Christians vs Atheists

[Johnnyblazzed]

Always with the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. At least you are consistent.

Sorry, bud. Anyone who believes Jesus was the son of God is a Christian. Their behavior is an irrelevant factor towards their religious beliefs. Just like anyone who says that they don't believe in a god is an atheist.

There are thousands of different denominations of Christianity. Which one is the "true" denomination?

Atheism is a label used by the religious.
There isn't a word for those who don't golf, or don't believe in the tooth fairy.

But there are words used for those without sex, asexual. Besides, the term Atheist wasn't popularized until non-believers in the Age Of Enlightment felt the need to identify themselves as something of nothing, for no other reason other than feeling left out and wanting to be part of a cool hip rebellious clique. Kinda like what y'all busted ass heathens like to do.

Many message board folk who lack belief in a God don't know the history of atheism, nor how the word became popular in modern times. The reason why the religious use the label is because those who lack a belief in God, or hold belief there is no God, use the label to distinguish themselves from those who believe.

As for those who identify as Christian without behaving as such, would you call someone who identified as vegan, a vegan while watching them down a monster style combo with a chocolate shake from In and Out?

[Johnnyblazzed]

Airtight and brilliant insight into atheism

I agree, and indeed that's one thing that I struggle with as an Atheist.

Now that I don't have God to judge me, I don't really have a sense of whether or not it's okay to rape my neighbor's daughter (she's 15).

It's a confusing moral dilemma and I don't know how to address it or where to turn.

Most people don't understand the moral argument. You're one of the few I would have thought got it... apparently not.

[Bush4Ever]

Airtight and brilliant insight into atheism

I agree, and indeed that's one thing that I struggle with as an Atheist.

Now that I don't have God to judge me, I don't really have a sense of whether or not it's okay to rape my neighbor's daughter (she's 15).

It's a confusing moral dilemma and I don't know how to address it or where to turn.

Sorry for not being more serious in this thread Sportswise.

I'll aim for a higher standard in the future.




Most people don't understand the moral argument. You're one of the few I would have thought got it... apparently not.

[Incognito]

[lettherebehouse]

Atheists straight up getting crucified all up in this bitch.

Nazarene Styleeeee

[Johnnyblazzed]

I agree, and indeed that's one thing that I struggle with as an Atheist.

Now that I don't have God to judge me, I don't really have a sense of whether or not it's okay to rape my neighbor's daughter (she's 15).

It's a confusing moral dilemma and I don't know how to address it or where to turn.

Sorry for not being more serious in this thread Sportswise.

I'll aim for a higher standard in the future.




Most people don't understand the moral argument. You're one of the few I would have thought got it... apparently not.

I figured you were half clowning, so no need to get butthurt Bush. Too many atheists don't get the moral argument and see it as exactly as you responded. The argument is bloody lost on them.

[Ghostown42]

Atheism is a label used by the religious.
There isn't a word for those who don't golf, or don't believe in the tooth fairy.

But there are words used for those without sex, asexual. Besides, the term Atheist wasn't popularized until non-believers in the Age Of Enlightment felt the need to identify themselves as something of nothing, for no other reason other than feeling left out and wanting to be part of a cool hip rebellious clique. Kinda like what y'all busted ass heathens like to do.

Many message board folk who lack belief in a God don't know the history of atheism, nor how the word became popular in modern times. The reason why the religious use the label is because those who lack a belief in God, or hold belief there is no God, use the label to distinguish themselves from those who believe.

As for those who identify as Christian without behaving as such, would you call someone who identified as vegan, a vegan while watching them down a monster style combo with a chocolate shake from In and Out?

Bad analogy, here's why (it's not difficult): if a person ate meat, I would not call them a vegan. If a person ate meat and then murdered someone and the vegan society rejected that person saying (s)he is "not a true vegan." I'd call it a "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

If a person says they are Christian but does not believe Jesus was the son of God, then I wouldn't call them a Christian. If a person says they believe in Jesus as the son of God, but murders someone, (s)he is still a Christian. You cannot say they aren't a Christian just because they do something bad.

