Europe.
Also, do you or do you not, to finally get it straigth (because I'm still waiting), think that secular charity organizations are atheist charity organizations, or not?

Reminds me, I need to get debaptized stat, before I start working so I won't have to pay church tax but can have it go to something usefull.

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 12:32:48 PM
Scandinavia is doing well because it's socialist in structure and the State funds these things. I don't think you can compare a State funded charity with private enterprises. The church is private.

Exactly, that was part of my point, and quoted in your post. State funded charity is far more effective than private charity, and you run less of a risk with scams, etc. You stated that we needed your church's structure, but the state's structure is superior in every way, and through the utilization of it we in Scandinavia have very little need for private charity.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on April 05, 2014, 12:39:05 PM
You are taking one fact out of context and not looking at the whole situation.  You should not look just at atheists being against schools giving toys to children on Christmas but the reason why atheists fight christians, which is to make sure that the US remains a secular society. The christians are fighting this on many fronts: they want to restore prayers in the schools, they want creationism to be taught in the science class on equal footing with evolution, they want all abortion clinics to be closed and deny women to make their own decision about their bodies, they are against Obamacare because firms must provide insurance that include coverage of contraceptives, they are against gay rights and gay marriage, they are against stem cell research, and for many, they are totally anti-science to the point that they deny not only evolution but climate change due to human activities, of which 95% of scientists have shown that it is happening right now. So before you condemn atheist actions in the US, please look at the whole picture.

I don't know what problem atheists have with school prayers. My school has prayers and church too. It's run by the State church. The atheists in my country have no problem with this. Richard Dawkins himself leads in grace and he has to do that as a Fellow of his College. He has no problem with it and I don't know why American atheists find prayers so incredibly burdensome. In my country, our Head of State is the Head of my Church. She's the Defender of the Faith. The Head of State is crowned in church by a priest. Every marriage and birth and death of the royal family is celebrated in church and is a state event. But nobody has a problem with that because it's our culture. Can't you see that? Religion is all about culture. The supernatural can go but the culture remains.

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 11:17:16 AM
But like I've said, there was a period in my life when I decided to stop going to church and at that time I did embrace atheism. But I returned to the faith. How am I kidding you?

How long a period was that?

By the way, you've still failed to say why we should donate money to churches (where the vast majority does not go to doing charity work) as opposed to secular charities where it does. What's so special about church infrastructure that it needs 70%-99% overhead to do charity? Oh, but let me guess, your secret church in your hidden country has very low overhead and gives all of its money to the poor

My profile picture is a photo I took of my church. I was baptised and confirmed here. I was an altar boy here. But I've never heard anyone saying atheists or anyone for that matter will be burnt in hell. Very few people in my church believe in a hell. It's such an obviously ridiculous idea that even the superstitious folks who believe in the supernatural do not accept the existence of such a silly torture chamber from the Middle Ages.

Quote from: Poison Tree on April 05, 2014, 12:51:13 PM
How long a period was that?

By the way, you've still failed to say why we should donate money to churches (where the vast majority does not go to doing charity work) as opposed to secular charities where it does. What's so special about church infrastructure that it needs 70%-99% overhead to do charity? Oh, but let me guess, your secret church in your hidden country has very low overhead and gives all of its money to the poor

Most of the money given to churches go to the upkeep of the old buildings. It's frightfully expensive to maintain these old buildings. But I was talking about giving to the social arm of the church. Not the church directly which will swallow up your money to repair the old church building. But you can contribute to the church repair if you like to preserve a national heritage. Nothing wrong with that.

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 12:48:20 PM
I don't know what problem atheists have with school prayers. My school has prayers and church too. It's run by the State church. The atheists in my country have no problem with this. Richard Dawkins himself leads in grace and he has to do that as a Fellow of his College. He has no problem with it and I don't know why American atheists find prayers so incredibly burdensome. In my country, our Head of State is the Head of my Church. She's the Defender of the Faith. The Head of State is crowned in church by a priest. Every marriage and birth and death of the royal family is celebrated in church and is a state event. But nobody has a problem with that because it's our culture. Can't you see that? Religion is all about culture. The supernatural can go but the culture remains.

Because it's imposing religious believes upon others. That is immoral. You are right now championing immoral behavior. How would you, as a christian, like it to be forced to praise Allah or denounce everything you believe in every single day just to be able to get an education? Do you really not see how evil this is? I had actually never heard that about Dawkins, if true that is horrifying.

Also, if there's no actual god, what is the purpose of prayer? I can't fathom any other function than communication with a supernatural being you worship - but even if you find some other use - imposing it on others is still evil - particularly if you do not believe their souls, etc. depends on it. You are basically psychologically damaging people and abusing them for no purpose aside from the majorities culture. Should every non-christian Brit (which is a sizeable amount of people) just move away from the country? If you're english you were extremely misinformed about the amount of christians are in your country btw. You said 10%, but the stats I can find places it around 40-60%.

You are mistaken. I made it very clear that I'm now living in another country. It's a non-Christian country where Christians are a minority. 10% is right. I said that almost 50% claimed to be free-thinkers in the last census but someone just explained to me. It's not that simple. These free-thinkers aren't exactly atheists. Apparently, it's common in this country for people to call themselves free-thinkers but they aren't atheists at all. They are superstitious people generally.

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 12:48:20 PM
I don't know what problem atheists have with school prayers. My school has prayers and church too. It's run by the State church. The atheists in my country have no problem with this. Richard Dawkins himself leads in grace and he has to do that as a Fellow of his College. He has no problem with it and I don't know why American atheists find prayers so incredibly burdensome. In my country, our Head of State is the Head of my Church. She's the Defender of the Faith. The Head of State is crowned in church by a priest. Every marriage and birth and death of the royal family is celebrated in church and is a state event. But nobody has a problem with that because it's our culture. Can't you see that? Religion is all about culture. The supernatural can go but the culture remains.

But you can't compare your country with the US, since the US has had a different culture from its inception, one based on a constitution that specifically demands that all public institutions must be secular, and since the school IS a public institution then it should be in all facets a secular one. What I'm asking you is that before you blame atheist actions in the US, look at the American culture, not yours. Within that context (cultural and historical) atheist actions in the US makes sense.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on April 05, 2014, 01:25:24 PM
But you can't compare your country with the US, since the US has had a different culture from its inception, one based on a constitution that specifically demands that all public institutions must be secular, and since the school IS a public institution then it should be in all facets a secular one. What I'm asking you is that before you blame atheist actions in the US, look at the American culture, not yours. Within that context (cultural and historical) atheist actions in the US makes sense.

But weren't early Americans even more religious? Weren't they called pilgrims? I thought they left England because we weren't religious enough for them. I would have thought the US was founded on the pilgrim's staff. Every US President has to go for prayers in a church (I think it's Anglican probably for historical reasons) before the inauguration ceremony. Every President has to have a State Chaplain. I saw Obama's ceremony. It was pretty religious except that they don't do the coronation in the abbey. But it was still very religious. Rick Warren prayed. And every State address has to end with "God bless America". And of course the US dollar says "In God we trust".  Whereas our money even has Darwin's portrait. LOL. Honestly, the US is far more religious than England.

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 01:16:48 PM
You are mistaken. I made it very clear that I'm now living in another country. It's a non-Christian country where Christians are a minority. 10% is right. I said that almost 50% claimed to be free-thinkers in the last census but someone just explained to me. It's not that simple. These free-thinkers aren't exactly atheists. Apparently, it's common in this country for people to call themselves free-thinkers but they aren't atheists at all. They are superstitious people generally.

Thank you for dodging your immorality. Please address my points on mandatory prayer in institutions such as schools.

Also: Tons of atheists are superstitious. There is nothing about not believing in a god that stops people from being superstitious, or even religious, as evidenced by your case - though most religious atheists tends to belong to atheist religions.

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 12:55:53 PM
Most of the money given to churches go to the upkeep of the old buildings. It's frightfully expensive to maintain these old buildings. But I was talking about giving to the social arm of the church. Not the church directly which will swallow up your money to repair the old church building. But you can contribute to the church repair if you like to preserve a national heritage. Nothing wrong with that.

So why not uncouple the social arm of the church from the church and become a secular charity? Or, better yet, close down the old expensive churches--or all the churches--and use all of that money for charity? Why do we need churches to run charities if, as even you've said, the churches spend a ton of money on non-charitable activities? Wouldn't it be better to spend more money on charity?

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 12:55:53 PM
Most of the money given to churches go to the upkeep of the old buildings.

And they just barely have enough left over for mansions (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/04/atlanta-bishop-apologizes-for-building-2-2-million-mansion/).  Imagine how difficult it must be to go to work and barely clear 6 or 7 figures.  My heart goes out to these downtrodden, impoverished souls.  Be brave!

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 01:40:38 PM
But weren't early Americans even more religious? Weren't they called pilgrims? I thought they left England because we weren't religious enough for them. I would have thought the US was founded on the pilgrim's staff. Every US President has to go for prayers in a church (I think it's Anglican probably for historical reasons) before the inauguration ceremony. Every President has to have a State Chaplain. I saw Obama's ceremony. It was pretty religious except that they don't do the coronation in the abbey. But it was still very religious. Rick Warren prayed. And every State address has to end with "God bless America". And of course the US dollar says "In God we trust".  Whereas our money even has Darwin's portrait. LOL. Honestly, the US is far more religious than England.

They fled because of religious PERSECUTIONS. Not the same. It is why the founding fathers of the US constitution made it clear that all public institutions should be secular, which btw if you haven't figured it out by now, is the best way that all religions are respected. Now that doesn't mean that religion would cease to exist. Au contraire, it has flourished but not for ONE denominations but for ALL. In the intervening years, religion had to step back as science with its progressive agenda put many religious beliefs as questionable. So today the christians are fighting back, trying to restore their lost powers, and they're doing it by subverting the secular institutions that were put in place. And that's why atheists in the US must not give an inch in that battle, and why they will spend money to make sure schools don't give toys to children at christmas. It's not the giving they are objecting - any other organization, religious or not, is ok with atheists - but what they are objecting to is that the schools should be doing that function.

