Excuse the stupid question, but why would they not just call themselves Atheists instead of satanists?
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Excuse the stupid question, but why would they not just call themselves Atheists instead of satanists?
I think that's the point. But it seems that we can't choose which 'Christians' we're all lumped together with.
Same reason as why some atheists call themselves Pastafarians.
The BBC survey allowed people to “self identify”.
“A quarter of people who describe themselves as Christians…”
It really is highly unlikely that JWs made a statistically significant impact on the 25% stat though, considering they’re only 0.2% of what can be called the “Christian” population of Britain.
“A quarter of people who describe themselves as Christians…”
It really is highly unlikely that JWs made a statistically significant impact on the 25% stat though, considering they’re only 0.2% of what can be called the “Christian” population of Britain.
I believe you’ve characterized that accurately there.
Of course not. It is reasonable to doubt many things and to know how to interpret it so as not to literally turn the other cheek.
In any case, all of this, with all due respect to atheists, is absolutely irrelevant(if you believe).
The important thing is that your faith is strong, being able to find Jesus in your own way without no one to dictate how to get to him
Absolutely notOk so I wasn't talking through my ass
I think most of the Black metal bands who did the satanist thing back in the days here in Norway, were just some atheists that wanted to be edgy and get attention.
But to what you asked earlier, i see quite often on places like Reddit, that especially in the US, if you say you are atheist, people tend to say "you'll go to hell if you don't believe in god".
Funny thing is that as others pointed out, atheists don't believe in satan either. You can't believe in satan without believing in god, they're part of the same story.
I definitely understand why some, atleast religious or from religious families, can be a bit confused about the satanism/atheist thing.
How strange, I thought I only began posting on it yesterday. I'm the one dictating?
I'm not Catholic, why would I need to worry about such 'cherry picking'? Again, assumptions being made.
I think you need to read that again. I never said anyone was dictating anything and you've misunderstood my post. I don't know about you by yesterday and today counts as days in my book, although I did think that over-egging things slightly but I was halfway round the cliff walk by that stage so it was too late.
But there you by starting off with a dig to undermine what was said by the previous poster followed by a green smiley. Where have I seen that before?
Atheism isn't a group or an organised movement. It's a catch-all term for anyone who doesn't believe in a god.
I'm no expert but as has been said most Satanists are atheists but most atheists aren't part of the Satanist movement and wouldn't be interested in the Satan angle or the imagery etc.
There's a lot of info online about the various forms of Satanism if you're interested.
Or just ”adults” as opposed to children who believe fairytales ?
I mean, what do we call people who don’t believe in Santa Claus?
God, I have such an urge to post Pacino's speech from The Devil's Advocate. But I don't want to derail the thread. 
I have no clue what you are on about. You accuse me of trolling for days when in reality it's been maybe a day and a half that I've posted in this thread my opinions, not 'trolling' at most when you first accuse me.
I think you've maybe made a mistake and can't admit to it which is the norm here.
Nope I found you seemed to think people were being agressive towards you and reacted to that. You were accusing one poster of all sorts as I've already mentioned and you were quite condescending to another. Reading through your posts I came to the conclusion that you were trolling. Perhaps it was all a misunderstanding but I felt you were giving a lot more than you got. That's all I've got to say on the matter.
I'm afraid I think you're as barmy as at least one other but I appreciate I have to be cast as the villain in what could have remained a polite conversation from the start. It's the m.o. here to be drawn into being attacked by the guardians of this thread who as I've already said are protective of it as a place to jerk themselves silly rather than take on board mixed beliefs. As I said, I think you're unable to admit your mistake or over-exaggeration and to do so as with so many others would harm your ego. We mustn't have that of course. Have a virtual smiley, jerk.
Nice
I'm glad you appreciate it. Still unable to admit a mistake? Yup, I thought that would be the case.
You're the one throwing out insults and I'm over-reacting? As per the last post there appears to be baggage I'm unaware of. I haven't read the previous 300 pages. I was commenting on that interaction and that is how I honestly saw it. I won't be replying again.
BBut..but.. you've already told us that you wouldn't be replying again. I think you're full of it and as I said unable to admit a mistake in attacking me. Nothing new.
I'm sorry Oates, but I've been following this entire discussion and I also think you've been needlessly aggressive here, seeing attacks almost from the start where there weren't any (yet) and resorting to sarcasm instead of taking the time to explain your perspective (which people did look for). Others may have responded, but I think you started that tone. I also think the 'jerk' at the end of this post deserves a warning from the mods.
