A while back, I was asked what religion or philosophical position I identified with. Unfortunately, I couldn't for the life of me decide on an appropriate little box witha nice label, to describe my beliefs or non-beliefs. Well, it later occured to me that the perhaps oxymoronic term "atheist christian with pantheistic leanings" would probably make for a nice descriptor. What do you guys thinks, is that a logical and/or plausible descriptor?

to give you a little perspective, apart from the whole not believing in the existence of God, any God, I'm actually no different from the average christian. So, discuss?

edit: It really wasn't a freudian slip, pantheistic not deistic

I truly do not understand your position. Can you explain how you arrive at that label?

"atheist christian with deistic leanings"

This is more than an oxymoron. Its conflicting and I don't think you can logically defend such description. If you're a deist, then you cannot be an atheist because atheists don't believe in the existence of any God, Christian or non. Whereas deists do. Also if you are an atheist you can not be a Christian because the latter believe in God. And if you are a deist you cannot be a Christian either because deistic God is not based on religion.

I think you are a deist. simple. You believe in some higher Being but not in the Christian or Muslim way.

Mr. KAG, sorry to say,you really sound confused. You cant be atheist and christian at the same time. Maybe you need to go back and check the meanings of both words in your dictionary again.

nferyn:

I truly do not understand your position. Can you explain how you arrive at that label?

It was just something I was mulling over. I acknowledge and know that I'm an atheist, however I do practically everything your average run of the mill christian would do. I go to church, I have a tend to partake in christian apologetics, read the Bible etc. It seems to me the atheist moniker on its own does not aspects of my life. It also seems to some extent, that people who use the atheist label are not supposed to partake in those activities. I don't know if that makes it a clearer.

By the way the label isn't definite yet, I was hoping discussion would either iron out the kinks in the label, or make me drop it altogether.

demmy:

This is more than an oxymoron. Its conflicting and I don't think you can logically defend such description. If you're a deist, then you cannot be an atheist because atheists don't believe in the existence of any God, Christian or non. Whereas deists do. Also if you are an atheist you can not be a Christian because the latter believe in God. And if you are a deist you cannot be a Christian either because deistic God is not based on religion.

I think you are a deist. simple. You believe in some higher Being but not in the Christian or Muslim way.

Sorry that should have read pantheistic, not deistic. Typo.

To respond to your post, no I don't believe in the existence of an higher being

alheri:

Mr. KAG, sorry to say,you really sound confused. You can't be atheist and christian at the same time. Maybe you need to go back and check the meanings of both words in your dictionary again.

Yes, I'm confused about what nice little descriptor I can use, but believe me I know the meaning of both terms.

Ok KAG, Hope you find the answers you need.

alheri:

Ok KAG, Hope you find the answers you need.

I have

@Kag,
LOL, did you have a sex change? or you've been deceiving us all along?
or is it that the confusion of faith has become a confusion of gender?

ricadelide:

@Kag,
LOL, did you have a sex change? or you've been deceiving us all along?
or is it that the confusion of faith has become a confusion of gender?

No

KAG:

It was just something I was mulling over. I acknowledge and know that I'm an atheist, however I do practically everything your average run of the mill christian would do. I go to church, I have a tend to partake in christian apologetics, read the Bible etc. It seems to me the atheist moniker on its own does not aspects of my life. It also seems to some extent, that people who use the atheist label are not supposed to partake in those activities. I don't know if that makes it a clearer.

By the way the label isn't definite yet, I was hoping discussion would either iron out the kinks in the label, or make me drop it altogether.

Kag,

Bill Cosby once called himself:

"A scared athiest."

Smile.

ricadelide:

@Kag,
LOL, did you have a sex change? or you've been deceiving us all along?
or is it that the confusion of faith has become a confusion of gender?

i also thought KAG was female

KAG:

It was just something I was mulling over. I acknowledge and know that I'm an atheist, however I do practically everything your average run of the mill christian would do. I go to church, I have a tend to partake in christian apologetics, read the Bible etc. It seems to me the atheist moniker on its own does not aspects of my life. It also seems to some extent, that people who use the atheist label are not supposed to partake in those activities. I don't know if that makes it a clearer.

By the way the label isn't definite yet, I was hoping discussion would either iron out the kinks in the label, or make me drop it altogether.

