How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

[Science Fan]

IC's comments are laughable when he claims that all atheists are irrational. Between two people, one who believes in pregnant virgins and the other who doesn't, whom would one consider rational? Between two people, one who believes in talking snakes and donkeys, while the other doesn't, whom would one consider rational? Between two people, one who believes in zombies and the other who doesn't, whom would one consider rational?

When a theist calls an atheist irrational it's humorous.

[surreptitious57]

Both atheists and theists are irrational since all human beings are irrational to a greater or lesser extent. But atheism unlike theism is
not irrational. Because all it is is the rejection of a specific class of truth claim with regard to a specific class of deity for which there
is precisely zero evidence. It is only irrational to accept such a truth claim. Since even if it is true it cannot be demonstrated to be so

[uwot]

uwot: You have it completely backwards. Atheism is perfectly rational, as it is simply a non-belief in a deity. Since there is no credible evidence any deity exists, this belief is consistent with the evidence and rational.

You are pushing against an open door, Science Fan; it's not atheism that I am conceding is irrational. Along with many others on this forum, I have made the same point as you, but there are some here who insist that all atheists are 'Atheists'. The difference is that an atheist, as you say, states 'I don't believe there is a god'; whereas an 'Atheist' is committed to 'I believe there is no god'. Some people fail to appreciate the difference.

[thedoc]

deity for which there is precisely zero evidence. It is only irrational to accept such a truth claim. Since even if it is true it cannot be demonstrated to be so

For some there is adequate evidence but I can only prove it to myself, I can't prove it to you because you reject all evidence.

[ken]

You are focusing more on a specific example rather than on the general principle that is actually more important. That is why I have not given examples as none are necessary. This is true of all words not merely the ones we use to describe ourselves. I notice the examples you give are entirely wrong.

Yes I am focusing more on specific examples BECAUSE that is where the answers lay.

To look at the specifics of what I am actually saying, examples are necessary. I have provided examples, but no one has questioned Me about them. That is because human beings assume they already know what is right. The truth lays in the answers, which lay in the specifics, which are found if and when this is looked into. If anyone is really interested I am more than happy to oblige.

Have you ever really questioned the 'general principle' you are talking about here? If you had, like I have, then you will find the lies and the deception within the general principle, which is how and why people are fooled. The real reason of why you are not giving examples is obvious. You do not want to delve deeper into them with Me. I have provided examples, for you to look at, so why do you not delve into them further with Me? Is it because you already know the truth AND already know what is right?

If you have noticed the examples I gave are entirely wrong, as you say they are, then provide some examples of where they are wrong, how they are wrong, and why they are wrong. IF they are so supposedly entirely wrong, then that should not be a hard thing at all for you to do. I can just about guarantee who will be shown to be wrong here. Also, if you do provide some examples, then what will be learned will be totally surprising for most, and extremely useful for the future.

The examples I have given are exactly what I say they are. Can you prove Me wrong?

Read them again to see why and understand why I am not giving you any examples either. The clues are there so go find them.

A typical response from a human being who is completely stuck and lost.

You accuse Me of being not just wrong, but entirely wrong, but you have absolutely nothing to back up what you say.

[ken]

One of the physicians I am seeing every 6 months is a cardiologist. I believe those labels are sufficiently specific to identify at least one aspect of his life.

Finally, someone who appears to be interested.

'One aspect' is at least delving into the truth a bit further.

'Sufficiently specific' does not mean it is the truth.

So, you are seeing a "physician", who is a "cardiologist". What does a "physician" look like, and which one are they, a physician or a cardiologist?

In truth are labels identifying aspects of a person's life or are they what the person actually is?

[surreptitious57]

The purpose of communication should be to be as precise as possible
but the ambiguity of language however cannot always guarantee this

[Londoner]

You are pushing against an open door, Science Fan; it's not atheism that I am conceding is irrational. Along with many others on this forum, I have made the same point as you, but there are some here who insist that all atheists are 'Atheists'. The difference is that an atheist, as you say, states 'I don't believe there is a god'; whereas an 'Atheist' is committed to 'I believe there is no god'. Some people fail to appreciate the difference.