[Johnnyblazzed]

But there are words used for those without sex, asexual. Besides, the term Atheist wasn't popularized until non-believers in the Age Of Enlightment felt the need to identify themselves as something of nothing, for no other reason other than feeling left out and wanting to be part of a cool hip rebellious clique. Kinda like what y'all busted ass heathens like to do.

Many message board folk who lack belief in a God don't know the history of atheism, nor how the word became popular in modern times. The reason why the religious use the label is because those who lack a belief in God, or hold belief there is no God, use the label to distinguish themselves from those who believe.

As for those who identify as Christian without behaving as such, would you call someone who identified as vegan, a vegan while watching them down a monster style combo with a chocolate shake from In and Out?

Bad analogy, here's why (it's not difficult): if a person ate meat, I would not call them a vegan. If a person ate meat and then murdered someone and the vegan society rejected that person saying (s)he is "not a true vegan." I'd call it a "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

If a person says they are Christian but does not believe Jesus was the son of God, then I wouldn't call them a Christian. If a person says they believe in Jesus as the son of God, but murders someone, (s)he is still a Christian. You cannot say they aren't a Christian just because they do something bad.

You define being a Christian differently than most Christians. Being a Christian isn't a statement, it's a way of life. It is following Jesus and his example. With this, anyone who claims to be a Christian, yet performs heinous acts, is by no means a Christian.

[lettherebehouse]

Many message board folk who lack belief in a God don't know the history of atheism, nor how the word became popular in modern times. The reason why the religious use the label is because those who lack a belief in God, or hold belief there is no God, use the label to distinguish themselves from those who believe.

As for those who identify as Christian without behaving as such, would you call someone who identified as vegan, a vegan while watching them down a monster style combo with a chocolate shake from In and Out?

Bad analogy, here's why (it's not difficult): if a person ate meat, I would not call them a vegan. If a person ate meat and then murdered someone and the vegan society rejected that person saying (s)he is "not a true vegan." I'd call it a "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

If a person says they are Christian but does not believe Jesus was the son of God, then I wouldn't call them a Christian. If a person says they believe in Jesus as the son of God, but murders someone, (s)he is still a Christian. You cannot say they aren't a Christian just because they do something bad.

You define being a Christian differently than most Christians. Being a Christian isn't a statement, it's a way of life. It is following Jesus and his example. With this, anyone who claims to be a Christian, yet performs heinous acts, is by no means a Christian.

[Ghostown42]

Many message board folk who lack belief in a God don't know the history of atheism, nor how the word became popular in modern times. The reason why the religious use the label is because those who lack a belief in God, or hold belief there is no God, use the label to distinguish themselves from those who believe.

As for those who identify as Christian without behaving as such, would you call someone who identified as vegan, a vegan while watching them down a monster style combo with a chocolate shake from In and Out?

Bad analogy, here's why (it's not difficult): if a person ate meat, I would not call them a vegan. If a person ate meat and then murdered someone and the vegan society rejected that person saying (s)he is "not a true vegan." I'd call it a "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

If a person says they are Christian but does not believe Jesus was the son of God, then I wouldn't call them a Christian. If a person says they believe in Jesus as the son of God, but murders someone, (s)he is still a Christian. You cannot say they aren't a Christian just because they do something bad.

You define being a Christian differently than most Christians. Being a Christian isn't a statement, it's a way of life. It is following Jesus and his example. With this, anyone who claims to be a Christian, yet performs heinous acts, is by no means a Christian.

