Who here is an atheist?

[Tuatara]

Greek mythology was a real religion.

Is atheism a religion?

Today, Greek Mythology is not a religion. We don't see anyone practicing these beliefs and we don't see anyone exhibiting behaviors that would be associated with a religious person (let me know if you need for me to explain what these behaviors are).

Today, Militant Atheism is a religion. People practice it and exhibit religious behaviors.

Wow, this will be the third time I have said this. Yes there are people today who practice the religion of Hellenism. Not many about 100,000 worldwide, but they exist.

The Ancient Greek practice of Hellenism lives on as a modern religion

Also you and your cohorts need to stop using the term "Militant Atheists" Militant means to be aggressive and combatant, favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods in support of a political or social cause. Again, you have zero understanding what the word religion means. Now people have used the informal use of the word religion" like "Hockey is my religion" but this practice does not mean hockey is a religion. They use the term to describe the importance or their pursuit or interest.

And in post #308 I explained to you that I would be disrespecting them if I argued with them about their beliefs and tried to tell them what their religion said.

So you feel I would not be disrespecting your religion if I called it mythology?

You tell me and then explain your reasoning to me.

I think I would learn a lot about your objectivity.

I stated that I lump all the religions the same. I have zero respect for religions. I respect people whether they belong to these religions or not. I said I tie Zeus to every other god. Which means I see his probability of existence as much as any other one. You responded by saying "Of course you do. It is another sign of how you disrespect believers" So when I compared Zeus, a god that was believed by many people who felt he was very real to them, just as much as those who believe in the Christian Judaeo God, you saw that as a sign of disrespect. I treat both gods equally in my approach to their probabilities. You then got on some high horse and declared that I was disrespecting those who believe in God, and only you're god because you treated the god Zeus exactly who Atheists treat your God. That he doesn't exist, that he is mythical. Do you now see the point. By your own rules you put yourself in a hypocritical position.

Do I think it is disrespectful to tell some one that you don't believe in their god? No
Do I think it is disrespectful for someone to say their God is right while dismissing other gods. No, not disrespectful but unless you have evidence I'm going to call you on that and show you have no leg to stand on.
Do I think it is disrespectful for someone to call someone's god or religion mythical? No. it is an opinion. If your convictions and beliefs are hurt because some one else called your beliefs mythical then your beliefs were not that strong in the first place.

I know you feel a person is being disrespected when anyone tells them their god is a fairy-tale but to you it only applies to your own god and not those you believe are myths.

 

[ding]

Today, Greek Mythology is not a religion. We don't see anyone practicing these beliefs and we don't see anyone exhibiting behaviors that would be associated with a religious person (let me know if you need for me to explain what these behaviors are).

Today, Militant Atheism is a religion. People practice it and exhibit religious behaviors.

Wow, this will be the third time I have said this. Yes there are people today who practice the religion of Hellenism. Not many about 100,000 worldwide, but they exist.

The Ancient Greek practice of Hellenism lives on as a modern religion

Also you and your cohorts need to stop using the term "Militant Atheists" Militant means to be aggressive and combatant, favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods in support of a political or social cause. Again, you have zero understanding what the word religion means. Now people have used the informal use of the word religion" like "Hockey is my religion" but this practice does not mean hockey is a religion. They use the term to describe the importance or their pursuit or interest.

And in post #308 I explained to you that I would be disrespecting them if I argued with them about their beliefs and tried to tell them what their religion said.

So you feel I would not be disrespecting your religion if I called it mythology?

You tell me and then explain your reasoning to me.

I think I would learn a lot about your objectivity.

I stated that I lump all the religions the same. I have zero respect for religions. I respect people whether they belong to these religions or not. I said I tie Zeus to every other god. Which means I see his probability of existence as much as any other one. You responded by saying "Of course you do. It is another sign of how you disrespect believers" So when I compared Zeus, a god that was believed by many people who felt he was very real to them, just as much as those who believe in the Christian Judaeo God, you saw that as a sign of disrespect. I treat both gods equally in my approach to their probabilities. You then got on some high horse and declared that I was disrespecting those who believe in God, and only you're god because you treated the god Zeus exactly who Atheists treat your God. That he doesn't exist, that he is mythical. Do you now see the point. By your own rules you put yourself in a hypocritical position.

Do I think it is disrespectful to tell some one that you don't believe in their god? No
Do I think it is disrespectful for someone to say their God is right while dismissing other gods. No, not disrespectful but unless you have evidence I'm going to call you on that and show you have no leg to stand on.
Do I think it is disrespectful for someone to call someone's god or religion mythical? No. it is an opinion. If your convictions and beliefs are hurt because some one else called your beliefs mythical then your beliefs were not that strong in the first place.

I know you feel a person is being disrespected when anyone tells them their god is no is a fairy-tale but to you it only applies to your own god and not those you believe are myths.

There is no objective measure where Zeus can seriously be compared to Christianity. That is why I said what I said.

