Don't always exist with the same person at the same time.

Agreed.

But haven’t set foot in a Catholic Church outside a wedding in over 40 years easily. But I do attend my mother in laws Lutheran Church when I visit her and it really is uplifting. One of the pastors is a woman who talks of diversity, inclusively,helping ones neighbor and loving your neighbor as you would your God.

I call myself a sermon on the mount type of religious person.

The Sermon on the Mount doesn't necessarily love me.

I'm there nodding my head, yes, yes! Right on!

And then I get to the part about women getting married more than once and...

This doesn't stop me from belief in God. This doesn't stop me from accepting Jesus as Spiritual Teacher.
Would it stop me from checking the "Christian" box? Well. Yes. Jesus said so. I can live with that. I do.

If the definition of "Atheist" is very, very narrow, perhaps the definition of "Theist" is very, very not.

"Do believe that a deity or deities exist?" If the answer is yes, you're a theist. The word "theist" says absolutely nothing else about you.

A theist is one who believes in a deity, or deities. Other than that, each individual decides on their own path.

An interesting attempt to frame things.

But I don't think many will agree with it.

who post here.

I understand the need to believe that a position is the correct one, but this need does not create anything.

"but this need does not create anything."

The irony is thick.

"Most" generally refers to a majority.

I'm glad to be of assistance.

You? If so, tell Lordquinton that. I'm not him. There's no sense in replying to me when you want to speak to someone else.

...a large number (subjectively) without regard to a total.

Many can be 99 out of 200 or 1,000 out of 1,000,000.

Not a synonym for most, or for that matter, some.

It simply means a significant number out of many. What is a significant number varies, depending on circumstances.

For example, DU is made up of many people who share similar opinions. However, in the context of the entire Democratic population of this country, we are not many at all. Some people are confused about that, and may even think we represent most of that population, which we clearly do not.

Most and Many are indeterminate words. They have no fixed values. Most, however, generally implies a majority. Many can be whatever percentage you find significant.

Please.

I cannot, and I admit it.

in an "alternate or parallel universe" then when asked to define what you meant, you stopped responding. Spo please, define what you mean there.

I have.

and specify which definition you mean when you do, please.

It is one in an apparently endless series of posts where some attempt to define what theists are, and what they believe.

And the poster is, of course, entitled to his beliefs, and to believe that his perceptions are accurate.

Especially when you intentionally fuck that one up.

Meanwhile contradicting the claim that many people identify with a particular religion but don't follow it's practices has it's own measure of fuckup.

Or not.

Bullshit has been called and I'm waiting for your inevitable non-answer which will tell everyone all they need to know about your baseless assertions.

Nominalism is discussed widely. Search for it.

But you are entitled to frame however and whatever you wish.

That's the XXVIXth commandment, as we all know.

And there was only room for 11 on the tablets.

Only those who abandon critical thinking skills accept them without question relying only on "faith" to accept their righteousness.

Meanwhile everyone else is expected to honor their decision to turn their brain off or those same people will just as mindlessly call them intolerant.

as I choose. I didn't know that was needed, though.

Or are snide quips all you have?

question their intelligence and abilities, but there is no use in doing so.

After you have researched this topic, and after you have conducted surveys on your topic to back up this opinion of yours, please let me know.

And it reveals much about you.

You have links? Post them. Don't use the possibility of them to attack. Just post the links. Of course, you'd need to be sure they say what you claim they say. Often, you make mistakes with that.

No substance; no information. So, my question was not answered at all.

And with that, you have reached this subthread's limit of posts I will reply to.

...it is just an answer with vacuous content.

It was not a substantial response to my question.

does this actual survey by an actual polling organization indicate that some atheists are nominally atheists?

The respondents were asked if they believe in God or a universal spirit. "Universal spirit" is left undefined, so it can mean literally anything other than god. Therefore, someone can be absolutely certain about the existence of a universal spirit (however they may define it), answer this question yes, and be an atheist. There is no conflict here.

A universal spirit can easily be read as a substitute for the dreaded word deity.

SO, if some do believe in a deity, or a universal spirit, are they nominal atheists?

It can mean literally anything. We have no idea how the respondents define it.

but that "we have no idea" response also applies to this opinion piece where one person offers an unsubstantiated opinion in an attempt to define theists.

who obviously thought that this post presented something.