Mr KAG
There's a fundamental flaw in your thinking. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to believe being a Christian is about the things you do. Go to church, read the bible, do good deeds etc. Wrong. Its not about what you do but about who you are. Christianity is not about doing but being. Even Mahatma Gandhi did all the stuff you claim to do but that never m,ade him a christian. To be called a christian any kind at all depends on what God has made you to [i]be [/i]in your spirit.

Christianity is not about doing but being

KAG:

It was just something I was mulling over. I acknowledge and know that I'm an atheist, however I do practically everything your average run of the mill christian would do. I go to church, I have a tend to partake in christian apologetics, read the Bible etc. It seems to me the atheist moniker on its own does not aspects of my life. It also seems to some extent, that people who use the atheist label are not supposed to partake in those activities. I don't know if that makes it a clearer.

By the way the label isn't definite yet, I was hoping discussion would either iron out the kinks in the label, or make me drop it altogether.

i think your label is definite "CONFUSED". strive for convinction in whatever you choose either as an atheist or a christain. if you are a little of both, then you are still confused or unsure.

remember he who sits on the fence stands the risk of being quashed from both sides.

Aproko:

remember he who sits on the fence stands the risk of being quashed from both sides.

The atheists don't quash

nferyn:

The atheists don't quash

just a figure of speech. didn't mean it literarily. but am sure you know that already

Drusilla:

Kag,

Bill Cosby once called himself:

"A scared athiest."

Smile.

I can understand the sentiment: there's so much to scared of in life and death.

Aproko:

i also thought KAG was female

So did I.

lafile:

Mr KAG
There's a fundamental flaw in your thinking. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to believe being a Christian is about the things you do. Go to church, read the bible, do good deeds etc. Wrong. Its not about what you do but about who you are. Christianity is not about doing but being. Even Mahatma Gandhi did all the stuff you claim to do but that never m,ade him a christian. To be called a christian any kind at all depends on what God has made you to [i]be [/i]in your spirit.

I disagree in part. While, I agree Christianity isn't just about actions - even though I've heard it's "by their fruits you shall know them" - I disagree that it has anything to do with God making anything in the spirit - it's, in my opinion, linked with what beliefs you hold.

Aproko:

i think your label is definite "CONFUSED". strive for convinction in whatever you choose either as an atheist or a christain. if you are a little of both, then you are still confused or unsure.

Would you also say an agnostic Christian is confused? Unsure? Maybe, but I don't know if confused would be a right descriptor.

remember he who sits on the fence stands the risk of being quashed from both sides.

Which is why I only sit on fences with amicable people on both sides.

okay KAG, maybe UNSURE is the right word.

but I still think CONFUSED is also appropriate, cos you go to church, perhaps you even enjoy sunday services _{or whatever day of the week they hold} and then somehow you feel the pastor in front of you is not saying everything, something in his gospel just doesnt strike any chord in you, perhaps this is because there is no God anywhere. the bible seems contradictory, yet so many seem to have found peace and happiness in these words of the bible _{perhaps they are pretending or just plain lazy?} so you are confused or perhaps unsure as to how something that doesnt seem to make any sense can make so much sense!!!! _{at least to some people}

on the fence with amicable people on both sides?? hey in every 12, there must be a judas, so how amicable do you think the multitude of people on both sides can be?

@KAG
Do you call an animal a Dog because it barks or does the animal bark because its a Dog?

@KAG
Do you call an animal a Dog because it barks or does the animal bark because its a Dog?

lafile:

@KAG
Do you call an animal a Dog because it barks or does the animal bark because its a Dog?

You know that seals bark as well

methinks his point was; the observed characteristic is a product of the nature of the object. Imitation does not bring about a change in nature.
True christianity is about a change in nature.
A seal's bark is different from a dog's bark.
when you hear a dog's bark, its either a real dog is barking or someone is imitating it; the problem (with christianity) usually lies in the latter.

ricadelide:

methinks his point was; the observed characteristic is a product of the nature of the object. Imitation does not bring about a change in nature.
True christianity is about a change in nature.

Yuck, I hate essentialism with a vengeance The bane of European philosophy

ricadelide:

A seal's bark is different from a dog's bark.
when you hear a dog's bark, its either a real dog is barking or someone is imitating it; the problem (with christianity) usually lies in the latter.

