Master Debater
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About cuchulain

  • Rank
    Stoic Atheist
  • Birthday 03/24/1978

Previous Fields

  • Occupation
  • Religious Affiliation
    stoic atheist
  • Marital Status
  • Ordination Date

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    citizen of the world
  • Interests
    reading, friends, philosophical studies, dungeons and dragons, science fiction, logic. Trying to understand others, and get them to understand me.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,862 profile views
  1. I don't think Rev Calli was specifically targeting Christians, although I do agree that the thread went that direction somewhat predictably. It seemed to me that the point of the thread was to ask if the person vilifying Christians outside of Hobby Lobby was right in his or her assessment or wrong. I may, of course, be mistaken.
  2. Are you certain of that? Perhaps without Gospel, some other form of music would have inspired our current musical culture?
  3. Perhaps they drank their own kool aid. It has become a propaganda word, especially to those of faith. It has been stigmatized to the point that those who follow religion would rather not call it that. But ultimately, they are deluding themselves. That's my assessment at the least.
  4. Gospel music is the birth of all music? There has been music much before Christianity...many other cultures had music.
  5. To me, religion has connotations of deity. Philosophy is an idealogical practice, and does not necessitate deity, although it does not exclude the possibility either. A church is a little more complex, I suppose. It could reference the building itself, or perhaps the congregation. Or it could reference the governance behind the church, the people in power of that particular church. Practice is something I hear referenced to Christians who don't. I suppose it should be related to all philosophies and religions. A person can have a good idea of what they think they should be doing, and then not do it anyway. I could claim the title of stoic, and then focus on material possessions if I desired to. On the same note, someone could say they are Christian. Perhaps even in THEIR idea of what constitutes Christian they are. But someone else might say they aren't practicing Christians because they don't follow such and such or so and so philosophy, which is CLEARLY outlined in the bible...isn't it funny how many can say that, but can't see anyone else's interpretation as being possible? Many religions like to emphasize charitable works, but the practitioners rarely actually practice charity, outside of the precincts of their church that is. In philosophical terms, there are those who claim perhaps to be pacifists. Maybe they've never been up against it, where they absolutely had to choose whether or not to stick to their guns. A lot of this relies upon judgment of course. Something a lot of religion claims to be against. How does a Christian reference what a REAL Christian is, without judging what a real Christian isn't? How does someone determine whether they are really practicing or not? Does the church determine what is and is not Evangelical Protestant? Or is it a personal interpretation of the scripture that matches that description?
  6. There were a lot of politics in that article. Politically, perhaps, the influence of Christianity is waning. Perhaps. I don't know the study groups used, the polling methods, anything behind the charts. I say perhaps, because can you imagine an Atheist being elected president yet? Also that particular article showed a lot of differences between various Christian groups vs unaffiliated but didn't really define what unaffiliated meant. Yes, it could be interpreted to mean Atheist. Or it could be any group not Christian, such as Pagan and Muslim. Or it could be the people taking that poll didn't associate with any specific branch of Christianity, like my Grandfather, and went to multiple churches.
  7. Kind of like the Atheistic's not the Ten Commandments monuments themselves, but rather where they are placed(on publicly funded land).
  8. When any one group does things just to spite another...such as Christians putting in an "In God We Trust" fee on the license plates? It's cultural bullying, right?
  9. In God We Trust...on police cars, is Christian morals being trampled? Some signs on the freeway by Atheists espousing that you don't need to be Christian to celebrate Christmas is being trampled? Satanists winning the right to put up their monument in equality with the ten commandments is Christian trampling? I don't see it, Dan. What I DID see...was Christians throwing a fit about each of those equalities.
  10. I don't know how it would turn out. Probably you are right. I have noticed one thing about living in Georgia that I did not notice in Illinois, and that is a vast majority of people are extremely friendly. Now, Dan might correlate this with them being Christian, and I admit it may be that. I have encountered one person who was rude here(by my own standards) in the last month of living here. And they weren't that bad. Maybe that's just good luck on my part, too. Judging from the way people treat each other, I would say it would NOT be an issue, but it could be. I guess I am still in that feeling things out stage, seeing how the community reacts to difference and so forth. I have seen people in action, but I have also seen several bumper stickers that say something along the lines of their faith being less offensive than their guns...
