|
|
Post by lordsrednuas on Oct 15, 2018 9:34:11 GMT
There is much confusion about what actually makes someone an atheist. A lot of this confusion is perpetuated by religious teachers (that either don't understand themselves, or seek to deceive their 'flock'), but a substantial amount of confusion exists among atheists as well, as colloquial and philosophical definitions are often used interchangeably.
In it's most basic form, atheism is simply the state of not being convinced of a deities existence.
However this broad definition includes demographics that are often not intended by the term. Some forms of Buddhism, Ancestor Worship and other religions have no deities (and thus makes their adherents atheist by this definition).
The colloquial use of atheism is a refinement of the above definition, introducing a 'non-religious' caveat.
This excludes Buddhists, Ancestor Worshipers, Pagans etc.. However it is important to remember that it says nothing about other superstitious or spiritual convictions.
Philosophical atheism is more specific, as a conviction that no deities exist (an important distinction from a lack of conviction either way).
However this again introduces Buddhists etc. (at least those that are convinced that deities do not exist).
This is usually used the same way colloquial atheism is.
A conviction held by a non-religious person that no deities exist. Again it is important to remember that it says nothing about other superstitious or spiritual convictions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Oct 15, 2018 15:12:39 GMT
So why are they used interchangeably? It's a bit confusing when you want to label someone I think Shrug
|
|
|
|
Post by lordsrednuas on Oct 15, 2018 15:32:19 GMT
It can be confusing, thus why I wrote this post.
No more confusing than someone saying they are a Christian. Catholic, Baptist, Anglican, Orthodox ect.?
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Oct 15, 2018 20:28:04 GMT
It can be confusing, thus why I wrote this post. No more confusing than someone saying they are a Christian. Catholic, Baptist, Anglican, Orthodox ect.? Some of those denominations don't consider themselves Christian at times. Like as a Christian myself, most of the denominations you listed are not Christian to me  since they have extra doctrines than just bible. So they have some roots from Christianity but are a new religion mixed with other stuff. Shrug |
|
|
|
Post by lordsrednuas on Oct 16, 2018 0:47:25 GMT
Religions (particularly Christianity and Islam) have a habit of declaring different sects as not members of the religion.
This is a result of the deep convictions that 'I'm right, therefore those that disagree are wrong'.
I'm not surprised that you declare some of the example denominations as not Christian, but rest assured, to those who study religion (and aren't themselves bound by doctrine to denounce one or more others) consider all of them and more Christians.
You need to go as far away as Islam to truly become a new religion. Even examples such as Mormonism are blurring the lines between being a new religion and a sect of the old.
Are you familiar with the informal 'No true Scotsman' fallacy?
It describes a mistake in reasoning whereby you can exclude any from a group that do not fit a personal purity test. e.g. "No true Scotsman lies with an English woman." (Thus declaring those who have to not really be Scotsman), "No true Scotsman has brown hair." (Thus declaring those who do to not really be Scotsman)
The best definition for Christianity is simply 'a follower of the person and teachings of Jesus Christ'.
I'm not going to tell someone they aren't a Christian because their cannon has a different number of books, or they interpret verses differently to another sect. As long as they meet the definition as a follower of Jesus I'll accept that they are Christian.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Oct 16, 2018 1:30:49 GMT
Religions (particularly Christianity and Islam) have a habit of declaring different sects as not members of the religion. This is a result of the deep convictions that 'I'm right, therefore those that disagree are wrong'. I'm not surprised that you declare some of the example denominations as not Christian, but rest assured, to those who study religion (and aren't themselves bound by doctrine to denounce one or more others) consider all of them and more Christians. You need to go as far away as Islam to truly become a new religion. Even examples such as Mormonism are blurring the lines between being a new religion and a sect of the old. Are you familiar with the informal 'No true Scotsman' fallacy? It describes a mistake in reasoning whereby you can exclude any from a group that do not fit a personal purity test. e.g. "No true Scotsman lies with an English woman." (Thus declaring those who have to not really be Scotsman), "No true Scotsman has brown hair." (Thus declaring those who do to not really be Scotsman) The best definition for Christianity is simply 'a follower of the person and teachings of Jesus Christ'. I'm not going to tell someone they aren't a Christian because their cannon has a different number of books, or they interpret verses differently to another sect. As long as they meet the definition as a follower of Jesus I'll accept that they are Christian. Yeah I'll call someone a Christian if they follow all the things Jesus said. But take mormons for example. Jesus said that after we die there will be no more marriages and we'll be like angels in spirit form. But they don't follow this because they follow what Joseph Smith said that we will live on different planets and have kids. So how are they following Jesus if Jesus didn't say that? To me they're followers of a man named Joseph Smith. |
|
|
|
Post by lordsrednuas on Oct 16, 2018 1:44:01 GMT
Probably a discussion better suited for a different thread. But briefly, they are following what they believe Jesus said and did.
