Richard Dawkins' Speech at Protest the Pope March

[El JoNNo]

I've already said I'm not interested in blaming atheism for mass murder, just to be clear. But I disagree that the Christianity more easily lends itself to violence than another point of view. I want to know specifically why you believe Christianity promotes the use of force against innocent people.

No, the abolitionist movement answered their arguments on theological grounds, though that does overlap with having compassion for people. And, no, the Bible does not endorse slavery. Find the passage you think does and I'll explain why it does not.

Here's a couple I would be very interested in you explainations.

Leviticus 25:44-46

 44 " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Exodus 21 1-8
21:1 Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.
21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
21:5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
21:8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her

[bosk1]

That being said, would you say that relevance goes further than just what you see and feel everyday? After all, I, as a non-believer, would like nothing better than to be able to say that Christianity is completely irrelevant to me. But I'm bit a needle in a haystack. I live in a heavily southern baptist community, so to say that Christianity is irrelevant to myself would be ignorant. I could wish that was true, but it still exists around me, no matter what I would like. The non-believer movement still exists, regardless if one wishes it to be. It may not be personally relevant to their personal philosophies, but to simply say that it is irrelevant altogether strikes me as arrogant. I get that you are devout in your beliefs, and its fine for you to disagree with the atheist/non-believer on the matter of religion, but I don't think that qualifies one to dismiss an entire movement on the basis of personal preference.

I've been thinking about your post for a few days since I promised to respond to it, and I'm still not really sure how to respond.  I mean, sure, there are byproducts of atheism that impact me that I have to deal with.  And I have to interact with people who are atheists.  But I have to deal with all manner of people who have different beliefs and practices than I do.  I think perhaps we are ultimately just arguing semantics.  I have to interact with atheists all the time.  That doesn't make them irrelevant to me as people.  But as a "movement," I simply don't care that there is one and I don't really need to acknowledge it as such.  Atheism has always existed and always will until the end of the world.  Okay, fine.  Do I care that there are a few loud-mouthed, obnoxious people like Dawkins out there?  No, not really.  There are tons of such people, each with their own "cause."  That won't stop me from believing what I believe and doing what I need to do to live my own life.  And it won't stop me from enjoying lunch with my coworker who is an atheist, or being courteous to the atheist in the crosswalk on my drive in to work, or helping the elderly atheist woman who lives down the street mow her lawn.  But, again, beyond any of that, why should the "atheist movement" even be the slightest bit relevant to me?

[bosk1]

And, no, the Bible does not endorse slavery. Find the passage you think does and I'll explain why it does not.

Here's a couple I would be very interested in you explainations.

Leviticus 25:44-46
...
Exodus 21 1-8
...

In the interest of "not lettig you get away with that stupid crap," I shall point out that, yet again, you cite laws that are no longer applicable.  They were applicable solely to the Jewish nation that lived under the covenant laws, which have never been Christian laws (not to mention the fact that the "slavery" referred to during that time period is not the equivalent of what was practiced and later abolished in this country).  More could be said, but I'll duck out now and leave it to WW since this was between the two of you.

[Seventh Son]

That being said, would you say that relevance goes further than just what you see and feel everyday? After all, I, as a non-believer, would like nothing better than to be able to say that Christianity is completely irrelevant to me. But I'm bit a needle in a haystack. I live in a heavily southern baptist community, so to say that Christianity is irrelevant to myself would be ignorant. I could wish that was true, but it still exists around me, no matter what I would like. The non-believer movement still exists, regardless if one wishes it to be. It may not be personally relevant to their personal philosophies, but to simply say that it is irrelevant altogether strikes me as arrogant. I get that you are devout in your beliefs, and its fine for you to disagree with the atheist/non-believer on the matter of religion, but I don't think that qualifies one to dismiss an entire movement on the basis of personal preference.