It's a false dichotomy, the problem of the excluded middle. You can also call it the 'no true Scotsman' phalacy or framing bias, whatever floats your boat. Anyway, the analogy is flawed.

Aproko:

okay KAG, maybe UNSURE is the right word.

but I still think CONFUSED is also appropriate, because you go to church, perhaps you even enjoy sunday services _{or whatever day of the week they hold} and then somehow you feel the pastor in front of you is not saying everything, something in his gospel just doesnt strike any chord in you, perhaps this is because there is no God anywhere. the bible seems contradictory, yet so many seem to have found peace and happiness in these words of the bible _{perhaps they are pretending or just plain lazy?} so you are confused or perhaps unsure as to how something that doesnt seem to make any sense can make so much sense!!!! _{at least to some people}

I'm not sure I follow (now I'm confused). In any case, at the time I was trying to find a label that could wholly describe my stance and my activities - I din't think just describing myself as an atheist would be adequate.

on the fence with amicable people on both sides?? hey in every 12, there must be a judas, so how amicable do you think the multitude of people on both sides can be?

Amicable enough to prevent the Judas in the dozen from rearing his/her head.

lafile:

@KAG
Do you call an animal a Dog because it barks or does the animal bark because its a Dog?

Neither. As Nferyn pointed out, barking does not a dog make, and some dogs do not bark.

ricadelide:

methinks his point was; the observed characteristic is a product of the nature of the object. Imitation does not bring about a change in nature.

Actually, imitation can bring about a change in nature.

True christianity is about a change in nature.

And strangely enough, my nature was changed: I became, so to speak, a new person. Would that count?

A seal's bark is different from a dog's bark.
when you hear a dog's bark, its either a real dog is barking or someone is imitating it; the problem (with christianity) usually lies in the latter.

I disagree. The type of bark a dog makes can often depend on its breed and can vary wildly - with that in mind it would be wrong to think a seal's bark is necessarily different from the bark of dogs. Furthermore, seals aren't imitating the bark of dogs, they are making their own sounds which just happens to be similar to that of a dog and because dogs are the more familiar animals with barks to humans we make the comparism and labelling in respect to dogs.

nferyn:

Yuck, I hate essentialism with a vengeance The bane of European philosophy

I'm not an existentialist, neither do i subscribe to its teachings. i was only trying to re-state or paraphrase what someone earlier said.

It's a false dichotomy, the problem of the excluded middle. You can also call it the 'no true Scotsman' phalacy or framing bias, whatever floats your boat. Anyway, the analogy is flawed.

My statement about a seal's bark was only in response to what you said about seals also barking. it is not in relation with the next statement i made about dog's barking ie i wasn't saying a seal is trying to imitate a dog.

Coming to my statement, even though people make this kind of flaw in certain cases, i really don't think it applies here. there are many 'either/or' statements that can be validly made. i made two broad generalizations; i didnt go into specifics so i don't think the flaw you mentioned applies. If it does, then perhaps you could give other possible alternatives - i believe they'll fall under either bracket. Remember i said a dog's bark.

KAG:

Actually, imitation can bring about a change in nature.

i disagree; at least in the case in reference.

KAG:

And strangely enough, my nature was changed: I became, so to speak, a new person. Would that count?

good for you, although i doubt it was the kind of change in nature i'm referring to.

I disagree. The type of bark a dog makes can often depend on its breed and can vary wildly - with that in mind it would be wrong to think a seal's bark is necessarily different from the bark of dogs. Furthermore, seals aren't imitating the bark of dogs, they are making their own sounds which just happens to be similar to that of a dog and because dogs are the more familiar animals with barks to humans we make the comparism and labelling in respect to dogs.

again, i made a statement in reference to what nferyn said; the two statements aren't linked. ie i'm not saying a seal is imitating a dog. Sorry for the confusion.
i still maintain however that a seal's bark is distinct and different from a dog's bark. like you said, one can assume we call the sounds they make barks just because we see it being similar to that of a dog, but i dont believe one would misplace one for the other.
the bark varies depending on the size, age, etc of the dog. But that doesn't negate what i said; that's why i qualified my statement by saying 'a dog's bark'. i'm trying to drive home a more important point.
Anyways, these are trivialities.

ricadelide:

Yuck, I hate [b]essentialism [/b]with a vengeance Tongue The bane of European philosophy Angry

I'm not an existentialist, neither do i subscribe to its teachings. i was only trying to re-state or paraphrase what someone earlier said.