Quote from: Hydra009 on April 05, 2014, 02:03:37 PM
And they just barely have enough left over for mansions (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/04/atlanta-bishop-apologizes-for-building-2-2-million-mansion/).  Imagine how difficult it must be to go to work and barely clear 6 or 7 figures.  My heart goes out to these downtrodden, impoverished souls.  Be brave!

:lol: As Queensryche said: "God, the holy ghost is calling out to you. I want you to reach deep in to your hearts... and pocketbooks, and take his hand"

I'm not sure if that song is supposed to be mocking religion for their "need" for money, but I laugh every time I hear that opening monologue in that song.

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 11:20:41 AM
Honestly, what is your beef? You can't stand the idea that a Christian can be without any superstition? The idea that a Christian can be totally rational and reject the supernatural as something that offends your worldview? What is the problem? Really?

I'm a vegetarian. I eat meat regularly, but I;m a vegetarian. And I've ALWAYS been a vegetarian. All my life. Except for one period of time when I wasn't. But even then I still was.

If you cannot see the problem with the concepts described above, then there is no point in discussing anything further with you.

Supposing someone thinks I've been deceptive and takes me to court for being misleading because I represent myself as a cultural Christian. A fair judge wants to decide. Who do you think he will get as an expert witness? The archbishop of my church who crowns monarchs or an ex-Mormon or a lapsed catholic or Protestant or any atheist? If you can't be truthful in your reply I have nothing further to add.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 07:54:40 PM
Supposing someone thinks I've been deceptive and takes me to court for being misleading because I represent myself as a cultural Christian. A fair judge wants to decide. Who do you think he will get as an expert witness? The archbishop of my church who crowns monarchs or an ex-Mormon or a lapsed catholic or Protestant or any atheist? If you can't be truthful in your reply I have nothing further to add.

If it's an American judge, he'll hear the words "I don't believe in God," conclude that you are an atheist, and tell your archbishop to go suck a nut.

(http://i.imgur.com/ohMo3Jd.gif)

Holy crap Hijiri. You simultaneously trumped the conversation and used that gif you showed us a month or so ago. Well done.


Now that the debate is over, lets all get tattoos that say "Leviticus 19:28". You're buying though.

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 07:54:40 PM
Supposing someone thinks I've been deceptive and takes me to court for being misleading because I represent myself as a cultural Christian. A fair judge wants to decide. Who do you think he will get as an expert witness? The archbishop of my church who crowns monarchs or an ex-Mormon or a lapsed catholic or Protestant or any atheist? If you can't be truthful in your reply I have nothing further to add.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your honor, I'd like to enter into evidence exhibit A, one Merriam-Websters Dictionary. Prosecution rests.

Look you wanna call yourself a christian? Knock yourself out. You can call yourself the god damn pope of Indiana for all I care. But if you want me or anyone else to  consider anything you say to be credible, well that's a different matter entirely. If you to be taken seriously, then you need to live by the same dictionary as everyone else.

Think of it this way. Lets say you go to work tomorrow and one of your coworkers walks in holding an orange traffic cone. You ask what's with the traffic cone and your coworker looks at you like your an idiot and says what traffic cone? You can THAT traffic cone, the one you're holding in your hand right now. Your coworker says what this? This isn't a traffic cone, its my new pencil. Ah a pencil you say. Does it write you ask? Well no, it doesn't write your coworker replies. Then its a traffic cone you say. Well maybe you like to define it as a traffic cone, but I choose to define it as a pencil. At that point any rational person would recommend that this particular coworker seek psychiatric help immediately. Can you understand why that would be?

Quote from: PickelledEggs on April 05, 2014, 09:10:16 PM
Holy crap Hijiri. You simultaneously trumped the conversation and used that gif you showed us a month or so ago. Well done.

A wise ass once told me, "Speak when you have something to say, not when you have to say something." I (attempt to) practice that whenever I enter threads like this one. (http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m150/FormicHiveQueen/Emoticons/hehe.gif)

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 11:20:41 AM
Honestly, what is your beef? You can't stand the idea that a Christian can be without any superstition? The idea that a Christian can be totally rational and reject the supernatural as something that offends your worldview? What is the problem? Really?

Yet you go on about treating the altar as a holy thing, won't step on it, make the ritualistic sign of the cross, participate in the symbolic cannibalism you call the sacrament, etc. 

You are either very confused, or just a troll.

Quote from: Johan on April 05, 2014, 09:19:08 PM
Your honor, I'd like to enter into evidence exhibit A, one Merriam-Websters Dictionary. Prosecution rests.

Look you wanna call yourself a christian? Knock yourself out. You can call yourself the god damn pope of Indiana for all I care. But if you want me or anyone else to  consider anything you say to be credible, well that's a different matter entirely. If you to be taken seriously, then you need to live by the same dictionary as everyone else.

Think of it this way. Lets say you go to work tomorrow and one of your coworkers walks in holding an orange traffic cone. You ask what's with the traffic cone and your coworker looks at you like your an idiot and says what traffic cone? You can THAT traffic cone, the one you're holding in your hand right now. Your coworker says what this? This isn't a traffic cone, its my new pencil. Ah a pencil you say. Does it write you ask? Well no, it doesn't write your coworker replies. Then its a traffic cone you say. Well maybe you like to define it as a traffic cone, but I choose to define it as a pencil. At that point any rational person would recommend that this particular coworker seek psychiatric help immediately. Can you understand why that would be?

Your example is way off. You won't find the Archbishop or any priest calling a traffic cone a pencil. It's a wrong analogy. You still don't want to address the issue. Who's the expert witness on what a Christian is? The Archbishop who crowns monarchs and who sits in the House of Lords or an atheist from Indiana? Even an American judge can't be all that loony. Since you like dictionaries and definitions, here's one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Christian)

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 10:05:52 PM
Your example is way off. You won't find the Archbishop or any priest calling a traffic cone a pencil. It's a wrong analogy. You still don't want to address the issue. Who's the expert witness on what a Christian is? The Archbishop who crowns monarchs and who sits in the House of Lords or an atheist from Indiana? Even an American judge can't be all that loony. Since you like dictionaries and definitions, here's one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Christian)

Let me ask you a question, buddy. As a member of your church, do you give donations at offering time/give your church ANY money?

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 10:05:52 PM
Your example is way off. You won't find the Archbishop or any priest calling a traffic cone a pencil. It's a wrong analogy. You still don't want to address the issue. Who's the expert witness on what a Christian is? The Archbishop who crowns monarchs and who sits in the House of Lords or an atheist from Indiana? Even an American judge can't be all that loony. Since you like dictionaries and definitions, here's one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Christian)

Umm... you do know that the link you posted defines casual christians as deists right? You do know that deists believe in god right?

So again, you want to call yourself a cultural christian? Go for it. So you're a christian who doesn't believe in god or dictionaries apparently. Great. Good for you. Nice to meet you. Now what?

Quote from: scroyle on April 05, 2014, 10:05:52 PMYou still don't want to address the issue. Who's the expert witness on what a Christian is? The Archbishop who crowns monarchs and who sits in the House of Lords or an atheist from Indiana?

Let me sum up what everyone outside the Anglican Church thinks of your Archbishop:

(http://global3.memecdn.com/Look-At-How-Many-Fucks-I-Give_o_101716.gif)

That includes the vast majority of Christians, mind you. And in any case, we don't care what an atheist from Indiana thinks about the issue. Your own Bible is quite clear that a Christian is someone who accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. That statement makes no sense without the surrounding mythology; ergo, if you don't believe in the mythology then you cannot "accept Jesus Christ" in any way that makes logical sense, and you are thus not a Christian.


If you were a Christian Atheist, that's a different story because they're an actual thing. But you don't strike me as someone who has ever heard of the Jefferson Bible, much less read it, not to mention the fact that no self-respecting Christian Atheist would ever join a theistic church.

I have a feeling this guy's archbishop is just telling him whatever he wants to hear just so he keeps giving donations. Goes to show that just because you're an atheist, doesn't mean you can't be gullible.

Scroyle, just out of curiosity: how old are you? Because you sound very young to me.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on April 05, 2014, 10:17:32 PM
Let me ask you a question, buddy. As a member of your church, do you give donations at offering time/give your church ANY money?

No, I don't. The offering bag doesn't come to me because I'm in the choir stalls. Besides, I'm a student and I haven't got money.

Quote from: DunkleSeele on April 06, 2014, 01:54:08 AM
Scroyle, just out of curiosity: how old are you? Because you sound very young to me.

Age is immaterial. It doesn't matter if I'm 10, 40 or 100. We discuss ideas. I've said the Church defines me as a Christian and I'm asking people who has the locus standi to decide on who is or is not a Christian? The Church or atheists. You know what the inescapable answer must be and you are avoiding it and going on personal and irrelevant details such as my age. That's neither here nor there.

Quote from: scroyle on April 06, 2014, 02:04:06 AM
Age is immaterial. It doesn't matter if I'm 10, 40 or 100. We discuss ideas. I've said the Church defines me as a Christian and I'm asking people who has the locus standi to decide on who is or is not a Christian? The Church or atheists. You know what the inescapable answer must be and you are avoiding it and going on personal and irrelevant details such as my age. That's neither here nor there.

:lol: it really doesn't matter what the church says. Since when does the church have any validity anyway? I wouldn't put too much weight in to anything the church classifies you as if I were you.

Sent via Internet Explorer

Quote from: PickelledEggs on April 06, 2014, 02:22:48 AM
:lol: it really doesn't matter what the church says. Since when does the church have any validity anyway? I wouldn't put too much weight in to anything the church classifies you as if I were you.

Sent via Internet Explorer

You may argue that the church's views on lots of things lack validity. That's a legitimate argument. But what's not legitimate is to say that the church's view on who is or is not a Christian is invalid. Think about it. I think objectively that must be wrong. You people are not seeing it only because you want to win your argument. Whether someone is a member of a club must depend on what the top folks in the club say. It depends on the Club Membership Register. The Church says I'm a Christian and I'm on its Communicants' Register.

