@^&$

liah

ARGH.

Okay, so someone linked me here from that thread in AH about Christianity.

Someone brought up the argument that without religion nobody would have any values.

Do they just not realise how ridiculous a statement that is? No, how insulting it is to the entire human race to imply that without some silly book we'd all be hopeless killers and thieves and rapists?

AHHHHHHH.

Someone make it stop.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Deep breaths.

Just sit back, assured in the knowledge that you're more intelligent than them.

The Mad Hatter

Welcome aboard.

Yes, it is an absurd argument. Yes, it comes up a lot. If it really bothers you, I suggest you steer clear of the Christianity forum.

mayordenis

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Welcome aboard.

Yes, it is an absurd argument. Yes, it comes up a lot. If it really bothers you, I suggest you steer clear of the Christianity forum.

this is your new bible.

liah

Haha, yeah, I would probably drive myself utterly insane.

I'm usually fine with most arguments, insofar as I can ignore them, but that one just really gets under my skin.

One person actually told me in real life, upon finding out I was an atheist, that he didn't want me anywhere near him because I had no morals and was probably some druggie slut. :pac: That was an awkward one. Nearly exploded on him.

Don't get how people can believe that.

Zillah

liah wrote: »

Okay, so someone linked me here from that thread in AH about Christianity.

I'd give you a choice of tea but considering how worked up you are I suggest some Chamomile. *sip*

liah

I'm good now.

...I think. :pac:

994

Maybe because, often, good actions seem more or less irrational, so an irrational reason must be composed to force people to do them, en masse.

Zillah

We have had plenty of mega-thread arguments with the religious where we try to explain how morality is a natural human trait rather than a result of religion. I describe it as religion highjacking morality. I can try dig some of them up for you if you like.

V9

Oh lawl.

Makes me laugh, I know of people who ****ing lick the alter week in week out on a Sunday, help the local priest or whatever and have commited adultry! Where are their morals? The family values eh?

Asshats.

gizmo

Hilarious! While I have no problem discussing religious values with someone, for a person to actually come out and say that kind of ****, it's a real head scratcher for me. That being said, I'd also freely admit to them that I've probably learned more about morals/right and wrong from the watching Batman and similar cartoons as a kid.

Fanny Cradock

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Welcome aboard.

Yes, it is an absurd argument. Yes, it comes up a lot. If it really bothers you, I suggest you steer clear of the Christianity forum.

Nonsense.

Instead of making vague accusations about Christians at large - accusations I believe you make simply to coddle your preconceptions - why not be gracious enough to admit that not every Christian holds such views. Furthermore, if anyone makes such a claim, bring it to the mods attention and we can deal with it.

kiffer

He-man was in fact crypto-christian subliminal programming...
Adam is Jesus (the last adam?), He-man is the risen Christ...
Cringer/Battlecat is the holy spirit... At times a peaceful gentle dove (giant cat), but in times of need a powerfull force, brave and noble bringing He-man/Adam/Jesus to where he needs to go.
God of course is the unseen Power of Grayskull... The Sourceress could be Mary? No... Must be one of the angels...
Man-at-Arms is clearly Simon Peter(wait what?)... The other side kicks are other followers.
Mamatarms daughter is mary magdelain...
I cant remember who was the Judas character ... What is Orko's role?(orco?)

It all so clear... At 4am after an evening of light head banging... There may be some swelling of the fore-brain ...
Next up ... She-Ra, Princess of Power.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Nonsense.

Instead of making vague accusations about Christians at large

Since when is the Christianity forum is "Christians at large"?

This argument (no belief in God = no reason to be moral blah blah blah) comes up all the time on the Christianity forum (along with the phrase "scientific proof", but don't get me started about that one!!!)

If you disagree and think that this position is a minor sub-set of what "Christians at large" believe blame the regular Christian posters such as Wolfsbane who can't seem to go a day without suggesting it, rather than the atheists who get annoyed that it comes up a lot.

Goduznt Xzst

ah... our good friend Húrin, yeah he does that.

For more information on his opinion and objections to it see: Divine Command Theory

He tends to keep his arguments to meta-ethical and metaphysical philosophy, sprinkled with attempts to deny individuals that have arguments counter to his by claiming they have an inherent lack of objectivity.

