To David f. I'm not surprised you reject my points. That seems to be the theme from most replies in this conversation. To reject or ignore any points I've addressed. Probabley unsurprising I reject morse of your points. Though there are a few that I have considered before or are considering now. As to Christians being defended by what they do. I agree with that, but I don't agree that they are all real Christians. Jesus said as much at least twice. Once saying not all who cell Jesus "Lord" really mean it and are His. And another turning to the crowd flowing Him and saying point blank, "why do you call me lord, if you don't obey me."

In that light what you count as acts in history and to discredit Christianity I see as acts that discredit the person from being Christian, seeking God, and following Jesus. Faith is more then belief. If it does not produce actions to follow it, then it is not real faith at all. Thus you will know them by their actions.

There is one point though that I agree with you about.

A few posts ago you said, "Enough." I agree. Enough is enough. If you want to count Christianity as an abusive husband, a tyrant, or some other abuser then go ahead, but walk away from Christians while doing it and let them have their faith as long as they harm no one else. That way you can see if the world without God, is less of a tyrant. Honestly, as I told you before the evil in the world is a condition of mankind. All sin. You included. As I tried to say earlier and through this conversation. Loving God and striving to be close to Him helps our struggles to also be good people and follow the other directive to love your neighbor.

Enough is enough though. Your words are insulting and rude and increasingly so as the conversation goes on. It's time to end this conversation.

Dear NNS,

If you don't like what Christians do they become not real Christians. That is a copout. I have heard the same sort of thing from communists and other Christians. One communist I know claimed that Stalin was not really a communist. That sort of copout is used by people of many different beliefs and ideologies. Christianity is not unique in that. Christianity is not unique in being a missionary religion or sharing aspects of many other religions. If you would take the effort to learn more about other religions you might find this out for yourself. Apparently you want people just to accept your missionary approach and believe what you believe.

I have vigorously opposed you and called you the face of evil because I think the Christian missionary approach has resulted in great evil. Christianity has resulted in both good and bad. Some Christians take responsibility for all that Christians have done and examine their belief system, their history and themselves. Others find a way to evade the responsibility. Claiming that Christians who have done what they find wrong are not real Christians is one way to evade the responsibility. I think that all or most of us like to think of ourselves as doing good. From my point of view I think the Christian missionary effort and other missionary efforts have done both good and evil, but the evil is greater. From my point of view my opposition to your missionary effort has been a defense against evil.

I have been preaching my beliefs. If you don't want to hear of other beliefs don't put yours out. However, in a democracy all views regarding religion can be heard because we have separation of church and state to some degree. The man who is credited with originating the expression, separation of church and state, is a Baptist minister, Roger Williams.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams

Please go and learn.

//If you don't like what Christians do they become not real Christians. That is a copout.//

It's not just a copout, it's a fallacious argument.

From rationalwiki:

"Religious apologists will repeatedly try to use NTS to distance themselves from more extreme or fundamentalist groups (and vice versa), but this does not prevent such extremists actually being religious — they themselves would certainly argue otherwise. Moderate Muslim leaders, for example, are well known for declaring Islamic extremists as "not true Muslims" as Islam is a "Religion of Peace."

Similarly, moderate Christians, such as those in Europe, are sometimes aghast when viewing their fundamentalist counterparts in the US, immediately declaring them "not true Christians," even though they believe in the same God and get their belief system from the same book."

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

Of course, NNS is not in any position to be dictating who is and is not a true Christian. True Christians are humble, non-judgemental, and accepting of those from different faiths, not arrogant and condescending towards people of different faiths. So he can't be a true Christian.

Got the point yet, NNS? It's a stupid fallacy and you'd be wise to stop employing it.

//I'm not surprised you reject my points. That seems to be the theme from most replies in this conversation. To reject or ignore any points I've addressed.//

Maybe they're just not very good points.

//Your words are insulting and rude and increasingly so as the conversation goes on.//

They sure are, NNS.

Now, before you flounce off in a huff because nobody wants to convert to your religion, could you perhaps address this point which I made previously?

//So go ahead, make my day... tell me where not believing in your god has led me to commit evil, something that is truly wrong. Not something relative to a person, where one's religious beliefs say one thing and another's says something different.

Actual, proper, genuine evil.... nope, you can't, can you? So I guess following a different god doesn't make me so wicked after all, eh?//

From the man who, with breathtaking lack of self-reflection can say "It is arrogant of you to assume that your understanding is objectively the right one", we are informed that his understand of the term 'atheist' if the only valid one.
An atheist, according to AJP, is anyone who isn't a theist. But that's just his construction to try to talk himself out of the hole he's dug with regards to being able to prove/disprove the deity's existence.