Anyway, to be honest, I am still not sure if I fully understand your point. (But I might have gotten there, see also the next paragraph.) I mean, I get that everyone can be their own kind of Christian regardless of any denomination's dogmas, but ultimately, everything we know now about Jesus comes from the Bible. There is no independent tradition of word of mouth that continued from his time to ours. So I can see that one can consider the Bible highly unreliable and only very roughly indicative of Jesus's life and deeds, and that there is hence plenty of room to interpret things in the way one thinks makes most sense or that means most to a person. But I don't see how one could reject the Bible entirely as a source of information, cause as I said, there is no independent oral tradition left.
Or is that not what you meant when you said that "the short answer is that you do not have to believe in the Bible to be a follower of Christ" ? Did you maybe mean that you don't believe in the Bible as the Holy Word from God, and just see it as a fairly unreliable historical account? Cause then I think I get it again. (It squares with what I wrote above.)
I disagree, btw, with @Carolina Red that being a Christian obliges one to belief in various things, like the resurrection at a minimum. I think that, at the core, it just means that one is a follower of Christ, i.e., that one sees Jesus as a kind of guide or guiding principle in life. What that means beyond that, and how one acts upon or practices that view, doesn't change whether one is a christian, but goes into what denomination one belongs to (if any; none for Oates from what I understand). For example, even if Jesus wasn't a son of God and never resurrected, his teachings (or the spirit of those teachings, to take the literal messages of the Bible out of the discussion again) can still be considered worthy of following/veneration.
Personally, I need convincing evidence to understand that something is true. To me the historical accuracy or otherwise of the bible is about the only thing you could use as evidence of a god's existence. Given the contradictions and oddities in there it is (or should be) impossible to think that it is the unaltered word of God or indeed anyone. And I don't think most Christians do so.
Personally I think while various versions may have some historical accuracy or at least origins, the obvious plagiarisms, inconsistencies and the large periods between them being authored and the events as described, make them so far from being history that it is hard to know anything at all for sure.
So imo what it comes down to is that while the various bibles and oral history around them must be the basis of Christianity, you don't neccesarily need to believe any particular bit and in any case faith doesn't require evidence.
I need evidence but that is me. I do however not like efforts to corrupt science to try to prove that God exists. The pseudo science nonsense of "Intelligent" Design being a primary irritant.
I can see how having your faith question by demands for logic when that isn't how you define your own faith can irritate and that is why I avoid such conversations with friends in person. My best mate is an Anglican vicar who came to his faith, or rather back to his childhood faith, through what he called a religious experience. I have never enquired further and he feels no need to volunteer the information. Which I appreciate.
Personally I think while various versions may have some historical accuracy or at least origins, the obvious plagiarisms, inconsistencies and the large periods between them being authored and the events as described, make them so far from being history that it is hard to know anything at all for sure.
So imo what it comes down to is that while the various bibles and oral history around them must be the basis of Christianity, you don't neccesarily need to believe any particular bit and in any case faith doesn't require evidence.
I need evidence but that is me. I do however not like efforts to corrupt science to try to prove that God exists. The pseudo science nonsense of "Intelligent" Design being a primary irritant.
I can see how having your faith question by demands for logic when that isn't how you define your own faith can irritate and that is why I avoid such conversations with friends in person. My best mate is an Anglican vicar who came to his faith, or rather back to his childhood faith, through what he called a religious experience. I have never enquired further and he feels no need to volunteer the information. Which I appreciate.
Last edited:
I think it's just my sense of humour over being told how I should come to a faith I hold by an atheist that tends to come out as sarcasm. Let's not forget that the written word doesn't always appear to register exactly how you'd prefer but enduring the usual sarcastic attack myself I just tend to reflect back the behaviours proffered. I always feel it's difficult to remain prim and proper as others might hope you would whilst they feel free to take the piss which let's face it, I shouldn't expect less.
Anyway, I'm glad you've given it some thought, I can't honestly think we're going to make any progress with me repeating myself again and again. If people had taken the time to read what I said instead of misrepresenting what I said, then I'm sure the discussion could have remained polite and helpful. Being attacked in the usual mob style isn't conducive to mutual understanding but because it is you, I'll try very simply to explain, once more.
The short answer to not having to believe in the Bible - either wholly since there has been doubt for many years in the intactness of the scriptures contained, or the ability to understand any of the Bible at all, is that we are not required to hold a belief in the Bible - but instead a Faith in Christ however you come to it. As I said earlier, imagine a missionary going to attempt to bring his beliefs to a 'lost tribe' - let's call them, and losing his/her Bible on the journey. The spoken word and perhaps his/her actions are all the missionary has to attempt to bring the tribe to a Faith. As people who hold beliefs maybe they would more easily understand the difference between belief and faith. If the will to continue a sharing of opinions and experience had been present maybe they would have discovered what they did not appreciate.
