Hi, I'm a cultural Christian

[scroyle]

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.

[Shiranu]

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.

Would 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".

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

It'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.

[scroyle]

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.

[Shiranu]

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

Sorry :\.

[Mr.Obvious]

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.

[josephpalazzo]

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.

[La Dolce Vita]

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.

[Sargon The Grape]

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.

[Johan]

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.

[scroyle]

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.

[scroyle]

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.

[scroyle]

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.

[scroyle]

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.

[scroyle]

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.

[scroyle]

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.