I'm not sure I appreciate the difference!

I if I say 'I believe' something (and this has meaning) then it must be that it passes some sort of criteria. For example, if it was 'seeing is believing' then to say 'I believe X' would be to say 'I can see X'.

The end position (disbelief in God) doesn't seem important since it can only be understood with reference to the 'belief' bit. For example, if I did not believe in God because I think we all live in The Matrix, and you did not believe in God because you think 'seeing is believing' I do not think bracketing us both as 'atheists', as if we both thought the same thing, would be meaningful.

(There might be a category of persons who, when they say they are atheists, are describing themselves as if they were objects, so that if you asked them 'Why are you an atheist?' they would reply; 'I don't know, I just am'. If such people exist, I do not think that state of mind could be described as a 'belief'. It would not be rational.)

I would suggest that atheism and religious beliefs can both be 'rational' in that they are reasonably derived from our own criteria for belief. The question is rather whether we can all have our own criteria, or whether there is just one set which we should all adopt. I do not think there is. I don't think there can be, because the way we understand the world is constantly flicking between the subjective and objective.

Religious people often refer their belief to some purely subjective experience. We (and they) would accept that such subjective experience is not appropriate to forming a scientific, objective picture of the world. But we would both also have to accept that subjective experiences really do occur. If we were to insist on just a single criteria for belief then we could only do so by denying part of what we are.

So if we are looking for somebody to accuse of irrationality, I would say it is not in having any particular belief or disbelief, but rather the person who believes that there can be any absolute criteria for 'belief'.

[surreptitious57]

In truth are labels identifying aspects of a persons life or are they what the person actually is

They can be both as labels are descriptors that apply not just to one thing but to many things

[uwot]

You are pushing against an open door, Science Fan; it's not atheism that I am conceding is irrational. Along with many others on this forum, I have made the same point as you, but there are some here who insist that all atheists are 'Atheists'. The difference is that an atheist, as you say, states 'I don't believe there is a god'; whereas an 'Atheist' is committed to 'I believe there is no god'. Some people fail to appreciate the difference.

I'm not sure I appreciate the difference!

It's to do with evidence. If someone makes a statement of belief, 'I believe that god exists', for example; then one might legitimately ask what evidence is there to support that belief. Similarly; if someone states 'I believe that god does not exist', one might also ask what evidence there is to support that belief. On the other hand, if someone simply says 'I don't believe that god exists', there is no requirement to support that with evidence for the lack of a god. If pressed, the reason why I don't believe that god exists is that I don't find the evidence and arguments presented sufficiently compelling.

I if I say 'I believe' something (and this has meaning) then it must be that it passes some sort of criteria. For example, if it was 'seeing is believing' then to say 'I believe X' would be to say 'I can see X'.

That's yer basic Descartes. What we know is that we experience phenomena; what interpretation, or value we attribute to those phenomena is a function of our brain, mind or soul, depending on your taste.

The end position (disbelief in God) doesn't seem important since it can only be understood with reference to the 'belief' bit. For example, if I did not believe in God because I think we all live in The Matrix, and you did not believe in God because you think 'seeing is believing' I do not think bracketing us both as 'atheists', as if we both thought the same thing, would be meaningful.

Well, the distinguishing feature of an atheist is that they don't believe in god; I don't think peoples' reasons affect that.

(There might be a category of persons who, when they say they are atheists, are describing themselves as if they were objects, so that if you asked them 'Why are you an atheist?' they would reply; 'I don't know, I just am'. If such people exist, I do not think that state of mind could be described as a 'belief'. It would not be rational.)

I'm sure there are plenty of people who do not give the existence of god much thought, but if asked would answer that they don't believe it.