It really is a stance that isn't worth debating against if you have the intention of getting any form of conclusion or resolution, as, like with all of metaphysics, every opinion is just another shade of gray.

The Mad Hatter

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Nonsense.

Instead of making vague accusations about Christians at large - accusations I believe you make simply to coddle your preconceptions - why not be gracious enough to admit that not every Christian holds such views. Furthermore, if anyone makes such a claim, bring it to the mods attention and we can deal with it.

wtf? I was talking about the Christianity forum - not Christians at large.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

(along with the phrase "scientific proof", but don't get me started about that one!!!)

Always with the little digs, eh? Try cracking that a 3rd time and I might laugh.

Fanny Cradock

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

wtf? I was talking about the Christianity forum - not Christians at large.

Yes, Christians at large in the Christianity forum.

Dades

Ah to be fair, it was a warning in jest not to venture in the Christianity forum where the view that all morality stems from God/religion is widespread.

It's even common response amongst people in the "real world". Suggest we take religion away and people's first thought is what's to stop everyone stealing and murdering.

The Mad Hatter

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, Christians at large in the Christianity forum.

I really don't think the Christianity forum is representative of Christians at large, though. I've said this before.

Galvasean

I really hope the Christianity forum does not represent Christians at large. An alarmingly high volume of regular posters there claim to be of the opinion that if God was (somehow for arguments sake) shown not to be real there would be nothing stopping them from murdering/raping/pillaging etc.

Stercus Accidit

Maybe if we atheists had religious morals, we would have all realised that was an insulting comment.

Oh wait we don't, and it wasn't.

Welcome aboard liah, I believe I thanked one of your epic posts in that thread, thought this place would suit you down to the ground.

Fanny Cradock

Galvasean wrote: »

I really hope the Christianity forum does not represent Christians at large. An alarmingly high volume of regular posters there claim to be of the opinion that if God was (somehow for arguments sake) shown not to be real there would be nothing stopping them from murdering/raping/pillaging etc.

I don't believe that that is the case. It seems to me that Christians there have said that if they lost their faith then the the basis of their morality would be challenged, not that they would suddenly feel the need to start raping.

Dades

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't believe that that is the case.

Me neither. Of course that depends on what people deem a "Christian" to be!

PDN

Dades wrote: »

Me neither. Of course that depends on what people deem a "Christian" to be!

That all depends.

If it is someone nasty like Hitler then the definition of 'Christian' becomes amazingly broad and so includes Adolf despite his frequent denunciations of Christianity.

If it is someone considered cool, such as Barack Obama, then the definition of Christian becomes so narrow as to deny that he is a Christian. This kind of sophistry reaches its zenith when Christopher Hitchens denies that Rev Martin Luther King Jr was a Christian.

Of course to point this atheist evangelasticism out at all is to open oneself up to the charge of derailing the thread by arguing about semantics.

Stercus Accidit

Maybe if Christians didn't have a policy of indoctrinating infants that wouldn't be as much of an issue.

kiffer

PDN wrote: »

That all depends.

If it is someone nasty like Hitler ...

Bringing up Hitler already? It's only post 25 into the thread...

Works both ways, we on occasion see Christians saying nasty Christians aren't "really" Christians.

Dades

I'd be more liberal with the definition, myself.

Like anyone who has a vague belief that Jesus rose from the dead and God was his father. And was maybe afraid sometimes that God was watching them.

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

That all depends.

If it is someone nasty like Hitler then the definition of 'Christian' becomes amazingly broad and so includes Adolf despite his frequent denunciations of Christianity.

If it is someone considered cool, such as Barack Obama, then the definition of Christian becomes so narrow as to deny that he is a Christian. This kind of sophistry reaches its zenith when Christopher Hitchens denies that Rev Martin Luther King Jr was a Christian.

Of course to point this atheist evangelasticism out at all is to open oneself up to the charge of derailing the thread by arguing about semantics.

It does seem like the secularisation of MLK Jr has been going on for some years now - either unconsciously or otherwise. Hitchens is simply carrying the torch. Anyway, with regards to how you determine who is a Christian, it becomes difficult when you have people like the BNP jumping on the Jesus wagon.