I wasn't talking about existentialism, but rather about essentialism. As a biologist (and especially as one of the very rare creationist variety), you should know what I'm talking about.

ricadelide:

It's a false dichotomy, the problem of the excluded middle. You can also call it the 'no true Scotsman' phalacy or framing bias, whatever floats your boat. Anyway, the analogy is flawed.

My statement about a seal's bark was only in response to what you said about seals also barking. it is not in relation with the next statement i made about dog's barking ie i wasn't saying a seal is trying to imitate a dog.

Are seals imitating dogs? Are seals of the same 'kind' as dogs (pun intended)? You're juxtaposing things that's shouldn't be It's not an either/or story.

ricadelide:

Coming to my statement, even though people make this kind of flaw in certain cases, i really don't think it applies here. there are many 'either/or' statements that can be validly made. i made two broad generalizations; i didnt go into specifics so i don't think the flaw you mentioned applies. If it does, then perhaps you could give other possible alternatives - i believe they'll fall under either bracket. Remember i said a dog's bark.

When you say

ricadelide:

True christianity is about a change in nature.
A seal's bark is different from a dog's bark.
when you hear a dog's bark, its either a real dog is barking or someone is imitating it; the problem (with christianity) usually lies in the latter.

you're using essentialist philosophical constructs to separate true from false christianity based on so called innate differences that separate the two. That's the kind of intellectual folly that regularly leads to authoritarianism and a dictatorial mindset. There is a very large grey zone in almost everything.

nferyn:

I wasn't talking about existentialism, but rather about essentialism. As a biologist (and especially as one of the very rare creationist variety), you should know what I'm talking about.

Oops, my bad! Sorry i misread you. Wonder why i did that.

you're using essentialist philosophical constructs to separate true from false christianity based on so called innate differences that separate the two. That's the kind of intellectual folly that regularly leads to authoritarianism and a dictatorial mindset. There is a very large grey zone in almost everything.

Didnt expect this stuff (ie the digression) to go this far but let me indulge. Let me disregard your statement stemming from a misunderstanding of or disagreement with my viewpoints as implying intellectual folly on my part. i've said before now that i didnt put my first response in the right order; ie by placing my third statement in between the second and the fourth. But let's revisit this whole thing.

the initial poster said this

Do you call an animal a Dog because it barks or does the animal bark because its a Dog?

i wouldnt have phrased it that way but this way;
'does the dog bark because it is a dog or is it a dog because it barks?'
in which case your response about seals also barking would be inconsequential; the greater point still being - does the seal's barking make it a seal or does it bark as a result of being a seal. And if you want to be fair to it, within the realm of normalcy, the type of sound produced by a seal is different from that produced by the dog; their vocal cords have different properties so by 'nature' they can't make the same type of sound. But again, that's beside the point i'm trying to make.

the real point i'm trying to address is 'what defines an object?'
I said;

the observed characteristic is a product of the nature of the object.

when i said 'imitation does not bring about a change of nature' what i was trying to address is that; the characteristic does not define the object. Is that essentialism? i sit on the fence as regards essentialism. First i don't agree with the definition of 'essence'. when i said 'nature' of the object, i meant it in terms of a capacity to produce a certain outcome, which, in the case of animals will be their anatomical/physiologic nature.  I don't necessarily mean that all objects of a particular nature will or must act in a certain way, and by my very point i don't agree that the characteristic is the means of definition. So i don't think it is essentialist.
My point is, the characteristic does not define the object, the object is defined in itself, irrespective of whatever characteristic stems from it. By the way the object is constructed, it has the capacity to act in certain ways, and is precluded from producing certain other traits.

So coming back to original post before the digression; the fact that KAG does all those things she did does (or did) not make her a christian. Although you think it is wrong; there is an intrinsic difference between a true christian and a 'false' christian. the term 'christian' is a broad appelation that doesn't take into cognizance the need for a change in nature that is essential to being a true christian, but rather relies on certain characteristics; going to church, saying your prayers etc as the means of definition. maybe i should use a different term; those traits didnt make her a disciple. However, I'd address KAG's issues in my next post.