You are (unfortunately) committing the no true Scotsman fallacy. Because these groups have a different cannon, and/or a different interpretation of the cannon you share, you are declaring them not Christian.
Would you agree that Sunnis & Shiites are both Islamic?
Because while I (and presumably you as well) would classify them both as Islam, there are members of both sects denouncing the other as 'not true Muslims'.
It can be hard to see when you are in the midst of the forest, so please don't think that I'm attacking you.
|
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Oct 16, 2018 1:50:33 GMT
Probably a discussion better suited for a different thread. But briefly, they are following what they believe Jesus said and did. You are (unfortunately) committing the no true Scotsman fallacy. Because these groups have a different cannon, and/or a different interpretation of the cannon you share, you are declaring them not Christian. Would you agree that Sunnis & Shiites are both Islamic? Because while I (and presumably you as well) would classify them both as Islam, there are members of both sects denouncing the other as 'not true Muslims'. It can be hard to see when you are in the midst of the forest, so please don't think that I'm attacking you. If the canon is different than what the Bible says, and not by personal interpretation, then it isn't Christian. It is as simple as that. You can call it whatever fallacy you like, but it's the truth. |
|
|
|
Post by lordsrednuas on Oct 16, 2018 2:15:54 GMT
The cannon is the Bible.
The books included are the cannon.
Some different sects have a different cannon (thus different scriptures included in their Bible).
Different sects have added and removed content throughout history, and while this has become rare in the modern day, exclusion of books or passages has become commonplace. Don't take them out of the Bible, just don't talk about them.
The first of the Biblical cannons was established during the 5th century. Hundreds of years after the formation of Christianity, about a hundred years since it's official adoption by the Roman Empire.
Even this is a simplification, as there were attempts both before and after this event to collect and compile a definitive scripture.
Irenaeus had a 21 book NT (he didn't use Philemon, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 3 John and Jude). This was a 2nd century attempt.
By the 3rd century Philemon was more generally accepted, but the disputed texts had grown to include 2 John and Revelations.
This argument over what is cannon has persisted throughout the entire history of Christianity.
There is no doubt that the vast majority of early Christians would decry your Bible as blasphemy (It has Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 3 John and Jude after all).
While I do not expect you to accept that those with a different cannon are right, perhaps you could at least accept that they honestly believe they are right, and they honestly believe they are following Jesus.
Which surely should make them as much a Christian (if a mistaken one) in your eyes as you would be in the 1st century Christians eyes.
