There is no evidence for a biblical jesus

[Nathan Poe]

Standard RG malice-motivated bald assertion contributing nothing of substance as usual.

Tassman is not interpreting the statistics from Adherents.com, merely presenting them and clarifying the disparity which Sparko queried. So, once again: "The Adherents survey states that the large disparity is between ‘hardcore’ atheists who do not consider there are any gods or supernatural realm of any sort and those who think that there may be ‘something’ but are not prepared to define what it is, i.e. agnostics – the overall figure of 85% representing those who do not identify with standard religious beliefs or organized religion of any kind".

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

Sounds like they're lumping the hardcore atheists and the general non-religious types in one category.

[Vansmack51]

1. The Genesis 1 and 2 account is written towards the people of the era, in refutation to the pagan religions around them. In other words, the creation account is not suppose to be word for word literal, but was suppose to tell the people that it was their God, not the gods of the pagans, that were responsible for creating the world. I guess you've never heard of that answer and just assume that every Christian has to take every word of the Bible, word by word literal, eh?

2. I'm not sure what you're ranting about here, but I'm guess it has something to do with Proverbs 31 where verse one says, "King Lemuel" I guess you've never heard of 'terms of endearment' in which the most common answer is that was the name that his mother called him. I guess you also haven't heard of the answer that Solomon had two names. I guess using smackedbythevanofscholarship logicTM, nobody knows my name either because I have several times I have gone by too (my first name, my maiden name, my last married last name, Mrs, Miss, and terms of endearment various members of my family have called me).

3. Finally, was Jesus crucified before or after Passover? The answer is, depends on when a person celebrated it. You do know that depending on the religious tradition, people do celebrate things at different times or earlier, right? Want a modern example? Christians in the west, celebrate Christmas on Dec 25, Christians of the east, celebrate Christmas on Jan 7th. Guess using smackedbythevanofscholarshipTM logic, we can conclude that every book that mentions Christmas is wrong on the date since these two Christian groups celebrate it on different days.

There you go; your 'objections' are blown away by scholarship. Looks like the van of scholarship has run you down again! See you on your next rant!

Thanks for side stepping my questions. It proves my point.

[JimL]

That people that believe in 'spirits' are not atheist by any definition of the term and Tazzy Wazzy is trying to make his position look more valid, then it truly is?

Duh! By definition, if they don't believe in a God, then they are atheists. Saying that they believe that there is some kind of spirit or LIFE FORCE, something that they don't understand and so can not articulate, does not mean that they believe in God, particulary when they say that they do not believe.

[JimL]

You missed the 53% that said there is some sort of SPIRIT or life force. I would count them as basic deists if not theists. They sure as heck are not atheists.

Sparko, in order to be a deist one has to believe in God, if they say they do not, then I think we have to take their word for it.

[Doug Shaver]

You missed the 53% that said there is some sort of SPIRIT or life force. I would count them as basic deists if not theists.

You can count them any way you want, but just because something is a spirit doesn't mean it's a god.

[lilpixieofterror]

Thanks for side stepping my questions. It proves my point.

Translation: "Crap, too hard for me to answer, so let me accuse you of 'side stepping' because I couldn't refute it!"

That is so much more accurate, now smackedbythevanofscholarship, please explain why I have to take the Bible word for word literal, like you, why Solomon couldn't have terms of endearment towards him by his mother, and why everybody has to celebrate passover at the same time. Guess you can't answer, can you?

[lilpixieofterror]

You can count them any way you want, but just because something is a spirit doesn't mean it's a god.

And it doesn't make a person an atheist either.

[lilpixieofterror]

Duh! By definition, if they don't believe in a God, then they are atheists. Saying that they believe that there is some kind of spirit or LIFE FORCE, something that they don't understand and so can not articulate, does not mean that they believe in God, particulary when they say that they do not believe.

Do you own a dictionary JimL because last I checked, the philosophy that nature was all that existed, what a defining characteristic of atheism. Guess fundy atheist will re-define what it means to be an atheist, if they can claim higher numbers for their cause then actually exist. A more accurate view would be pagans, new agers, or pantheist than atheist.

[Rational Gaze]

Sounds like they're lumping the hardcore atheists and the general non-religious types in one category.

Indeed. Vox Day satirically refers to this distinction as the "High Church" and "Low Church" of atheism (if you excuse his facetiousness.)

I have personally seen the word 'atheist' to be taken to mean a wide variety of things. For instance, some atheists classify anybody who lacks belief in god as an atheist, but then, when you point out a that a large proportion of people who fall into that category have some kind of negative attribute, then the definition of atheism will magically be refined to be less inclusive. Then, later on, when you use that refined definition, the same people will then complain that you are "straw-manning" them and will bring out the less exclusive definition of atheism (anybody who lacks a belief in god) again. This is a text-book case of equivocation, not to mention moving the goalposts.