I do believe in the resurrection of failed arguments.

For a sizable portion of atheists, their atheism consists of nothing more than a general disbelief in deities. That group rarely thinks about it any further. However, if someone says that they believe in a god or "universal spirit," whatever that might be, that person is not actually an atheist, but something else.

Atheism does not have any particular rules or doctrines, however, to follow, so there's no need for atheists to act in any way based on their disbelief.

So how do you come to judge one's religion as "nominal?" Are you in anyone else's head? Are you in anyone else's heart? No, you aren't and it is only out of arrogance that one can render such a conclusion.

And it did sting a little.

So score a point for for the OP, who will say he could care less what anyone else believes.
but will carry on posting daily about what others believe.




As others have pointed out the theists on DU are not the droids he is looking for. But the Religion group is

1. A good place for creative writing exercise.

2. An opportunity for atheists to vent.

I would like it to be a place for theists and atheists to work together and find commonality - etc.

And this would be another good place for a shrug emoji but..I will refrain. Partially.

Your religion gets you to a place you want to he? What would Mineralman's judgment have to do with that?

You can have what you seek regardless. Mineralman is irrelevant.

As Joseph Campbell said religions are like word processing programs: they are all a different set of commands but if know which keys to press they will all get you to the same place. It sounds to me like maybe old mineralman is jealous.

The OP asserts that if you identify with a religion you must CLOSELY adhere to it's doctrines or be a nominal "fill in blank"

In Name Only.

There should be a space to talk Adherence to Doctrine v. Faith but this doesn't seem like the place.

just as MineralMan describes them. My mother-in-law probably believed in God on some level, and my father-in-law probably didn't.

Regardless, it's a fact that religion was a non-issue in their daily lives. They did not pray, they didn't read the Bible, and they certainly didn't attend any church services. They didn't even get married in a church, they went to the Register Office. Nevertheless, if anyone asked them, they wouldn't hesitate to say they were members of the Church of England.

Your mother in law believed in God.

On some level.

On some personal level your mother in law believed in God.

And whatever that meant to her it meant to her.

And she said that she was a member of the Church of England.

I suspect she did, but I have no evidence of it. She never said either way. It's just a hunch, really.

Anyway, let's assume she did believe in God. She was still a nominal member of the Church of England, since she did not actually practice that religion. The fact that she didn't mind not having a clergyman perform her wedding is a big clue. If she did believe, I think she must have been more like a deist than a Christian.

have been married thrice.

Each time by an employee of the county in which I lived.

Each time thinking it was for forever.

When I pray I do in private. I do not feel the presence of God in church. I always feel the presence of God in nature.

When I do pray it is simply "Thank You" or "Please Help".

Does that make me a "nominal" Christian?

Last edited Tue Jan 1, 2019, 10:39 AM - Edit history (1)

whatever church you belong to, then you are likely in the nominal category. Many sects have a set of core beliefs similar to or directly derived from the nicene creed, and if your beliefs are outside that you are, in their view a nominal christian.

The other phrase frequently used to describe people who choose their own set of beliefs is “cafeteria christians” or more specifically “cafeteria catholics”, who show up at mass but reject the RCC’s idiotic rules on birth control, or reject their overt bigotry on homosexuality.

Many people claim a particular religion and do not actually practice said religion. Do you disagree with that?

As for whether you are nominally a Christian, only you can answer that. There are more than 1000 denomination of Christianity, plus countless "nondenominational" and "independent" Christian churches, plus who knows how many millions of individual practitioners who have come up with their own unique personal interpretations of Christianity. A person can believe or disbelieve just about anything and still be considered one flavor of Christian or another. MineralMan described pretty clearly what he meant, and I gave an example of people who fit the description.

Mineral Man doesn't know.

Happily that fact impacts your life not at all.

It's pretty straightforward.

How does "praying" to an all knowing, all powerful being render you "not nominal?" Maybe there is a deeper meaning to prayer? Maybe it isn't about the all knowing, all powerful entity at all? Maybe you can get to the same place by devoting yourself to good works? Maybe you can visualize blue light going in your crown chakra, and out your dan tien?

Is that any more or less "nominal" than speaking in tongues?