 

[ding]

Well... the fireman would be a stranger because the reasonable assumption is that is how he would have knowledge that YOUR house was on fire. He may have transposed the numbers of the address and it's your neighbors house that's on fire.

Whereas that drunk would have had to know YOU personally. How else would he know it was YOUR house that was on fire.

Putting that aside, I submit that of the 99% of knowledge that you possess came from accepting it on authority of others. I am willing to bet that you do not know the source of the knowledge of the vast majority of it.

It really is a BS argument to say we should have all the knowledge in the world on an event that happened 2000 years ago. Especially since this is the only event in antiquity that you hold to that standard. And especially since this event had more information recorded closer to the event than any other event in antiquity. And especially since it was orders of magnitude more. And especially since no other event in antiquity has been studied as extensively. And especially since it was orders of magnitude more. And especially since no other event in the history of the world has had a greater impact on mankind than the ministry of Jesus Christ. Not bad for a convicted criminal who was put to death by the superpower of the day whose ministry only lasted 3 1/2 years.

Stop acting like there is little to know evidence that hasn't been studied.

First you are changing subjects. The question wasn't about the account of Jesus. However, let's leave that, for a moment.

No one is suggesting that we should have "all the knowledge in the world" about the life, and death of Jesus. However, especially considering the alleged 100 witnesses of the alleged resurrection, would it not see reasonable, that there would be, at least, a few independent, contemporary accounts? Yet, we have not found even a single one.

Can you give me an example of a contemporary account of Julius Caesars Gallic Wars so that I may better understand what you are asking for?

And I didn't change subjects. You are calling into question the tangible evidence for the existence, ministry, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ, right? Placing that evidence in its proper context to other events in antiquity is 100% relevant and not off subject.

Cassius Dio Histories, Caesar's Commentaries, The writings of Plutarch, just to name a few.

Ok, but when was the event? And when were Cassius Dio Histories, Caesar's Commentaries, The writings of Plutarch compiled?

Because I seem to recall there being only 10 manuscripts with the earliest being 1000 years after the event. Is that wrong?

I believe it is. I believe that Plutarch's writings have been dated to around 30 BC - that would have been within a couple of decades of the wars. And Caesar's accounts are of course from that time. The cassius Deo was within 100 years.

Your point? There are likewise no accounts of Jesus,

You sure about that?

Sources for Caesar and Jesus Compared

"...Around 12 manuscripts are essential for determining the wording of Caesar’s account. The oldest manuscript is from the ninth century—a full 900 years removed from the actual events. The list extends to manuscripts from the 12th century. Cicero’s speeches have an even older pedigree. They have about 15 manuscripts ranging from AD 400 to 800. Sallust’s account has around 20 manuscripts from the 10th and 11th centuries. Plutarch’s Lives is also mostly divided across six key manuscripts that range from the 10th and 11th centuries. Suetonius’s manuscript is dated AD 820. Classics scholars build much of our understanding of Caesar around these sources, even though their manuscript traditions contain significant gaps of time..."

 

[Czernobog]

First you are changing subjects. The question wasn't about the account of Jesus. However, let's leave that, for a moment.

No one is suggesting that we should have "all the knowledge in the world" about the life, and death of Jesus. However, especially considering the alleged 100 witnesses of the alleged resurrection, would it not see reasonable, that there would be, at least, a few independent, contemporary accounts? Yet, we have not found even a single one.

Can you give me an example of a contemporary account of Julius Caesars Gallic Wars so that I may better understand what you are asking for?

And I didn't change subjects. You are calling into question the tangible evidence for the existence, ministry, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ, right? Placing that evidence in its proper context to other events in antiquity is 100% relevant and not off subject.

Cassius Dio Histories, Caesar's Commentaries, The writings of Plutarch, just to name a few.

Ok, but when was the event? And when were Cassius Dio Histories, Caesar's Commentaries, The writings of Plutarch compiled?

Because I seem to recall there being only 10 manuscripts with the earliest being 1000 years after the event. Is that wrong?

I believe it is. I believe that Plutarch's writings have been dated to around 30 BC - that would have been within a couple of decades of the wars. And Caesar's accounts are of course from that time. The cassius Deo was within 100 years.

Your point? There are likewise no accounts of Jesus,

You sure about that?

Sources for Caesar and Jesus Compared

"...Around 12 manuscripts are essential for determining the wording of Caesar’s account. The oldest manuscript is from the ninth century—a full 900 years removed from the actual events. The list extends to manuscripts from the 12th century. Cicero’s speeches have an even older pedigree. They have about 15 manuscripts ranging from AD 400 to 800. Sallust’s account has around 20 manuscripts from the 10th and 11th centuries. Plutarch’s Lives is also mostly divided across six key manuscripts that range from the 10th and 11th centuries. Suetonius’s manuscript is dated AD 820. Classics scholars build much of our understanding of Caesar around these sources, even though their manuscript traditions contain significant gaps of time..."

You do get that Plutrarch's Lives is a medieval collection put together by reading Plutarch's original transcripts, which were notably older, right?

