Why dont you think that one can be atheist by saying he believes in Gods existance but choses not to serve him?

Surely we can reason about this
Bo, maybe you havent heard of it but it doesnt mean it isnt so...

If you said that it is a horse deformed i can agree, still not the unicorn fairy tale nobody will give their lives for and die.

You also mentioned probabilities...id go for God over the unicorn and spaghetti monster

For the same reason one cannot be a theist by not believing in God but still being kind to other people. It is not a matter of denying that such God haters exist (those who believe but choose not to serve); it is associating them with the term that is used to mean no belief.

Then show me how it IS so. Show me any credible source that defines "atheist" as one who believes in God, but chooses not to serve him. Heck, show me any source -- including crackpot webpages. I have simply never seen such a claim made before, and you've got me curious now as if there is anyone out there making such a claim.

Again, belief does not entail one must live or die for that belief. Conversely, people living and dying for a belief does not make it any more true (abortion, anti-abortion, Bible, Koran, USA, North Korea, democracy, dictatorship, etc.)

One of my husbands believed in God. But he turned back into the world and turned his back on Him. Years later, he tried to seek Him again, but he knew in his heart, that it wasn't possible for him to ever get back what he once had. But I wouldn't call him an atheist, because he knew God was the real deal.

Jesus said "by their fruit you will know them". It seems a bit puzzling to me how any intelligent and rational person could find it easier to believe in a unicorn than in the man who actually split history in two and reversed the whole system of values of this world.

The Social and Historical Impact of Christianity

A man? I believe Jesus existed as a man; what I don't believe is a perfect, loving, God who commands genocide, sacrifices his son to himself, and sends people to eternal torture, i.e. the Biblical God. And yes, a unicorn is more likely that than imaginary monster.

@Fiona,This can be said about other men as well. Muhammad Ibn `Abd Allāh Ibn `Abd al-Muttalib, Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha, etc.
What do you mean by this?

@Fiona

What I experience is genuine empathy, not "philosophical suffering." Is this C.S Lewis's term? I don't see how it is morally commendable to learn how to stop "suffering about suffering." That's what it means to become callous. Isn't it? Shouldn't we be bothered? Animals who get slaughtered certainly don't philosophize about their pain, they feel it directly. It is my pain not to philosophize about their pain, but to feel empathy.

My question to you is, are you a aunicornist?

Why are you discussing fictional animals in a religious discussion if not to form an association that doesn't belong. The fallacy as used in "the God delusion" is a strawman argument of the flying teapot because Dawkins doesn't address the existance of God he uses a ridiculous version of a material object to draw a parallel to the Theistic belief in a deity focusing most specifically on the Christian God.

It doesn't water down the significance because there simply aren't considerable beliefs in these fictional things. Its an attempt to say see we both don't believe in things how about you add one more to the list.

To me, fictional gods and fictional animals are the same -- both fictional. As you eloquently put it before, popularity of a belief does not lend truth to the belief. I understand fully that to YOU they are very different, but to me they are not. So my question remains (unanswered). Do you hold a belief in the non-existence of unicorns or not? I will just assume you would answer "yes", therefore, the answer to my initial question, "can't we say the same things about unicorns?" is "yes".

tneveca wrote:

@BoThat's nice (to you). That means you assume something is fictional when evidence suggests it could exist. So if you found a fossil of a horse with a horn would you assume its fictional because I see an inconsistency.

To some people taxes don't exist. But if the government says they owe taxes and don't pay they will suffer consequences.

Show me a fossil of God and I will reconsider my position.

There have been plenty of records of Jesus (which serves the same purpose as a fossil) so I know they won't cause you to reconsider your position as the information has been available to you a long time.

So a 2000 year old story about Jesus is as good as fossil of Jesus? While I agree the value of evidence is subjective, I really can't think of many historians, anthropologists, or theologians that would prefer another story about Jesus to a fossil of him.

How would you know it was him? 2000 year old historical testimony is more valuable than much older rocks... For the sake of argument if the shroud of Turin were of Jesus (which would be more valuable than a fossil) how does that tell us more about Jesus than entire books based on historical testimony.

Andrew, while it is true that there were many sages who revolutionized human thinking, Jesus' impact remains unequalled in that it has implications at multiple levels (religious, social, economic, psychological, etc)., even in the way we structure our calendars (2012 AD = Anno Domini.(the year of the Lord) i.e. after Christ).