I would suggest that atheism and religious beliefs can both be 'rational' in that they are reasonably derived from our own criteria for belief. The question is rather whether we can all have our own criteria, or whether there is just one set which we should all adopt. I do not think there is. I don't think there can be, because the way we understand the world is constantly flicking between the subjective and objective.

Rational really means logically valid. Anyone can create a logically valid argument from any set of premises; so it is entirely possible to generate a valid argument starting with the premise 'God exists'. The mistake that people make, including theists and atheists, is to confuse validity with soundness, or 'truth'.

Religious people often refer their belief to some purely subjective experience. We (and they) would accept that such subjective experience is not appropriate to forming a scientific, objective picture of the world. But we would both also have to accept that subjective experiences really do occur. If we were to insist on just a single criteria for belief then we could only do so by denying part of what we are.

Absolutely. But as above; it is the phenomena which are 'real'; the value or interpretation we attach is affected by cultural, historical, geographical and psychological factors.

So if we are looking for somebody to accuse of irrationality, I would say it is not in having any particular belief or disbelief, but rather the person who believes that there can be any absolute criteria for 'belief'.

Indeed; you either believe, or you don't. It doesn't demand any criteria.

[ken]

No sufficient nor successful label AND definition could be put on human beings

If labels and definitions are neither sufficient nor successful then such descriptors would become redundant through lack of use.

False descriptors, like the ones I gave as examples, becoming redundant is exactly what will happen when how to find truth is more widely learned and taught. When people stop looking, thinking, and believing that what happens in this way of life, in this time period, IS right and what is good, then the truth can be far more easily seen. While noticing, seeing, and only speaking truth becoming far more easier, then all the false descriptors will, obvious, become more redundant, all the time. This current way of life will then start evolving faster and transcending further and further into a much better way of life for all.

So any label
which is in common usage must by definition be sufficient and successful. And therefore your claim stating the opposite is demonstrably false

Those false labels, in common usage in this day and age, may be sufficient and successful in and for a way of life that is controlled by dishonesty, abuse, and greed. But those false labels are not sufficient and are not successful in and for the way of life that all people truly want to live in, that is in a peaceful and harmonious way of life.

Just like ALL the false labels, from days gone by, have become redundant so will the multiple false ones that are in common use today, (when this is written). When people become more open, and thus more curious, then they will stop believing that this way of life, with it's 'general principles' and 'common usage', IS the best, [and most sufficient and most successful way of life]. Only then people will start to question Me for more clarification. The more I am being challenged, and/or logically reasoned with, then the more I can reveal.

For some this 'way of life' at present is obviously not the best, and for others they see differently, some people actually think/believe because what is the general principle and what is in common usage at a certain period of time, then it must be sufficient and successful. But whilst any human being is assuming and/or believing they KNOW what IS best and/or right, then they are closed off from discovering what IS the actual truth.

Some people even actually believe that by just stating what is in common usage that makes it sufficient and successful, and then this demonstrates that what is not in common usage must be false. Besides the obvious ridiculousness of this, this type of thinking just demonstrates the power of belief, and shows how the brain actually works. I would have thought looking at and discussing examples that are not in common usage would be a far more sufficient and successful way in proving what is actually true or not. I would have thought the 'not in common usage', at the time, saying, the earth revolves around the sun would have been sufficient enough and successful enough to show and prove that what is 'in common usage' is not necessarily what is best, right, true, correct, sufficient, nor successful. That underline statement was the exact opposite of what was actually in common usage, at that period, but was actually proven to be what is actually true.

The exact same principle applies today, A person is not able to find truth UNTIL they are open enough, or curious enough, to delve into what is actually being said.

Your belief is, 'If labels and definitions are in common usage, then they must, by definition, be sufficient and successful', is this right?

Would you like to delve into this more?

By the way, you also wrote, that my claim stating the opposite is demonstrably false. I, however, NEVER was stating the opposite of what you proposed here. So, there was nothing demonstrated to be false here.

You proposed what you did, which has not much at all to do with what I proposed. What I proposed was, No sufficient nor successful label AND definition could be put on 'human beings'.

