Once more, with feeling:
The Bible is not the source of Christianity. Christ is the source of Christianity. There were Christians before there was a New Testament.
I know you think it’s petty semantics, but it isn’t.
I feel the same way. And while I do not actively try to convert people to atheism, I do let them know why I am an atheist if they are curious and ask. I probably have helped a few people make up their minds that theism is baseless, but it is not a goal of mine. I am just there to answer questions. I also make a point of calling myself an atheist in order to promote a positive image of atheists, as contrasted with the image of the evil, anti-religionists promulgated by the likes of Jerry Falwell and his Merry Band of Idiots. I am an atheist, but I am also an agnostic in that the existence of something that can efficiently hide from us (supreme beings, invisible pink unicorns, etc.) cannot be proven or disproven. I am also a humanist in that I believe that it is to everyone’s benefit to get along, not steal, not cheat, share, and take care of each other.
BTW, I go ahead and use the term hard atheist because the proof supporting the nonexistence of god is at least as good as the level of confidence we accept in scientific research. For example, if we are willing to say “there is a link between smoking tobacco products and lung cancer” then why hedge on saying “there is no god”? 
Thanks for the warm welcome!
What is the book called where Christians learn about Christ?
The Bible. (NT)
What are those other books called detailing the words and life of Christ?(don’t say history books, please)
??
**
and how many of them are alive today?
how many of those Christians would you say I am addressing?
**
actually, yes, it is.
InfidelMama,
Oddly, my ineraction here with atheists has had a two-fold impact on me: (1) I’ve learned that most of them are among the most wonderful people I’ve ever encountered and (2) my faith in God, based on debates with them, is more solid than ever. Weird, huh? I’m pretty convinced now that, given sufficiently armed debators, any debate over theism-atheism will end in a draw. And strange as it may sound, I find that in and of itself to be evidence in favor of God (it has to do with His free-will aspect).
And I second the welcome extended to you.
Lolo:
I have reasons – subjective, to be sure – to hold belief in a God which purports itself to be the Christian Trinity.
I have training in theology, Biblical criticism, literary analysis, and history.
I believe in God. I do not believe in a book. To be sure, I see that book as a non-scientific attempt to document the work of that God in one area over two millennia. It is, however, subject to criticism by the disciplines I have skill in (and others I am not trained in, as well).
I attend an Episcopal church. I follow Christ to the best of my ability. I therefore call myself a Christian.
I do not believe in fairy tales, or buy into the literal reports of B.C. and 1st Century A.D. writers as the Absolute, Revealed Truth about what they report.
Are you prepared to deny me the right to self-identify as such based on your opinions of what a “Christian” believes? If so, why?
Do not mock me in your response. I’m providing you with background about myself and asking a fair question with the intent of clarifying a misunderstanding between us.
You are, so far as I have any right to say so, welcome to hold the opinion that anyone who believes in a God is buying into an imaginary creature. But give me the respect of denying what I think, not some half-assed mockery of it based on the worst elements of Jack Chick and Jerry Falwell. That’s all I’m asking.
Infidelmama: Me too.
That was a most impressive first post, and I welcome you as a worthy opponent on topics of religion, and colleague on humanism-vs.-oppression threads (of which we get more than a few).
I can’t deny you anything, really. You are certainly entitled to label yourself as you please, and I have the right to disagree.
You evidently consider yourself “Christian.” I consider the terminology misleading, both diluted conflated, such that any true meaning can never be clearly represented.
Is a Christian a biblical literalist?
Is a Christian a person who follows all of Jesus’ words?
Is a Christian simply a “good” person?
Do not all of these possible definitions have myriad implications?
Yes, they do.
Who’s a Christian?
Am I being clear?
**
I don’t believe I’ve mocked you. If I have it was unintentional and I apologize in advance.
**
I’ll try not to mock… but it’s just so easy. 
My friend wanted me to post this. We work together, he emailed it to me. His remarks are interesting. (he is also not a fan of Christianity)
he writes
not a bad idea, I suppose.
Yes, an excellent idea. An idea first presented by a man who does not impress you.