I find this whole notion of "nominal" to be tribal, incredibly shallow, and ultimately absurd. One's faith is and must be solitary and unique unless, as I said, others can access the hearts and minds of someone else. Perhaps when the Borg assimilate us all we can truly say otherwise?

Resistence is futile and all of that.

It was about the religions they claim to be affiliated with, and whether they actually practice said religions, or just use the name.

As I said, MineralMan's opinion is pretty frequently expressed on DU, even if most of the other posters who say that use somewhat different words to say the same thing - Christian in name only, fake Christian, the sarcastic "Christian" etc.

Here's a post in GD from this morning, in which the poster opines about why many evangelicals are Christian:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211610494#post1

I read the OP just fine. My reading comprehension isn't on trial. Try addressing what I actually said.

Oh, and just so you know I am not seeking your approval. Ever. Nor do I really need to know why you feel you must be mineralman's apologist for that matter. Carry on, but know that I have no respect for that.

I speak for myself.

of course, but I'm perfectly capable of speaking in my own defense. But, here's a question: Why are you going after another DUer for agreeing with me? What's that about? It's pretty unseemly, I think.

Please don't do that. If you have a beef with me, just post it. I'll probably respond, if it makes any sense.

Rarely does a day go by without seeing multiple examples of it. For example, he's a post in GD from about 20 minutes ago, that includes this statement:

"Others call themselves "Christian" and obviously worship Satan/Mammon. People like Republicans."

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211609737

All we have, as humans, are facts and logic. Since one cannot prove or disprove their religion, their religion is neither factual nor logical. Rather religion is based on faith. Therefore once cannot assert their religion as a basis for anything beyond their own person. This is what I mean by religion being personal.

For this reason I find the idea of "nominal," as mineralman posits, to be the inverse of imposing one's religious beliefs on others, and equally egregious.

If imposing one's religious beliefs on others is egregious, how can the inverse of imposing one's religion on others be equally egregious? That doesn't make any sense at all.

It's not cool to use your atheism as a cudgel.

which exists for the purpose of discussing religion.

A cudgel is a weapon. Why use such violent imagery? MineralMan didn't attack anyone or insult anyone in his OP. He didn't say or imply that nominally religious people are bad, or that there's anything wrong with what they do, or that they should change anything about themselves. He is imposing absolutely nothing upon them or upon you.

Last edited Tue Jan 1, 2019, 05:28 AM - Edit history (1)

An OP or two back

He said that anyone can believe what they believe as long as they did not use their belief as a cudgel.

And I agree.

others with their beliefs.

That was another thread, though. This thread's starting post was just descriptive of a sizable percentage of people. They answer poll questions about religion by saying that they're Catholics or Presbyterians or some other denomination. Sometimes they just say they're Christians. That does not mean that they practice their religion or even participate in church activities at all.

I suspect that everyone in this thread knows a number of people who are like that. They identify with some religion or denomination but do not make religion an active part of their lives. The numbers of such people are growing, to the dismay of many church leaders and individual pastors, who are seeing their attendance numbers go down. Declining attendance is a very popular point of discussion on the Internet at sites dealing with various faiths and denominations.

The number of nominal Christians, as I'm calling them, is increasing. You can see it in Pew Research Polls, Barna Polls, and in polls by anyone who does such polls about religious matters. Google will find all of that information quickly for you.

It's not a criticism of such Christians. It's simply a description. I'm not one to eschew criticism of religion either, as can be seen in other of my threads. But this one is just descriptive and seeks to put a label on people who claim religious belief but do not make it part of their lives. They are a significant minority in our population. They vote. They're of interest, politically, and in a number of other ways.

Nominal Christians do whatever they want to do. You'll find them in strip clubs, adult merchandise stores, and paying for the services of sex workers. You can even find them in high political office, even at the very highest levels. And yet, if you ask them about religion, they will identify themselves as Christians. They are counted as such by pollsters, and skew the poll results.

My post is about identification and polling. It's funny that it has been taken otherwise, I think.

I was affirming your words, then you do an inexplicable 180.

Bear with me please, I haven't had coffee yet. If you'll just point out the post numbers ...

Address what I actually say. I don't like games, I find them to be boring. If you can't address what I actually say then I am not interested.