To further explain my humour it was in response to my statement about Faith in Christ and the spoken word it was demanded of me that I must have had access to and read the Bible as a child. Now, tell me just how much I should assume regarding your childhood and let me know if you feel I'm qualified to make assumptions and demands upon yours before you have a good laugh?
I hope you can take that on board because we really have been travelling around and around in circles now for about 24 hours and not in fact the days that I'm told by Withnail that I have been trolling this thread. Is it better that that strikes my funny bone or that it induces some sort of frustration? One thing has always remained a constant in my discussions in this thread, I won't submit to the mobbing and I'll stand up for my faith, I can't see much respect coming my way from the people here that I respect - and I'll admit that pool has become more shallow lately - if I simply roll over and submit to a good kicking. Not in me and while others cannot apologise for over-exaggerations and false portrayal I certainly don't feel I have much to feel sorry for. Let's remain good humoured and not be mistaken for sarcasm eh? If I've missed any of your questions I hope you'll forgive me. Now, just in case someone else is getting frustrated while waiting to use the thread I'll stop. Have a smilie
Ruining my self esteem, speedrun edition.
This is easily the most frustrating thread to read on the Caf, possibly ever. Which is why I only have 196 posts in it.
I'm sorry, I don't understand your post.
I thought this was quite respectful, meaning that I'm not among the people you respect.
Just a bad joke.
And it's so hard to appreciate the difference between humour and sarcasm apparently, and I do find it hard to express as well.
How do you know I don't hold any respect for you? I always appreciate your posts even if we disagree but there's the difference.
You said that you haven't seen much respect from people you respect, and if we twist and turn and interpret that statement in the worst possible way it's possible to get to the conclusion that out of those you have seen respect from no one rises to members of those you respect.
As I said, just a bad joke. I didn't mean anything serious about it other than amusing myself.
This is how confusing this gets.
I said that in the context of holding a discussion on this forum, that if I did not remain true to my beliefs, values, faith etc then I couldn't see that I would deserve maybe is a better word, respect, from the people I respect. In that sentence I'm talking generally and not just about the experience of the last 24 odd hours.
It's true that this experience has led me to doubt the respect I had previously held for some but that isn't about my faith and their 'beliefs' but instead about the way they have been prepared to behave themselves. I doubt it'll be forever, I don't tend to hold grudges but I know that's not a universal value.
edit, I appreciate the humour.
Cheers Oates, I appreciate it. And I get why it can be frustrating. Religious beliefs is not really something one always can or wants to explain, or defend especially. I might also lack some sensibility to the subject myself and not notice the bits that really irritate. And yeah, everything comes across differently than we intended in writing. I'm using 'one' instead of 'you' in these posts to make clear I'm not talking about someone specific, but then it might sound very aloof in turn. Oh well.I think it's just my sense of humour over being told how I should come to a faith I hold by an atheist that tends to come out as sarcasm. Let's not forget that the written word doesn't always appear to register exactly how you'd prefer but enduring the usual sarcastic attack myself I just tend to reflect back the behaviours proffered. I always feel it's difficult to remain prim and proper as others might hope you would whilst they feel free to take the piss which let's face it, I shouldn't expect less.
Anyway, I'm glad you've given it some thought, I can't honestly think we're going to make any progress with me repeating myself again and again. If people had taken the time to read what I said instead of misrepresenting what I said, then I'm sure the discussion could have remained polite and helpful. Being attacked in the usual mob style isn't conducive to mutual understanding but because it is you, I'll try very simply to explain, once more.
The short answer to not having to believe in the Bible - either wholly since there has been doubt for many years in the intactness of the scriptures contained, or the ability to understand any of the Bible at all, is that we are not required to hold a belief in the Bible - but instead a Faith in Christ however you come to it. As I said earlier, imagine a missionary going to attempt to bring his beliefs to a 'lost tribe' - let's call them, and losing his/her Bible on the journey. The spoken word and perhaps his/her actions are all the missionary has to attempt to bring the tribe to a Faith. As people who hold beliefs maybe they would more easily understand the difference between belief and faith. If the will to continue a sharing of opinions and experience had been present maybe they would have discovered what they did not appreciate.