As to what a Christian is, why not let Christ tell us?
Lolo channels a friend:
So, Lolo’s channeled friend understands that vocal ignorance makes a group look bad. I wonder if this has any application to Lolo’s writings?
my friend was EternalStudent
see you in the morrow!
We had already put that one together, Lolo. You get a good night’s rest now. Come back tomorrow resolved to try new things, like respectful debate. God go with you.
[Philippic]
LOLO: You’ve made quite a ‘name’ for yourself as being an aggressive hard atheist. But, frankly, even to an atheist, your arguements are sometimes pretty embarrassing. There are a LOT of fundamentalists out there, but to judge all christians by the fundamentalists would be like judging all atheists by you – which I hope no one does! ( no offense ) Many christians are not biblical literalists – why? Because they are analyzing what they are reading, matching it to their experience and values, and deciding based on that. This is what we want! To argue that this is ‘making stuff up’ is an insult to them.
Believe it or not, most christians here have spent time and energy thinking about their beliefs. I know they don’t feel the same way I do, but I know they’ve thought about them. To just say “Well, why don’t I make up a religion” would be something like someone telling you “well, pascal’s wager says…” – it is a trite arguement they’ve dealt with before. They will try to help you understand what they learned from answering that question, but it won’t change minds.
Do you honestly believe there are christians out there who are debating on these boards without thinking “maybe it’s all just a human invention?” Do you really believe that by calling it “make-believe”, someone will say “oh, you know, I never thought about that – maybe it is all bunk?”
Please, give them more respect. [/Philippic]
LIB: In answer to your OP – I think many people who change their religions (or lose theirs ) do so because of a sudden gushing insight , which means that they frequently will feel VERY strongly about something that they are COMPLETELY new to. Hence the “Newly Converted Fire” syndrome (where new christians are frequently VERY dogmatic), and the “Viscious Hard Atheist”. Thankfully, it wears off in general fairly quickly.
Me’Corva
I must say the responses I’ve garnered on these various threads have been laughable, and occasionally ridiculous.
It’s quite obvious for the past few years most of the posters here have been placating any amount of bullshit so long as the bullshitter is “nice” about it.
If you’re going to discuss the issues at the very least be honest about what you are and are not simply “making up”.
You have a book. It’s called the New Testament. Not a single one of you as alive when it was written, yet all of you claim to understand what Jesus said, what he meant, and what he didn’t, and anyone who questions your interpretation is oh so wrong.
Who exactly are you to know what Jesus actually said and what was thrown in later on, when it was written down?
If you read Acts 5, the part about Sapphira and Ananias, you begin to see a clear picture of who Jesus associated with; members of an end of the world cult.
Now, given we can question the honesty of Peter, a man who–judging by his actions in the begining of Acts 5-- was terribly concerned about the money his cult should have been given as a result of the sale of S and P’s land, how honest do you think he was in recalling the actions and words of Jesus Christ?
Yet, you “real” Christians know what happened and what Jesus said better than myself, a skeptic.
My pointing to the obvious flaws in your book and calling it silly has been embarrasing? Excuse me?
I called you silly, I was practically branded with the mark of the beast.
Guess what? You are being silly.
If you want to be a good person, I salute you. But don’t call yourself a Christian.
How silly is it to think one man, among millions, in a remote part of the world, was the son of an invisible sky deity?
(and they did believe God was in the sky back yonder so don’t pretend they didn’t)
Were not the Native Americans living peaceably before the Christian Europeans tried to convert them? And living peaceably without the mention of Jesus?
Jesus isn’t the son of God. Jesus isn’t God.
Manipulate your bible all you want. Placate the BS until your up to your neck in it (but you’ve learned to tolerate the smell) and you’ll still be acting very, very silly.
Grow up.
I believe more than I have had enough of you, you have had enough of me.
Be good. See you in the real world.
(I make my exit among boos while rotten tomatoes splatter around me.)
Lolo,
You are not a real atheist.