I've been thinking about your post for a few days since I promised to respond to it, and I'm still not really sure how to respond.  I mean, sure, there are byproducts of atheism that impact me that I have to deal with.  And I have to interact with people who are atheists.  But I have to deal with all manner of people who have different beliefs and practices than I do.  I think perhaps we are ultimately just arguing semantics.  I have to interact with atheists all the time.  That doesn't make them irrelevant to me as people.  But as a "movement," I simply don't care that there is one and I don't really need to acknowledge it as such.  Atheism has always existed and always will until the end of the world.  Okay, fine.  Do I care that there are a few loud-mouthed, obnoxious people like Dawkins out there?  No, not really.  There are tons of such people, each with their own "cause."  That won't stop me from believing what I believe and doing what I need to do to live my own life.  And it won't stop me from enjoying lunch with my coworker who is an atheist, or being courteous to the atheist in the crosswalk on my drive in to work, or helping the elderly atheist woman who lives down the street mow her lawn.  But, again, beyond any of that, why should the "atheist movement" even be the slightest bit relevant to me?

That makes a bit more sense, and clarifies quite a bit 

For the record, I'm not an atheist, just a non-believer 

And, no, the Bible does not endorse slavery. Find the passage you think does and I'll explain why it does not.

Here's a couple I would be very interested in you explainations.

Leviticus 25:44-46
...
Exodus 21 1-8
...

In the interest of "not lettig you get away with that stupid crap," I shall point out that, yet again, you cite laws that are no longer applicable.  They were applicable solely to the Jewish nation that lived under the covenant laws, which have never been Christian laws (not to mention the fact that the "slavery" referred to during that time period is not the equivalent of what was practiced and later abolished in this country).  More could be said, but I'll duck out now and leave it to WW since this was between the two of you.

Well, what was the slavery like back then? And the fact that it was permitted for the Jewish nation itself concerns me, that such a god would permit (Or even command) its people to do such things.

[El JoNNo]

And, no, the Bible does not endorse slavery. Find the passage you think does and I'll explain why it does not.

Here's a couple I would be very interested in you explainations.

Leviticus 25:44-46
...
Exodus 21 1-8
...

In the interest of "not lettig you get away with that stupid crap," I shall point out that, yet again, you cite laws that are no longer applicable.  They were applicable solely to the Jewish nation that lived under the covenant laws, which have never been Christian laws (not to mention the fact that the "slavery" referred to during that time period is not the equivalent of what was practiced and later abolished in this country).  More could be said, but I'll duck out now and leave it to WW since this was between the two of you.

Still in the bible and Jesus said he followed all the old laws, still easiely used for justification of slavery. So owning a person and forcing them to work and controlling their life is not the same? Bible makes it pretty clear that a slave was a piece of meat to be done with as the master saw fit.

[bosk1]

Well, what was the slavery like back then? And the fact that it was permitted for the Jewish nation itself concerns me, that such a god would permit (Or even command) its people to do such things.

I'm not an expert, and this is not meant to be an exhaustive descriptions, but basically, it was permitted in two circumstances:
1.  When someone could not pay a debt they owed, they would become "slave" to their creditors until the debt was worked off.  2.  Essentially, "prisoners of war" could become slaves in lieu of having to kill them.

I don't really have too much of a problem with either scenario, actually.  Especially in light of the laws in place about how they were to be treated and not abused.  

[bosk1]

Jesus said he followed all the old laws

Well, but you're paraphrasing without getting the whole picture.  He said he came to fullfill the law, which he did.  And once he did, he was also clear that it was done away with.

You are correct that it is in the Bible.  But it is not there as a command to Christians any more than the commandment to Noah to build an ark is a general command to Christians to each go out and build an ark today.  You have to look at the context of who the command was given to and, if told, when, where, and why. 

[El JoNNo]

Jesus said he followed all the old laws

Well, but you're paraphrasing without getting the whole picture.  He said he came to fullfill the law, which he did.  And once he did, he was also clear that it was done away with.

You are correct that it is in the Bible.  But it is not there as a command to Christians any more than the commandment to Noah to build an ark is a general command to Christians to each go out and build an ark today.  You have to look at the context of who the command was given to and, if told, when, where, and why. 

Curious, how did you come to that conclusion? Jesus throughout his "adventures" upholds many of the old laws (of course there is the fulfill verse). By what your saying the ten commandments are no longer laws.

[bosk1]

Jesus said he followed all the old laws

Well, but you're paraphrasing without getting the whole picture.  He said he came to fullfill the law, which he did.  And once he did, he was also clear that it was done away with.