To Me, a 'human being' IS a human being, and nothing else. If you or any one else wants to delve further into what exactly makes a human being A human being, and how a 'person' fits into this, then I am more than willing to discuss this, and much more.

[Londoner]

It's to do with evidence. If someone makes a statement of belief, 'I believe that god exists', for example; then one might legitimately ask what evidence is there to support that belief. Similarly; if someone states 'I believe that god does not exist', one might also ask what evidence there is to support that belief. On the other hand, if someone simply says 'I don't believe that god exists', there is no requirement to support that with evidence for the lack of a god...Well, the distinguishing feature of an atheist is that they don't believe in god; I don't think peoples' reasons affect that.

I think there is a requirement for both to have reasons, because 'belief' implies it. If there was no evidence at all, how would we have arrived at that view, as opposed to the opposite? Suppose I decided which way to vote at an election by flipping a coin. I would not then say that I 'believed' in my choice. Indeed, I would not have made a choice - the coin would have.

I think that if somebody claimed to believe something, but could offer no reasons at all, then we could reasonably reply; 'No, you don't believe it. You are just saying whatever has floated into your mind. In that case, when I ask you again in two minutes, you might say the opposite'.

Rational really means logically valid. Anyone can create a logically valid argument from any set of premises; so it is entirely possible to generate a valid argument starting with the premise 'God exists'. The mistake that people make, including theists and atheists, is to confuse validity with soundness, or 'truth'.

Quite, so if one is to hold either theism or atheism, then this is going to depend on their initial premises (assuming they are also rational). So, if one is going to plump for one rather than the other, they have to hold that one set of premises is sound and others are not.

We cannot use logic/reason to confirm our initial premises, so if we are going to validate our theism or atheism we must believe those premises have some non-logical justification.

That's yer basic Descartes. What we know is that we experience phenomena; what interpretation, or value we attribute to those phenomena is a function of our brain, mind or soul, depending on your taste.....Absolutely. But as above; it is the phenomena which are 'real'; the value or interpretation we attach is affected by cultural, historical, geographical and psychological factors.

Which is to look at people as passive. In that case, if somebody declares 'I am a theist/atheist' we would say; 'You only say that because you are responding to cultural, historical, geographical and psychological factors.' But if we think that way, it must apply to us too. If I realise my opinions are just a response to external factors, then I would be distancing myself from those opinions. It would be like claiming I had an opinion because I had been brainwashed. That would be self-contradictory, since if I was aware that the opinion was the result of brainwashing, I would not think of it as 'my' opinion.

If we thought that way, surely our position would not be that either theism or atheism was true, but that no human is in position to know the truth about anything.

Indeed; you either believe, or you don't. It doesn't demand any criteria.

As I say, I don't think that is possible. It would rob the word 'belief' of any meaning.

[uwot]

It's to do with evidence. If someone makes a statement of belief, 'I believe that god exists', for example; then one might legitimately ask what evidence is there to support that belief. Similarly; if someone states 'I believe that god does not exist', one might also ask what evidence there is to support that belief. On the other hand, if someone simply says 'I don't believe that god exists', there is no requirement to support that with evidence for the lack of a god...Well, the distinguishing feature of an atheist is that they don't believe in god; I don't think peoples' reasons affect that.

I think there is a requirement for both to have reasons, because 'belief' implies it.

Ah. Well, clearly I haven't made my point very well. There are, I would argue, three positions:
1. I believe that god exists.
2. I believe that god does not exist.
3. I don't believe either of the above.

The third is commonly understood as agnosticism, and as someone who firmly believes that language is contextual, I am bound to accept that is frequently what people mean by agnostic. It has a technical meaning though; it is the belief that there cannot be any evidence for metaphysical or supernatural claims. Strictly speaking, that is true: if there is physical evidence for something, it isn't metaphysical.
Anyway: I don't know whether there is a god or not. I don't believe it, because I don't think the arguments presented are compelling. However, unlike an agnostic, in the technical sense, I don't rule out the possibility of some future evidence that will persuade me. Nor do I rule out the possibility that some god has actually presented itself to others, for some divine reason it hasn't equipped me to appreciate. But I don't believe it.

