Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
I never mentioned anything about passion. Regardless the other offerings I actually did give you are incontrovertible, which handily dispenses with your notion of the Bible having no parallel, when in fact most of its most salient points are rewrites of other cultures myths, and stories.Actually the statement was I know that you have never given this any serious consideration. But that's because you pointed to the legend of Balder as the source for the passion of Christ when the passion of Christ was recorded before the legend of Balder.This has been research by myself long ago. Still peruse aspects of it today, when points of interest arise. It's interesting stuff. But I've moved on long ago...Exactly. Which is how I know you have never given this any serious consideration.Indeed...Which writer?So the story might have one believe. The writer can claim any date they like. It does nothing to add to the veracity of the claim.
Consider the statement that "you know" what I've considered... Then realize the absurdity of such a claim. Now juxtapose that same mindset against what "you know" as it concerns the book, "The Bible". The conclusion should be apparent...
But putting aside the need for time travel, there's still the problem of geography.
Sorry for confusing you. The passion of Christ refers to his crucifixion.I never mentioned anything about passion. Regardless the other offerings I actually did give you are incontrovertible, which handily dispenses with your notion of the Bible having no parallel, when in fact most of its most salient points are rewrites of other cultures myths, and stories.Actually the statement was I know that you have never given this any serious consideration. But that's because you pointed to the legend of Balder as the source for the passion of Christ when the passion of Christ was recorded before the legend of Balder.This has been research by myself long ago. Still peruse aspects of it today, when points of interest arise. It's interesting stuff. But I've moved on long ago...Exactly. Which is how I know you have never given this any serious consideration.Indeed...Which writer?
Consider the statement that "you know" what I've considered... Then realize the absurdity of such a claim. Now juxtapose that same mindset against what "you know" as it concerns the book, "The Bible". The conclusion should be apparent...
But putting aside the need for time travel, there's still the problem of geography.
Right. I never discussed his crucifiction. No need to be sorry. Just read better...Sorry for confusing you. The passion of Christ refers to his crucifixion.I never mentioned anything about passion. Regardless the other offerings I actually did give you are incontrovertible, which handily dispenses with your notion of the Bible having no parallel, when in fact most of its most salient points are rewrites of other cultures myths, and stories.Actually the statement was I know that you have never given this any serious consideration. But that's because you pointed to the legend of Balder as the source for the passion of Christ when the passion of Christ was recorded before the legend of Balder.This has been research by myself long ago. Still peruse aspects of it today, when points of interest arise. It's interesting stuff. But I've moved on long ago...Exactly. Which is how I know you have never given this any serious consideration.Indeed...
Consider the statement that "you know" what I've considered... Then realize the absurdity of such a claim. Now juxtapose that same mindset against what "you know" as it concerns the book, "The Bible". The conclusion should be apparent...
But putting aside the need for time travel, there's still the problem of geography.
No, they are totally controvertible.
Sorry.
No. It isn’t. No need to pull those free of religious delusional burden down into your delusion with you. If it’s so great youll do just fine there without them.Back to the OP... Atheism is a religion. The religious nature of atheism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.
Same difference. It's all part of the account. Which is why it is so odd that you believe something that was recorded a 1000 years after the resurrection of Christ could be the source of the account. It's the other way around. The resurrection of Christ was incorporated into the legend of Balder.Right. I never discussed his crucifiction. No need to be sorry. Just read better...Sorry for confusing you. The passion of Christ refers to his crucifixion.I never mentioned anything about passion. Regardless the other offerings I actually did give you are incontrovertible, which handily dispenses with your notion of the Bible having no parallel, when in fact most of its most salient points are rewrites of other cultures myths, and stories.Actually the statement was I know that you have never given this any serious consideration. But that's because you pointed to the legend of Balder as the source for the passion of Christ when the passion of Christ was recorded before the legend of Balder.This has been research by myself long ago. Still peruse aspects of it today, when points of interest arise. It's interesting stuff. But I've moved on long ago...Exactly. Which is how I know you have never given this any serious consideration.
Consider the statement that "you know" what I've considered... Then realize the absurdity of such a claim. Now juxtapose that same mindset against what "you know" as it concerns the book, "The Bible". The conclusion should be apparent...
But putting aside the need for time travel, there's still the problem of geography.
No, they are totally controvertible.
Sorry.
It's the subject of the OP, right?No. It isn’t. No need to pull those free of religious delusional burden down into your delusion with you. If it’s so great youll do just fine there without them.Back to the OP... Atheism is a religion. The religious nature of atheism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.
