4 ms·

But we also have to bring into question Christians that claim they are Christian but do not act like they are. Those people may claim to be religious, but they

But we also have to bring into question Christians that claim they are Christian but do not act like they are. Those people may claim to be religious, but they are clearly not. Does having no belief in your religion but still participating in some things mean you aren't religious at all? Really, most of this is about definition vs. Practice. Agnostics can be considered atheists in practice but their definitions differ a bit.

2muchcoffeeman 10y ago
Surely the only thing necessary to be Christian is belief in Christ and that he is our saviour or whatever?
- dpeck 10y ago
  Tolstoy, among others, would disagree.
- Alex3917 10y ago
  A more clear example would be that in the U.S., most people claim to be either theists or atheists. But in fact very few of them are actually telling the truth, in that most of them are neither theists or atheists, but that's just how they self-identify for whatever reasons. The point is that whether people self-identify as being religious or not has basically zero correlation with whether or not people are actually religious. E.g. the media often claims that atheism/non-religious/SBNR is the fastest growing religion, but there isn't really any strong evidence to support that.
  - eyelidlessness 10y ago
    > But in fact very few of them are actually telling the truth, in that most of them are neither theists or atheists, but that's just how they self-identify for whatever reasons. Orly? What's the truth?
    - Alex3917 10y ago
      If you're asking whether there's some other category they fall into, not necessarily.
      - eyelidlessness 10y ago
        You said "very few of them are actually telling the truth". I'm asking what's the truth.
        Alex3917 10y ago
        Just that they're neither atheists or theists. I.e. you're not really a theist unless you believe in an anthropomorphic god, just believing in an abstract conception of god isn't enough. And similarly you're not really an atheist unless you wouldn't believe in god even if you saw him, a position which even Richard Dawkins admits is untenable.
        eyelidlessness 10y ago
        > you're not really a theist unless you believe in an anthropomorphic god, just believing in an abstract conception of god isn't enough This is based on a pretty specific set of jargon that most people probably don't even consider. I have a hard time believing that there's enough evidence either way to say whether more people who claim they're theists are actually deists, but it doesn't serve any purpose to conclude either way. As far as colloquial usage is concerned, there are a lot of people who are honest in their conviction as believers in "god" in some form or another, even if it isn't as specific as you'd like it to be for the purposes of that classification. > And similarly you're not really an atheist unless you wouldn't believe in god even if you saw him That's just... I don't even know how to address that. Your first claim was extremely specific and conforms pretty closely to very well defined criteria, but this one drifts much further from the same set of criteria. > a position which even Richard Dawkins admits is untenable I wouldn't be surprised. Literally no one would find it tenable. Not even Richard Dawkins, who is wrong about nearly everything he says outside his professional career.
- jacalata 10y ago
  Nope! For an interesting look at "what is a Christian", you might like reading about the question "are Mormons Christian?" Mormons say they are, but other Christian churches say they are not - here's an example argument http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2012/08/27/why-mormons-are-not-christians-the-issue-of-christology/ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2012/08/27/why-...
eyelidlessness 10y ago
I don't think we need to define anything for anyone. If you identify as areligious but engage in rituals associated with one or more religions, you're areligious. If you identify as Christian but never attend services, you're Christian. If you're unsure whether there's a god or not... well it's actually hard to even be inconsistent with that, so pretty much that has to be taken on faith. I have a friend who prays before every meal, but has never held religious belief. Who the fuck is any one of us to tell them they believe something they don't?
- EdHominem 10y ago
  If your friend prays, obviously they believe there's a reason to do so. The same as if they took vitamin supplements. > Who the fuck is any one of us to tell them they believe something they don't? Who the fuck is any of us to kick down their door and yell it at them? Nobody here is doing that though. In fact, that's something religious people do to areligious people. But who are we to use the correct terminology to ourselves? Thinking beings. What's it to you?
  - eyelidlessness 10y ago
    > If your friend prays, obviously they believe there's a reason to do so. The same as if they took vitamin supplements. Maybe so. Do you know what that reason is? Are you confident in that knowledge? Would you be willing to contradict my friend if he said otherwise? > But who are we to use the correct terminology to ourselves? Thinking beings. What's it to you? How is correctness determined? If we are discussing what other people believe, we are not in a position to define it for them. We can do all sorts of other kinds of analysis: understanding how the specific beliefs affect the believer's actions; understanding the impact of those actions on the world; understanding the way those beliefs intersect with and influence other beliefs. But it is not up to us to assign belief systems to others, even if what we perceive about their beliefs or their actions doesn't conform to our idea of how beliefs work.
    - EdHominem 10y ago
      > Maybe so. Do you know what that reason is? I don't have to. But something motivated him to act, and if he's consistent he must believe it's important. > Would you be willing to contradict my friend if he said otherwise? Yeah. Of course. The same as if he said anything else obviously counterfactual. I don't care to, because your friend isn't my windmill, but... > How is correctness determined? If we are discussing what other people believe, we are not in a position to define it for them. We don't need to. The original goalposts are merely that your friend believes or not. > But it is not up to us to assign belief systems to others, "You, you'll be Muslim", "you, Hindu", etc. Funny, but that's not what we're doing. We're pointing to someone praying and saying there must be a reason. Anything less would be denying your friend's humanity. I'm sure that he has what feels like a good reason for what he does...