Genghiz Cohen

Dades wrote: »

I'd be more liberal with the definition, myself.

Like anyone who has a vague belief that Jesus rose from the dead and God was his father. And was maybe afraid sometimes that God was watching them.

Yeah, that's my one as well.
If you believe in Christ you are Christian<<endl

Zombrex

kiffer wrote: »

Bringing up Hitler already? It's only post 25 into the thread...

Works both ways, we on occasion see Christians saying nasty Christians aren't "really" Christians.

Nooooooo!!!!!!!!, that is what he wants you to do !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Nooooooo!!!!!!!!, that is what he wants you to do !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No I'm perfectly OK with the suggestion that some people who vaguely believe in Jesus Christ are very nasty indeed. I have no interest in arguing that such a vague mental assent has any moral value whatsoever.

kiffer

Wicknight wrote: »

Nooooooo!!!!!!!!, that is what he wants you to do !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You know that moment when you're walking along with a tray full of drinks and everything starts to slip...
You have that moment in which you can see everything is going to go everywhere.
Time slows and you know what ever you do to try and save the situation will just make the whole thing worse?
Tilt the tray to the left and the tray will go all over the sofa, tilt to the right and half the glasses will shatter on the fireplace... but really you don't have any choice at that moment because which ever way you tilt the tray as you fall at least half of the drinks are going straight onto your bosses wife's new dress?

Sometime you've just got to go with the flow...

PDN wrote:

No I'm perfectly OK with the suggestion that some people who vaguely believe in Jesus Christ are very nasty indeed. I have no interest in arguing that such a vague mental assent has any moral value whatsoever.

Would you consider Fred Phelps a Christian?

PDN

kiffer wrote: »

Would you consider Fred Phelps a Christian?

By the definition you guys use? Yes. I'm sure he has a mental belief in the existence of Jesus Christ.

Galvasean

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't believe that that is the case. It seems to me that Christians there have said that if they lost their faith then the the basis of their morality would be challenged, not that they would suddenly feel the need to start raping.

Well one or two regulars (that's an alarming percentage to me considering the relatively small demograph), from what they have said, seem to be acting good because they believe/know the man upstairs is watching/judging rather than any personal morality.

PDN wrote: »

By the definition you guys use? Yes. I'm sure he has a mental belief in the existence of Jesus Christ.

What about you though, as in personally?
Personally I wouldn't consider someone like that a 'proper' Christian because I feel 'proper' Christians should be nice and stuff.
For the record, no I don't consider the likes of the Pope or George Bush 'proper' Christians.
Of course my definition of 'proper' Christians is those who follow Jesus' teachings.

kiffer

PDN wrote: »

By the definition you guys use? Yes. I'm sure he has a mental belief in the existence of Jesus Christ.

Nicely done.
How about by the dictionary definition?
Lets not define words to suit ourselves shall we...


Christian
n.
One who believes or professes the religion of Christ; an adherent of Christianity.

PDN

Galvasean wrote: »

What about you though, as in personally?
Personally I wouldn't consider someone like that a 'proper' Christian because I feel 'proper' Christians should be nice and stuff.
For the record, no I don't consider the likes of the Pope or George Bush 'proper' Christians.
Of course my definition of 'proper' Christians is those who follow Jesus' teachings.

Personally I prefer to use the word 'Christian' to refer to those who make a genuine attempt to live according to the teachings and example of Jesus Christ.

However, on this forum I'm generally happy to go with the majority view and use 'Christian' in its cultural sense or to refer to a mental assent to the existence of Christ. Maybe that's because I don't share the passion of other posters for arguing about semantics.

Then again, you might even get the odd person who objects to calling anyone a 'Christian' at all since there are many different Christianities.

PDN

Dades wrote:

I'd be more liberal with the definition, myself.

Like anyone who has a vague belief that Jesus rose from the dead and God was his father. And was maybe afraid sometimes that God was watching them.