Are you about to do a literary Seinfeld impersonation..? Please... Don’t. The show wasn’t that funny, and you’re even less entertaining...It's the subject of the OP, right?No. It isn’t. No need to pull those free of religious delusional burden down into your delusion with you. If it’s so great youll do just fine there without them.Back to the OP... Atheism is a religion. The religious nature of atheism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.
Does it bother you for me to discuss your religion?
That must be why it was on the air so long.Are you about to do a literary Seinfeld impersonation..? Please... Don’t. The show wasn’t that funny, and you’re even less entertaining...It's the subject of the OP, right?No. It isn’t. No need to pull those free of religious delusional burden down into your delusion with you. If it’s so great youll do just fine there without them.Back to the OP... Atheism is a religion. The religious nature of atheism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.
Does it bother you for me to discuss your religion?
Umm... it was a show about “nothing”. Ahh... Forget it. Your as bereft of comedy as your Bible...That must be why it was on the air so long.Are you about to do a literary Seinfeld impersonation..? Please... Don’t. The show wasn’t that funny, and you’re even less entertaining...It's the subject of the OP, right?No. It isn’t. No need to pull those free of religious delusional burden down into your delusion with you. If it’s so great youll do just fine there without them.Back to the OP... Atheism is a religion. The religious nature of atheism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.
Does it bother you for me to discuss your religion?
So to be a materialist is to cheapen what it means to be a human being.
Yes, it was a show about nothing. That's what made it so entertaining.Umm... it was a show about “nothing”. Ahh... Forget it. Your as bereft of comedy as your Bible...That must be why it was on the air so long.Are you about to do a literary Seinfeld impersonation..? Please... Don’t. The show wasn’t that funny, and you’re even less entertaining...It's the subject of the OP, right?No. It isn’t. No need to pull those free of religious delusional burden down into your delusion with you. If it’s so great youll do just fine there without them.Back to the OP... Atheism is a religion. The religious nature of atheism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.
Does it bother you for me to discuss your religion?
So to be a materialist is to cheapen what it means to be a human being.
If you have faith in Odin, he will reveal himself. Why won't you sincerely open your mind and heart to Odin?
I see a special pleading fallacy on your part, so there's no reason to take you seriously.
If God rearranges the stars to say "I AM GOD", I guarantee I won't forget, so you can't use that excuse.
Back to the OP... Atheism is a religion.
So, the question seems to be is whether a comforting myth is preferable to reality.
Well, reality isn't all that clear. Pretty much the only argument that there is no god ...
There is no argument that there is no god. But that has nothing to do with atheism. Atheist stop at that fact that there is no argument that there is a god. That's all we need.
As I said, if that's the myth that makes you happy.....
--there's your problem = there are no miracles --no such thingIf you have faith in Odin, he will reveal himself. Why won't you sincerely open your mind and heart to Odin?
I see a special pleading fallacy on your part, so there's no reason to take you seriously.
If you want to argue logic, then it's also a special pleading fallacy for an atheist. They do not have proof of no God, so it's based on faith in your disbelief.
Odin was written as myth, so he is not a valid comparison. There will be some people who cannot believe in God. They may choose to believe, but can't for one reason or another. To them, it could be like trying to believe in Odin. People will believe what they want to believe. With Jesus, it is about choosing to believe so the effort has to be heartfelt and then he will reveal himself through the Holy Spirit. It may take time and not something one can just do now and fifteen minutes later goes, "Oh, I see the light."
Also, from the Bible we know that God has already chosen who will make it. In other words, he chose you or not already before you were born. It's just we do not know whether we are the chosen ones who will make it or not. Perhaps one is a believer now and later doesn't believe anymore like Charles Templeton. Or their disbelief it too strong to ever try to believe in the first place.
My choosing God was when I was a child. I just knew there was something more as books and science didn't explain everything. Maybe you are referring to that. That's more intuition than something deeper. However, from that view, it eventually led me to the Bible in 2012. And I thought it was incredulous. How can people live to be over 900? Who were all these people who were begot? We got a serpent talking? Eventually, I was born again, and the Holy Spirit entered my life and Jesus my heart.
If God rearranges the stars to say "I AM GOD", I guarantee I won't forget, so you can't use that excuse.