You are correct that it is in the Bible.  But it is not there as a command to Christians any more than the commandment to Noah to build an ark is a general command to Christians to each go out and build an ark today.  You have to look at the context of who the command was given to and, if told, when, where, and why. 

Curious, how did you come to that conclusion? Jesus throughout his "adventures" upholds many of the old laws (of course there is the fulfill verse). By what your saying the ten commandments are no longer laws.

I came to that conclusion because Jesus says it and it is repeated in several of the New Testament epistles.

Strictly speaking, you are also correct that the ten commandments, as such, are no longer laws.  Again, those were laws specifically given to the Jewish nation.  HOWEVER, that being said, all were specifically carried forward into the NT with the exception of the commandment to keep the Sabbath, which is specifically NOT carried forward.  The other nine are repeated.

[rumborak]

I've already said I'm not interested in blaming atheism for mass murder, just to be clear. But I disagree that the Christianity more easily lends itself to violence than another point of view. I want to know specifically why you believe Christianity promotes the use of force against innocent people.

It's not so much inherent to Christianity's ethics, but the fact that a vast number of people subscribe to it, and it has attached to it the Bible, a book that has a lot of differing morals in it and thus can be easily twisted.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

I've already said I'm not interested in blaming atheism for mass murder, just to be clear. But I disagree that the Christianity more easily lends itself to violence than another point of view. I want to know specifically why you believe Christianity promotes the use of force against innocent people.

It's not so much inherent to Christianity's ethics, but the fact that a vast number of people subscribe to it, and it has attached to it the Bible, a book that has a lot of differing morals in it and thus can be easily twisted.

rumborak

Well, like what exactly? What can be twisted? And even if it can be twisted, why is that a reflection on the text itself? If somebody read Darwin and then decided to go on a killing spree, would you blame the theory of evolution? Probably not. You'd make the same argument I'm making now. People can be evil and will justify their actions by whatever they want.

[hefdaddy42]

Still in the bible and Jesus said he followed all the old laws

The old laws were still only for Jews.  Jesus was a Jew.  I'm not a Jew.  Christians are not Jews.  Other Gentiles are not Jews.  Only Jews are Jews.

Are you starting to get the issue here?

[El JoNNo]

Jesus said he followed all the old laws

Well, but you're paraphrasing without getting the whole picture.  He said he came to fullfill the law, which he did.  And once he did, he was also clear that it was done away with.

You are correct that it is in the Bible.  But it is not there as a command to Christians any more than the commandment to Noah to build an ark is a general command to Christians to each go out and build an ark today.  You have to look at the context of who the command was given to and, if told, when, where, and why. 

Curious, how did you come to that conclusion? Jesus throughout his "adventures" upholds many of the old laws (of course there is the fulfill verse). By what your saying the ten commandments are no longer laws.

I came to that conclusion because Jesus says it and it is repeated in several of the New Testament epistles.

Strictly speaking, you are also correct that the ten commandments, as such, are no longer laws.  Again, those were laws specifically given to the Jewish nation.  HOWEVER, that being said, all were specifically carried forward into the NT with the exception of the commandment to keep the Sabbath, which is specifically NOT carried forward.  The other nine are repeated.

Still in the bible and Jesus said he followed all the old laws

The old laws were still only for Jews.  Jesus was a Jew.  I'm not a Jew.  Christians are not Jews.  Other Gentiles are not Jews.  Only Jews are Jews.

Are you starting to get the issue here?

I will concede for now as I am at work and do not have a bible in hand. I only use google for looking up the passages that i can remember, not for forming opinions. Although it begs the question why not just throw out the OT if you are Christian as it has no purpose to someone who only follows Christ. If the old laws are useless and the majority of the OT is incredibly false, there is no use for it.

[hefdaddy42]

But it's got fun stories.

[GuineaPig]

https://www.cracked.com/article_15699_9-most-badass-bible-verses.html

No surprise they're all from the OT.

[William Wallace]

Well, what was the slavery like back then? And the fact that it was permitted for the Jewish nation itself concerns me, that such a god would permit (Or even command) its people to do such things.

Alright, I've got some reasonable answers, I think, to your questions, references as well if you want to do some homework.

