not a bad post by you, one of your better ones to be honest. however, your comparing a concrete example like winning an event to an abstract topic like atheism which can be defined in a number of ways. your defintion is valid, however what columbus dude is trying to point out is that you deny all other gods for no good reason and accept yours. why do you deny all other gods, have you researched all other religions, have you looked for other gods?
i would imagine not, but it always strikes me as odd that whatever culture your raised in=your god. kinda takes the strength of the evidence out of the equation, since the highest pos correlation is between indoctrination and faith/religion.
Atheism can be defined in a number of ways. That's why I went to the dictionary, for a neutral frame of reference to be used by all, a "concrete" one (if you will). That definition belongs to Webster's Dictionary, NOT to me.
Based on that definition, atheism is anything but abstract: It's the doctrine that there is no deity. Therefore, Christians can't be called atheists. No matter how many deities Christians supposedly deny, as long as they believe in one deity, they aren't atheists.
You will recall that, when Trapezkerl made the same claim about denying other gods in "his" top-10 list, I refuted that by mentioning the various gods of Israel's neighbors mentioned in Scripture (i.e. Dagon, Molech, Baal, Asheroth, Meradoch, just to name a few).
So, what exactly am I allegedly denying, as it relates to these deities: Their existence? Their might?
I should have said "non-believer" rather than atheist. In either case my intent was clear.
Most Christians believe in their god because of circumstance. Your religion is a product of your upbringing. If you were born in Iran, you would be a Muslim, if you were born 2100 years ago, you would likely be a pagan. You reject other dieties not because you have carefully surveyed each and every one of them (both ancient and modern) but because it's all you know.
A mere assumption on your part, and a somewhat inaccurate one, at that. A non-believer, if you will, is just that. They believe in NO deity. Last time I checked, one is greater than zero, and Christians believe in a deity. So, regardless of what term you use, your claim falls flat.
As for the "if you were born....." here vs. there argument, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China, other than to point out that those folks in other countries aren't atheists, either?
What's most distressing about the circumstantial faith of Christianity is that it teaches that the poor little girl born a Muslim Yemen is doomed to eternal torture in hell for rejecting Yeshua.
Perhaps, you'd be better served being distressed about YOUR odds, especially given all the gods you mentioned. ALL of them have to be non-existence or you (and your skeptic brethren) got some 'splanin' to do.
The same, numerically speaking, would apply to me. But, given what I've studied and learned, I'll put my money on the Almighty God, described in the Bible.
I didn't notice anyone playing a percentage game.
You were one of the folks who started it, claiming that Christians and atheists are "closer than you think", with the difference being that the atheist simply believes in one less god. Again, it's not an issue of believing in one out of 1000, or 10000, or 100,000 vs. believing in 0 out of 1000, or 10000, or 100,000. It's simply: Either you believe in a deity or you don't. If you don't, you're an atheist; if you do, you're not an atheist.