[ken]

What about a group of individuals?

If they were purely individuals then they could not be part of a group.

Why could there not be a a 'group of individuals'? You do not disagree that there could be a group of christians but for some reason you can not accept and agree that there could be a group of individuals. Why is this? Also I note that you are already fully aware of what 'individual' means. You wrote, "If 'they' ...", therefore you already have a preconception of what an 'individual' is. What are the 'they' that you were referring to?

All of this is, by the way, a distraction from what I have been saying here, and that is, If people are going to put labels onto human beings, then they should also successfully be able to define what that label is. To Me, 'successfully' means in agreement or in accordance with others. I have given examples of some labels already like 'american', 'atheist', and 'christian'. I say these labels can not be defined successfully. If others think they can, then go ahead, provide the definition/s so we all can take a look at them. We will see just how much agreement and acceptance there is for 'your' definition.

To have put people into a group you have first to identify some common factor; a group of men, a group of atheists, a group of mountains.

Obviously, and I have never said that that can not be done. I have just been questioning people's ability to define the labels placed on 'human beings'. Obviously you can define what a 'mountain' is, successfully. I have only disputed the labels placed on human beings. Can you define, successfully, what an 'atheist' is, for example? While we are at it, can you successfully define 'men'? If so, can we see it please? If you can not, then that is what I am talking about.

If we put an individual into a group of individuals, then does the definition of 'individual' still fit? Can there not exist an individual, which is defined by its oneness?

As I said last time, once we have put things into groups, then we can also use 'individual' to mean a unit in that group. An individual man (X is a member of the group of 'men'). But I think that would be a different meaning of individual. It would be like a number; 'X is one of ten men'. But if we treat things as units, as numbers, then we can only do that if we deny their individual-ness. I can only 'count men' if I treat all men as identical. I can say 'one man plus one man equals two men'. But I cannot add Fred to John.

I am not sure where you are trying to take this, nor what it is that you are trying to get at. What are you trying to say here? What is the point that you want Me to understand here?

Also, what about the one individual group of everything? If we put not just some thing but all, individual, things into a group, then we have one actual individual group, right?

I do not see how we could have an 'individual group of everything'.

Why not? The sum of ALL It's parts make up the One thing. For example the sum of all the parts of a motor vehicle make up that one, individual, motor vehicle. The same principal applies for every other, individual, thing. Why would the sum of Everything be different? To Me, if we add up 'every-thing' and put 'it' all together, then we get One, individual, Everything, or 'ALL there is'. The sum of ALL the parts of Everything (every thing) makes up 'the One individual group of Everything'. You may not be able to see how there IS One individual group of Everything but that is because of how the Mind and the brain work and how the way individual people look at, and see things. Everything is relative to the observer. Some see the Oneness, (of Life), most aboriginals cultures could see It, that is until they were adulterated by other cultures. Some can see the Wholeness as One, others can not.

If something is an individual, then it would be separate from whatever wasn't that individual. But if the individual is 'of everything', then there would be nothing for it to be separate from.

Exactly. If there is Everything, or 'ALL there IS', then there is nothing (or no thing) else. For example if human beings are going to say that the Universe is the sum of, or made up of, Everything or All there is, then there could NOT be any thing else. If human beings are going to make up labels and definitions, then they best make up the right ones and stick to them. Placing labels on things, and putting false, wrong, incorrect, ambiguous, or unacceptable, and unreasonable definitions and meanings with those labels, and thus continually changing them to suit the beliefs and assumptions of the people, of the times, then Truth will not be found. Do human beings ever wonder why they are so confused about Life and still searching for answers? The reasons they are are very obvious, to Me, anyway.

