h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

There might be an interesting discussion to be had on Communism - and particularly the atrocities of Stalin and Mao - and its consequences for atheism. But I don't think Hitchens' 'they don't count, they were religions too' argument cuts it.

Gif

Try thinking of "Religion" in the archaic definition -scrupulous conformity:conscientiousness - a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

<<But I think this does show that Vicky and I might be able to agree that nobody should be saying >

Sorry, Caesar, still no agreement! You don't fit even the most basic definition of a Christian, a defining characteristic of which, is that you *must* believe in God, and you've already said you don't.

The people I referred to didn't know me from Adam to coin a rather dull and clichèd phrase, they had no idea of my beliefs (in the case of the science fiction incident it was a conversation in a waiting room, sparked by the book I was reading.) I on the other hand, do know about your unbeliefs as you've been most obligingly forthcoming.

'Sorry, Caesar, still no agreement!'



Oh, well.

Fortunately it really doesn't matter what term you claim ownership to -- your claim is invalid. You do not own the term Christian and you do not have the right to deny it to me or anyone else (certainly not on the authority of a single wikipedia article ).

<>

Ghood ghrief! I never claimed ownership of the term! I just don't understand why you want to be called Christian, in the first place, and how you can realistically claim to be one, when you don't believe any of it!

Muslims, or Jews would not be as sanguine as I am about it, trust me on this.

You can call yourself a if you want, it doesn't make you one!

but you see, you say that certain things are necessary (belief in god, belief in the literal resurrection, etc.) while others think other things are necessary (the eschewing of science fiction, the elimination of single parent families). Certainly most who call themselves Christian seem to cast there vote with you on the two items I mentioned above, but Christianity isn't a democracy, is it? You and I both know that there are lots of people out there who call themselves Christians who have beliefs that are all along every spectrum of beliefs imaginable. Can we acknowledge each other's right to use the term of themselves?

I'm not asking that you or anyone else call me a Christian; I am, however, hoping that you wouldn't try to tell me that I somehow am not allowed to use the term of myself.

>Muslims, or Jews would not be as sanguine as I am about it, trust me on this.

I've actually been told by a Muslim that I (like everyone else) am a Muslim, I just don't know it!

Gif

I've heard something similar said by Mormons

I've been told I'm a bipolar of the angry sort. Well not exactly told, but read. One day I snatched my file from the psychiatrist desk and ran off with to see what had been written about what/who I am. I returned it the next day.


And strangely enough I think he had it about right...

Apparently there's a get-out clause with Mormons though. They baptise the dead into their religion, but they need a living person to be baptised in place of the dead person (are you following this?)

The substitute has to be 'pure' though, which means no drinking unless you've confessed about it afterwards. I met one ex-Mormon who said he'd been baptised several times, for several different people, but since this was in his teenage years when he'd been drinking and smoking dope behind his parents' back they don't count.

It's my fond hope that the Mormons haven't yet found my family tree. Failing that, I hope I was baptised with a sinner as a substitute, so it doesn't count.

Gif

>>Muslims, or Jews would not be as sanguine as I am about it, trust me on this

Nuh-uh. Jews - of the orthodox variety, granted; matrilearity is everything. But the standard Muslim line is that if someone declares themselves to be a Muslim, nobody is entitled to judge otherwise. Only god can do that.

But what's at stake here? Just Caesar's self-declaration of Christianity (which, I admit, I find strange. I'm of the 'wouldn't want to join any club that would have me as a member' school). Doesn't it open up wider possibilities of arbitrarily dismissing strains of Christian thought which are invonveniently at odds with a self-defined mainstream: 'They're not *real* Christianity. A fundamental criticism of Christianity (or any religion) is that it's hopelessly open to individual interpretation.

That is exactly what is at stake here, the arbitrary dismissal of strains that are inconvenient.

On the subject of everybody is a Mormon/Muslim/etc. they just don't know it yet:

I would think that Christian Universalists would say something quite similar, wouldn't they?

caeser, why is it important to you that you choose the label, 'Christian' for yourself?

because it is my heritage. My ancestors were devout and perhaps not so devout Christians of various denominations. Their religion informs my history and the history of my world, good and bad. I do not have an athiest heritage, whatever that could possibly mean. I do not have an athiest ancestry. I quite happily embrace and respect my ancestors and I respect and honour their beliefs by confessing to myself that I am a product of their lives, which were and are Christian lives.

If anyone wants to say that I'm not a Christian, that's dandy for them, but it is meaningless for me: I know whence I come.


But the point really is, no one can demonstrate an authority which allows such a denial. That has implications far larger than what this one person wants to use as a label.

>I do not have an athiest ancestry.

Ah, but everyone is an atheist! It's just that some atheists disbelieve in one more God than others.

Gif

If there's one thing the New Athiests (tm) need to do it is to find some new talking points. I am so sick of hearing Dawkins say that exact same sentence about Thor and Zeus and Apollo every time he speaks. It is very tired.

I meant to add, very tired, but true.

Marx had a different attitude:

'If all these people are Marxists, then I'm not.'

Tal asked: <>

If the christian experience is a genuine reality...albeit unprovable to those who disbelieve in a spiritual realm...then Paul's words in the New Testament need to be seriously considered in order to gain an understanding of the concept of 'SCS'. For example: Ephesians 4:18 'They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God.' or 2 Cor 4:4 'The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel...' Or Luke's account of the walk to Emmaus..Luke 24 : 31 'Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him..'

My own experience may serve to illustrate. Before I became a believer, John Bunyan's 'Pilgrim's Progress' made absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. After my conversion however, the entire book seemed to put into words the many and various experiences I was entering into.

Obviously, Tal, for someone who rejects the christian faith as nonsense, the term 'sanctified common sense' will be meaningless. I suspect this probably explains the misunderstanding.

Finally, apologies for using bible verses which will cause offence to sincerely committed atheists...no offence was intended, but the verses needed to be quoted in order to explain a point.

mikey2

Hey mikey we did Bunyan's, Pilgrims Progress at school. I absolutely loved it and 'got it' immediately. Maybe not quite like I would if I was a Christian, but not far off; it's a great book.

PS the blackbird didn't sing last night. I think it needed to take the night off.