Confusion of religion and Christianity

nds1987
Theist
nds1987's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Confusion of religion and Christianity

I am sad to see that our country has misused vocabulary. People have replaced Christianity as a word with religion, and vise-versa. Christianity is one type of religion. Just because they countries "Brian" named were atheist only means they do not believe in the God of Christianity. "Kelly" and "Brian" themselves agreed that there are different Gods. They cannot possible know what god every person in that country believes. Beyond that, the part that striked me the most in this debate was when Kirk mentioned some "idiots" (which were definately not idiots) and said that they believed in God. People have also replaced the phrase "believe in God" with the word Christianity. You can acknowledge a God without believing that rest of the religion. Albert Einstein KNEW there is a God, yet, like Kirk explained, Eistein did not believe in the Christian God. I feel that Atheists need to stop using terms in incorrect ways, namely "religion" and "Christianity" only because they are two different things. I also was sad to see that "Brian" called Kirk a numbnut when he was showing the picture of the 'bullfrog' and others. These two had no respect of Ray and Kirms view. I have met Atheists who are respectful too what I believe, and have debated. "Kelly" and "Brian" came with the objective to not listen to anybody's words.


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Dude, it was Ray Comfort

Dude, it was Ray Comfort that claimed he could prove god's existence scientifically without using the Bible and he broke the rules. Also, he didn't have any scientific evidence.

 Religion and Christianity are two different things? What the hell are you talking about?!


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
nds1987 wrote: . You can

nds1987 wrote:
. You can acknowledge a God without believing that rest of the religion. Albert Einstein KNEW there is a God, yet, like Kirk explained, Eistein did not believe in the Christian God.

He only explained that because I, sitting in the first row, said "Einstein wasn't a Christian".  If you go back and look, you'll see that he says Einstein didn't believe in the christian god as a terse afterthought, because he's responding to me.

 

Quote:

I feel that Atheists need to stop using terms in incorrect ways, namely "religion" and "Christianity" only because they are two different things.

I agree. Now can christians stop confusing agnosticism for atheism?

Seriously, you are right that many terms in these debates are conflated. 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


nds1987
Theist
nds1987's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for commenting.

Thanks for commenting. Religion is a general term. There are many different religions, such as Hinduism, Islam, Jewish...etc. Christianity is one of these...that is a religion. People need to be specific. "Brian" kept saying religion, not Christianity. Ray and Kirk were there to prove the God of Christianity, not all gods of all religions.


nds1987
Theist
nds1987's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Thank You for your comment.

Thank You for your comment. Just to start off, I don't think that the only reason they mentioned Einstein would be because you said it, though you could have striked their memory. If you have ever read any of Ray Comfort's tracks for witnessing, he does mention Einstein's (and other people he mentioned) beliefs about a God. Forgive me, for I typed something wrong. I wasn't saying that Einstein doesn't believe in the Christian God, I meant that he doesn't necssarily "bow" to Him or have faith in Him. I'm sorry for that confusion.

 

On your other comment about agnostics vs. atheism, I would have to say (and God along with many Christians, like Kirk and Ray) that there is no such thing as an atheist. Even if you look at it from a Philosophical point of view and not a Christian one, you would have to understand that nobody in the whole world can have absolute knowledge. To say there is no God, you would have to have absolute knowledge, only because we weren't around when the earth was formed. The same would go for other theories of origins of life. You cannot rationally say that there is no gold in China unless you have been everywhere in China, checked under every rock, and have seen everybody's earrings to see if they are gold. (That is a Ray Comfort thing). Overall, it is irrational to say there is no God only because you can not prove that there is no God. Once again absolute knowledge is impossible to have.

 From taking Philosophical and Biology courses, I've learned that some things just can't be ''explained'' without being around in the beginning of all life.

Why not just be safe; repent, confess, and believe. God has revealed Himself to everybody in some way. Once again, thank you for the comment. I appreciate it.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Why not just be

Quote:
Why not just be safe; repent, confess, and believe. God has revealed Himself to everybody in some way.

OH NO!!!! It's "The Return of the Big Ugly Pascal Monster, Part CIII"!!!

Look, you would do well to do some perusing, because even the staunchest theists here shy away from using this argument, known as Pascal's Wager. In fact, Pascal himself knew it to be a flawed argument, saying that it was not meant to be a proof of god in the strictest sense.

Briefly, here's why it sucks so much:

*Belief is not a choice. We believe what we do because our brains do the best they can with the information present. If you think I can choose to believe in god, then demonstrate your ability to choose what to believe by deciding to believe that the earth is flat. Once you are completely convinced the earth is flat, you will have proven psychologists wrong, and can disregard this part of my post.