If nothing else, it’s been a learning experience for me, not because of anything you’ve said — most of what you’ve said has been ignorant drivel — but rather, because of the way you’ve behaved. Real atheists actually understand why they do not believe. And the real atheists that are here were among the first to disavow, en masse, any association with you. Even Jab, for heaven’s sake, would not come to your defense.
So there we have it. You came in, splattered feces all over the wall, and now claim to be leaving. You’ve learned nothing. You’ve taught nothing. You’ve merely left a shit-stain reputation, a bazillion burnt bridges, and a lot of hurt feelings. A real atheist derives his morality from common sense. Lacking any such, you cannot be a real atheist.
You believe in God. And you’re mad at him. And it will pass. One day, you might become a real atheist. But not today.
Eh, Lib, I wouldn’t start putting people in “real atheist” and “fake atheist” categories. Unlike most religious beliefs/religions, atheism does not come with any inherent moral demands. Atheists may decide to be good, honest, thoughtful people, but they do that on their own, it doesn’t come as a requirement in the atheist “package.” The most ignorant, cruellest, stupidest atheist is just as much of a “real” atheist as I am, so long as s/he does not believe in God. Lack of belief in God is all that’s required; someone could refuse to beleive in God because their navel lint told them so, and guess what? They’re still a “real” atheist. While I believe that most atheists try to think through their beliefs and try to be decent people, if someone does not, it does not make him/her a “fake” atheist.
There is a difference between the concept of God and the concept of God as presented by organized religions.
It seems to me that angry hard atheists are reacting to the organized religion God. They are upset that there really isn’t a Santa Claus. Or that they were scared of fire and brimstone and the boogeyman. They are reacting to individuals and groups who have misused the name of God for their own purposes … power, control, repression, etc. Lord knows that Gods name has been used to justify the most godawful things! Granfalloons. And in not understanding that God has been used to justify division and misunderstanding, they use their own belief in nonexistence of God to foster division and misunderstanding. They use the name of Atheism in vain.
They have a difficult time seperating that out from the more abstract and ineffable. They confuse the nonreality of Satan with nonreality of Evil.
Seperate subject (and hopefully not a too divisive aside): There were no Christians before Paul and the New Testament. There was a sect of practicing Jews who followed Torah and who believed that Christ was the Messiah. Just like other Jews (including the great Rabbi Akiba) later believed that Simon Bar-Kokhbah was the Messiah (until the rebellion failed that is). Paul broke the group from Judiaism with his take on the costs of sin and on the meaning of Christ’s crucifixion.
All of which ties together the related but seperate concepts of “God” and the role that different “God portrayals” have had for the societies in which they existed. I can believe in God and still understand that God is portrayed in Torah in such a way as to have served the needs of maintaining a group identity and group cohesion in the midst of “others” and as to establish a basis for The Law. I can appreciate that the Christian portrayal of God served the needs of an established centralized Roman Empire to oversee many diverse groups extremely well. And so on. But none of this bears on whether or not God-the-unknowable exists. “God who may not give a hoot” for all I know.
You’re right that I shouldn’t have said “real atheist”. But Lolo isn’t an atheist at all. As I said, he’s just mad at God.
I’m just curious as to why, whenever a discussion comes up about why people are athiests, it always turns into a debate about the failures of Christianity. Is there anyone out there who was brought up Hindi or someother religion aside from Christianity that decided to become an athiest? Could all the athiests give a quick (or long winded if need be) impression of other religions and why is it they never come up in debates?
And here’s something else, it’s a quote posted by everyone’s favorite poster Lolo:
-“But if you’re a Christian, one thing remains a must, Jesus is God (or his son, or whatever, again, you prefer)”
Now, I admit, it’s been a long while since I actually studies world religions, which in turn studied facets or Christianity, but isn’t there at least one sect of Christianity that does NOT believe in the divinity of Christ? They believe he was chosen by God to speak to His people, and that God spoke through him, but that he was fully human and that his ressurrection was a reward for a job well done. But his divinity stops at his being in direct communication with God. Sooo, these people don’t believe that Jesus is God, yet they’re still Christians. Lolo, please explain that to me.