Tassman, for instance, changes not only the definition of atheism whenever it suits him, but also his own beliefs too. I remember quite some time ago Tassman maintained that Jesus did not exist as a historical person, but quickly modified his position to he "probably existed." I believe the flame warrior roster refers to such a character as an "artful dodger." Now, Tassman is quick to point to statistics that support his a priori determined beliefs, but whines when you point out statistical information that undermines his position. The Eurobarometer poll makes the distinction between those who believe in a deity, those who hold to some kind of spiritualism, and those that neither believe in a deity or hold to a form of spiritualism. Whereas the Gallup poll that bertatberts cited asked the question: how important is religion in your lives? I know plenty of irreligious people who nonetheless believe in a deity. Likewise, there exist people who hold spiritual beliefs, such as Buddhists, Hindus, and New Agers, some of which do not believe in a deity but nonetheless do not count themselves as atheists.

Now, if we define atheism as loosely as Tassman and bertatberts would have us believe, then yes, a lot of countries have a high percentage of "atheists." However, prison stats indicate that such groups of people are over-represented in prison populations. In fact, I have noted this before, and Tassman, et al. responded by claiming that the prison stats do not differentiate between those who self-identify as atheists and those who just generally lack religion. The hypocrisy and double-standards here are rather amusing. (Of course, Tassman will no doubt deny this, of course. Whilst I would normally rove the forums looking for the thread and posts in questions, I really cannot be bothered, since Tassman has a habit of denying things, or claiming you are misrepresenting him, even when you directly quote him word for word.)

And, for the record, I don't count the 53% as either theist or atheist, just so you know.

[Rational Gaze]

Tassman is not interpreting the statistics from Adherents.com, merely presenting them and clarifying the disparity which Sparko queried.

Tassman is referring to himself in the third person again.

[JimL]

Do you own a dictionary JimL because last I checked, the philosophy that nature was all that existed, what a defining characteristic of atheism. Guess fundy atheist will re-define what it means to be an atheist, if they can claim higher numbers for their cause then actually exist. A more accurate view would be pagans, new agers, or pantheist than atheist.

Oh, Okay, could you please let me know whether or not I believe in God as well lilpix?

[Adrift]

Indeed. Vox Day satirically refers to this distinction as the "High Church" and "Low Church" of atheism (if you excuse his facetiousness.)

I have personally seen the word 'atheist' to be taken to mean a wide variety of things. For instance, some atheists classify anybody who lacks belief in god as an atheist, but then, when you point out a that a large proportion of people who fall into that category have some kind of negative attribute, then the definition of atheism will magically be refined to be less inclusive. Then, later on, when you use that refined definition, the same people will then complain that you are "straw-manning" them and will bring out the less exclusive definition of atheism (anybody who lacks a belief in god) again. This is a text-book case of equivocation, not to mention moving the goalposts.

Theists aren't the only ones who've noticed this either, the following is from a longer submission on the difference between agnostics and atheists at apatheticagnostic.org.

http://www.apatheticagnostic.org/articles/meds2/med40/med796.html

Atheists are trying to force open the term ["atheism"] to include as many people as possible in their “club,” if you will. But opening the definition of “atheism” really will have only one ultimate effect, which is to make it so wide that it no longer means anything at all. If the solution is to create a “club” of non-theists and non-theism, the terms “freethinker” and “freethought” are available, and more than suffice for that purpose. Redefining “atheist” and “atheism,” on the other hand, won’t help, especially when dictionaries don’t uniformly support it.

© source where applicable

[Sparko]

Duh! By definition, if they don't believe in a God, then they are atheists. Saying that they believe that there is some kind of spirit or LIFE FORCE, something that they don't understand and so can not articulate, does not mean that they believe in God, particulary when they say that they do not believe.

so let's see. If I were to claim I believe in Angels, Demons, Spirits, Heaven and Hell, heck, everything the bible says, EXCEPT that there is a one guy in charge of it all and who created it all called God, then I can call myself an Atheist?

Because that is basically what the Mormons believe. They believe that after you die, you can become a "god" but their idea of God is more of a leadership position, where you become a God and then you can rearrange already existing matter in the universe, and then put already existing "spirits" into bodies and put them on the world you "made" and start the cycle all over again. There is not uber creator God who made everything. Just ordinary people who become godlike beings.

So I guess they are atheists too, right?

[lilpixieofterror]

Oh, Okay, could you please let me know whether or not I believe in God as well lilpix?

Your post bit says agnostic and yet here you are, arguing that the population of Sweden is '73% atheist' or something like that, when nothing really backs that position with at all. Different label, same content, as far as I can tell since you often argue like an atheist, talk like an atheist, and reason like an atheist.

[Nathan Poe]

nice of you to just chop off the rest of my post and disregard it.

Kinda shows me where you are coming from: Just ignore any evidence or argument that you don't like.

I am sure you will redefine my words above to say "Nice Job Nathan, I totally agree with you"

Or... I can point out that I edited my post to include the rest of your argument just before you replied -- so I'm not going to blame you for missing it.