What is your definition of a non-believer?

I've only seen fundie Christians use it to describe non-Christians, which I would find pretty offensive if I WERE a non-Christian. To me it implies that the person's believe is immaterial, because it differs from theirs.

I guess atheists would be the true "non-believers" but I find the term a bit derogatory.

I would say a 'non-believer' is an atheist, but I don't put any negative emphasis on the term like some people may. I believe a person's actions are far more important than their belief system or lack thereof.

+ May I add also that it would be someone with no religious affiliation too. I forgot about the Buddhists. My apologies, my friends.

I know many Christians say those that don't believe Jesus to be their saviour call everyone else non-believers.Even other Chistians of different denominations,find that strange.Not Christian am Jewish & don't accept Jesus to be my saviour so some would call me a non-believer HaHa Do respect all beliefs if not harmful to others..

All of us whether Pagan,atheist whatever,believe in something if only that we exist :-) So no such entity as a non-believer in my opinion..

Wait, don't believe in Santa,the tooth fairy,hell & Lucifer so have to retract what I posted LoL

Good question tho have to laugh at some of these bigoted replies..

Cheers

The closest definition that I could accept is everything, sort of a collective of all existing energy and matter as one. This collective does not have a singular conscious, but is by definition all-powerful, and all-knowing. I believe this is close to Pantheism.

A non-believer is one who does not believe. You have to specify what you want them to believe. I believe there are many, ie Jews and Muslims and many others, who worship the same God I do but they do not believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. I can do nothing to change them, only God can.

When I say I am a believer, I qualify that by saying I believe in the death, burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I attend a church that has 9 other churches affiliated with it. We are charismatic to some and Bible believers to others as we believe we are to live as the Bible instructs and not to interpret it, just do it.

I am not sure I understand the last part but I do love pasta!

issues with pasta haha ;-D

i have issues with it ok, but nothing to do with the fsm, just with my appetite, for eating it

the question is a simple one, with a simple answer

non believer doesnt beleive in a deity or god,this is the social standard of a non beleiver the rest is just add ons and semantics really ,

Dogma put it well.

Personally, the term makes no sense to me. I prefer to ask questions.

The answers we find will vary, depending on which part of life's elephant we're feeling up at the time. Judaism has room for all that. The one thing I'm sure I believe in is the strength of the structure for dialogue it provides.

To me "non-believer" is a negative conotation that is highly narrow minded and arrogant. It simply means you dont believe "Jesus" saves".

The entire "Non-believer" issue is a bait tactic. It comes withy so much baggage those whom ask it have little clues, it so appears, that they are asking one to believe their definition of God and the entire universe if you say "yes".

This hardly leaves room for intelligent contemplation now, does it?

Jesus saves? Saves what?

This is civil in response. Imagine a religious belief that "we are no good" and Jesus was sent to redeem me personaly? I cannot imagine a worse case interpretation of an event than what the Catholics elect to run with. It's simply disturbing to attempt to fdiscuss truth with religiously drunk personality's whom cannot see truth.

In short, a Catholic, or should we say Christian fundementalist would say Jesus cured the blind man and of course is son of God (they even define God for us). A personalaity looking at many truths in many religions would recognize Jesus represented truth within humanity. His curing the blind was a spritualy event in that "the truth will cause the spritualy blind to see the spritual truth".

All of the sprituality held within the symbolisms is Lost to those whom take the literal view and elect to agree the biblical add-ins by men where part of "Gods" plan".

For the fundementalist also fail to see many simalarities within Christianity such as : Horus, Attis, Mirtha and other "Gods" of acient times all share Many-Many identical events of Jesus such as birthdays, 12/25 and of the virgen mother and so on. A clue that God, the concept, is larger than Christianity.

I find it very strange, and distinctly derogatory, to refer to someone by what they are not. It's as if the speaker can't think of anything positive to say - can't simply call someone what they are, as if the words 'atheist', 'Jew', 'Muslim', 'Pagan', 'Hindu' are somehow not capable of passing their lips. All they can see is the way they are different from them and they perceive it as a lack. Somewhat sad, I feel - since the gamut of belief is so hugely wide, to be unable to tolerate difference speaks of considerable insecurity.

I don't think I have ever used that phrase. It doesn't really make much sense to me. I'm Jewish - but I would never, ever refer to non Jews as 'non believers'.

I've been referred to as a 'non believer' by various Xian posters in this forum, but again, it makes no sense. I simply don't believe in Xianity. That doesn't equate to being a 'non believer' per se.

http://www.ajewwithaview.com/