There are thousands of different denominations of Christianity who all believe in different ways to follow Jesus. To some of these denominations, homosexuality is a sin worthy of the death penalty. To others, it isn't. Some Christian churches will gladly marry a gay couple. Would you say they are not Christian, because they go against the teachings in the bible? What about people who do not give up all their earthly possessions to the poor and ONLY follow Jesus? Are they not truly Christian? What about people who advocate for war and torture and believe preemptive strikes on other nations is appropriate? That is most certainly not loving your enemy or turning the other cheek, something Jesus said to do. Are they not true Christians? And what about someone who believes Jesus is the son of God, gives into temptation and rapes a child, but then truly repents. Is that person not a true Christian? What about those who bomb abortion clinics or murder people of other religions because "My Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, told me too!"? Is that not, by definition, Christian?

Where do you draw the line?

The most logical place to draw the line is here: if a person truly believes that Jesus is the son of god, and the way to get to heaven is to believe it, then that person is a Christian. And if that person does a bad thing it does not automatically disqualify them from your club.

[Johnnyblazzed]

Bad analogy, here's why (it's not difficult): if a person ate meat, I would not call them a vegan. If a person ate meat and then murdered someone and the vegan society rejected that person saying (s)he is "not a true vegan." I'd call it a "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

If a person says they are Christian but does not believe Jesus was the son of God, then I wouldn't call them a Christian. If a person says they believe in Jesus as the son of God, but murders someone, (s)he is still a Christian. You cannot say they aren't a Christian just because they do something bad.

You define being a Christian differently than most Christians. Being a Christian isn't a statement, it's a way of life. It is following Jesus and his example. With this, anyone who claims to be a Christian, yet performs heinous acts, is by no means a Christian.

There are thousands of different denominations of Christianity who all believe in different ways to follow Jesus. To some of these denominations, homosexuality is a sin worthy of the death penalty. To others, it isn't. Some Christian churches will gladly marry a gay couple. Would you say they are not Christian, because they go against the teachings in the bible? What about people who do not give up all their earthly possessions to the poor and ONLY follow Jesus? Are they not truly Christian? What about people who advocate for war and torture and believe preemptive strikes on other nations is appropriate? That is most certainly not loving your enemy or turning the other cheek, something Jesus said to do. Are they not true Christians? And what about someone who believes Jesus is the son of God, gives into temptation and rapes a child, but then truly repents. Is that person not a true Christian? What about those who bomb abortion clinics or murder people of other religions because "My Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, told me too!"? Is that not, by definition, Christian?

Where do you draw the line?

The most logical place to draw the line is here: if a person truly believes that Jesus is the son of god, and the way to get to heaven is to believe it, then that person is a Christian. And if that person does a bad thing it does not automatically disqualify them from your club.

Those who follow the example of Jesus and strive to live as he lived are Christians. Words mean something, and I choose them carefully. Such as "heinous", "strive", and so on. I shouldn't need to qualify those words. The only words that need to be qualified in this conversation is "I believe Jesus is the Son of God", or "Jesus is my Savior." How do I know those who make such claims are being genuine and honest; that they truly mean it... by their actions, by their behavior.

Again, being a Christian is more than a statement, it is a way of life. If you told me your daughter is the joy of your life and you loved her, and your actions were contrary to your words, I would know your daughter is not the joy of your life and you do not truly love her.

[Ghostown42]

You define being a Christian differently than most Christians. Being a Christian isn't a statement, it's a way of life. It is following Jesus and his example. With this, anyone who claims to be a Christian, yet performs heinous acts, is by no means a Christian.

There are thousands of different denominations of Christianity who all believe in different ways to follow Jesus. To some of these denominations, homosexuality is a sin worthy of the death penalty. To others, it isn't. Some Christian churches will gladly marry a gay couple. Would you say they are not Christian, because they go against the teachings in the bible? What about people who do not give up all their earthly possessions to the poor and ONLY follow Jesus? Are they not truly Christian? What about people who advocate for war and torture and believe preemptive strikes on other nations is appropriate? That is most certainly not loving your enemy or turning the other cheek, something Jesus said to do. Are they not true Christians? And what about someone who believes Jesus is the son of God, gives into temptation and rapes a child, but then truly repents. Is that person not a true Christian? What about those who bomb abortion clinics or murder people of other religions because "My Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, told me too!"? Is that not, by definition, Christian?