Quote from: scroyle on April 06, 2014, 02:34:15 AMBut what's not legitimate is to say that the church's view on who is or is not a Christian is invalid.

Funny that you mention that.
:lol:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBKIyCbppfs

Quote from: PickelledEggs on April 06, 2014, 02:50:01 AM
Funny that you mention that.
:lol:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBKIyCbppfs

Hehe, that's funny.

Still waiting for an answer here. And getting slightly tired of asking.
You've said once that secular charity organizations are not atheïst organizations (I think in an attempt to disprove my claim that atheïst organizations can do quite well and that you only need the structure and not the bathwater or 'religiousness') and at another time told someone secular charity organizations arer atheist organizations.
Which is it?

He specifically calls himself a cultural christian. Sure he doesn't fit the actual, normal definition of a christian "accepting Jesus Chris as your personal lord and savior and believing in the theistic god Yahweh as an actual agent" - but he placed "cultural" in front of it, which means that he doesn't believe in the magical aspects but takes part in christian culture and identifies as a christian. Though he tries to get away from the atheist label for reasons I don't understand, he can't deny he is one if he wants to operate by any existing and accepted definition - I will just say that he is a cultural christian by definition. There's nothing to argue about here. When he adds "cultural" in front of it, it's ok definition wise.

His ridiculous and repeated court room analogy is quite a bit like what you could expect from a poe though.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 06, 2014, 03:25:38 AM
Still waiting for an answer here. And getting slightly tired of asking.
You've said once that secular charity organizations are not atheïst organizations (I think in an attempt to disprove my claim that atheïst organizations can do quite well and that you only need the structure and not the bathwater or 'religiousness') and at another time told someone secular charity organizations arer atheist organizations.
Which is it?

I don't think I can recall saying that secular charity is atheistic. I recall saying that you can't lump secular charities as atheistic because there are all kinds of people serving in it including Christians. But as you know, I answer about a thousand people and I might have said something erroneously. You should quote precisely what I did say and I'll probably know the context. It can also be that I typed something erroneous but I think people got the drift that I don't accept secular charities as atheistic. Someone did argue with me on that and his argument was a charity shouldn't be atheistic but that doesn't answer my point - that the church has done a damned good job and it's replaceable. Someone else suggested government charities but that's a different thing. As far as private enterprises go, the church is unparallelled.

I really can't remember ever saying secular charities are atheistic. You might have misread what I wrote. I think I could have suggested that Secular Humanist is atheistic.

Quote from: La Dolce Vita on April 06, 2014, 03:49:02 AM
He specifically calls himself a cultural christian. Sure he doesn't fit the actual, normal definition of a christian "accepting Jesus Chris as your personal lord and savior and believing in the theistic god Yahweh as an actual agent" - but he placed "cultural" in front of it, which means that he doesn't believe in the magical aspects but takes part in christian culture and identifies as a christian. Though he tries to get away from the atheist label for reasons I don't understand, he can't deny he is one if he wants to operate by any existing and accepted definition - I will just say that he is a cultural christian by definition. There's nothing to argue about here. When he adds "cultural" in front of it, it's ok definition wise.

His ridiculous and repeated court room analogy is quite a bit like what you could expect from a poe though.

I have nothing against atheists and I don't mind being called an atheist. It's not a dirty word. I think highly of atheists and I think if you take a poll, you'll find that atheists are generally brighter than the average religious person. But the FACT is I'm not an atheist so why dissemble? Would an atheist kneel before the altar of Christ? Would an atheist serve the church? Would an atheist take the Sacrament? Would an atheist submit to ecclesiastical authority? I sometimes discuss what I say on forums with my vicar and he laughs hysterically every time I tell him atheists and fundamentalists call me an atheist. He says that's one thing atheists and fundamentalists make excellent bedfellows on - the definition of a Christian. LOL.

OK, if you insist I'm an atheist, you can call me one. It doesn't matter to me. It's just that my vicar and I will have a good laugh over it. Or as one of my friends suggests, are they desperate to increase their number by including a faithful parishioner as an atheist too? Let's have no quarrel. Call me the most strident atheist for all I care.  Call me Richard Dawkins' altar boy if you must. It makes no difference to me. It's just that Passion Week is coming and when I look at the altar stripped bare on that fateful day and reflect on how my dear Lord was nailed to the cross, I cannot help but shed my atheist tears and go on my atheist knees to kiss the feet of Jesus.

If you don't believe in god, you are an atheist. Period.

Now you can live your life as a Christian, believe in the routines and authority and stories and pomp and so on and so forth... but if you do not believe in the God bit, as a divine being, you are an atheist.

Now, would it be more accurate to call you a Christian because it tells someone more about your lifestyle? Certainly. But from a strictly honest perspective... without the belief in a divine being... you ARE technically an atheist. There is nothing to argue about, that is simply the way it is.

If you consider the metaphor of God as divine... than really it starts to get a bit murky. I would call it "devotion to an ideology/philosophy" but that is up to debate on if it should be considered deep reverence for a philosophy or some divine... concept.

When you are speaking of the non-existent it makes it very hard to fit it within the bounds of logic since it doesn't have to obey them.

QuoteWould an atheist submit to ecclesiastical authority?

I don't see why not, if you are respecting them from a cultural, traditional standpoint and not a, "God told everyone to respect their authority".

QuoteHe says that's one thing atheists and fundamentalists make excellent bedfellows on - the definition of a Christian. LOL.

QuoteIt's just that my vicar and I will have a good laugh over it.

You can laugh about failing to understand a definition all you want; that reflects more negatively on you than anyone else.

Can't chat now. I've got to prepare to go to church to worship my Lord Jesus Christ. It's my atheistic duty. LOL.

If you think Jesus is a divine saviour, then you are not a cultural Christian... you are a Christian.

Sorry :\.

I did quote it, in previous messages you didn't respond to.

quotation "Secular or non-religious charities are NOT atheistic charities.  Let's get that straight."
othe quotation "Secular Humanist Groups are usually (by their Constitutions) atheistic/agnostic in character. These groups are usually accepted as atheistic in nature."
You can at least see my confusion, can't you?

Secular humanist groups and secular atheïst groups that do charity are either both atheïstic/agnostic, or neither are. Why would a secular humanist group be atheist in nature when a secular charity isn't?
Both aren't done in the name of God nor religion.  Your previous words seemed to indicate that secular charities weren't atheïstic because they were supported by also theists. But that's missing the point. Secular charities are equally atheïstic in nature because they don't work with the notion of God. God has no formal part in it. That's all that atheïsm means; without God. 
I'm not claiming the christian charity "father Damian action" that comes around my house each year and that I support is an atheïst charity just because I as an atheïst support it.
If there isn't a God involved in building or inspiring of vindicating the charity it is for all intents and purposes an atheïst/agnostic/secular movement. It's clear that they don't have these binding through religion or faith (also known as the bathwater).
So it is clear, that effective structures for charity work can be built without the bathwater. Without religion. Secular charities are what atheists and agnostics would build up. A personal beliefs don't matter in such a thing. So your previous points about not being able to have an equal netwerk or structure without religion or faith is bogus. Because as that kind's monopoly on charity work fades, secular (and thus in nature, as you say, atheïst and agnostic) charities rise. Organizations without this bathwater. Organizations that in relative terms can't just be put down as less effective or succesfull than religious charity organizations. Perhaps in absolute terms, yes mayhaps. But that wouldn't take in account, as I've said earlier, the fact that the religious organizations simply have had more time, manpower and funds than secular charities.

It's simply. Less religious charities -> more secular charities without an increase in poverty, sickness or whatever.
And that's all we've been claiming, that, unlike what you've claimed, you don't need the religious bit to keep the structure and the effectiveness of a charity.
Of course, social security and a system of solidarity through the government (without intrusion of religion) works better than both religious or secular charities.

Now if what you mean by atheïst charity is that we have a charity that goes around lecturing people, that only accepts atheïsts, that gives people a bowl of soup after a reading of a passage of 'the God delusion' and instead of a prayer we say some blasphemous things, than agreed such atheïst charities don't exist and they shouldn't. But no one has been advocating this, this entire conversation.
It seems to me like you just don't want to count secular charity organizations because they aren't what we would go for, even though they've been what all of us who've adressed you on this point have been saying that should be gone for. A charity without the false authority, religious nonsense, and such.

Quote from: Feral Atheist on April 05, 2014, 09:53:54 PM
Yet you go on about treating the altar as a holy thing, won't step on it, make the ritualistic sign of the cross, participate in the symbolic cannibalism you call the sacrament, etc. 

You are either very confused, or just a troll.

When the OP author no longer answers the objections that are presented then you can conclude you're dealing with a troll.

scroyle fits that pattern.

Quote from: scroyle on April 06, 2014, 03:59:27 AM
But the FACT is I'm not an atheist so why dissemble?

You do not believe in a god. You have stated so yourself. You do not accept the claim that an all powerful creator exist. In fact you laugh it off. Not believing in a god = being an atheist. That's what the term means. You have been informed of what the term means. You can look up any dictionary and see what the tern means. As you are aware of what "atheist"means, you have to know that you are one, and any further disclaimers means you are a liar.

The only thing an atheist does is not believing in gods. No other behavior or belief is connected to it. You have been explained this over and over again - but you do not get what atheism is for some strange reason. This is also what causes your weird and offensive branding of other atheists, lumping us together as if we were an ideological group, demanding we rise charities in the name of something we do not believe in. Why aren't you rising money in the name of non-Islam or non-Hinduism then? It makes no sense, and is a misunderstanding of reality.

P.S. I have repeatedly accepted you as a cultural christian. You are a cultural christian. That doesn't change that you are an atheist. In fact cultural christian basically means you are an atheist to begin with ... so why use said label? If you and your vicar laugh at this it means both of you are ignorant of every accepted definition of atheism, as well as the grammatical rules of your own language.  You are by definition an atheist and by definition a cultural christian. Zero contradiction exist. It's not an important point, it's just nice to know that you can admit you were wrong when matters are clear-cut and can't be argued. This is how we'll know you're an honest debater.