Genghiz Cohen wrote:

If you believe in Christ you are Christian<<endl

Christopher Hitchens wrote:

Martin Luther King was in no real sense a Christian

Galvasean wrote:

Of course my definition of 'proper' Christians is those who follow Jesus' teachings.

Tim Robbins wrote:

What Christianity means isn't objectively defined or agreed. So it's meaningless.

kiffer wrote: »

Nicely done.
How about by the dictionary definition?
Lets not define words to suit ourselves shall we...


Christian
n.
One who believes or professes the religion of Christ; an adherent of Christianity.

Tell you what, you guys decide among yourselves how you define 'Christian'. Then maybe we can engage in a sensible debate.

The Mad Hatter

I think years of exposure to members of the Christian right have left some atheists with the opinion that you can't be rational and a christian, which is why sensible people who profess christianity (like Barack Obama) are such a surprise.

kiffer

PDN wrote: »

Tell you what, you guys decide among yourselves how you define 'Christian'. Then maybe we can engage in a sensible debate.

I'm entertained by the lengths you've gone to to avoid saying "No, Fred Phelps is not, in my opinion, a Christian" or words to that effect. :-D

PDN

kiffer wrote: »

I'm entertained by the lengths you've gone to to avoid saying "No, Fred Phelps is not, in my opinion, a Christian" or words to that effect. :-D

I've gone to no lengths at all, but I'm amused at how you want to turn discussion away from the atheists' inconsistency in their use of the word 'Christian' to Fred Phelps as a bogeyman figure.

I said: "Personally I prefer to use the word 'Christian' to refer to those who make a genuine attempt to live according to the teachings and example of Jesus Christ." So, no, I do not consider that Fred Phelps meets that criteria in the slightest.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Tell you what, you guys decide among yourselves how you define 'Christian'. Then maybe we can engage in a sensible debate.

Well, why don't we agree to use the definition that's used in sociology which studies these things in a religion-neutral manner?

In that, you're a christian if you describe yourself as one -- "self-description" is where it's at. And that lets Phelps, Ken Ham, the Pope, Jerry Falwell and, of course, your excellent self, all be "christian", while letting each one harbour their deepest convictions that all the other ones probably aren't.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Well, why don't we agree to use the definition that's used in sociology which studies these things in a religion-neutral manner?

In that, you're a christian if you describe yourself as one -- "self-description" is where it's at. And that lets Phelps, Ken Ham, the Pope, Jerry Falwell and, of course, your excellent self, all be "christian", while letting each one harbour their deepest convictions that all the other ones probably aren't.

And I've already said that I'm happy to use that description here on this forum.

kiffer

PDN wrote: »

I've gone to no lengths at all, but I'm amused at how you want to turn discussion away from the atheists' inconsistency in their use of the word 'Christian' to Fred Phelps as a bogeyman figure.

Oh I don't deny that there is a usage problem when it comes to many words, not just 'Christian'.
I agree it might be a bit silly to say, Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't really a Christian ... although by some reports his behavior was, at times, less than ideal...
I'm embarrassed to say that I don't know the context in which Hitchens was speaking at the time. I'll spend a few minutes looking it up...

In the mean time...

Galvasean wrote:

Of course my definition of 'proper' Christians is those who follow Jesus' teachings.

This seems to agree with you, don't see why you object.

Dades and Cohen seem to agree with a basic dictionary definition ...

Tim seems to think that it's such a loose definition that it's pointless and this can be somewhat of an issue, if you so choose you can just say, "oh that lot aren't actually Christians so any argument you make against them I can just ignore"...


I asked you a straight question and it took you till now to actually answer the question in a straight manner.

I said: "Personally I prefer to use the word 'Christian' to refer to those who make a genuine attempt to live according to the teachings and example of Jesus Christ." So, no, I do not consider that Fred Phelps meets that criteria in the slightest.

Wow, a straight answer from a preacher...
Up untill you actually said "No, I don't think he is not a Christian", you could always have gone back and said, "Yes, He is attempting to live according to Jesus's teaching, but he's got the wrong end of the stick, but justification is by faith alone and so ... blah blah blah".

I think I consider him a Christian... but a really really really really crap one.

kiffer

Right. I've looked into the Martin Luther King Jr. issue...