But check how others define the term:

"the doctrine or belief that there is no God." Dictionary.com

In a narrow sense " atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. " Wikipedia (there's more but 350 words)

"a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods" Webster

and so forth.

I don't have a "strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods" and therefore don't fit the definition.

Equally I don't have a belief in a god. So not a theist.

Wow what could I be?

From the man who never tires of opining that the reason theism is in decline is because we now know so much more, we now find that belief is independent of knowing.

to Toni, Yes belief starts where knowledge ends. But the type of belief is dependent upon the knowledge obtained and the relative weight each person gives that knowledge.

NNS has knowledge of his communication with his deity. You might reject that knowledge but it informs his belief.

AJP has knowledge about the deity based on, among other things, his time in the church. I might reject that knowledge but it nonetheless partially informs his beliefs.

Which, to return to the very beginning, is why it impossible to argue about the deity in terms of logic. NNS was right at first to simply state his views and move on. But, like most believers, he finally gets dragged into trying to defend his views in terms set by those who'll never accept them. But his was a noble effort.

mhaze,

At no point have I asserted that there is only one valid understanding of the word ‘atheism’.

<<From the man who, with breathtaking lack of self-reflection can say "It is arrogant of you to assume that your understanding is objectively the right one", we are informed that his understand of the term 'atheist' if the only valid one.>>

This should have been obvious from the OED definition I cited earlier and the link to the Wikipedia page on atheism (which even you have quoted from). It’s also obvious from my posting history:

“I think you need to clarify what type of atheism you’re talking about here before we go any further. ... Clearly you’re not talking about implicit atheism. So are you referring to explicit atheism; or specifically strong atheism?” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16853#296557)

“… theism and atheism (in the broadest sense of the word) are binary (i.e. Law of the excluded middle).” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16853#296420)

“What you have referred to as anti-theism is actually ‘strong atheism’ (as opposed to ‘weak atheism’, which is the lack of belief).” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7387#228513)

“Theism is the positive claim, [strong] atheism is the rejection of that claim as not supported by evidence.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3814#108381)

“… “God does not exist” (strong atheism), is a claim that has strayed from the default position of disbelief.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#324998)

“That’s strong atheism. More broadly speaking, atheists do not have religious beliefs because theists have not yet met their burden of proof.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18693#333021)

Hardly the words of someone who insists that there is only one way to define atheism.

Then there’s the diagram I often link to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#/media/File:AtheismImplicitExplicit3.svg

The other definitions you cite (one I even linked to myself) are subsets of (and, in our citations, always appear alongside) the broader definition I’ve been referring to when I speak of the dichotomy. They do not contradict it.

I have currently been defending the notion of atheism and theism as a dichotomy. You insist that no dichotomy exists and that it is instead only a spectrum and appeal to subsets within that dichotomy as a means of proving your point.

Continued…

…Continued

Yes, there is a spectrum (all the links I have provided thus far acknowledge this) but every point on that spectrum still can be categorised into either ‘theism’ or ‘atheism’. There is no third, exclusive option unless one wants to limit one’s understanding to an incomplete definition of atheism.

TLDR: There was no lack of self-reflection, let alone a “breath-taking” lack of self-reflection.

<<An atheist, according to AJP, is anyone who isn't a theist.>>

In the broadest sense, absolutely. I’ve demonstrated that multiple times now.

<<But that's just his construction to try to talk himself out of the hole he's dug with regards to being able to prove/disprove the deity's existence.>>

Oh, really now? We’re back to that are we? I don’t suppose you’d be willing to tell us all what this alleged hole is yet and how it relates to theism and atheism as a dichotomy, would you?

No, I didn’t think so.

<<I don't have a "strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods" and therefore don't fit the definition.>>

Um, all the definitions you cited also included the lack of belief. dictionary.com simply acknowledged this meaning in a different line which you didn’t include.

<<Wow what could I be?>>

According to the pages you cited? An atheist.

<<From the man who never tires of opining that the reason theism is in decline is because we now know so much more, we now find that belief is independent of knowing.>>

No, again, I never said that. You even quoted me not saying that. Theism and atheism are belief positions. They say nothing of how one arrives at those beliefs, nor do they discount the possibility of knowledge as an influencing factor. I have never claimed otherwise. You are simply lying.

<<Which … is why it impossible to argue about the deity in terms of logic.>>

And yet you somehow managed to determine that it is more likely than not that it exists. I'm still waiting for an answer on how you did that, too, by the way.