Where do you draw the line?

The most logical place to draw the line is here: if a person truly believes that Jesus is the son of god, and the way to get to heaven is to believe it, then that person is a Christian. And if that person does a bad thing it does not automatically disqualify them from your club.

Those who follow the example of Jesus and strive to live as he lived are Christians. Words mean something, and I choose them carefully. Such as "heinous", "strive", and so on. I shouldn't need to qualify those words. The only words that need to be qualified in this conversation is "I believe Jesus is the Son of God", or "Jesus is my Savior." How do I know those who make such claims are being genuine and honest; that they truly mean it... by their actions, by their behavior.

Again, being a Christian is more than a statement, it is a way of life. If you told me your daughter is the joy of your life and you loved her, and your actions were contrary to your words, I would know your daughter is not the joy of your life and you do not truly love her.

I guess you are not a Christian then, since you haven't given up all of your earthly possessions to the poor in order to follow Jesus more closely. Also, I can tell by your politics that you do not support the idea of turning the other cheek.

I guess only mother-earth hippy pacifists are Christian.

Or is it abortion clinic bombers who are the true Christians?

Or is it the ones who create families from incest or polygamy who are true Christians? (Also supported by your god in the bible).

I guess it depends on which denomination and interpretation you follow...

Of course, I'm being sarcastic, but I hope you're not too dim to get the point. And I hope you apply the same standard to people of other religions. For example, when a Muslim bombs a building I hope you say, "Well, he's not a true Muslim, because Islam is a religion of peace" (as 99.99% of Muslims say). I am judging here, but, somehow, I doubt that's what you say in such scenario.

[Johnnyblazzed]

There are thousands of different denominations of Christianity who all believe in different ways to follow Jesus. To some of these denominations, homosexuality is a sin worthy of the death penalty. To others, it isn't. Some Christian churches will gladly marry a gay couple. Would you say they are not Christian, because they go against the teachings in the bible? What about people who do not give up all their earthly possessions to the poor and ONLY follow Jesus? Are they not truly Christian? What about people who advocate for war and torture and believe preemptive strikes on other nations is appropriate? That is most certainly not loving your enemy or turning the other cheek, something Jesus said to do. Are they not true Christians? And what about someone who believes Jesus is the son of God, gives into temptation and rapes a child, but then truly repents. Is that person not a true Christian? What about those who bomb abortion clinics or murder people of other religions because "My Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, told me too!"? Is that not, by definition, Christian?

Where do you draw the line?

The most logical place to draw the line is here: if a person truly believes that Jesus is the son of god, and the way to get to heaven is to believe it, then that person is a Christian. And if that person does a bad thing it does not automatically disqualify them from your club.

Those who follow the example of Jesus and strive to live as he lived are Christians. Words mean something, and I choose them carefully. Such as "heinous", "strive", and so on. I shouldn't need to qualify those words. The only words that need to be qualified in this conversation is "I believe Jesus is the Son of God", or "Jesus is my Savior." How do I know those who make such claims are being genuine and honest; that they truly mean it... by their actions, by their behavior.

Again, being a Christian is more than a statement, it is a way of life. If you told me your daughter is the joy of your life and you loved her, and your actions were contrary to your words, I would know your daughter is not the joy of your life and you do not truly love her.

I guess you are not a Christian then, since you haven't given up all of your earthly possessions to the poor in order to follow Jesus more closely. Also, I can tell by your politics that you do not support the idea of turning the other cheek.

I guess only mother-earth hippy pacifists are Christian.

Or is it abortion clinic bombers who are the true Christians?