|
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Oct 16, 2018 2:44:56 GMT
The cannon is the Bible. The books included are the cannon. Some different sects have a different cannon (thus different scriptures included in their Bible). Different sects have added and removed content throughout history, and while this has become rare in the modern day, exclusion of books or passages has become commonplace. Don't take them out of the Bible, just don't talk about them. The first of the Biblical cannons was established during the 5th century. Hundreds of years after the formation of Christianity, about a hundred years since it's official adoption by the Roman Empire. Even this is a simplification, as there were attempts both before and after this event to collect and compile a definitive scripture. Irenaeus had a 21 book NT (he didn't use Philemon, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 3 John and Jude). This was a 2nd century attempt. By the 3rd century Philemon was more generally accepted, but the disputed texts had grown to include 2 John and Revelations. This argument over what is cannon has persisted throughout the entire history of Christianity. There is no doubt that the vast majority of early Christians would decry your Bible as blasphemy (It has Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 3 John and Jude after all). While I do not expect you to accept that those with a different cannon are right, perhaps you could at least accept that they honestly believe they are right, and they honestly believe they are following Jesus. Which surely should make them as much a Christian (if a mistaken one) in your eyes as you would be in the 1st century Christians eyes. That simply isn't true for so many denominations; the Mormons have the book of Mormon and Joseph Smith, the Catholics have the Catholic Catechism and the pope, the Orthodox have their own Catechism and their patriarch, many denominations observe creeds that aren't in the Bible, JW's use a completely false translation of the Bible and base their canon on that, Seventh Day Adventist Churches believe in the prophecies of Ellen G. White, many denominations believe in a 'hyper-grace' salvation which contradicts Jesus and His parables, many Pentecostal churches believe you only have the Holy Spirit if you can 'speak in tongues' which isn't Biblical, and so on. Yes, many verses have been removed from certain Bibles, and many verses are ignored. So, if that is the case, then how can they be Christian if they are not following the Bible by ignoring verses and reading Bibles that remove verses and even parts of verses? "The first of the Biblical cannons was established during the 5th century" They actually formed much sooner than that, the OT is Biblical canon and was established well before Christ was on earth. Sure, they believe they are right, but that doesn't make them right. Just because someone thinks they are following Jesus doesn't mean they are. Even the Bible says there will be many false preachers and doctrines. A Christian is a follower of Christ, Christ is the Word, God's Word is the Bible. If they aren't following the Bible then they aren't Christian. We can sit here all day and talk about false doctrines and use scripture to prove they're false if you'd like. To say I wouldn't be a Christian in the eyes of a 1st century Christian's eyes is quite a wild statement, have you spoken with them and asked them what they believe? |
|
|
|
Post by lordsrednuas on Oct 16, 2018 2:47:24 GMT
Have I spoken with them? Obviously not.
have I read what they've written, yes.
I'm assuming your Bible has James in it, 3 John as well?
|
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Oct 16, 2018 3:04:07 GMT
Have I spoken with them? Obviously not. have I read what they've written, yes. I'm assuming your Bible has James in it, 3 John as well? Those books were proven to be consistent with the rest of scripture by exegetical reading of the text. The same cannot be said about the prophecies of Ellen G. White, the JW's New World Translation, the book of Mormon, the Catholic and Orthodox Catechisms, and so on. |
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Oct 16, 2018 4:48:31 GMT
Probably a discussion better suited for a different thread. But briefly, they are following what they believe Jesus said and did. You are (unfortunately) committing the no true Scotsman fallacy. Because these groups have a different cannon, and/or a different interpretation of the cannon you share, you are declaring them not Christian. Would you agree that Sunnis & Shiites are both Islamic? Because while I (and presumably you as well) would classify them both as Islam, there are members of both sects denouncing the other as 'not true Muslims'. It can be hard to see when you are in the midst of the forest, so please don't think that I'm attacking you. But essentially it's a different cannon than Jesus gave. So separate from Jesus/Chrsitianity. And I only know so much about Islam. I was told here by people that it is no longer the religion that some guy started but mostly political stuff now. So then eventually someone went into a different direction and no longer following the real islam doctrine as with some denomations of Christianity. |
|
EvilSpiriT
Full Member
Posts: 120
Likes: 50
Country: India
Region: Hindu
|
Post by EvilSpiriT on Oct 16, 2018 16:57:44 GMT
Though I am semi-theist or say partially atheist. That suck though but still I tend not to disregard anyone's religion. Even if we do not believe in any god, we should not impose our anti-religious and blasphemous thoughts over someone as this might offend them to a high degree and trust me blowing things out of proportion really leads to conflicts ultimately.
|
|
sculptor
Full Member
Posts: 121
Likes: 20
Meta-Ethnicity: Homonid
Ethnicity: Sapiens Sapiens
Country: United Kingdon of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Region: South
Location: Brighton
Ancestry: Homo Sapiens
Taxonomy: Mammalian
mtDNA: From mt EVE
Politics: Left
Religion: None
Relationship Status: MYOB
Hero: My Grandmother
Age: too old
Philosophy: Always
|
Post by sculptor on Jun 29, 2019 12:43:14 GMT
So why are they used interchangeably? It's a bit confusing when you want to label someone I think Shrug Why do you want to label someone? We all have often quite unique view points. |
|
since they have extra doctrines than just bible. So they have some roots from Christianity but are a new religion mixed with other stuff. Shrug 