Slavery as described in the OT was nothing like the Antebellum period, southern plantation version we think of today. First, the word "servant" in Hebrew provides a more appropriate description of the person we are referring to as a slave. They had a certain degree of freedom, property ownership, for example, and often times it was the servant who initiated the relationship, motivated by economic considerations. Often times, in fact, the agreements between master and slave (servant) emphasized the voluntary nature of the agreement.

Not only were the relationships usually voluntary, but servants in the Ancient Near East were afforded legal protection from severe physical punishment, could earn or buy their freedom and often opted to remain in the relationship because the economic and social benefits that they came with it.

And most importantly, slavery in the OT existed as means for impoverished people to survive; it wasn't initiated for the sake of the master's economic interest, hence the voluntary nature of the institution I mentioned above. There are many details I'm passing over but that's the reader's digest version, and it illustrates why slavery can't be used as a weapon against Christianity in the culture war.

This books has all the details about slavery in the OT:  A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law (2 vols). Raymond Westbrook (ed). Brill:2003

And this one highlights all the differences between Antebellum slavery and the ancient version: Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology (4 vols), David Levinson and Melvin Ember (eds), HenryHolt:1996.
 

[hefdaddy42]

https://www.cracked.com/article_15699_9-most-badass-bible-verses.html

No surprise they're all from the OT.

That is fucking GOLD.

[Seventh Son]

Well, what was the slavery like back then? And the fact that it was permitted for the Jewish nation itself concerns me, that such a god would permit (Or even command) its people to do such things.

Alright, I've got some reasonable answers, I think, to your questions, references as well if you want to do some homework.

Slavery as described in the OT was nothing like the Antebellum period, southern plantation version we think of today. First, the word "servant" in Hebrew provides a more appropriate description of the person we are referring to as a slave. They had a certain degree of freedom, property ownership, for example, and often times it was the servant who initiated the relationship, motivated by economic considerations. Often times, in fact, the agreements between master and slave (servant) emphasized the voluntary nature of the agreement.

Not only were the relationships usually voluntary, but servants in the Ancient Near East were afforded legal protection from severe physical punishment, could earn or buy their freedom and often opted to remain in the relationship because the economic and social benefits that they came with it.

And most importantly, slavery in the OT existed as means for impoverished people to survive; it wasn't initiated for the sake of the master's economic interest, hence the voluntary nature of the institution I mentioned above. There are many details I'm passing over but that's the reader's digest version, and it illustrates why slavery can't be used as a weapon against Christianity in the culture war.

This books has all the details about slavery in the OT:  A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law (2 vols). Raymond Westbrook (ed). Brill:2003

And this one highlights all the differences between Antebellum slavery and the ancient version: Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology (4 vols), David Levinson and Melvin Ember (eds), HenryHolt:1996.
 

That clarifies quite a bit, thank you. Still a non-believer of course, but it does clarify a bit. Still, the way its worded in OT does lend itself to being interpreted like that, wouldn't you say?

[hefdaddy42]

The way it's worded in the OT?  No.  You reading a 3,000 year old document using a Western civilized worldview without understanding the original context?  Yes.

And no, I'm not insulting you at all.

[skydivingninja]

The way it's worded in the OT?  No.  You reading a 3,000 year old document using a Western civilized worldview without understanding the original context?  Yes.

This is really the biggest problem with anti-Christianity arguments.  Yes, there are lots of bad stuff in the OT, but there's a context there that is no longer applicable to the world today.  People who want to follow every word of the bible with no regard to context are idiots, and people who want to denounce Christianity by pointing at every word of the bible with no regard to context are also idiots. 

Yes the Catholic Church endorsed slavery at one point.  Do they do it anymore?  No.  The Catholic Church has enough relevant problems today that you can blast them for and I'd be perfectly fine with it (like the whole sexual abuse thing).  The other stuff is just history now.

[Seventh Son]

The way it's worded in the OT?  No.  You reading a 3,000 year old document using a Western civilized worldview without understanding the original context?  Yes.

And no, I'm not insulting you at all.

I understand that. But doesn't that itself say something about how the bible might be outdated?

The way it's worded in the OT?  No.  You reading a 3,000 year old document using a Western civilized worldview without understanding the original context?  Yes.