If you persist with sealioning I will not respond.

perhaps tell your friend to stop engaging in it.

this post is about churches padding their numbers, and it's a commentary I've seen before. I read an article once titled "On paper I am muslim" that went into how countries count everyone that's ever been a member, regardless if they left or not. It's well known that Mormons convert people without their knowledge or consent, particularly if they have passed on.

If you think calling out these practices is as bad as engaging in them, then you should probably take a step back, because there is some major imbalance there.

Facts can be proven to be wrong with logic and reason.

That's the point.

They are merely a tool. I don't normally carry one, since I spend hours sitting in front of a much more convenient tool on my desk. However, I'm about to fly to California for six days. I'll be taking the extra smartphone we have. We have an extra one because my wife reviews things and needs both an iPhone and and Android phone when reviewing apps.

So, that smartphone will be in my pocket for this trip. It also can serve as a wifi hotspot, something I need because the place I am staying has no wifi capabilities. I'll use that to enable my 8" Kindle Fire tablet, which gives me easy access to the Internet.

Tools. I use them for the purposes I consider important. Others use them in different ways. Still, intrinsically, smartphones don't suck. They don't actually do anything without human input. If they are used to do things that suck, then it is not the phone's fault.

Smartphones are not sentient. They are simply machines we use to do what we think is important. They have power switches, too. Mine are off when I don't need them.

Like language.

Like the internet.

It is concept.


It is not God.

How is religion a technology?

The internet is not a technology. It is a use of technology.

Religion could be called a concept, for sure.

I'd agree that religion is not a god. I'd call religion a sales pitch. It's a performance.

I can't see, though, how religion is a technology.

Go to any church and ask the pastor what percentage of those who have membership in that church participate in worship and other activities at that church. In almost every case, you will find that it is a minority of the members. That's not anything new.

Those who do not participate are only nominal members of that church. It's an issue that troubles most pastors and denominations.

I'm not, in any way, criticizing those who are nominal Christians or nominal adherents to any religion. I'm simply stating a fact.

I said you rendered judgment.

Who appointed you? Who appointed pastors for that matter?

I have pondered the story of Abraham in his father's idol shop. If you see that story as a metaphor, as my own faith teaches, then you don't have to apply the story to only physical idols. So here I am in Abraham's shoes, telling you, father, that your bigger idol grabbed a stick and beat up all of the smaller ones.

You tend to not understand my subtle assertions, which since your comprehension is personal I will never be able to enable you to do. But think here of your bigger idol which you have named as "faith" beating the
smaller idols which you have named "nominal."

And before you judge that metaphor it isn't perfect. But who ever said it had to be?

we all get to post what we think about religion. That's why the Religion Group exists.

The whole "Free Parking" thing isn't listed in a rule set which is all of what, two pages? And almost everybody does it. Are we supposed to believe that the same people identically interpret hundreds of pages of their religious instructions and adhere rigorously to them?

Who bothers to read the long Terms of Service for anything before clicking the I Agree box?

What most people believe about the religion they follow depends on what they hear at church. Most people, not all. At most individual churches, the majority of members of that church almost never show up for services. Many don't even show up at Christmas and Easter, although some nominal members will show up around those days.

It's human nature, really. We think we understand things that we don't understand at all, so we don't look further into them. John 3:16 actually gives them permission to say they believe once and then forget about it. A heckuva lot of nominal Christians stop right there, really. Christianity's best selling point is that shortcut Bible verse. It's a real problem for denominations and individual churches.

One of the most disturbing aspects of many flavors of Christianity is that, since salvation is though faith alone, there is no requirement to actually follow the moral rules.

shortcut to "salvation," "eternal life," or anything else you expect from a religion. Or so it seems, anyhow. Why would you not "believe in Jesus," after all? I mean, it's so simple, and it gets you so much. That's Christianity's big selling point.

There's no long list of deities to placate or that demand worship and sacrifices. One simple thing gets you in. Brilliant!

Of course, that's not really enough, and doesn't lend itself to fleecing its followers, so it has lots of other aspects that can be exploited. But, the first dose is free. If you want more, though, and you certainly will, it's gonna cost you. Marketing 101.

Nothing wrong with that, either. My post isn't a criticism.