I don't know. My understanding from the Bible is people may witness a miracle, but still won't believe. Even if it's something miraculous that happens such as what harmonica said about the Earth splitting open at his feet, a lot of money appearing in front of him, and a new car, the Bible says one will forget these things. Usually, what I've seen of miracles is a believer will point something in the news as a miracle such as a baby or child being rescued when chances were slim. However, non-believers usually won't believe it was a miracle, but just fortunate coincidence. The only stories I've hear of people changing are those who had near-death experiences. The one miracle that got me is Howard Storm. It was the way he described walking down the hallway. Maybe because he had a goatee and I had a goatee back then lol. And I'm a believer, but thought his story was a miracle. Not the usual stories that one see's on That's Supernatural or some schlock show like that.
..I usually pray on FestivusWell that depends on your sign. If your Sagittarius, it only works if you’ve fasted for two days and face west in the light of a full moon.O--does that matter?? which way ?We’re you facing east? Or west?nothing--nothing...I must be doing something wrong ....he's not revealing himself..I've asked for their theory many times --and received nothing
You asked for proof of God and we keep telling you to have faith in God first and then he will reveal himself. Sheesh.
One time you said you wanted him to open the ground in front of you and give you a lot of money and a new car. Then you'll believe. But Jesus knows that doesn't work for long as you'll just forget.
If naturalism had the scientific method behind it, then probably all of us would believe you and become theistic evos. It would make me question the Bible and Bible theory as all of the scientific parts would be contradicted. However, most of us, except the current theistic evos, know that did not happen. You believe in lies and won't accept the truth of my first sentence in this post.
If you have faith in Odin, he will reveal himself. Why won't you sincerely open your mind and heart to Odin?
I see a special pleading fallacy on your part, so there's no reason to take you seriously.
If you want to argue logic, then it's also a special pleading fallacy for an atheist. They do not have proof of no God, so it's based on faith in your disbelief.
Odin was written as myth, so he is not a valid comparison. There will be some people who cannot believe in God. They may choose to believe, but can't for one reason or another. To them, it could be like trying to believe in Odin. People will believe what they want to believe. With Jesus, it is about choosing to believe so the effort has to be heartfelt and then he will reveal himself through the Holy Spirit. It may take time and not something one can just do now and fifteen minutes later goes, "Oh, I see the light."
Also, from the Bible we know that God has already chosen who will make it. In other words, he chose you or not already before you were born. It's just we do not know whether we are the chosen ones who will make it or not. Perhaps one is a believer now and later doesn't believe anymore like Charles Templeton. Or their disbelief it too strong to ever try to believe in the first place.
My choosing God was when I was a child. I just knew there was something more as books and science didn't explain everything. Maybe you are referring to that. That's more intuition than something deeper. However, from that view, it eventually led me to the Bible in 2012. And I thought it was incredulous. How can people live to be over 900? Who were all these people who were begot? We got a serpent talking? Eventually, I was born again, and the Holy Spirit entered my life and Jesus my heart.
If God rearranges the stars to say "I AM GOD", I guarantee I won't forget, so you can't use that excuse.
I don't know. My understanding from the Bible is people may witness a miracle, but still won't believe. Even if it's something miraculous that happens such as what harmonica said about the Earth splitting open at his feet, a lot of money appearing in front of him, and a new car, the Bible says one will forget these things. Usually, what I've seen of miracles is a believer will point something in the news as a miracle such as a baby or child being rescued when chances were slim. However, non-believers usually won't believe it was a miracle, but just fortunate coincidence. The only stories I've hear of people changing are those who had near-death experiences. The one miracle that got me is Howard Storm. It was the way he described walking down the hallway. Maybe because he had a goatee and I had a goatee back then lol. And I'm a believer, but thought his story was a miracle. Not the usual stories that one see's on That's Supernatural or some schlock show like that.
Nope. I’m calling it like I see it.Back to the OP... Atheism is a religion.
Nope. You're using words incorrectly (dishonestly?) again. Please stop.
Nope. I’m calling it like I see it.Back to the OP... Atheism is a religion.
Nope. You're using words incorrectly (dishonestly?) again. Please stop.
Not all atheists have elevated their atheism to a religion.
I’m not the first person to observe the religious fervor of the far left militant atheists.Nope. I’m calling it like I see it.Back to the OP... Atheism is a religion.
Nope. You're using words incorrectly (dishonestly?) again. Please stop.
Not all atheists have elevated their atheism to a religion.
re·li·gion
noun
- the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
- a particular system of faith and worship.
plural noun: religions
"the world's great religions"- a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
"consumerism is the new religion"
As with the "consumerism is the new religion" example, Atheism can be seen to be a "religion", but not with the traditional definition.