But that is NOT as I said. I NEVER said if we defined 'individual' as 'not a member of a group'. On the contrary, I just asked you the completely open question, "what is wrong with putting any 'individual' into a group?" I then went on to explain that the word 'individual' implies being separate from another thing, for example, one group is separate from another group. They make up individual groups....

All I was trying to say here is some words like 'christian' can not be successfully defined but the word 'individual' can be.

I think that either 'individual' describes objects. Or it describes the quality 'separateness', in which case it would be self-contradictory to talk of putting 'separateness' into a group.

Who said any thing about putting 'separateness' into a group? I certainly did not.

I am just making a limited point about that particular nature of that word 'individual'. As I wrote before, I think we get the same sorts of problems with other words (e.g. 'everything'). They appear to be like names, attached to objects, but they do not work that way. It is a minor point which was not intended to divert the thread. I'm sure it is possible to find a better word.

But I do not have any problems anywhere. Why would you want to find a better word for 'individual'. The word and it's definition are just fine how they are, are they not?

I have only proposed that the 'labels' people place on human beings, and their subsequent definitions, could not be done successfully.

I understand that you are not taking sides about religion, but I obviously did not explain clear enough. I was not comparing like with like. I was explaining that I have not seen how the word 'christians' could be successfully defined, and agreed upon, whereas I can easily see how the word 'individual' can be successfully defined and agreed upon.

And, as you see, I beg to differ. I think 'individual' cannot be defined or understood - except in the context of a group. 'Individual man'; yes. 'Individual fish'; yes. 'Individual Christian'; yes. But not just 'Individual' with no context at all.

Okay, you think 'individual' can not be defined nor understood - except in the context of a group. I understand that. But what about if you were reading a text and written was, "Some individual came up to Me today and ...", are you proposing that you can not understand what you were reading here, is this correct?

Your honest answer here would be very helpful, as I could then show how this fits in more with the other things I have been talking about.

Also, you think 'individual' can not be defined nor understood, except in the context of a group, yet you think 'christian' can be defined and understood - outside of the context of a group, right?

Regarding a successful definition of 'Christians':

Me: What would count as 'success'?

Universal agreement. Or, where no thing could disagree.

If something depends on agreement, then there must be the possibility of disagreement. For example, if we all agree on the definition of 'a metre' it must be the case that it could be possible to have an alternative definition of a metre.

Of course, to both statements.

It would only be the case that no thing could disagree if it was an empirical matter. If the word 'Christian' was glued to some specific object. But if it was, then 'Christian' would be no use as a word, since it would be the same as pointing, and saying 'that!'.

I am not exactly sure what you are trying to get at here. I am also pretty sure what I am talking about has nothing much at all to do with what you are talking about here.

I do not think language works that way. I think:

Me: If somebody identifies themselves as a Christian it will always be in some context, for some purpose. As long it meets that purpose I would say it is good enough. If it doesn't, we can always ask for clarification.

I will ask for clarification now, in what context and for what purpose would a person identify them self as some thing, which they are not, such as a "christian"? (Whatever 'christian' may mean?)

I don't understand the 'which they are not' in that quote. I'm saying that we understand words - all words - in context. If I am taking a census, then 'Christian' can just mean 'identifies themself as Christian'. That would be entirely satisfactory. But,if I am interviewing somebody for the job of Pope, I would be looking for a particular theology. There is no single answer that applies in every context - but this is true of all language.

Of course some people identify themselves as "christian", there is nothing to dispute there. My point is What does 'christian' actually mean?

For example, try and define 'christian' here and now. Then I can show you how putting such a label onto a human being is not really successful.

To Me, NO successful definition for 'christian' can be found. Further to this and what I found and discovered is even harder is trying to put that label of 'christian' onto a human being. I found that labels like that just never work when trying to be put onto human beings. Mostly because beliefs then come into play, and beliefs prevent human beings from being what they are meant to be.

The 'which I am not' is in reference to a "christian". A human being can not be some thing other than a human being. Therefore, a human being can not be a christian, nor any other thing.