"The greatest among you will be your servant." (Matthew 23:11,12)

“If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all.” (Mark 9:35)

“If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." (Mark 8:34)

Bo Bennett wrote:
Bo, this way of thinking reflects the general tendency of science to focus on death rather than life. If Christ is not who he said he was, how could he have had such a deep impact on humanity? The greatest rulers and conquerers of this world lie dead and forgotten. We read about them in history books and that's it. How is it possible that a poor carpenter from a small Roman province managed not only to change the world history, but to inspire such love in people that many were - and still are - willing to die for him? That even now, 2000 years after his life and death, in the age of computers and planes, he still plays such a central role in our society? That most charitable acts are still done in his name? That despite all the internal conflicts within the church, there is still something that holds it together? Where is all this power coming from? Can natural selection explain that? Even common sense tells us that "there is no smoke without fire".

Bo Bennett wrote:
I bet you would, too. You would have all the evidence to declare Him dead.

There are countless people who had "deep impacts" on humanity. But you are on to something. Is it not the people, but the ideas that really have the impact? Was it the Jewish carpenter that had the impact, or the idea of Christianity? Ideas are more powerful than people (and imaginary gods). Christianity is in indeed powerful -- as a concept. No god required.

Many theologians today admit that Christianity might not have got very far without Paul. So was it really Jesus that had the impact? Or the unoriginal ideas in which he promoted? (as taken from Old Testament, Buddha, Pagan religions, etc.)

That will do for now

Agree, but then I ask you: was it ideas that made Paul start his mission or a mystical experience? Who or what inspired that mystical experience? On what basis? Was it not a mystical experience that made Mother Teresa start her mission? Or Teresa of Avila? Or emperor Constantine? Or St Augustine? And countless others? If Christianity is only a concept, it is certainly one carried forth and sustained by spiritual revelations. Where do all these revelations come from? If they are nothing but delusions, shouldn't all these examples make us seriously reconsider our current views on delusions?

@Fiona

This sort of argument would be more persuasive if there were only Christianity to consider. I have argued with Muslims who claimed that Mohammed must have been divinely inspired because he engendered a critical spiritual movement that spread far and wide. Buddhists don't argue much, but if they did, they could equally stress the powerfully influential teachings of Siddartha Gotama, showing how his sublime principles pacified savage nations throughout the East. Both of these figures were responsible for initiating paradigm shifts in moral values that have been globally influential for over a thousand years.

In addition to @tneveca's comments, different people embrace ideas in different ways. To the Christian, their inspiration might come in a "vision" of Jesus. Some have dreams, moments of insight when reflecting on nature, "eureka" moments at 3am or even when on the toilet (guilty). What is called a "spiritual revelation" is a statement of faith, not a factual claim about the source of information. And this information almost certainly comes from the mind of the one having the "revelation".

As for the value of these so called revelations, you cannot take the good and ignore the bad. These same type of visions have been responsible for countless murders and genocides and other "evils" throughout history. The results of delusions are not all harmful (although by definition, delusions are pathological). We should respect inspiration in all its forms while applying the same level critical evaluation despite its claimed "source".

As usual, no god required.

tneveca wrote:
@tneveca
Far from weakening it, this only strengthens the argument that spiritual revelations are a crucial factor in the development of humankind. It's as if God tried to reach us through the density of matter by these occasional spiritual breakthroughs. All world's major religions are quantum leaps in the history of human thought. Christianity doesn't deny the existence of other spirits, it rather brings a new Spirit into the world. It is in the qualitative difference between the Holy Spirit and other spirits that the true essence of Christianity lies. Those who perceive this difference can't help testifying that the Holy Spirit is, indeed, the Spirit of God. But one has to go beyond mere philosophical speculations to grasp this truth.

Bo Bennett wrote: I agree that faith is a big determining factor in the content and quality of our visions and also in the way we relate to them. But I disagree with your statement that the source of information is the mind itself, at least not in the strict sense of the physical brain. The brain is a machine designed to help us interact with reality, a detector rather than a generator. Each of our five senses has a correspondent aspect of reality that justifies its existence. There would be no eyes if there were nothing to see, no ears if there were nothing to hear, etc. Why would our sixth sense be an exception to this rule?

That's precisely why the Bible emphasizes the importance of spiritual discernment and teaches us to judge all spirits by their fruit.

It is this very definition that I feel needs to be seriously challenged. For as it is, it poses more questions than it answers.

The brain does not detect emotions; it generates them. Love, hate, sorrow, joy -- all generated, and all with evolutionary explanations.

Your question assumes what you affirm though faith -- that we have a sixth sense, and your feelings (feeling God) is due to an external signal, rather than an internal one like every other emotion and/or feeling.

Whose spirit was with the Israelites as they conquered village after village not sparing any man, woman, or child? Some fruit is sour grapes.