I would agree there is no definitive definition of a Christian, but there are a lot of generalized terms that are similar in this way. This was one of the important things that Wittgenstein recognzied with his idea of family resemblence. When we have generalized terms like science and religion, we usually find they do not have definitive definitions that allow us to delineate between what falls into a category and what does not. Rather, we develop a list of general traits, and something must possess some of these traits in order to fall into each category. The obvious example of a scientific characteristic is repeatibility. While this is a general trait defining all branches of science, it is not considered to be necessary trait. If it was, macro-level evolution would not be considered science because it relies on historical investigation and cannot be repeated. However, we still consider macro-level evolution to be a science because it has many other traits we generally attribute to science.The main point is that many general terms lack clear, definitive definitions and rely on general characteristics for classification. You can also find other examples when looking at the debates about what qualifies as a religions and what demarcates science from pseudoscience.

I do not know what you mean when you say it is hypocritical of a religion to have different beliefs. All different beliefs mean is that separate Christian denominations hold different things to be true. You will find this to be true in most all disciplines. Generally speaking, if someone has written something influential, you can also bet someone has witten something else criticizing it. I would not classify the condemnation of gays and the picketing of funerals as an essential characteristic of Christians. If someone asked me to explain a Christian to them, condemnation of homosexuals would not be one of the defining characteristics I attributed to them. As I said, my knowledge of the Bible is limited, but I think theologians would not agree that the disciples just made up the contents of the Bible. This just seems like too much of a straw man argument to me.

WOW. Great points all.I appreciate the quality of your response! :)

I'm not saying that you have to hate gays to be a Christian. Let me get that straight right away. I do not believe that all christians hate gays or anything silly like that. I didn't mean to say that that particular characteristic defined christianity, only that it was an easy example of a belief that all christians definitely do not share. When I say that religion is hypocritical to have different beliefs I am talking more about the beliefs surrounding the workings of our univers (not so much the values of morality), and I apologize for not making this clear before.

With regard to the actions of the disciples... My conclusion on the origins/mechanics of the universe and humanity  directly opposes the word of the Bible, and therefore I can only conclude that its authors fabricated its stories, or were somehow decieved by their personal experiences to believe what they were writing was the truth. It seems more likely to me that they simply made it up. And of course theologians wouldn't think they made it up! :P I don't see how this is a point of argument.

I have no more reason to place trust on the Bible as I do the dead religions of the world, like the Greek tales of Zeus and Hercules.

You have no basis for the underlined. It isn't "wrong" to use statistics to predict the character of a person. Please explain to me how these statistics are anything but "good, accurate and unbiased." Without any reasoning behind that comment it sounds like you're just trying to find details that will support your argument and ignore anything that doesn't.

"Good" is also a subjective term. My "good" is likely to be very different from your "good." It is not an objective term to be used for definition.

And how do you know how God sees things? It's wonderful that you think that you share a kind of "holy vision" with him/her/it, but where do you get this statement from? Please don't use the word bible in your answer. >_>

Pizzahut, your apples do not look like oranges. No matter how hard you try they are still apples.

How about a real historic example.

Christians would get diseases rodents, bird or whatever and wrap them in blankets for weeks then sell the blankets to native Americans in order to lower their population enough to launch overt attacks on them.

I don't believe the pilgrims need to validify their christianity.

Pizzahut, basically you are saying that the only way to be a Christian is to not cimmit crimes, and therefore the vast majority of people who believe they are Christians are in fact not?

I never insulted ALL statistics ever made. I just said that that one statistic sucked. I have absolutely nothing agaisnt the statistics as long as they are good, accurate and unbiased.

And i understood what you wanted to say. But you still cant say that an atheist is less likely to comitt a crime either. An individual atheist is less likley to comitt a crime? Probably. Atheists as a group of people are less likely to comitt crime and are more richer than other people? HELL NO! Thats why that argument is dumb IMO.  To say that atheists are less likely to comitt a crime than christians or muslims or jews is wrong.

And let me put that really simple for you: A good christian is a good person who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ. A person who steales, rapes, kills, aussaults people is NOT a real chrisitan, regardless if he believes in Jesus or not. Thats the way God sees things, and thats the way i see them too.

Neither do you. The statistic wasnt done on all atheist people in this world, so saying that atheists as a whole group of people are less likely to comitt a crime than christians or jews and muslims IS WRONG. There are atheists out there that are less likely to comit a crime, sure, but to say ALL of them are is pretty stupid, and i dont think i need to explain why.

Good person is not a subjective term. A good deed is not a subjective term as well. Whats your view on a good person? Is it the person who rapes, kills and steals?

I know it because Jesus said once (or it was one of his followers) that you DONT have to believe in him but rather believe in his techings. Jesus is son of God so i believe thats how God sees things too. Not to mention that is the only RIGHT way to see things as well.

The reason an individual atheist is less likely to commit a crime is because of the statistics taken from the group. It is not however down to beliefs, merely demographics. Atheists are less likely to commit a crime because generally they are quite highly educated and have a fairly high income, it isn't their belief that makes them less likely to commit a crime.

Also your argument is classic 'no true Scotsman'.

Just like an individual atheist is less likely to comitt a crime, there is also an individual christian or muslim or jew that is less likely to comitt a crime. Simple. But none of the both WHOLE groups of people are less likely to comitt a crime than the other.

Statistically fewer atheists commit crimes. That is atheists as a group.

I really fail to see what you are arguing here. I'm not trying to argue that all atheists are good people or anything, I'm merely saying that statistics show that fewer atheists commit crimes than religious people. This would seem to indicate to me at least that atheists do not have fewer morals than religious people.