Quote from: scroyle on April 06, 2014, 02:04:06 AM
Age is immaterial. It doesn't matter if I'm 10, 40 or 100.

So you're ~15.

It's been my experience that people only use that BS line when they're young enough for age to matter from a developmental standpoint.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on April 06, 2014, 08:56:42 AM
When the OP author no longer answers the objections that are presented then you can conclude you're dealing with a troll.

scroyle fits that pattern.

Agreed. But I'm curious to see what the game is going to be in this case. So far, its just a flimsy claim about being a christian who doesn't believe in god and how we're pissed off by that because we're small minded. But that's an easy angle to get around. We simply say ok fine you're a christian we accept that, and then there is nothing for this troll to argue about on the topic. So I'm curious as to where this troll will go with the trolling once we give in and admit that anyone can be a christian, even those who do not believe in god.

Quote from: Shiranu on April 06, 2014, 05:00:24 AM
If you think Jesus is a divine saviour, then you are not a cultural Christian... you are a Christian.

Sorry :\.

Let's get real. The historical Jesus died 2000 years ago. How is a 2000-year-old corpse a divine saviour? You've got to define divine and saviour. If you mean divine as in highly revered, then I agree with you. If you mean saviour as in some figure that's being used in a didactic way to teach mankind a lesson and so "saving" mankind from harming one another, then I agree with you.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 06, 2014, 05:00:45 AM
I did quote it, in previous messages you didn't respond to.

quotation "Secular or non-religious charities are NOT atheistic charities.  Let's get that straight."
othe quotation "Secular Humanist Groups are usually (by their Constitutions) atheistic/agnostic in character. These groups are usually accepted as atheistic in nature."
You can at least see my confusion, can't you?

Secular humanist groups and secular atheïst groups that do charity are either both atheïstic/agnostic, or neither are. Why would a secular humanist group be atheist in nature when a secular charity isn't?
Both aren't done in the name of God nor religion.  Your previous words seemed to indicate that secular charities weren't atheïstic because they were supported by also theists. But that's missing the point. Secular charities are equally atheïstic in nature because they don't work with the notion of God. God has no formal part in it. That's all that atheïsm means; without God. 
I'm not claiming the christian charity "father Damian action" that comes around my house each year and that I support is an atheïst charity just because I as an atheïst support it.
If there isn't a God involved in building or inspiring of vindicating the charity it is for all intents and purposes an atheïst/agnostic/secular movement. It's clear that they don't have these binding through religion or faith (also known as the bathwater).
So it is clear, that effective structures for charity work can be built without the bathwater. Without religion. Secular charities are what atheists and agnostics would build up. A personal beliefs don't matter in such a thing. So your previous points about not being able to have an equal netwerk or structure without religion or faith is bogus. Because as that kind's monopoly on charity work fades, secular (and thus in nature, as you say, atheïst and agnostic) charities rise. Organizations without this bathwater. Organizations that in relative terms can't just be put down as less effective or succesfull than religious charity organizations. Perhaps in absolute terms, yes mayhaps. But that wouldn't take in account, as I've said earlier, the fact that the religious organizations simply have had more time, manpower and funds than secular charities.

It's simply. Less religious charities -> more secular charities without an increase in poverty, sickness or whatever.
And that's all we've been claiming, that, unlike what you've claimed, you don't need the religious bit to keep the structure and the effectiveness of a charity.
Of course, social security and a system of solidarity through the government (without intrusion of religion) works better than both religious or secular charities.

Now if what you mean by atheïst charity is that we have a charity that goes around lecturing people, that only accepts atheïsts, that gives people a bowl of soup after a reading of a passage of 'the God delusion' and instead of a prayer we say some blasphemous things, than agreed such atheïst charities don't exist and they shouldn't. But no one has been advocating this, this entire conversation.
It seems to me like you just don't want to count secular charity organizations because they aren't what we would go for, even though they've been what all of us who've adressed you on this point have been saying that should be gone for. A charity without the false authority, religious nonsense, and such.

Secular groups are not atheistic. Red Cross for example is purely secular but has no atheistic connection. Lots of Christians join the Red Cross.

Secular Humanist is different. Its very constitution says that it's set up to give a voice to the atheistic community. Christians usually don't join them because they are clearly atheistic.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on April 06, 2014, 08:56:42 AM
When the OP author no longer answers the objections that are presented then you can conclude you're dealing with a troll.

scroyle fits that pattern.

I answer everything raised by everyone even though there are many of them but I can only do that when I'm free. But you have raised no objection, just bare accusations that I'm a troll.  That's a troll's action in itself.  Until you raise a clear objection, I will not be able to respond. I don't want to respond to your silly bare accusations that befit a much younger person. I'm tired of dealing with very young chaps on the internet. That's why I don't ever go to teenage forums. Not my cup of tea. Raise a clear objection, and I'll respond.

Quote from: La Dolce Vita on April 06, 2014, 09:28:14 AM
You do not believe in a god. You have stated so yourself. You do not accept the claim that an all powerful creator exist. In fact you laugh it off. Not believing in a god = being an atheist. That's what the term means. You have been informed of what the term means. You can look up any dictionary and see what the tern means. As you are aware of what "atheist"means, you have to know that you are one, and any further disclaimers means you are a liar.

The only thing an atheist does is not believing in gods. No other behavior or belief is connected to it. You have been explained this over and over again - but you do not get what atheism is for some strange reason. This is also what causes your weird and offensive branding of other atheists, lumping us together as if we were an ideological group, demanding we rise charities in the name of something we do not believe in. Why aren't you rising money in the name of non-Islam or non-Hinduism then? It makes no sense, and is a misunderstanding of reality.

P.S. I have repeatedly accepted you as a cultural christian. You are a cultural christian. That doesn't change that you are an atheist. In fact cultural christian basically means you are an atheist to begin with ... so why use said label? If you and your vicar laugh at this it means both of you are ignorant of every accepted definition of atheism, as well as the grammatical rules of your own language.  You are by definition an atheist and by definition a cultural christian. Zero contradiction exist. It's not an important point, it's just nice to know that you can admit you were wrong when matters are clear-cut and can't be argued. This is how we'll know you're an honest debater.

Thanks for your very clear post. I understand what you mean. But you must understand why I have difficulty accepting that I'm an atheist by definition. Maybe I'm using the definition the church uses. You see, an atheist can't be a Communicant in Church. I always thought they were exclusive. You're only an atheist if you have left the Communion. If you say my definition is flawed, that's fine. We'll then have to review the definition of an "atheist" to include someone who is a Communicant. That really sounds odd to me. That's a real contradiction. I have always been told that an atheist rebels against the Church.

Richard Dawkins is a good example. He's not been excommunicated but he has by his own decision removed himself from the Communion of the Church. You'll never catch him participating in the Sacrament which is only for communicants. He still leads in prayer in his College but that's cultural and prayer is not forbidden to non-communicants. In fact the church is happy if people pray, whatever their persuasion.

I don't want to argue with you guys. It's fine if you think I'm an atheist. But you must bear in mind that I'm still a faithful and devout Communicant of Christ's holy church.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on April 06, 2014, 09:39:56 AM
So you're ~15.

It's been my experience that people only use that BS line when they're young enough for age to matter from a developmental standpoint.

You are touching on something personal and I've the right not to answer. My age is not important. I hope people will read what I say without being affected by rumours of how old I might be which isn't important. You say I'm 15 but I'm sure there are others who will say I'm 51.  What's age but a sequence of irrelevant numbers? We are rational beings and that's all that matters.  I don't know what you mean about "developmental standpoint" but as far as I have conducted myself, I leave no doubt about my being FULLY developed.  If there is anything that I've said that is immature or inappropriate, please point that out and quote precisely what it is I have said.  If you can't, I urge you to leave this matter aside. Apart from its irrelevance, age is not a polite subject to go into. There are ladies in our midst.

Quote from: Johan on April 06, 2014, 09:47:35 AM
Agreed. But I'm curious to see what the game is going to be in this case. So far, its just a flimsy claim about being a christian who doesn't believe in god and how we're pissed off by that because we're small minded. But that's an easy angle to get around. We simply say ok fine you're a christian we accept that, and then there is nothing for this troll to argue about on the topic. So I'm curious as to where this troll will go with the trolling once we give in and admit that anyone can be a christian, even those who do not believe in god.

I've not even started on any topic. This is my introduction thread. I was introducing myself. I didn't ask for an argument. It started off with people not knowing what a cultural Christian was. I explained and people didn't like my explanation and they argued and asked questions and I replied to everything. Some insisted that I didn't answer all the questions (although I'm sure I have - I go post by post and deal with them all) and they say I'm a troll. That's their prerogative but I sense a general hostile stand against me just because I acknowledge my devotion to my religion. That's ok. I'm used to talking to atheists and anti-theists.  But I think I can hold my own and I can take on any argument. But I can't respond to bare accusations plucked out of thin air.

Another intro thread that has spiraled into a multi page discussion, how surprising. I will admit that I have not really read the thread because it's morning and I'm not interested in reading page after page of people going into every little minutia of your beliefs (though I will read it later probably). I do think I get your general gist though.

Please tell me if I'm right or wrong here:

1. You are a "Cultural Christian". You participate in Judeo-Christian culture and follow Christian mortality (albeit with a more liberal morality than the fundamentalists).
2. You don't believe in God.
3. People are taking issue with the fact you call yourself a Christian.

If those 3 are true then here is my opinion: I don't see you as any different from the cultural Jews who follow Jewish customs because of culture and heritage. As per your calling yourself a Christian rather than an atheist, I take no issue with that. It is important to know that regarding your belief in God you are an atheist, it's just that culturally you're Christian. Atheism refers to belief only, not culture. Saying you're an atheist is perfectly compatible with saying you're a cultural Christian because they are two different things that don't really intersect.

As per you following Christian culture and customs that's your deal. I honestly don't understand it, but whatever. As long as you don't try to hurt people or deny other people rights I don't really care.

Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on April 06, 2014, 10:51:23 AM
Another intro thread that has spiraled into a multi page discussion, how surprising. I will admit that I have not really read the thread because it's morning and I'm not interested in reading page after page of people going into every little minutia of your beliefs (though I will read it later probably). I do think I get your general gist though.

Please tell me if I'm right or wrong here:

1. You are a "Cultural Christian". You participate in Judeo-Christian culture and follow Christian mortality (albeit with a more liberal morality than the fundamentalists).
2. You don't believe in God.
3. People are taking issue with the fact you call yourself a Christian.

If those 3 are true then here is my opinion: I don't see you as any different from the cultural Jews who follow Jewish customs because of culture and heritage. As per your calling yourself a Christian rather than an atheist, I take no issue with that. It is important to know that regarding your belief in God you are an atheist, it's just that culturally you're Christian. Atheism refers to belief only, not culture. Saying you're an atheist is perfectly compatible with saying you're a cultural Christian because they are two different things that don't really intersect.

As per you following Christian culture and customs that's your deal. I honestly don't understand it, but whatever. As long as you don't try to hurt people or deny other people rights I don't really care.

Thanks. You've got everything in a neat nutshell. That's precisely it.  As I have told others, I don't evangelise or proselytise because a cultural Christian does not do that. Why would I impose my own personal culture on others? It's like forcing others to take on my family name. That's vile. I certainly don't hurt others or deny them their rights because of religion. When one looks upon religion as a purely cultural thing, it's not likely that one would insist on others being marginalized for not following one's culture. It's only when you believe in a supernatural super-tyrant up in the sky that you become wonky in your thoughts.

Quote from: scroyle on April 06, 2014, 10:12:50 AM
Thanks for your very clear post. I understand what you mean. But you must understand why I have difficulty accepting that I'm an atheist by definition. Maybe I'm using the definition the church uses. You see, an atheist can't be a Communicant in Church.

Theism = Belief in god(s) (that interacts in our daily life)
Atheism = Lack of belief in god(s)
A in front of a word = without in the English language. Atheists are simply everyone who are not theist (or deist).

That's all it means. It means nothing more. Some dictionaries say rejection of god(s), others say belief that gods do not exist (which is actually anti-theism, but anti-theists are atheists by default). There are no other properties, no other meaning.

As you say you do not believe in a god, that is synonymous with saying you are an atheist. Out of curiosity, have you told your priest that you specifically do not believe in any gods? If so, and he's ok with it then atheists can clearly be a Communicant in Church.

QuoteI always thought they were exclusive.

Who? Atheists? We are not. Like I have been trying to tell you atheism is not an ideological group. Atheists are simply just everyone who are not theists(or deists). It's a category comprised on a single similarity - the lack of a belief in an actual god. Beyond that we are not exclusive to any similarities what so ever. There are atheists religions, there are people defining themselves as atheists and hating religion but who believes in ghosts and all kinds of supernatural nonsense, you have atheists who follow dogmatic ideologies that are just like religion, such as communists, there are atheists who are skeptics (most likely the group you are singling out as the only atheists) and then we have atheists like yourself who are cultural christians, jews, muslims, etc.

Or do you mean exclusive to each other? If so, I'll answer below:

QuoteYou're only an atheist if you have left the Communion. If you say my definition is flawed, that's fine. We'll then have to review the definition of an "atheist" to include someone who is a Communicant. That really sounds odd to me. That's a real contradiction.

In regard to the contradiction: Well, that's what many on this forum thinks as well. As you are an atheist by definition, meaning not a theist, and Christianity is a theistic religion rather than an atheistic one - they see a contradiction between you not believing in the christian god but being a Christian. That's why they argue with you on this point, as they cannot see how it's possible. But clearly you are proof that it is. And unless you see a contradiction between you, who do not believe in any gods (atheist), being a christian, I'm not sure how you can say there's a contradiction here.

As for the definition: Yes, you do. No definition I have ever seen of atheism includes any mention of distancing yourself from a religion, it is solely specific to whether or not believe in one or more gods.

QuoteI have always been told that an atheist rebels against the Church.

Incorrect. The definition of atheism has no connection to your religion (aside from originally being what the Romans called your religion as you rejected their gods and only believed in one) or any other religion. Rebelling against the church or any other religion is not an atheistic trait. Many atheists do, many don't. Plenty of atheists, who define themselves as atheists and do not take part in your religion in any way see it as a force of good and respects it, even contributes to your charities, etc. In fact I know many such atheists personally. Many atheists also don't care about the church one way or another. Others can be in countries where your church have little to no presence and primarily have to deal with a different religion, which they may or may rebel against.

Quote from: scroyle on April 06, 2014, 04:46:49 AM
Can't chat now. I've got to prepare to go to church to worship my Lord Jesus Christ. It's my atheistic duty. LOL.

(http://i672.photobucket.com/albums/vv88/BWR1953/Trolls/ObviousTroll.jpg)

Quote from: La Dolce Vita on April 06, 2014, 11:17:38 AM
Theism = Belief in god(s) (that interacts in our daily life)
Atheism = Lack of belief in god(s)
A in front of a word = without in the English language. Atheists are simply everyone who are not theist (or deist).

That's all it means. It means nothing more. Some dictionaries say rejection of god(s), others say belief that gods do not exist (which is actually anti-theism, but anti-theists are atheists by default). There are no other properties, no other meaning.

As you say you do not believe in a god, that is synonymous with saying you are an atheist. Out of curiosity, have you told your priest that you specifically do not believe in any gods? If so, and he's ok with it then atheists can clearly be a Communicant in Church.

Who? Atheists? We are not. Like I have been trying to tell you atheism is not an ideological group. Atheists are simply just everyone who are not theists(or deists). It's a category comprised on a single similarity - the lack of a belief in an actual god. Beyond that we are not exclusive to any similarities what so ever. There are atheists religions, there are people defining themselves as atheists and hating religion but who believes in ghosts and all kinds of supernatural nonsense, you have atheists who follow dogmatic ideologies that are just like religion, such as communists, there are atheists who are skeptics (most likely the group you are singling out as the only atheists) and then we have atheists like yourself who are cultural christians, jews, muslims, etc.

Or do you mean exclusive to each other? If so, I'll answer below:

In regard to the contradiction: Well, that's what many on this forum thinks as well. As you are an atheist by definition, meaning not a theist, and Christianity is a theistic religion rather than an atheistic one - they see a contradiction between you not believing in the christian god but being a Christian. That's why they argue with you on this point, as they cannot see how it's possible. But clearly you are proof that it is. And unless you see a contradiction between you, who do not believe in any gods (atheist), being a christian, I'm not sure how you can say there's a contradiction here.

As for the definition: Yes, you do. No definition I have ever seen of atheism includes any mention of distancing yourself from a religion, it is solely specific to whether or not believe in one or more gods.

Incorrect. The definition of atheism has no connection to your religion (aside from originally being what the Romans called your religion as you rejected their gods and only believed in one) or any other religion. Rebelling against the church or any other religion is not an atheistic trait. Many atheists do, many don't. Plenty of atheists, who define themselves as atheists and do not take part in your religion in any way see it as a force of good and respects it, even contributes to your charities, etc. In fact I know many such atheists personally. Many atheists also don't care about the church one way or another. Others can be in countries where your church have little to no presence and primarily have to deal with a different religion, which they may or may rebel against.

Yes, my vicar knows perfectly well what my position is. He himself believes in some supernatural thingy but we have another priest who takes the same position as me.  I think it's only a contradiction because I've been so used to thinking of an atheist as someone who opposes the church and rebels against its rituals which is why I don't accept myself as an atheist. And the other people in this forum think there is a contradiction because they are so used to the definition of a Christian as someone who believes in supernatural things and they don't know a thing about cultural Christians. So what's really funny is I have a wrong definition of an atheist and the atheists here have a wrong definition of a Christian that necessarily excludes a cultural Christian. LOL.

I'm so used to the idea that an atheist is someone who won't kneel at the altar that I feel more comfortable calling myself a cultural Christian who does not accept anything supernatural. That's how my mum thinks too. If I tell her I'm an atheist, she'll ask what about church and my duties in the church choir? She knows I don't believe in the supernatural. She doesn't really either but if I say I'm an atheist, it will mean a whole different thing to her. She'll think of rebellion against the church and the priests.

^^Yes, that's part of the many prejudices atheists face. There are a lot of wrong and misguided beliefs of what an atheist is. Many believe we are an homogenous group and that atheism (the lack of belief in a specific supernatural claim) is akin to a religion, and that we go around basing our whole life on the (non-existant) teachings of atheism. It can get quite bothersome - but believe me, stick around on this forum and you'll see how non-homogenous we are. There are huge conflicts of ideas even within the subcategory of atheists who are both skeptics and humanists.

In regard to your mother, even if she has the right definition of atheism it is understandable why she could think that. Christianity is a theistic religion, so being an atheist (not believing in an actual god)  would by many, including tons of Christians (quite likely the majority, though if you take out Catholics and fundamentalists, less), mean that you are rebelling against the church (as you are rejecting all the core supernatural tenants of your church). But as soon as you call yourself a cultural christian that problem goes away. Many, both Christians and non-Christians will not consider cultural Christians as a true Christians though.

Quote from: scroyle on April 06, 2014, 10:12:50 AMYou're only an atheist if you have left the Communion. If you say my definition is flawed, that's fine. We'll then have to review the definition of an "atheist" to include someone who is a Communicant. That really sounds odd to me. That's a real contradiction.

Jeez, you're really batting zero when it comes to definitions.  True, atheists are generally not "in communion" (though it's possible for closeted ones to be, and occasionally, even priests number among them).  But this definition is flawed because it dependents entirely on a Christian vantage point.  It would be like defining Christians according to whether or not they are Shiva devotees.  The far more common and accurate definition of atheism is that atheists do not believe in the existence of a God.

QuoteI have always been told that an atheist rebels against the Church.

