Hi, I'm a cultural Christian

[scroyle]

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?

[Johan]

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?

But 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.

She'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.

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.

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

[scroyle]

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.

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

I totally agree with you here.

[Mr.Obvious]

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.

[La Dolce Vita]

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?

[DunkleSeele]

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.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

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.

[Johan]

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.

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.

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

[Sargon The Grape]

[Shiranu]

I 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.

[Johan]

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.

[PickelledEggs]

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

[scroyle]

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. :)

[scroyle]

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.

[scroyle]

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.