[Londoner]

Why could there not be a a 'group of individuals'?

Because it would be like an 'unselected selection'. If you group things then you have identified some common factor, a way in which they are the same. If you treat things as individuals then you are looking at difference.

You do not disagree that there could be a group of christians but for some reason you can not accept and agree that there could be a group of individuals.

The group of Christians are all Christians. But a group of people where we decline to identify any common factor (because each is an individual) cannot be grouped.

(Except, as I have said, we can also talk of 'individual' to mean unit. 'An individual Christian', but I think that would be a different meaning of the word 'individual)

All of this is, by the way, a distraction from what I have been saying here,...

Absolutely. As I have said before, it was a minor point about language, not intended to divert the thread.

...and that is, If people are going to put labels onto human beings, then they should also successfully be able to define what that label is. To Me, 'successfully' means in agreement or in accordance with others. I have given examples of some labels already like 'american', 'atheist', and 'christian'. I say these labels can not be defined successfully. If others think they can, then go ahead, provide the definition/s so we all can take a look at them. We will see just how much agreement and acceptance there is for 'your' definition.

I agree they cannot be given a firm definition, but I do not see that as a problem. Or, if it is a problem, it applies to all language and we have no choice but to live with it!

I think our understanding of such terms only has to be good enough for a particular purpose.

There are some words where it appears we can find a firm definition, but these words turn out not to be descriptive. For example, we could probably agree a strict definition of what 'everything' means, but only because it doesn't refer. (And I'm saying I think the word 'individual' is like that too).

Me: I do not see how we could have an 'individual group of everything'.

Why not? The sum of ALL It's parts make up the One thing. For example the sum of all the parts of a motor vehicle make up that one, individual, motor vehicle...

But then it wouldn't be a group of 'everything', it would only be a group of those parts that made up that motor vehicle.

Okay, you think 'individual' can not be defined nor understood - except in the context of a group. I understand that. But what about if you were reading a text and written was, "Some individual came up to Me today and ...", are you proposing that you can not understand what you were reading here, is this correct?

In that sentence I would understand 'individual' to mean 'person', because that is what makes sense in the context of 'came up to Me today. But if there was no context at all, if I just heard the word 'Individual' on its own, I would have no idea what it meant - it would have no meaning.

Also, you think 'individual' can not be defined nor understood, except in the context of a group, yet you think 'christian' can be defined and understood - outside of the context of a group, right?

No, I think that our understanding of both words (and all words that have a naming or descriptive element) depends on the context in which they are used.

Of course some people identify themselves as "christian", there is nothing to dispute there. My point is What does 'christian' actually mean?

It depends on what they are trying to communicate. For example, in this thread 'Christian' is now being used to stand for 'somebody who is religious' in a very general sense. As long as we all get this, that is fine. But if the conversation started to refer to Judaism, then 'Christian' would probably take on a more specific meaning. In normal life we have no problem with these shifts, and if we do we have a problem we can resolve it by asking questions, like 'When you say 'Christian' do you mean theists generally?'

As I say, this is the case with all language. I am now just repeating much the same thing as I wrote above (and in earlier posts), so I won't keep on about it.

Exactly. If there is Everything, or 'ALL there IS', then there is nothing (or no thing) else. For example if human beings are going to say that the Universe is the sum of, or made up of, Everything or All there is, then there could NOT be any thing else. If human beings are going to make up labels and definitions, then they best make up the right ones and stick to them. Placing labels on things, and putting false, wrong, incorrect, ambiguous, or unacceptable, and unreasonable definitions and meanings with those labels, and thus continually changing them to suit the beliefs and assumptions of the people, of the times, then Truth will not be found. Do human beings ever wonder why they are so confused about Life and still searching for answers? The reasons they are are very obvious, to Me, anyway.

I am doubtful about the reification of everything into 'Everything' and thus into 'Truth'. As I say above, I do not think that words like 'everything' refer (i.e. 'everything' is not the name of a thing).