Then you have always been lied to.  Atheists by definition do not believe in the mythology of Christianity (or any other theistic religion), but their stance towards "the Church" varies from person to person.  Some are opposed to what the view as dangerous superstition and are understandably leery of its attempts to usurp secular government and dominate the public square, while some are more accommodating.  If you want to call that "rebellion", then so be it.  But again, we do not live our lives in relation to your religion.  It is simply one belief system among many that we simply do not subscribe to.  We are no more in "rebellion" towards Christianity than we are towards Islam or Zoroastrianism or the theistic varieties of Hinduism.

I've seen more convincing arguments from full-blown theists. I'm done with this thread.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on April 06, 2014, 12:37:32 PM
I've seen more convincing arguments from full-blown theists. I'm done with this thread.

You are not rational. What arguments are you looking for? You are as lost as you sound.  But it's ok.  It's a free world and you can be as irrational as you want to be. It's atheists who are usually intolerant of irrational folks like you. I'm tolerant of all kinds of people and honestly, I've seen far more irrational people than you, so you are ok.

Quote from: scroyle on April 06, 2014, 10:24:53 AM

Some insisted that I didn't answer all the questions (although I'm sure I have - I go post by post and deal with them all) and they say I'm a troll. That's their prerogative but I sense a general hostile stand against me just because I acknowledge my devotion to my religion. That's ok. I'm used to talking to atheists and anti-theists.

Your perception is incorrect here. No one has any problem with someone being devoted to a religion. Our problem with you stems from your unwillingness to read a dictionary or accept what it says. You don't get to just redefine what words mean because you like it better that way. That isn't how life works.

QuoteThanks for your very clear post. I understand what you mean. But you must understand why I have difficulty accepting that I'm an atheist by definition.

Now we're getting somewhere. Being an atheist who doesn't want to admit to being an atheist is not the same thing as being a christian. You're claiming to be one when I think you are in fact, the other.

QuoteMaybe I'm using the definition the church uses. You see, an atheist can't be a Communicant in Church.

You have to use the definition the dictionary uses, not the church.

QuoteIf you say my definition is flawed, that's fine. We'll then have to review the definition of an "atheist" to include someone who is a Communicant.

There you go again with that lets change the definition so it suits me better shit. That isn't how life works.

I used to date a girl who smoked pot like it was going out of style. I once had a conversation with her where I told her that I was concerned about her drug use. In a very surprised tone she replied that she doesn't do drugs. I said you smoke enough pot to keep an entire cartel in gold teeth. She said well pot isn't a drug, its a natural herb. I stopped dating that girl because she was crazy. Making up your own definitions for words is what crazy people do. So if  you're wondering why people here are getting annoyed with you, that's why. Its because you're doing something that crazy people do.

QuoteI have always been told that an atheist rebels against the Church.

You've been told wrong.

QuoteI don't want to argue with you guys. It's fine if you think I'm an atheist. But you must bear in mind that I'm still a faithful and devout Communicant of Christ's holy church.

Out of curiosity, does your priest know that you believe god doesn't really exist? Have you told him directly that you do not believe god actually exists?

Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on April 06, 2014, 10:51:23 AM
I don't really care.

Wisdom is contagious.

OK, not it isn't, but be nice if it was.

Quote from: Johan on April 06, 2014, 01:42:50 PM

Out of curiosity, does your priest know that you believe god doesn't really exist? Have you told him directly that you do not believe god actually exists?

I've said it before. My current vicar believes in some supernatural thing but another priest holds the same view as me. Yes, my vicar knows my view perfectly well. It's nothing new in my church. It's got everyone in this forum crying blue murder but it's a regular thing in my church with some priests holding to the same view.

Quote from: Johan on April 06, 2014, 01:42:50 PM

I used to date a girl who smoked pot like it was going out of style. I once had a conversation with her where I told her that I was concerned about her drug use. In a very surprised tone she replied that she doesn't do drugs. I said you smoke enough pot to keep an entire cartel in gold teeth. She said well pot isn't a drug, its a natural herb. I stopped dating that girl because she was crazy. Making up your own definitions for words is what crazy people do. So if  you're wondering why people here are getting annoyed with you, that's why. Its because you're doing something that crazy people do.

Again, that's another wrong analogy. That girl is just offering an excuse to allow herself to continue her drug use. She's not insane and you've poor judgment to think she is. Here, it's different. I have the authority of the entire church to back me up. My priests all the way to the Archbishop call me a Christian. You atheists together with fundamentalist Christians call me an atheist. I am willing to accept that following the definition of dictionaries, my position with regard to the supernatural can be viewed as atheistic. But you are not willing to accept that Christians include cultural Christians who don't believe in the supernatural. Why is that so? You are crazy? No, I don't think you are insane. I think the reason is you are so used to seeing fundamentalists and Mormons and there are no cultural Christians among these. If you live in Europe, you'd know that there are many people including clergymen who are cultural Christians. I don't think you're insane. I think it's culture again. American culture is decidedly fundy. I too have shown you a dictionary definition of a cultural Christian. 

Quote from: scroyle on April 06, 2014, 02:03:48 PM
Again, that's another wrong analogy. That girl is just offering an excuse to allow herself to continue her drug use.

So you're just offering an excuse to allow yourself to continue being a dick?

Quote from: the_antithesis on April 06, 2014, 02:16:19 PM
So you're just offering an excuse to allow yourself to continue being a dick?

Don't be daft. I know you are but try not to be.

What's your problem? Too old to learn new tricks? I've shown you the definition of "cultural Christian" but you are still stuck in your Bible Belt Fundy definition of "Christian" and you can't change. At least I'm prepared to accept your argument that atheist means an absence of belief in a god.  So what's your position? There is no such thing as a cultural Christian because your fundy past won't let you accept that?  Do you see how incredibly dumb you are?

Quote from: scroyle on April 06, 2014, 02:03:48 PM
Again, that's another wrong analogy. That girl is just offering an excuse to allow herself to continue her drug use.

Let's look at what you wrote earlier shall we?

QuoteBut you must understand why I have difficulty accepting that I'm an atheist by definition.

In your own words you have difficulty accepting that you are an atheist. Just as she had difficulty accepting that she was an addict. Admitting it to yourself is the first step. Therefore the analogy is spot on.

QuoteShe's not insane and you've poor judgment to think she is.

With all due respect, there are a ton of details which were left out because they aren't relevant here. She was out of her mind batshit crazy. Making up her own definitions for words is only one symptom on many that she had. Its a symptom you seem to share. That doesn't mean that I think you're crazy and I never said that you were. But I did say that you're doing something that crazy people also do and that it absolutely true.

QuoteHere, it's different. I have the authority of the entire church to back me up. My priests all the way to the Archbishop call me a Christian.

My wife says I'm the best husband ever. Doesn't mean that I am.

What about the rest of you? You can't accept the dictionary definition that a cultural Christian doesn't believe in a god being. I'm not saying you're loony but I'm saying you share some of the things that mad people do - to ignore dictionary definitions. But I can tell you the reason for this - too much association with fundies and their fundy understanding of what makes a "Christian". Some of you were once fundies and were traumatised by that experience and so to this day you can't accept it when you are told there are Christians who don't believe in God.

Quote from: Johan on April 06, 2014, 02:35:00 PM
My wife says I'm the best husband ever. Doesn't mean that I am.

I totally agree with you here.

Quote from: scroyle on April 06, 2014, 02:03:48 PM
Again, that's another wrong analogy. That girl is just offering an excuse to allow herself to continue her drug use. She's not insane and you've poor judgment to think she is. Here, it's different. I have the authority of the entire church to back me up. My priests all the way to the Archbishop call me a Christian. You atheists together with fundamentalist Christians call me an atheist. I am willing to accept that following the definition of dictionaries, my position with regard to the supernatural can be viewed as atheistic. But you are not willing to accept that Christians include cultural Christians who don't believe in the supernatural. Why is that so? You are crazy? No, I don't think you are insane. I think the reason is you are so used to seeing fundamentalists and Mormons and there are no cultural Christians among these. If you live in Europe, you'd know that there are many people including clergymen who are cultural Christians. I don't think you're insane. I think it's culture again. American culture is decidedly fundy. I too have shown you a dictionary definition of a cultural Christian.

Regarding our earlier conversation, I think you have a problem with accepting secular charities as agnostic (or even atheïst) organizations due to your strange conception and definition of what an atheïst actually is. I'm starting to think that the only way you would count an atheïst charity or an agnostic charity to be an atheïst or agnostic charity, if it actively went against religious charities or religions. Which is not the case. Because, like the true definition of atheïsm, what you call secular charities are 'without God'. No matter how you disregard and (seemingly willfully) neglect my uttered concerns and objections.  For the same reason you have trouble calling yourself an atheïst, though you are, and prefer to call yourself a cultural christian, which you are as well, you fail to recognize the true power of agnostic/secular charities and blindly keep to the superiority of religious ones.

That being said...
I do accept cultural christians calling themselves christians. Knock yourself out. You taught me the meaning of the term, and if that is the meaning, it suits you. (Just realize you're an atheïst too and that your definition of atheïsm is wrong.)
And I feel obligated to say the authority of the church means nothing. Don't get me wrong. Any group that defines itself and allows members to join it, gets to say, along with those who choose to join, who the members are. But there is no intrinsic or deeper authority to be given to clergymen, just because they read and preach the bible. It's not a valid source of morality nor relevant knowledge. If all the Ihmans of the world started calling you a satanist, because you didn't believe in Allah, it wouldn't make you a satanist. And they would have the same validity to their claim as your Archbishop has to proclaiming you're not an atheïst. Because what matters is the wider socialy agreed upon definition, not the definition of a fringe group without any true authority on the matter.

Welcome to the forum, atheïst.
Welcome to the forum, cultural christian.
Welcome to the forum, scroyle.
Welcome to the forum, all of the above.

I can tell we're probably not going to get allong, but I like a conversation with someone I disagree with.

I think everyone needs to accept that he is a cultural christian. The definition is quite clear, and he fits it.