2muchcoffeeman 10y ago

Surely the only thing necessary to be Christian is belief in Christ and that he is our saviour or whatever?

dpeck 10y ago
Tolstoy, among others, would disagree.
Alex3917 10y ago
A more clear example would be that in the U.S., most people claim to be either theists or atheists. But in fact very few of them are actually telling the truth, in that most of them are neither theists or atheists, but that's just how they self-identify for whatever reasons. The point is that whether people self-identify as being religious or not has basically zero correlation with whether or not people are actually religious. E.g. the media often claims that atheism/non-religious/SBNR is the fastest growing religion, but there isn't really any strong evidence to support that.
- eyelidlessness 10y ago
  > But in fact very few of them are actually telling the truth, in that most of them are neither theists or atheists, but that's just how they self-identify for whatever reasons. Orly? What's the truth?
  - Alex3917 10y ago
    If you're asking whether there's some other category they fall into, not necessarily.
    - eyelidlessness 10y ago
      You said "very few of them are actually telling the truth". I'm asking what's the truth.
      - Alex3917 10y ago
        Just that they're neither atheists or theists. I.e. you're not really a theist unless you believe in an anthropomorphic god, just believing in an abstract conception of god isn't enough. And similarly you're not really an atheist unless you wouldn't believe in god even if you saw him, a position which even Richard Dawkins admits is untenable.
        eyelidlessness 10y ago
        > you're not really a theist unless you believe in an anthropomorphic god, just believing in an abstract conception of god isn't enough This is based on a pretty specific set of jargon that most people probably don't even consider. I have a hard time believing that there's enough evidence either way to say whether more people who claim they're theists are actually deists, but it doesn't serve any purpose to conclude either way. As far as colloquial usage is concerned, there are a lot of people who are honest in their conviction as believers in "god" in some form or another, even if it isn't as specific as you'd like it to be for the purposes of that classification. > And similarly you're not really an atheist unless you wouldn't believe in god even if you saw him That's just... I don't even know how to address that. Your first claim was extremely specific and conforms pretty closely to very well defined criteria, but this one drifts much further from the same set of criteria. > a position which even Richard Dawkins admits is untenable I wouldn't be surprised. Literally no one would find it tenable. Not even Richard Dawkins, who is wrong about nearly everything he says outside his professional career.
jacalata 10y ago
Nope! For an interesting look at "what is a Christian", you might like reading about the question "are Mormons Christian?" Mormons say they are, but other Christian churches say they are not - here's an example argument http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2012/08/27/why-mormons-are-not-christians-the-issue-of-christology/ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2012/08/27/why-...

eyelidlessness 10y ago

I don't think we need to define anything for anyone. If you identify as areligious but engage in rituals associated with one or more religions, you're areligious. If you identify as Christian but never attend services, you're Christian. If you're unsure whether there's a god or not... well it's actually hard to even be inconsistent with that, so pretty much that has to be taken on faith. I have a friend who prays before every meal, but has never held religious belief. Who the fuck is any one of us to tell them they believe something they don't?

EdHominem 10y ago
If your friend prays, obviously they believe there's a reason to do so. The same as if they took vitamin supplements. > Who the fuck is any one of us to tell them they believe something they don't? Who the fuck is any of us to kick down their door and yell it at them? Nobody here is doing that though. In fact, that's something religious people do to areligious people. But who are we to use the correct terminology to ourselves? Thinking beings. What's it to you?
- eyelidlessness 10y ago
  > If your friend prays, obviously they believe there's a reason to do so. The same as if they took vitamin supplements. Maybe so. Do you know what that reason is? Are you confident in that knowledge? Would you be willing to contradict my friend if he said otherwise? > But who are we to use the correct terminology to ourselves? Thinking beings. What's it to you? How is correctness determined? If we are discussing what other people believe, we are not in a position to define it for them. We can do all sorts of other kinds of analysis: understanding how the specific beliefs affect the believer's actions; understanding the impact of those actions on the world; understanding the way those beliefs intersect with and influence other beliefs. But it is not up to us to assign belief systems to others, even if what we perceive about their beliefs or their actions doesn't conform to our idea of how beliefs work.
  - EdHominem 10y ago
    > Maybe so. Do you know what that reason is? I don't have to. But something motivated him to act, and if he's consistent he must believe it's important. > Would you be willing to contradict my friend if he said otherwise? Yeah. Of course. The same as if he said anything else obviously counterfactual. I don't care to, because your friend isn't my windmill, but... > How is correctness determined? If we are discussing what other people believe, we are not in a position to define it for them. We don't need to. The original goalposts are merely that your friend believes or not. > But it is not up to us to assign belief systems to others, "You, you'll be Muslim", "you, Hindu", etc. Funny, but that's not what we're doing. We're pointing to someone praying and saying there must be a reason. Anything less would be denying your friend's humanity. I'm sure that he has what feels like a good reason for what he does...