This is really the biggest problem with anti-Christianity arguments.  Yes, there are lots of bad stuff in the OT, but there's a context there that is no longer applicable to the world today.  People who want to follow every word of the bible with no regard to context are idiots, and people who want to denounce Christianity by pointing at every word of the bible with no regard to context are also idiots. 

Yes the Catholic Church endorsed slavery at one point.  Do they do it anymore?  No. The Catholic Church has enough relevant problems today that you can blast them for and I'd be perfectly fine with it (like the whole sexual abuse thing).  The other stuff is just history now.

And I've never really done any such thing (Not saying you have, just throwing that out there). I am a non-believer, but I'm not militant atheist that acts like you described. Its just a number of things that Christianity represents don't fly with me hence why I don't believe in it.

[William Wallace]

Well, what was the slavery like back then? And the fact that it was permitted for the Jewish nation itself concerns me, that such a god would permit (Or even command) its people to do such things.

Alright, I've got some reasonable answers, I think, to your questions, references as well if you want to do some homework.

Slavery as described in the OT was nothing like the Antebellum period, southern plantation version we think of today. First, the word "servant" in Hebrew provides a more appropriate description of the person we are referring to as a slave. They had a certain degree of freedom, property ownership, for example, and often times it was the servant who initiated the relationship, motivated by economic considerations. Often times, in fact, the agreements between master and slave (servant) emphasized the voluntary nature of the agreement.

Not only were the relationships usually voluntary, but servants in the Ancient Near East were afforded legal protection from severe physical punishment, could earn or buy their freedom and often opted to remain in the relationship because the economic and social benefits that they came with it.

And most importantly, slavery in the OT existed as means for impoverished people to survive; it wasn't initiated for the sake of the master's economic interest, hence the voluntary nature of the institution I mentioned above. There are many details I'm passing over but that's the reader's digest version, and it illustrates why slavery can't be used as a weapon against Christianity in the culture war.

This books has all the details about slavery in the OT:  A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law (2 vols). Raymond Westbrook (ed). Brill:2003

And this one highlights all the differences between Antebellum slavery and the ancient version: Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology (4 vols), David Levinson and Melvin Ember (eds), HenryHolt:1996.
 

That clarifies quite a bit, thank you. Still a non-believer of course, but it does clarify a bit. Still, the way its worded in OT does lend itself to being interpreted like that, wouldn't you say?

Disbelieve all you want, just don't use the "Jesus loves slavery lolololol" argument, because it doesn't stand up historically.

[Perpetual Change]

The way it's worded in the OT?  No.  You reading a 3,000 year old document using a Western civilized worldview without understanding the original context?  Yes.

And no, I'm not insulting you at all.

I understand that. But doesn't that itself say something about how the bible might be outdated?

You can look at it that way. For me, though, it was more of a realization that everything I *thought* I hated about Christianity only was there because some theological muppets had lied to me.

[Seventh Son]

Well, what was the slavery like back then? And the fact that it was permitted for the Jewish nation itself concerns me, that such a god would permit (Or even command) its people to do such things.

Alright, I've got some reasonable answers, I think, to your questions, references as well if you want to do some homework.

Slavery as described in the OT was nothing like the Antebellum period, southern plantation version we think of today. First, the word "servant" in Hebrew provides a more appropriate description of the person we are referring to as a slave. They had a certain degree of freedom, property ownership, for example, and often times it was the servant who initiated the relationship, motivated by economic considerations. Often times, in fact, the agreements between master and slave (servant) emphasized the voluntary nature of the agreement.

Not only were the relationships usually voluntary, but servants in the Ancient Near East were afforded legal protection from severe physical punishment, could earn or buy their freedom and often opted to remain in the relationship because the economic and social benefits that they came with it.

And most importantly, slavery in the OT existed as means for impoverished people to survive; it wasn't initiated for the sake of the master's economic interest, hence the voluntary nature of the institution I mentioned above. There are many details I'm passing over but that's the reader's digest version, and it illustrates why slavery can't be used as a weapon against Christianity in the culture war.

This books has all the details about slavery in the OT:  A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law (2 vols). Raymond Westbrook (ed). Brill:2003

And this one highlights all the differences between Antebellum slavery and the ancient version: Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology (4 vols), David Levinson and Melvin Ember (eds), HenryHolt:1996.
 