To further explain my humour it was in response to my statement about Faith in Christ and the spoken word it was demanded of me that I must have had access to and read the Bible as a child. Now, tell me just how much I should assume regarding your childhood and let me know if you feel I'm qualified to make assumptions and demands upon yours before you have a good laugh?
I hope you can take that on board because we really have been travelling around and around in circles now for about 24 hours and not in fact the days that I'm told by Withnail that I have been trolling this thread. Is it better that that strikes my funny bone or that it induces some sort of frustration? One thing has always remained a constant in my discussions in this thread, I won't submit to the mobbing and I'll stand up for my faith, I can't see much respect coming my way from the people here that I respect - and I'll admit that pool has become more shallow lately - if I simply roll over and submit to a good kicking. Not in me and while others cannot apologise for over-exaggerations and false portrayal I certainly don't feel I have much to feel sorry for. Let's remain good humoured and not be mistaken for sarcasm eh? If I've missed any of your questions I hope you'll forgive me. Now, just in case someone else is getting frustrated while waiting to use the thread I'll stop. Have a smilie
Yeah, I think I understand you're saying. Thanks for writing that out. It's interesting, actually: as much as I said that there is no continuous oral tradition of Christianity outaide the Bible, it's probably also true that most people first become Christian through conversation - often with one's parents, for example. And most of these people probably first form an image of what it means to be Christian through those interactions. Meaning that, if they ever seriously engage with the Bible, it's a secondary process that may take a backseat to the perspective they already have. So in that sense, there might actually be a kind of non-orthodox stream of transmission - even if ultimately a lot of the wording that's used for this is probably influenced by the language of the Bible.
Maybe not exactly what we were talking about (or is it?), but it's an interesting perspective that i had not considered. But then I do tend to take a rather anthropological perspective to religion.
Here, have a smiley back:
I normally never open it, but now I'm here and even posting. QED mihi.
(Surely I can do some Latin, this thread seems right for it.)
Clearly you haven't played enough video games, Oates.
Last edited:
You say that like it's a bad thing.Clearly you haven't played enough video games, Oates.
It’s been heresy since the beginning of the Christian religion to preach that the resurrection didn’t happen. And honestly, if it didn’t happen then what’s the point of Christianity? Why worship a dead con man?
In all seriousness, if you had to identify the two things in the Bible that are absolutely non-negotiable to the Christian faith, they’re that Jesus was immaculately conceived by God and that he resurrected from the dead.
So how would you call someone that follows Christ 'just' because they think Christ was a divinely inspired and inspirational figure with a philosophy worthy of devotion?
(Also, I would say that that's the actual core of Christianity. The rest (son of God, resurrection, all the miracles) is great for divine legitimation, but without a concept worth following, it would just have been a cool story.)
It’s not what I would call them it’s what the Bible says the Judeo-Christian god would call them. The resurrection is Christianity. It is quite honestly absurd to call yourself a Christian if you don’t believe in that event. Without it, Jesus is just another common man. He can’t be God if he didn’t resurrect. This is all in the religious text of the religion. The problem is folks don’t read it.
That seems a very rigid definition to me, that rests on its own presupposition. The doctrine first approach. People have followed all kinds of people in throughout history, and these followers are then usually named after the person (if they didn't name their cult / philosophy / religion). So I would rather argue that there are tons of denominations in Christianity that may emphasize different elements like you're doing; but that it's the basic premise of following Christ that makes you a Christian, regardless of the details.
That’s because it is. Christianity is a rigid religion. Jesus himself said that he’s the only way to salvation and that he was the embodiment of all OT prophesy and law. That modern folks don’t like that is irrelevant to the fact that Jesus was rigid in his teachings.
Which would go against the teachings of Christ, so it therefore cannot actually be “Christian”.
Jesus himself makes a prediction of this in Matthew…
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’(Q)will enter the kingdom of heaven,(R) but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.(S) 22 Many will say to me on that day,(T)‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’(U) 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’(V)
But then the four Gospels tell fairly different stories (in the details), and there were originally other Gospels that didn't make the Canon because of how they told the story. So to me, this confuses organized Christianity (the way it took shape in the second half of the first century CE), with a more intuitive way of being a Christian.
But my wife (more or less) agrees with you, so I'll leave it there before I get into trouble.
I anyway think we'll go full-circle soon, but I'll happily let you have the final word.But then the four Gospels tell fairly different stories (in the details), and there were originally other Gospels that didn't make the Canon because of how they told the story. So to me, this confuses organized Christianity (the way it took shape in the second half of the first century CE), with a more intuitive way of being a Christian.
But my wife (more or less) agrees with you, so I'll leave it there before I get into trouble.