True and false christians ?

Adventfred
atheist
Adventfred's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
True and false christians ?

how the fuck do they know atheist's were never true  christians. 

i had a partner told me that recently 

what is the fucking criteria for with to discern a true christian from a false one 

 

theists i welcome you to answer the question also atheists you can respond

 

have you been told this 


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
@surprise:  I'm sorry, I

@surprise:  I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were a Poe account, I was taking you seriously for a while!

 

Carry on.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4198
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:So on the

mellestad wrote:

So on the second point he most likely would have disagreed, ok.

 

On the first point, if you came to a Jew of the time and said:

1.  The creation story did not happen in a week.

2.  The order of creation is totally wrong.

3.  Adam and Eve were not the first humans, indeed there were no 'first' humans.

4.  God was not involved, or needed for the creation of humans.

5.  Anything else I'm not thinking of that evolution implies.

There were popular Jewish traditions that would be able to integrate that into their worldview?

 

I guess I'm skeptical of the notion that there was any Jewish movement of the time would be willing to abandon the entire line of thought involving a deity influencing creation, or that anyone of any religion of the time would accept a non-supernatural explanation for the existence of humans.

 

However, I freely admit that I am not a student of the era, so I'm not saying I believe or know anything.

 

Summary:  So I said, "Yea, for the two to live in the same brain at the same time you have to totally discount literalism in the Bible.  Once you've done that you've essentially made a new religion, because it isn't the religion that Jesus (if he existed) believed in if you strip out creationism and the arbitrary line between humans and other animals."

Based on what you are saying, the first sentence is invalid.  Is the second?

 

ok, let me start by saying that "creationism" is a very modern and very loaded word, and i think we might be getting some wires crossed on a couple of the nuances, so i'll offer a few thoughts.

first of all, to strip out biblical literalism is not the same as stripping out the idea that yahweh created the world.  after all, the hebrew bible was inspired by yahwism, not vice versa. 

let me address your statements one at a time based on the evidence i've encountered.

mellestad wrote:

1.  The creation story did not happen in a week.

assuming you mean a literal solar (or, in the case of jews, lunar) week, i don't think you'd encounter fierce opposition, certainly not at the level of our present-day creationists, especially if the jew had embraced a hellenistic or semi-hellenistic cosmogony.  i'm not saying no one would try to argue with you, but imo it's unlikely any would be offended.

mellestad wrote:

2.  The order of creation is totally wrong.

pretty much ditto above.

mellestad wrote:

3.  Adam and Eve were not the first humans, indeed there were no 'first' humans.

here you would likely encounter fierce opposition, not because it threatens the integrity of the text, but because it threatens the jewish idea of man's special place in creation.  it's not a question of biblical literalism but of religious anthropology, which has been a central element of judaism throughout its history.

mellestad wrote:

4.  God was not involved, or needed for the creation of humans.

this of course is unacceptable, but not because it contradicts the text.  in fact, let me emphasize that a first-century jew (if he's educated) would be far more likely to argue for god's existence using plato, aristotle, or even philo, than he would using the hebrew bible, especially if you were a gentile.  the hebrew bible is not meant to be an apologetic for god's existence, and besides, it's not meant for gentiles anyway, so it would be almost a source of shame to share it with you. 

if you were a fellow jew, however, he'd be more likely just to cuss you out at best or try to have you excommunicated or even arrested at worst.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Interesting.  Thanks for

Interesting.  Thanks for the info IW!

 

I'll stick to the claim that evolution is an idea that Jesus would not appreciate, and stay away from mentioning anything about literalism.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4198
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Interesting.

mellestad wrote:

Interesting.  Thanks for the info IW!

 

I'll stick to the claim that evolution is an idea that Jesus would not appreciate, and stay away from mentioning anything about literalism.

 

that sounds right, but good luck explaining evolution to jesus, or anyone from the first century!

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Adventfred
atheist
Adventfred's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist


100percentAtheist wrote:

Adventfred wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:

Adventfred wrote:

how the fuck do they know atheist's were never true  christians. 

i had a partner told me that recently 

what is the fucking criteria for with to discern a true christian from a false one 

 

theists i welcome you to answer the question also atheists you can respond

 

have you been told this 

 

Hi Adventfred,

 

Let's think of an ex-spouse.  It is likely (not for every ex though, of course) that he/she will make the comments about his/her ex similar to this: "She/he never truly loved me".

I think the same "logic" applies to christians.  Many of them try to label you as a weak untrue believer instead of looking for answers within their own belief system.  Of course, they are ignorant, but the same psychological patterns can be found in other groups of individuals, not just believers.

The bottom line, by telling you that you was never a true christian, your partner may very likely to protect unconsciously her/his unmatured intellect and her/his narrow intellect comfort zone.  It has nothing to do with you, but more with your partner.  

Best,

100%

 

Fortunate_S,

Have you seen the movie "Doubt"?

100%

 

good to know the problem is not me Smiling also when i said partner i was not talking about my girlfriend lol ( i know you didnt say that just letting everyone know ) 

When i started dating my current girl we both were christofags but as i went thru the stressful change i feed it to her and now we both are atheist im strong and she is weak 

 

Actually, I thought of a business partner ... Smiling

I'm puzzled ...  what are your definitions of "strong" and "weak" atheists?  Do you mean by these terms "atheist" and "atheist agnostic", respectively? 

 

 

 

Strong i would say is like this 

i believe that the probability of god existing is 0% Which could mean i think a god doesnt exist but my girl(maybe ex Sad ) just doesnt believe in a God 

Well thats what she tells me 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15765
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
What gets me is the mistake

What gets me is the mistake that even some atheists make.

They falsely, like theists will say, "You cant prove or disprove" which misses the point , even if I agreed with that statement, which I don't.

The word can also be applied to time frame in regards to past, present and future.

My current position is that I am an outright and strong atheist as far a past and present claims. But "technically" I can only look at the future and call myself an agnostic atheist. It means only that my position might change with changing data, although highly unlikely. I still hold the "off" position in any case.

As far as not being able to disprove something, that is not the way logic works. One reading this cant disprove it if I claimed I was getting my dick sucked by Heidi Clume right now. "Technically" it is possible since I exist and Heidi Clume exists, but would anyone have a problem saying "bullshit"? There are lots of things we "technically" cant disprove, but don't waste much time trashing absurd claims. Which is why the burden of proof being on the claimant is a much better use of logic.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Adventfred
atheist
Adventfred's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:What gets me

Brian37 wrote:

What gets me is the mistake that even some atheists make.

They falsely, like theists will say, "You cant prove or disprove" which misses the point , even if I agreed with that statement, which I don't.

The word can also be applied to time frame in regards to past, present and future.

My current position is that I am an outright and strong atheist as far a past and present claims. But "technically" I can only look at the future and call myself an agnostic atheist. It means only that my position might change with changing data, although highly unlikely. I still hold the "off" position in any case.

As far as not being able to disprove something, that is not the way logic works. One reading this cant disprove it if I claimed I was getting my dick sucked by Heidi Clume right now. "Technically" it is possible since I exist and Heidi Clume exists, but would anyone have a problem saying "bullshit"? There are lots of things we "technically" cant disprove, but don't waste much time trashing absurd claims. Which is why the burden of proof being on the claimant is a much better use of logic.

 

  i never looked at it that way before 

but i have to say this why do people say you cant disprove or prove god ? to me you can falsify any man made claim based on the fact that its man made 

for instance there is a fly cake filled with ice cream behind mars can i disprove this ..... of course cake is a man made object or thing so yes i can falsify it 

the same goes with god 

 

What do you guys think i can elaborate more if needed