Oxford also disagrees with ol' VanillaGorilla: But carry on Vanilla. Continue to tell me how I'm wrong, along with Webster, Merriam and Oxford. Tell it to dictionary.com as wel:
I dont think that means what you think it does. So 75% of Americans are Christian, but only 9% rank it has the most important part of their life. What does that have to do with their upbringing? And how does it dwarf the amount of Christians in the US? Doesn't it just mean that the majority of Christians rank family/other as more important than their religion?
Now we're knee-deep in semantics. Is a newborn baby an atheist? Depending on whether you classify "atheist" as an active or passive quality (the primary difference between VG's and blazerboy's arguments), you could go either way, but I don't think splitting hairs like that is useful.
I think the semantics do matter if atheists want to ridicule theists and religious about having beliefs that they can't prove. Which is done on this board quite often.
Maybe I didn't understad your original point. I thought you were saying that most Christians come to it on their own. What VanillaGorilla is saying (I think) is that most Christians were raised Christian. Actually, I thought your original point was just a joke that babies are atheists.
I disagree with you, and maybe you don't understand my argument because you aren't a Christian. When Christianity is #1 important thing in your life; you want everyone you love to be witnessed to it. Big example is my father was Catholic and was raised Catholic. We never went to church and as I grew up I was an atheist. When my father got saved and became a Christian, he immediately tried to get us all to go to Church. It was his most important thing in his life. His words "I don't want to die knowing that I didn't do everything in my power to witness salvation to the ones I loved" <--- I still was atheist and I fought it for years. And when I actually became Christian, it was important to me to witness to everyone I love.
Nope... And I won't label anyone not saved an atheist either. But most people I know and attend all the Churches I went to didn't believe in God. Or were extremely agnostic. I don't want to split hairs here.
No way I would think that. Which is why I agree that a person that isn't witnessed to have a pass. Just because you didn't learn about God immediately puts you in some category of Atheist. But the reality of Christianity is most reject God and fight it until the day they are saved.
But can you see how it depends on your definition of "atheist"? If you are talking about the ACTIVE disbelief in god, then you are right -- a baby is not an atheist. But if you are talking about a simple ABSENCE of belief, the baby is indeed most likely an atheist! atheism noun disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. (http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/atheism)
Exactly. Of course, we can all recognize the difference between a baby's "atheism" and that of Dawkins -- we just don't have a great word in place to distinguish between the two (as far as I know).
Well that's easy..... The baby atheist = naive. The adult atheist = enemy of GOD!!!!!!! I kid! I kid!
So they aren't really Christian until they fit with that 9%? If that is your argument (and that the other 91% of Christians are actually atheists), then I guess your statement makes sense.
No what I'm saying is the higher % of Christians weren't brought up as Christians, they actually found god themselves. It's not exact science; but it's closer than vanillagorilla's statement that all grew up taught being a Christian.
But you're basing this definition of "Christian" as that 9%. No where does it say how they were raised, but I would guess that most of them were raised Christian (though maybe not as devout). I guess here is an example. A kid is raised in a family that calls itself Christian. They go to church, believe in god and what the church teaches them, but they are not actively spreading the word of god. At some point he has an epiphany and becomes 'saved' and now view god/life like your father. Does this guy fall into your argument or Vanilla Gorilla's? I have a feeling you'd both claim him as supporting your argument. Just trying to understand what you are stating.
FWIW, I've always seen a distinction between atheism and agnosticism. I'd expect an atheist to outright reject existence of deities. A(nti) theism. Opposite of theism. Agnostic would be someone who doesn't believe but could be convinced. There's no element of outright rejection of any deities. I've always considered myself an agnostic.
That's a popular definition of the two words, but it's not quite inline with Huxley's original definition of "agnostic", nor does it agree with the terms as defined by most modern atheist organizations. If, in your heart of hearts, you don't believe in the existence of god(s), you are an atheist. If you acknowledge the possibility that you are wrong and would change your mind with further empirical evidence to the contrary, you are also agnostic. The two are not mutually exclusive -- they are assertions on two entirely different dimensions of thought!
If you'd like to learn more about agnosticism and how it relates to atheism: http://atheists.org/content/agnosticism-basis-atheism
