Why are all Christians atheists?

mike the wiz,As a Christian, I am fine with calling religion superstition.Many times the etymology of a word is more useful than the common definitions, which are attached more to the practical applications of the word.Superstition has come to mean something akin to an absurdity. What is really means is useless. It is like the word 'heretic'. A heretic is someone different in every case dependng upon the view of the finger-pointer.Superstition literally means to stand outside, or over, or beyond. What a person is 'outside' of, is entirely subjective.We can have Christians calling pagans superstitious, atheists calling Christians such, and even Catholics calling other Catholics such when the go 'outside' of orthodoxy, or when they begin to use the devices of the Catholic church in an empty manner.A superstition however, is NOT a religion. It is not a religious belief. It is a mindset that makes something into an empty gesture. The problem is that from different vantage points, what is 'empty' is not the same for everyone. I can call a Wiccan ceremony empty, they can call my Eucharist empty, but its not the religion that is 'superstitious' in itself, as superstition is only the word used by those apart from this view who attempt to describe its lack of validity.In other words, nothing is a superstition except by contrast to another view. It's not a 'slur' upon religion.

My, you do have a short memory, don't you?In Message 57, Phat said:

quote:

---

We could well ask why all atheists are theists

---

to which you replied, in Message 59:

quote:

---

This would be a great question, if Atheists were constantly praying.

---

You brought up prayer, not me. I just pointed out that you don't seem to have much of an understanding of prayer.Please, at least read your own posts if you won't read mine.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

OMG! What is with you?What are you trying to argue in the first place? No materr what I write, all you do is copy and paste some tiny piece of text, give some smart ass remark and put a smiley face.Fine, you win, you're the smartest player in the game! Congratulations! Hurray!I look forward to your next post -"Tiny piece of text" - "Actually it's not pieces of text, its sentence fragments, something which you clearly don't have a good grasp of." MOVE ON

I made a small comment about the nature of prayer in response to your reference. You proceded to deny that you ever mentioned prayer and I posted the proof that you did.No need to throw a hissy-fit just because you got caught in a mistake. I made a mistake myself the other day and I'm still alive.By all means, move on. If you have something to salvage this thread, by all means present it.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Who said any belief is superstition? This a strawman of your own creation! A dictionary will tell you superstition is a belief without empircal basis which gives rise to a false conception of causation. Maybe you should google "strawman" instead? Yes it does. To believe in God is to believe in the existence (and influence) of something for which we have no empirical evidence. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Could be, but many 'fundies' did go thru a point of seriously considering fundamentalism with an open mind!

---

Again, I don't think so.I think many if not most fundamentalists who were not raised that way get into fundamentalism out of emotional need.I mean, there's a reason that Mormon missionaries (and other cult/religious missionaries) target young, emotionally vulnerable college students, away from home and mostly on their own for the first time.This is not due to the academic environment encouraging "open-minded consideration" in the students, but because college can be very lonely.Easy pickings.

Now hang on a minute, did you or did you not mention damnation? So is it belief in God that's superstitious, or belief in common Christian interpretations? There is no empirical evidence he does not exist, so to believe he doesn't, would be superstitious, according to that illogic.

Hi Ana Using the common definition stops people from puling their own definition out of their butts, like we see Nuggin and co doing right now.They try and force something to work - like trying to fit a brick through a straw.

Please, you're flailing now.

Excuse me? http://www.dictionary.comIt may not be the biggest website in the world, but it certainly doesn't fit "in my butt".It's this kind of crazy ass bullcrap coming from you gdamn fundies that results in every single one of these thread crashing and burning into these typical garbage arguements.Mike - "I don't accept any definition of any word other than my own. Prove me wrong."I'm amazed you learned to use a keyboard at all.

Now who's flailing?FYI, there are no fundies on this thread.Substance, please.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

It's called reductio ad absurdum.Example;Guy says X is true.Mike says that if X is true then F - which is clearly false therefore X is false.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This is a superstitious belief that is common to many christians even if you reject it yourself. Are you denying this? This is an old canard. If there is no emprical evidence of God then one must logically proceed from that point. Not to do so is illogical and therefore superstitious.Do you concern yourself with the fact that there is no proof that space unicorns don't exist?Remember it is you who is proposing an influential agent for whom no evidence is either forthcoming or required. In this sense God is irrelevent whether he exists or not.For example, one might believe that black cats bring bad luck. The fact that back cats exist still doesn't mean that they produce bad luck!Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Nug, calm down, it's only a discussion.As Ringo said, there aren't any fundies taking part in the thread. That means I am not one.

To use your own logic -You have provided no evidence that you are not a fundy, therefore, by my personal definition, you are one.Debate that, oh, and out of hand, I won't accept any definitions for "fundy" "definition" or any verbs other than the one's I personally have written down on a piece of paper.Let's see you deal with your own bullshit for a change.