  11. True enough. I recognize the possibility of bias. However, the beginning point for me was a belief in Christianity as a child. So that phenomena is ruled out. It could be that I am biased against it as a result of having ruled it out, but all I can do is act in the manner I see as best and attempt to come to a less biased conclusion. Or, all I can do is my best. And as I said, I went from Christianity to Druidry, which is another form of deism for most.
  12. I look for God. I look for the truth. It isn't a matter of asking which God, I have sought many. The question becomes: How long should I look, or how detailed an examination should I give it? I give it the same length of time I would anything else(although, 20 years as a Druid kind of shows I am a little bit gullible at the least). I seek the scriptures, and truth located therein. I don't find it, but instead find pieces that don't match up, to me. When I couple that with the thought that these scriptures are supposed to be perfect, I recognize that the scriptures do not live up to themselves and so are false. As for new age, I suppose Druidry falls into that category as well, never mind it's ancient sources. They taught many of the same principles at the least. Nature reverence. But that, too, fails with examination. Sit against a tree and commune with it. But the problem is that the tree is not sentient. The human mind is a tricky beast, capable of many wonders. And still, people cannot accept that their own minds MIGHT be capable of tricking them into believing they have found THE Truth, with a capital T. God is Christ on the cross...well, if someone can produce evidence that Jesus existed that meets my satisfaction I may invest some more time into researching that particular religion. But no, it hasn't happened yet. (I still get that, "Historians agree" line as though it were sacrosanct since historians agree). I haven't seen any evidence as to WHY historians agree. And I still get people wondering why I don't accept that. I don't see science as God, or logic, or any process of thought. They are not sentient beings, but processes by which we might understand the universe(or multiverse) a little better. I am saddened to see people devote their lives to understanding the scriptures. What could they have accomplished with that much focus on any other endeavor?
  13. This past Saturday, I found myself in Home Depot purchasing some home improvement materials. I needed an associate to assist me in ordering a product and was sitting at the table waiting for her supervisor who understood something in the system a little better. Another associate came up and began talking about their church, and what they liked about it. The girl who was waiting on me talked about a few of the churches she had attended and what she liked about them. I thought, nothing major. I am in the south now. Before I made it to the check out at the front of the store, I heard three more conversations of the exact same nature. I live on a small country road pretty close to a school. In my neighborhood, there are four churches. In my town, I wouldn't begin to guess how many churches there are. There are religious signs all around. There is a fee on my license plates specifically for the sticker, "In God We Trust" instead of the county's name(A 0 dollar fee, but it's still classified as a fee). I have been through the check out lines at various stores on numerous occasions, and only twice has the cashier failed to say God bless. There are Gun shops, abounding. Now, gun shops don't really bother me. I recently came into possession of a fire arm that is non functional as an inheritance and thought I would look up the local gun laws. Not many. Guns are allowed pretty much everywhere, including on school property(k-12), and in church. Now...recall my previous Saturday. Do you imagine I would feel terribly comfortable telling my neighbors I am an Atheist? Sure, sure...I get the whole, "Their not really Christians if they can't accept it" argument. Practice vs reality, however, are two different things. They may not do anything to me. But then again, I might become at the least a victim of property vandalism, and at the worst the victim of a hate crime. How comfortable do you think I should be announcing that I am an Atheist to this particular community, with them being the majority? And therein lies the rub of it: It's not that I KNOW I will be the victim, but that the possibility exists that since I am in the minority in this area, I COULD be a victim. And that the chances aren't exactly slim. Are Christians taking over? As has been said, they already have. Enough so that a person with some intelligence can argue that they should be respected because they are the majority. You say respect...I say fear.
  14. And science is a process, something which accumulates. One piece of knowledge leads to another, and if one piece in the chain is faulty then the entire chain must be reconsidered. In fact, if one piece of a chain does not work, chances are good that other parts of the chain do not as well. If 2 + 2 turned out NOT to be 4, then a lot of math would have to be refigured. Since the processes of science produce repeatable and predictable results, this suggests that the process of science works. It has a track record, in other words. Sometimes those procedures produce inaccurate results, and such is discovered after repeated testing, and through method. What tools show that God exists and by what method? And how repeatable are those methods? And how is God falsifiable?
  15. I would revise that. Accept the default position of "I don't know, but I will attempt to find out".