Frankly Hitchens can be a bit of a dick...

And he even phrased that appeal more courteously than, in my humble opinion, its targets deserved. In no real as opposed to nominal sense, then, was he a Christian.

Goduznt Xzst

PDN wrote: »

Personally I prefer to use the word 'Christian' to refer to those who make a genuine attempt to live according to the teachings and example of Jesus Christ.

PDN wrote: »

I'm amused at how you want to turn discussion away from the atheists' inconsistency in their use of the word 'Christian'

Really? Because I see blatant inconsistancies in your definition. I'm pretty sure you don't accept nontrinitarians as being Christian, regardless of whether they live according to Jesus' teachings and example.

Or are you somehow drawing the distinction that a denomination can be made up entirely of people you view as Christian, but the denomination itself is not Christian. If so, how do you define such a denomination that claims to be Christian. If not, perhaps you should expand on what your actual definition of a Christian is.

PDN

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Really? Because I see blatant inconsistancies in your definition. I'm pretty sure you don't accept nontrinitarians as being Christian, regardless of whether they live according to Jesus' teachings and example.

Or are you somehow drawing the distinction that a denomination can be made up entirely of people you view as Christian, but the denomination itself is not Christian. If so, how do you define such a denomination that claims to be Christian. If not, perhaps you should expand on what your actual definition of a Christian is.

I'm flattered that my personal beliefs are of such interest to you.

It all seems to be veering off-topic, but I hope the mods will understand I'm simply answering a direct question. Otherwise some muppet will accuse me of evasion or of refusing to give a straight answer to a straiight question.

I don't think any denomination is composed entirely of people that I would view as Christian. Every denomination and local church, including my own, contains some people who are there for other reasons.

Also, an organisation may be mostly composed of Christians without itself being Christian. For example, I know of a U2 fan club in Tennessee where, AFAIK, every member is a Christian. However, I would not classify that club as a Christian organisation.

I think someone can deny the Trinity and still be a Christian. Jimitime, on the Christianity forum, would I believe fit this description. I think he is mistaken about an important point of doctrine, but I certainly recognise him as a fellow Christian.

However, I would not recognise a non-Trinitarian organisation as a legitimate Christian denomination, even though many or most individual members may be sincerely attempting to follow Christ.

There. I hope that clarifies things for you.

Goduznt Xzst

PDN wrote: »

I think someone can deny the Trinity and still be a Christian. Jimitime, on the Christianity forum, would I believe fit this description. I think he is mistaken about an important point of doctrine, but I certainly recognise him as a fellow Christian.

However, I would not recognise a non-Trinitarian organisation as a legitimate Christian denomination, even though many or most individual members may be sincerely attempting to follow Christ.

veiled insults and patronising aside, yes it does clear things up.

* An Individual who believes they should live according to Christ yet rejects the trinity IS a Christian
* A Denomination who believes they should live according to Christ yet rejects the trinity IS NOT Christian

Makes perfect sense :rolleyes:

PDN

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

veiled insults and patronising aside, yes it does clear things up.

* An Individual who believes they should live according to Christ yet rejects the trinity IS a Christian
* A Denomination who believes they should live according to Christ yet rejects the trinity IS NOT Christian

Makes perfect sense :rolleyes:

Yes, it does make sense if you are more interested in thinking logically than in scoring points. I believe the key criteria in determining whether an individual person is a Christian is their relationship to Christ. People, by their nature can have relationships.

Organisations, by their nature, cannot enter into such relationships. Therefore the key criteria in determining whether an organisation is Christian is whether it is promoting accurate information about Christ.

BTW, the posters here use similar language and definitions in regard to atheism.

* An individual who denies the existence of God and believes they should live their life without reference to sacred books etc IS an atheist.
* An organisation which denies the existence of God and believes people should live their lives without reference to sacred books etc. IS NOT atheist.

Do you agree? (Think carefully before you answer).

kiffer

PDN wrote: »

... Otherwise some muppet will accuse me of evasion or of refusing to give a straight answer to a straiight question.

I know, it terrible, muppetry is rife on the internet.

PDN

kiffer wrote: »

I know, it terrible, muppetry is rife on the internet.

True that.