That clarifies quite a bit, thank you. Still a non-believer of course, but it does clarify a bit. Still, the way its worded in OT does lend itself to being interpreted like that, wouldn't you say?

Disbelieve all you want, just don't use the "Jesus loves slavery lolololol" argument, because it doesn't stand up historically.

I haven't made that argument.

The way it's worded in the OT?  No.  You reading a 3,000 year old document using a Western civilized worldview without understanding the original context?  Yes.

And no, I'm not insulting you at all.

I understand that. But doesn't that itself say something about how the bible might be outdated?

You can look at it that way. For me, though, it was more of a realization that everything I *thought* I hated about Christianity only was there because some theological muppets had lied to me.

I don't *hate* Christianity, I just hate people that push it down my throat (Not anyone here of course. I live in the bible belt, so you can already gather what I mean). The concepts of Heaven and Hell don't really fly too well with me at all (For personal reasons of course). It isn't a decision made out of RAWRIHATECHRISTIANITYREBELRAGERAGERAGE, I just came to the conclusion that I don't believe in it.

But I'm sorry that some people lied to you
People like that of any religious background (or lack of) are jackasses.

[Perpetual Change]

Yeah, and, honestly, I DO identify myself a Christian personally and when people ask me what I believe that's what I say, but I always have a problem with worship groups. I'll meet some new people for a mass and brunch or something afterwards, and through the course of conversation I'll get hit one of the following: "how can you not believe in Hell?" "How can you say some homosexuals aren't' sinning?" "What do you mean you aren't sure about the miracles," etc etc.

[Seventh Son]

Yeah, and, honestly, I DO identify myself a Christian personally and when people ask me what I believe that's what I say, but I always have a problem with worship groups. I'll meet some new people for a mass and brunch or something afterwards, and through the course of conversation I'll get hit one of the following: "how can you not believe in Hell?" "How can you say some homosexuals aren't' sinning?" "What do you mean you aren't sure about the miracles," etc etc.

I don't identify as anything! I'm not an atheist, not a christian, not a jew, not a muslim, not an agnostic, etc. I guess I'm quite the oddball 

And I know exactly what you mean about those that go "How can you not believe in Hell?", etc. My answer is simple. It doesn't make sense to me. If it does to you, then all the more power in the world to you, but it doesn't fly with me.

[hefdaddy42]

Yeah, and, honestly, I DO identify myself a Christian personally and when people ask me what I believe that's what I say, but I always have a problem with worship groups. I'll meet some new people for a mass and brunch or something afterwards, and through the course of conversation I'll get hit one of the following: "how can you not believe in Hell?" "How can you say some homosexuals aren't' sinning?" "What do you mean you aren't sure about the miracles," etc etc.

If you're not in a likeminded group, it's best not to bring up every difference.

[GuineaPig]

Yeah, and, honestly, I DO identify myself a Christian personally and when people ask me what I believe that's what I say, but I always have a problem with worship groups. I'll meet some new people for a mass and brunch or something afterwards, and through the course of conversation I'll get hit one of the following: "how can you not believe in Hell?" "How can you say some homosexuals aren't' sinning?" "What do you mean you aren't sure about the miracles," etc etc.

I don't identify as anything! I'm not an atheist, not a christian, not a jew, not a muslim, not an agnostic, etc. I guess I'm quite the oddball 

And I know exactly what you mean about those that go "How can you not believe in Hell?", etc. My answer is simple. It doesn't make sense to me. If it does to you, then all the more power in the world to you, but it doesn't fly with me.

I'm confused.  If you're a non-believer, how can you not be an atheist?

[rumborak]

Well, if I would venture a guess, I would think he classifies himself as a "non-carer". That is, he probably views (as I would too) the label "atheist" as an active action, i.e. one who spends some time or devotion to his world view.
Reality is, and I think this holds true for a lot of agnostics/atheists, God doesn't enter our thoughts much, unless brought up by someone. So, God is really a non-issue, just as we don't run around all day long proclaiming we're heliocentrists. Only when there are geocentrists around one is forced to mention what is a non-issue to us, that the sun is at the center of the system.

rumborak

[Seventh Son]

Yeah, and, honestly, I DO identify myself a Christian personally and when people ask me what I believe that's what I say, but I always have a problem with worship groups. I'll meet some new people for a mass and brunch or something afterwards, and through the course of conversation I'll get hit one of the following: "how can you not believe in Hell?" "How can you say some homosexuals aren't' sinning?" "What do you mean you aren't sure about the miracles," etc etc.