Once we move past that point we can get to the subjects that are of actual interest and can create a fruitful discussion. I would like to return to the discussion of what appeared to be full acceptance of mandatory prayer in state schools, and not seeing what is wrong with this. Is that correct?

Do you think it's moral to force the non-religious, Muslims, and people of all other faiths than Christianity to be subjected to something that potentially goes against everything they believe in? This can be traumatizing. It's certainly oppressive of the non-religious, but this about the Muslims who actually believe in Allah as a real god being forced to partake in a blasphemous act - just to be able to get a basic education. Do you see why this is wrong?

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on April 06, 2014, 09:39:56 AM
So you're ~15.

It's been my experience that people only use that BS line when they're young enough for age to matter from a developmental standpoint.

No, I believe he's a 50-something Chinese guy who used to pass himself as a teenager and whose lies have been fully exposed long ago (http://atheistforums.org/thread-14863.html).

Quote from: La Dolce Vita on April 06, 2014, 03:46:07 PM
I would like to return to the discussion of what appeared to be full acceptance of mandatory prayer in state schools, and not seeing what is wrong with this. Is that correct?

Please tell me this is a misconception Scroyle. I mean, after I tried to protect the weird boner for Christianity you have by saying it didn't matter as long as you didn't try to restrict the rights of others this would seem like a slap in the face if true, because let me tell you one thing: A mandatory prayer/oath to something you don't believe in, or even worse would consider blasphemous, is just about textbook restricting the right to free speech.

Quote from: scroyle on April 06, 2014, 02:48:04 PM
What about the rest of you? You can't accept the dictionary definition that a cultural Christian doesn't believe in a god being.

The definition of a cultural christian that you yourself posted does not agree with this.

QuoteSome of you were once fundies and were traumatised by that experience and so to this day you can't accept it when you are told there are Christians who don't believe in God.

I've never been a fundie or any other sort of christian nor have I ever been traumatized by any other them.

(http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121027222203/mlpfanart/images/8/81/46183_-_animated_gif_lol_didnt_read_meme_Rainbow_Dash.gif)

QuoteI think everyone needs to accept that he is a cultural christian. The definition is quite clear, and he fits it.

I think everyone (I haven't browsed the full thread) DOES accept that.

The issue is that he doesn't accept the definition of atheist, which he fits.

Quote from: Shiranu on April 06, 2014, 06:34:45 PM
I think everyone (I haven't browsed the full thread) DOES accept that.

The issue is that he doesn't accept the definition of atheist, which he fits.

This! He seems to think that the fact that he attends church and participates in church event somehow prevents (protects) him from being an atheist. It does not. He also seems to think that the church and members of its management have some authority over what makes an atheist and what does not. They do not.

Quote from: Johan on April 06, 2014, 07:17:40 PM
This! He seems to think that the fact that he attends church and participates in church event somehow prevents (protects) him from being an atheist. It does not. He also seems to think that the church and members of its management have some authority over what makes an atheist and what does not. They do not.

I second (third?) that.

Sent via Internet Explorer

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 06, 2014, 03:27:54 PM
Regarding our earlier conversation, I think you have a problem with accepting secular charities as agnostic (or even atheïst) organizations due to your strange conception and definition of what an atheïst actually is. I'm starting to think that the only way you would count an atheïst charity or an agnostic charity to be an atheïst or agnostic charity, if it actively went against religious charities or religions. Which is not the case. Because, like the true definition of atheïsm, what you call secular charities are 'without God'. No matter how you disregard and (seemingly willfully) neglect my uttered concerns and objections.  For the same reason you have trouble calling yourself an atheïst, though you are, and prefer to call yourself a cultural christian, which you are as well, you fail to recognize the true power of agnostic/secular charities and blindly keep to the superiority of religious ones.

That being said...
I do accept cultural christians calling themselves christians. Knock yourself out. You taught me the meaning of the term, and if that is the meaning, it suits you. (Just realize you're an atheïst too and that your definition of atheïsm is wrong.)
And I feel obligated to say the authority of the church means nothing. Don't get me wrong. Any group that defines itself and allows members to join it, gets to say, along with those who choose to join, who the members are. But there is no intrinsic or deeper authority to be given to clergymen, just because they read and preach the bible. It's not a valid source of morality nor relevant knowledge. If all the Ihmans of the world started calling you a satanist, because you didn't believe in Allah, it wouldn't make you a satanist. And they would have the same validity to their claim as your Archbishop has to proclaiming you're not an atheïst. Because what matters is the wider socialy agreed upon definition, not the definition of a fringe group without any true authority on the matter.

Welcome to the forum, atheïst.
Welcome to the forum, cultural christian.
Welcome to the forum, scroyle.
Welcome to the forum, all of the above.

I can tell we're probably not going to get allong, but I like a conversation with someone I disagree with.

Thanks for the welcome. :)

Quote from: La Dolce Vita on April 06, 2014, 03:46:07 PM

Do you think it's moral to force the non-religious, Muslims, and people of all other faiths than Christianity to be subjected to something that potentially goes against everything they believe in? This can be traumatizing. It's certainly oppressive of the non-religious, but this about the Muslims who actually believe in Allah as a real god being forced to partake in a blasphemous act - just to be able to get a basic education. Do you see why this is wrong?

If it's a part of the culture of a country or school to have general prayers said at certain times, that shouldn't bother people of other religions or no religion. If you go to a Muslim country, you'd hear prayers said five times a day. That's their culture and if you don't like it, don't go to a Muslim country.

Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on April 06, 2014, 04:33:09 PM
Please tell me this is a misconception Scroyle. I mean, after I tried to protect the weird boner for Christianity you have by saying it didn't matter as long as you didn't try to restrict the rights of others this would seem like a slap in the face if true, because let me tell you one thing: A mandatory prayer/oath to something you don't believe in, or even worse would consider blasphemous, is just about textbook restricting the right to free speech.

I've answered that one post earlier. I don't know about mandatory prayers but I know of prayers that are said by tradition. Dawkins says them too. It's common in some countries or schools.

Quote from: Shiranu on April 06, 2014, 06:34:45 PM
I think everyone (I haven't browsed the full thread) DOES accept that.

The issue is that he doesn't accept the definition of atheist, which he fits.

You are incorrect. The fact that this has gone on for so long is people don't accept the notion of a cultural Christian. Haven't they been writing ad nauseam that a Christian MUST believe in a supernatural God and hence we're into page number God-knows-what for just an introductory thread? I do accept that by the strict etymological definition of an "atheist", I fit the bill.

Quote from: Johan on April 06, 2014, 07:17:40 PM
This! He seems to think that the fact that he attends church and participates in church event somehow prevents (protects) him from being an atheist. It does not. He also seems to think that the church and members of its management have some authority over what makes an atheist and what does not. They do not.

I still say the church has the right to define who a Christian is but I agree they haven't got that right to define an atheist. By that definition, yes, I would fit the strict definition of an atheist.

So do you accept jesus christ as your lord and savior?

Quote from: Johan on April 06, 2014, 09:55:00 PM
So do you accept jesus christ as your lord and savior?

Yes, what's wrong with saying that?

Quote from: scroyle on April 06, 2014, 09:59:14 PM
Yes, what's wrong with saying that?

Because it makes no sense without the accompanying mythology. Without that, all the man did was die via suicide-by-cop after preaching some stuff that Buddha had beaten him to some 500 years earlier.

Quote from: scroyle on April 06, 2014, 09:59:14 PM
Yes, what's wrong with saying that?

Its what makes your position so hard to understand. You accept jesus as your lord and savior yet you do not believe jesus exists. You might as well accept the jolly green giant as your lord and savior.

Quote from: Johan on April 06, 2014, 10:07:51 PM
Its what makes your position so hard to understand. You accept jesus as your lord and savior yet you do not believe jesus exists. You might as well accept the jolly green giant as your lord and savior.

Yeah, I think we have had enough of this twit.

Quote from: aitm on April 06, 2014, 10:09:30 PM
Yeah, I think we have had enough of this twit.

Damn it, why do you guys only ban the trolls I like? :P

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on April 06, 2014, 10:11:17 PM
Damn it, why do you guys only ban the trolls I like? :P

me sorry, you want me unban twit?

Quote from: aitm on April 06, 2014, 10:15:50 PM
me sorry, you want me unban twit?

Nah. Even a fuckwit I enjoy is still a fuckwit.

any appearance that it seems like a writing like a oriental would speak is purely purposeful and I apologize for admitting it.

Wait. This is a twist. I thought this guy was an atheist that just followed christian rules. (hence, cultural christian).

Scroyle, you're saying that you doesn't believe the christian mythology,

(http://i.imgur.com/vaUCnRS.jpg)
but you accept Jesus as your savior?

Well, shit. How does that work? :lol:

My new questions are:
What is Jesus saving you from?
and
If you don't believe the christian mythology, what makes you think jesus is real and can "save" anyone?

Quote from: PickelledEggs on April 07, 2014, 12:50:07 AM
Wait. This is a twist. I thought this guy was an atheist that just followed christian rules. (hence, cultural christian).

Scroyle, you're saying that you doesn't believe the christian mythology,

(http://i.imgur.com/vaUCnRS.jpg)
but you accept Jesus as your savior?

Well, shit. How does that work? :lol:

My new questions are:
What is Jesus saving you from?
and
If you don't believe the christian mythology, what makes you think jesus is real and can "save" anyone?

He can't answer you any more. He's been terminated.

Quote from: DunkleSeele on April 07, 2014, 01:02:13 AM
He can't answer you any more. He's been terminated.

Oh....

That must have been recent. I didn't notice that....  :/

Sent via your mom

I could never shake the feeling that he was just making shit up as he went along

I skipped 12 pages or so, so I don't know how legit he was... but he struck me as a fucking moron and not just a troll from the little bit I read.

Which if he was a troll makes it even sadder, because a troll can annoy me... but I can only be so annoyed at someone who is just too damn stupid to realize how stupid they are.