*Pascal's Wager leaves out options... lots of them. You can start by noting this:

Either there is a god or there is not.

If there is not, atheists are correct, and will just die and not suffer bliss or torture in an afterlife.

If there is a god, then:

Either he is known to man or not.

If he is not, then everyone is wrong, and we have no idea what will happen upon death.

If he is known to man, then:

Either he is truthful or he is not.

If he is not truthful, then nothing said by any religion is trustworthy and we cannot know what will happen upon death.

If he is truthful, then:

Either he wants us to know about him or he doesn't.

If he doesn't, then it is unlikely that anything said about him is accurate, and we cannot know what will happen upon death.

If he does, then:

Either he can communicate with man or he can't.

If he can't, then we cannot know what will happen upon death.

If he can, then it stands to reason that he has communicated with man about his nature. If this is true, then:

Either man copied it down right or they did not.

If they did not, then we cannot know what will happen upon death.

If they did, then it stands to reason that one of the holy books written by man accurately describes god. If this is true, then:

At least one of the books about god written by men is accurate. If this is true, then it is:

A) The Koran

B) The Torah

C) The Bible

D) The Book of Mormon

E) The Babalonian Tablets

F) The account by the early Chinese

G) The account by the early Indians

H) The account by the Mayans

I) The account by the Incas

J) The account by the Cherokee

K) (Insert here a string of gods that have been written about in the history of man. It ends somewhere around ZZZZZZZZ.....)

If, after going through this entire process, and somehow producing a logical reason to believe that a god is more likely than no god (a very, very tough feat!), then you have to choose between literally thousands of deities, many of whom promise their own brand of torture for not believing in them.

So, to make a torturously long story short...

No, thank you. I will not bother "being safe" and believing in your little god just because you're afraid of him.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10634
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
nds1987 wrote: Thanks for

nds1987 wrote:
Thanks for commenting. Religion is a general term. There are many different religions, such as Hinduism, Islam, Jewish...etc. Christianity is one of these...that is a religion. People need to be specific. "Brian" kept saying religion, not Christianity. Ray and Kirk were there to prove the God of Christianity, not all gods of all religions.

Catch 22. If they mentioned nothing but christianity, they'd be lambasted for picking on christians. By saying religion, it isn't applicable. And every religion is subject to the same fundamental problems christianity is subject to, so the term can and does apply in such a way.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Why not just be

Quote:
Why not just be safe; repent, confess, and believe

Why not be safe and repent confess and believe for ALL OTHER GODS? 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Overall, it is

Quote:
Overall, it is irrational to say there is no God only because you can not prove that there is no God. Once again absolute knowledge is impossible to have.

Somebody told you something wrong, and you believed them. Atheists, on the whole, don't say "I can prove there is no god." At least the smart ones don't. Atheists simply say, "You have not proven that there is a god, and I see no evidence."

You're an atheist with regard to Zeus. Do you call yourself an A-Zeusist? Why not? You can't prove with certainty that he doesn't exist, can you? Why don't you believe in him, then?

All atheists do is stand around twiddling their thumbs. It's the theists that do all the claiming! You claim to know that your god exists. Let's see the proof! If you can prove it, after you receive your nobel prize, I'll make sure I'm in the line to thank you for your contribution to humanity.

Quote:
From taking Philosophical and Biology courses, I've learned that some things just can't be ''explained'' without being around in the beginning of all life.

I'm sorry to inform you that you didn't pay very close attention in your classes. Some things are not currently explained. This does not mean they cannot be explained. Only that they are not explained.

Out of curiosity, can you prove that something is unprovable? Let's try something simple. Prove that you cannot prove that aliens did not visit the planet 8.7 billion years ago.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Tyl3r04
Posts: 117
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
nds1987 wrote: I also was

nds1987 wrote:
I also was sad to see that "Brian" called Kirk a numbnut when he was showing the picture of the 'bullfrog' and others. 

 I'm very tolerant and respectful of others beliefs, even Kirks and Rays beliefs. But, I would have said the same exact thing in the situation because of the simple fact that Kirk had no idea what he was talking about. How he was trying to disprove evolution is not how evolution even works. He did not even understand the fundamentals of evolution. Kirk came into that date with distorted preconceived notions of what he thought evolution was and didn't even bother to do any true research on it. It is obvious with how he tried to debunk Evolution.

"Why would God send his only son to die an agonizing death to redeem an insignificant bit of carbon?"-Victor J. Stenger.