I don't identify as anything! I'm not an atheist, not a christian, not a jew, not a muslim, not an agnostic, etc. I guess I'm quite the oddball 

And I know exactly what you mean about those that go "How can you not believe in Hell?", etc. My answer is simple. It doesn't make sense to me. If it does to you, then all the more power in the world to you, but it doesn't fly with me.

I'm confused.  If you're a non-believer, how can you not be an atheist?

An atheist rejects the existence of god. I simply do not believe in Christianity. How does that make me an atheist?

[GuineaPig]

Yeah, and, honestly, I DO identify myself a Christian personally and when people ask me what I believe that's what I say, but I always have a problem with worship groups. I'll meet some new people for a mass and brunch or something afterwards, and through the course of conversation I'll get hit one of the following: "how can you not believe in Hell?" "How can you say some homosexuals aren't' sinning?" "What do you mean you aren't sure about the miracles," etc etc.

I don't identify as anything! I'm not an atheist, not a christian, not a jew, not a muslim, not an agnostic, etc. I guess I'm quite the oddball 

And I know exactly what you mean about those that go "How can you not believe in Hell?", etc. My answer is simple. It doesn't make sense to me. If it does to you, then all the more power in the world to you, but it doesn't fly with me.

I'm confused.  If you're a non-believer, how can you not be an atheist?

An atheist rejects the existence of god. I simply do not believe in Christianity. How does that make me an atheist?

Atheists don't believe in gods.  If you don't believe in gods, you're an atheist. 

As Rumborak said, atheism isn't really an active or positive position.  It's the default.  Unless you believe in a god, you're an atheist.  Babies are atheists.  Many Buddhists are atheists.  Dolphins (as far as we know) are atheists.

[Seventh Son]

Yeah, and, honestly, I DO identify myself a Christian personally and when people ask me what I believe that's what I say, but I always have a problem with worship groups. I'll meet some new people for a mass and brunch or something afterwards, and through the course of conversation I'll get hit one of the following: "how can you not believe in Hell?" "How can you say some homosexuals aren't' sinning?" "What do you mean you aren't sure about the miracles," etc etc.

I don't identify as anything! I'm not an atheist, not a christian, not a jew, not a muslim, not an agnostic, etc. I guess I'm quite the oddball 

And I know exactly what you mean about those that go "How can you not believe in Hell?", etc. My answer is simple. It doesn't make sense to me. If it does to you, then all the more power in the world to you, but it doesn't fly with me.

I'm confused.  If you're a non-believer, how can you not be an atheist?

An atheist rejects the existence of god. I simply do not believe in Christianity. How does that make me an atheist?

Atheists don't believe in gods.  If you don't believe in gods, you're an atheist. 

As Rumborak said, atheism isn't really an active or positive position.  It's the default.  Unless you believe in a god, you're an atheist.  Babies are atheists.  Many Buddhists are atheists.  Dolphins (as far as we know) are atheists.

And I've said nothing on the subject of whether I do or do not believe in them. So calling me an atheist is jumping to conclusions, don't you think? Are you implying that if you are not a Christian, you are automatically an atheist?

[GuineaPig]

You specifically said you were a non-believer.  I interpreted that to mean you didn't believe in any gods.

[Seventh Son]

You specifically said you were a non-believer.  I interpreted that to mean you didn't believe in any gods.

I live in the USA, more specifically the bible belt. Non-believer in my eyes just means someone who doesn't believe in Christianity, which is the major religion in the states.

[hefdaddy42]

You specifically said you were a non-believer.  I interpreted that to mean you didn't believe in any gods.

I live in the USA, more specifically the bible belt. Non-believer in my eyes just means someone who doesn't believe in Christianity, which is the major religion in the states.

As a fellow Southern gentleman, I can testify to the veracity of his claim.