Quote from: Shiranu on April 07, 2014, 02:10:21 AM
I skipped 12 pages or so, so I don't know how legit he was... but he struck me as a fucking moron and not just a troll from the little bit I read.

Which if he was a troll makes it even sadder, because a troll can annoy me... but I can only be so annoyed at someone who is just too damn stupid to realize how stupid they are.

Indeed... I think he was actually legit but that he just didn't know or realize just how inconsequent, poorly constructed and utterly pointless his world view on christianity, cultural christianity, atheism and religion as a whole was. That's probably why all the contradictions and such were uttered.

Anyone else shudder at the thought of 'cultural christianity'? Adhereing to BS, knowing it's BS? Trying to spread the word though you know none of it is true. Giving authority to your Archbishop, knowing he's nothing truly blessed or special? Trying to say people should still pray and go to church and ahere to other bronze-age customs, just because a book, which you know holds no true merrit, says so. ...

I'm not going to miss scroyle, ... but it was interesting to watch him squirm as everyone pointed out the immorality of such things.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 07, 2014, 02:57:34 AMI'm not going to miss scroyle, ... but it was interesting to watch him squirm as everyone pointed out the immorality of such things.

yeah. but that's obvious..... Mr. Obvious


... :lol: (I couldn't resist)

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 07, 2014, 02:57:34 AM

Anyone else shudder at the thought of 'cultural christianity'? Adhereing to BS, knowing it's BS?

Cultural christian is to christianity what O'Douls is to beer.

(http://rlv.zcache.com/odouls_irish_forjust_kidding_shirt-rdec356975fe44221850374acb44d98b3_va6lr_512.jpg?bg=0xffffff)

Quote from: Johan on April 07, 2014, 06:18:20 AM
Cultural christian is to christianity what O'Douls is to beer.

Hear, hear.

What is that light coloured shit? I am not much of a drinker and even less of a beer person, but this is a down-right sexy beverage.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Guinness.jpg)

Quote from: Shiranu on April 07, 2014, 07:20:14 AM
What is that light coloured shit? I am not much of a drinker and even less of a beer person, but this is a down-right sexy beverage.

Do not... simply do not... knock... Belgian beer culture... you won't like me when you knock Belgian beer culture...
No, seriously, it's about all we've got. :)
If you're ever in town, I'll show you a thing or two 'bout that light coloured shit and we'll make a beer person out of you yet.

I've been drunk on Belgian beer. It taste great, but that 4 day hangover? FUCK THAT! :shocked:

Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on April 07, 2014, 07:38:05 AM
I've been drunk on Belgian beer. It taste great, but that 4 day hangover? FUCK THAT! :shocked:

Easy solution my friend:
Just don't stop drinking.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 07, 2014, 07:40:17 AM
Easy solution my friend:
Just don't stop drinking.

That hangover might have occurred because I had quit drinking for about 10 years prior. The good news is I've resumed.

Quote from: Poison Tree on April 07, 2014, 01:25:37 AM
I could never shake the feeling that he was just making shit up as he went along

For a while, he came very close to match Eve... but I digress...

The rub is you have to have a vivid imagination or be simply delusional to see the magic man up in the sky. In either case it's still not really there no matter how many times people say it,  no matter how much they believe it,  no matter how many people have to die, it's still pure bullshit.

Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on April 07, 2014, 10:27:47 AM
The rub is you have to have a vivid imagination or be simply delusional to see the magic man up in the sky. In either case it's still not really there no matter how many times people say it,  no matter how much they believe it,  no matter how many people have to die, it's still pure bullshit.

What a minute. Are you suggesting the tooth fairy isn't real ?

I don't really see why he was banned. Sure, some of what he said was raising warning signs troll wise - but I think there was a pretty good chance he was legit. He specified previously that he believed in a conceptual Jesus that was created by the church earlier, and that this Jesus moved him to tears, etc. so him saying he accepted Jesus as his lord and savior probably meant something quite different to him, just as holy meant something else. He used a lot of christian language with different interpretations than the norm. Honestly I think discussion was terminated prematurely.

Ohhh ok. Now I see. I have to remember that the dodo bird rank with the word "extinct" isn't there anymore...

Quote from: La Dolce Vita on April 07, 2014, 03:08:26 PM
I don't really see why he was banned. Sure, some of what he said was raising warning signs troll wise - but I think there was a pretty good chance he was legit. He specified previously that he believed in a conceptual Jesus that was created by the church earlier, and that this Jesus moved him to tears, etc. so him saying he accepted Jesus as his lord and savior probably meant something quite different to him, just as holy meant something else. He used a lot of christian language with different interpretations than the norm. Honestly I think discussion was terminated prematurely.

True enough. I mean, we tolerated Eve and AtheistMofo for, what, a month each? This guy got nowhere near that level of stupidity.

Quote from: La Dolce Vita on April 07, 2014, 03:08:26 PM
Honestly I think discussion was terminated prematurely.

I will try to do better next time.

Quote from: aitm on April 07, 2014, 06:21:22 PM
I will try to do better next time.

You couldn't pay me to be an unpaid moderator on a forum. See what I did there? :wink:

Seriously, I've done it so I know just how much of a thankless job it can be. So, thanks for your time and effort.

It is what it is. Some trolls last too long, some idiots are prematurely booted. As long as that isn't the norm (that troll's overstay their welcome) then I don't have much a problem.

It just seems weird to me when obvious trolls get 40+ pages without being booted, but then I don't file a complaint to the moderators so I cant really say anything negative about the handling when I offer no help myself.

So as vague as this post was, the point I want to make is I don't think this situation was handled poorly enough to warrant any sort of outrage :P.

Quote from: Shiranu on April 07, 2014, 08:12:22 PM
It is what it is. Some trolls last too long, some idiots are prematurely booted. As long as that isn't the norm (that troll's overstay their welcome) then I don't have much a problem.

It just seems weird to me when obvious trolls get 40+ pages without being booted, but then I don't file a complaint to the moderators so I cant really say anything negative about the handling when I offer no help myself.

So as vague as this post was, the point I want to make is I don't think this situation was handled poorly enough to warrant any sort of outrage :P.

I don't know if that was a compliment, but goddammit I think it is. So thanks! And sometimes, we just get into it as well ya know....after all ,we be human ...not godssssssssssss.   :)

Why don't we put in a strike-system:

1) The first post by a newbie that smells of being a troll gets a strike-warning.
2) Second post of similar content- strike two.
3) Third likewise post - strike three and you're out (banned).

Strike warnings could be in different size/color like:

STRIKE ONE

STRIKE TWO

STRIKE THREE

:madu: :pirate: :police:

Quote from: aitm on April 07, 2014, 10:01:32 PM
I don't know if that was a compliment, but goddammit I think it is. So thanks! And sometimes, we just get into it as well ya know....after all ,we be human ...not godssssssssssss.   :)

I would say it was inbetween, but closer to complement than anything else :P.

It isn't very often that I think someone is prematurely booted and it isn't very often that someone is allowed to troll for too long. The few that trolled too long just stand out more because their threads were 40+ shitfests and/or they posted a shitload of threads and made themselves obvious. But for every 1 of them or those (imo) booted wrongly there are probably 100 more who deserved it. I cant complain about those type of numbers, especially when I do nothing to help bring attention to the moderators of trolls.

QuoteWhy don't we put in a strike-system:

1) The first post by a newbie that smells of being a troll gets a strike-warning.
2) Second post of similar content- strike two.
3) Third likewise post - strike three and you're out (banned).

Strike warnings could be in different size/color like:

Meh, I think 5 strikes would be a bit better... I think alot of non-trolls just don't get the fact that they are being obnoxious and/or stupid as all hell.

I still say restrict suspected trolls to a special section of the forum, like a digital purgatory.. Not in intros, but like a subsection of Enter The Darkness where they can still post, but they are under review and if they keep posting things that are troll-ish or just plain stupid, we can mess with them. Sort of like this
(http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/jgr/lowres/food-drink-organic-organic_foods-tomato-stocks-punishments-jgrn1410l.jpg)

It's probably too much work for the mods to set up though. I know only a very tiny bit about programming and I imagine it would be a huge hassle to do.

I heard there is a forum that makes trolls invisible.  To them everything looks normal, they can post, quote, reply, start threads, etc.  Except that they are invisible and no one else can see anything they do.

Basically they feel totally ignored, no one responds to them, and as hard as they try, they can't pick a fight or get a response.  Must be priceless for the mods as they watch them try and try and gets zero response.

Oh c'mon guys, everyone like to argue once in awhile...we all know that. Mods are just you guys with a permission button thats all. I want to bitch and argue as well as you do and have fun and mock these twits like the new one some are enamored with.

We like our trolls and we like them at varying amounts of time and we all have limits of tolerance for every troll that varies from person to person. It is what it is and we still have fun and most the time we still boot the ass-hole in a fair amount of time eh?

Quote from: aitm on April 08, 2014, 09:26:57 PM
Oh c'mon guys, everyone like to argue once in awhile...we all know that. Mods are just you guys with a permission button thats all. I want to bitch and argue as well as you do and have fun and mock these twits like the new one some are enamored with.

We like our trolls and we like them at varying amounts of time and we all have limits of tolerance for every troll that varies from person to person. It is what it is and we still have fun and most the time we still boot the ass-hole in a fair amount of time eh?

I suppose that's true...
Trolls will be trolls.
And for better or worse: the one thing you can always count on is that the internet will never run out of trolls

I have animosity towards racism, sexism, homophobia and people willing to get violent because you picked on their belief. Human rights should be valued, but claims should NEVER get taboo status.

There is a HUGE difference between being bullied and merely being offended. I am a former Catholic myself.

Quote from: Feral Atheist on April 08, 2014, 09:13:54 PM
I heard there is a forum that makes trolls invisible.  To them everything looks normal, they can post, quote, reply, start threads, etc.  Except that they are invisible and no one else can see anything they do.

Basically they feel totally ignored, no one responds to them, and as hard as they try, they can't pick a fight or get a response.  Must be priceless for the mods as they watch them try and try and gets zero response.

I like this idea.  Can we get Wolf to implement it right now?