Tyl3r04
Posts: 117
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
nds1987 wrote:

[MOD EDIT - removed duplicate post]


Tyl3r04
Posts: 117
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
nds1987 wrote:I also was

Edit: Sorry double post.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
American Atheist

American Atheist wrote:

Dude, it was Ray Comfort that claimed he could prove god's existence scientifically without using the Bible and he broke the rules. Also, he didn't have any scientific evidence.

Religion and Christianity are two different things? What the hell are you talking about?!

A lot of Christians operate under the delusion that Christianity is "not a religion, but a personal relationship with Jesus Christ."

I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard that tripe. 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


nds1987
Theist
nds1987's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
Why not just be safe; repent, confess, and believe. God has revealed Himself to everybody in some way.

*Belief is not a choice. We believe what we do because our brains do the best they can with the information present. If you think I can choose to believe in god, then demonstrate your ability to choose what to believe by deciding to believe that the earth is flat. Once you are completely convinced the earth is flat, you will have proven psychologists wrong, and can disregard this part of my post.

 I disagree. Belief is a choice. I can continue to believe that the stove is not hot when it is turned on.  Though I have had experiences to it, I can act ignorant to the truth, and it would be my belief. You seem to suggest that just because something isn't proven, than it can't be a belief. That is incorrect. There are beliefs of loch ness monsters and big foots, and even aliens. These haven't been proven, but people still believe in them. 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
That doesn't make it a

That doesn't make it a choice, that just makes the people dumb who believe in that crap.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Got your pm. I don't think

Got your pm.

I don't think your religion is true, so I see no reason to believe it (As I think I am right), but you tell me to do as you do JUST IN CASE.

But this logic somehow doesn't apply to you, why?

Becuase you think your right, JUST LIKE ME! But not only do you think you are right, You think you are right becuase:

Quote:
only because it deals with unconditional love
 

As long as you aren't gay, as long as you obey, and for some people, as long as you go to church on a sunday.

Oh, and don't have sex before you tie the not, and don't have sex if your not going to have children.

As long as you are preaching, if you are a catholic, if you are a protestant.

Should I continue?

Quote:
No other religion states to put somebody else before your self,
 

I'm pretty sure most religions say that.

Quote:
They all deal with doing something better for the world to get something in return.

Gotta convert those heathens, getting more christians is good for the world.

 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10634
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I got a message that I

I got a message that I responded to about this topic, and felt I should post my response here for others to see on the off chance they had similar or identical questions or comments.

Quote:
Thanks for commenting. Religion is a general term. There are many different religions, such as Hinduism, Islam, Jewish...etc. Christianity is one of these...that is a religion. People need to be specific. "Brian" kept saying religion, not Christianity. Ray and Kirk were there to prove the God of Christianity, not all gods of all religions.

I agree. But we have to realize that not just christians and atheists are watching the debate, and that the message isn't that christianity is false, but that all god based religions are false. Christianity is merely the first to step up to the RRS in a debate. The moslems and jews haven't had the balls to yet, if ever. I'll give christians that much.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Vastet wrote:
Catch 22. If they mentioned nothing but christianity, they'd be lambasted for picking on christians. By saying religion, it isn't applicable. And every religion is subject to the same fundamental problems christianity is subject to, so the term can and does apply in such a way.

Quote:
I understand where you are going with this, but they used support about the Bible and not all books. So they did single out Christianity, which does bother me, nor Ray, nor Kirk. Kirk and Ray didn't go to back all religions. Also, questions asked dealt specifically with Christianity. Thanks for the comment!

The problem here is that the bible wasn't supposed to be used in the first place. Sapient and Kelly didn't go into that debate to debate the bible, they went there to counter the claims of scientific evidence for a god(not even the christian god, just a god). Ray and Kirk brought the bible(and christianity) into it, and made it fair game by doing so. If they'd brought in the quran and the moslem faith instead, then it would have been the quran and moslems that was attacked instead of the bible.

Thanks for the response. Smiling

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


nds1987
Theist
nds1987's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
...

Christianity does deal with supplying the doctrine to non-believers so they can make a conscience decision of their own. Though, Christians do not get anything in return for helping to convert non-believe.  Many religions recieve something in return for their duties, such as virgins when they dies. As for atheists, you recieve "freedom" from God given morals and scriptual don'ts. In other words, your conscience doesn't react to certain things that a Christian conscience would react to(masturbation being lust = adultery or hate = murder). Therefore allowing yourself to be able to provide certain pleasures without guilt. Overall, I am saying that many religions to recieve something in return in there beilefs, or disbeliefs, something I have found Christianity does not have, whcih helps me to see that Christianity is a sound truth. No argument needed, I was just explaining what I meant in a previous post to clear up what I meant.