Or is it the ones who create families from incest or polygamy who are true Christians? (Also supported by your god in the bible).

I guess it depends on which denomination and interpretation you follow...

Of course, I'm being sarcastic, but I hope you're not too dim to get the point. And I hope you apply the same standard to people of other religions. For example, when a Muslim bombs a building I hope you say, "Well, he's not a true Muslim, because Islam is a religion of peace" (as 99.99% of Muslims say). I am judging here, but, somehow, I doubt that's what you say in such scenario.

Jesus pretty well summed up who Christians are: Matthew 15:8, give it a peak.

If you have issues with what it means to be a Christian, take it up with Jesus.

[Deez]

Holy fuck this thread is still cruising along

[LACANO]

This is a good read for all true Christians such as Johnnyblazzed.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Johnnyblazzed]

This is a good read for all true Christians such as Johnnyblazzed.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

LACANO, check out the Veritas Forum website and YouTube channel. They have professors, scientists, scholars and so on from around the world debate and discuss God, science, philosophy, and atheism. What Harris covers in the book you listed, many, if not most, of his arguments will be addressed in those forums.

[LACANO]

This is a good read for all true Christians such as Johnnyblazzed.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

LACANO, check out the Veritas Forum website and YouTube channel. They have professors, scientists, scholars and so on from around the world debate and discuss God, science, philosophy, and atheism. What Harris covers in the book you listed, many, if not most, of his arguments will be addressed in those forums.

You seem like a smart guy.

I think we can both agree that we'll not change the other's mind. Sam Harris is amazing and I doubt any of his detractors can hold a candle to his rhetoric. I've watched many of his debates and I always feel like Harris is the LeBron to his 7th grade theological opponents.

[Johnnyblazzed]

This is a good read for all true Christians such as Johnnyblazzed.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

LACANO, check out the Veritas Forum website and YouTube channel. They have professors, scientists, scholars and so on from around the world debate and discuss God, science, philosophy, and atheism. What Harris covers in the book you listed, many, if not most, of his arguments will be addressed in those forums.

You seem like a smart guy.

I think we can both agree that we'll not change the other's mind. Sam Harris is amazing and I doubt any of his detractors can hold a candle to his rhetoric. I've watched many of his debates and I always feel like Harris is the LeBron to his 7th grade theological opponents.

I prefer Shermer and Krauss (even though Krauss has been exposed for omitting information did not support his agenda, I still find him entertaining and quite smart). My all time favorite is Hitchins.

Seriously check out the Veritas Forums. They bring in prominent atheists and agnostics to join the dicussions.

[Shill Jackson]

Sorry for not being more serious in this thread Sportswise.

I'll aim for a higher standard in the future.




Most people don't understand the moral argument. You're one of the few I would have thought got it... apparently not.

I figured you were half clowning, so no need to get butthurt Bush. Too many atheists don't get the moral argument and see it as exactly as you responded. The argument is bloody lost on them.

the "moral argument" is a fallacy

[youtube]GcJxRqTs5nk[/youtube]

[Shill Jackson]

LACANO, check out the Veritas Forum website and YouTube channel. They have professors, scientists, scholars and so on from around the world debate and discuss God, science, philosophy, and atheism. What Harris covers in the book you listed, many, if not most, of his arguments will be addressed in those forums.

You seem like a smart guy.

I think we can both agree that we'll not change the other's mind. Sam Harris is amazing and I doubt any of his detractors can hold a candle to his rhetoric. I've watched many of his debates and I always feel like Harris is the LeBron to his 7th grade theological opponents.

I prefer Shermer and Krauss (even though Krauss has been exposed for omitting information did not support his agenda, I still find him entertaining and quite smart). My all time favorite is Hitchins.

Seriously check out the Veritas Forums. They bring in prominent atheists and agnostics to join the dicussions.

Where has Krauss been exposed?
I tend to agree that while Harris is brilliant, he is about as dry as the Sahara.