 

[ding]

Can you give me an example of a contemporary account of Julius Caesars Gallic Wars so that I may better understand what you are asking for?

And I didn't change subjects. You are calling into question the tangible evidence for the existence, ministry, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ, right? Placing that evidence in its proper context to other events in antiquity is 100% relevant and not off subject.

Cassius Dio Histories, Caesar's Commentaries, The writings of Plutarch, just to name a few.

Ok, but when was the event? And when were Cassius Dio Histories, Caesar's Commentaries, The writings of Plutarch compiled?

Because I seem to recall there being only 10 manuscripts with the earliest being 1000 years after the event. Is that wrong?

I believe it is. I believe that Plutarch's writings have been dated to around 30 BC - that would have been within a couple of decades of the wars. And Caesar's accounts are of course from that time. The cassius Deo was within 100 years.

Your point? There are likewise no accounts of Jesus,

You sure about that?

Sources for Caesar and Jesus Compared

"...Around 12 manuscripts are essential for determining the wording of Caesar’s account. The oldest manuscript is from the ninth century—a full 900 years removed from the actual events. The list extends to manuscripts from the 12th century. Cicero’s speeches have an even older pedigree. They have about 15 manuscripts ranging from AD 400 to 800. Sallust’s account has around 20 manuscripts from the 10th and 11th centuries. Plutarch’s Lives is also mostly divided across six key manuscripts that range from the 10th and 11th centuries. Suetonius’s manuscript is dated AD 820. Classics scholars build much of our understanding of Caesar around these sources, even though their manuscript traditions contain significant gaps of time..."

You do get that Plutrarch's Lives is a medieval collection put together by reading Plutarch's original transcripts, which were notably older, right?

No, I didn't get that. Do you have a source for that?

 

[Czernobog]

Cassius Dio Histories, Caesar's Commentaries, The writings of Plutarch, just to name a few.

Ok, but when was the event? And when were Cassius Dio Histories, Caesar's Commentaries, The writings of Plutarch compiled?

Because I seem to recall there being only 10 manuscripts with the earliest being 1000 years after the event. Is that wrong?

I believe it is. I believe that Plutarch's writings have been dated to around 30 BC - that would have been within a couple of decades of the wars. And Caesar's accounts are of course from that time. The cassius Deo was within 100 years.

Your point? There are likewise no accounts of Jesus,

You sure about that?

Sources for Caesar and Jesus Compared

"...Around 12 manuscripts are essential for determining the wording of Caesar’s account. The oldest manuscript is from the ninth century—a full 900 years removed from the actual events. The list extends to manuscripts from the 12th century. Cicero’s speeches have an even older pedigree. They have about 15 manuscripts ranging from AD 400 to 800. Sallust’s account has around 20 manuscripts from the 10th and 11th centuries. Plutarch’s Lives is also mostly divided across six key manuscripts that range from the 10th and 11th centuries. Suetonius’s manuscript is dated AD 820. Classics scholars build much of our understanding of Caesar around these sources, even though their manuscript traditions contain significant gaps of time..."

You do get that Plutrarch's Lives is a medieval collection put together by reading Plutarch's original transcripts, which were notably older, right?

No, I didn't get that. Do you have a source for that?

Here is a list of the Greek, and Roman materials used to collect the stories. Almost all of them within a century of Caesar's reign.

 

[BULLDOG]

Can anyone answer the question? When it says psalms 52 vs 5 “and the lord said....” who is writing this? You would think this is a very important man who is telling us an entire book of what the lord said. Yet I’ll bet you most believers don’t even know.

God's secretary?

Seriously it just dawned on me. If you ask most Christians who is talking when they read from the Bible they don’t know. Isn’t that interesting? They say Corinthians 5 or psalms 6 but who is telling us that god said?

I don't think God actually spoke to them. More like He showed them visions and let them put it into their own words. Even Jesus pointed out that divorce was not God's plan and yet it is codified into the OT.

Who’s them? Who’s talking? Who’s narrating?

Lot's of different people. You do know you can look this up for yourself, right?

I don't think it's relevant to my evaluation. What is relevant is what was written down. You are just looking for excuses for not working through the accounts.

The narration is done by people repeating old folk tales, sometimes centuries after the events described. If the telling is within a closer time frame it is most often decades after the event, and written by someone who never even met the people described in the stories.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I was told that I can't join the Elks, because I am an atheist. That is disappointing, because their bar is one of the best in my small town. On the other hand, whenever I think of joining fraternal orders, such as the Elks, Moose, Shriner's, etc., I simply can't take it seriously. It makes me think of the Mystic Knights of the Sea from Amos and Andy, or whatever Ralph and Ed belonged to in the Honeymooners. What this country needs is an atheist fraternal organization, perhaps named, the Royal Order of the Godless Drinkers.

You could always lie, amirite?

Lie for the privilege to hang out with a bunch of drinking Christians? Naw. I just don't see myself doing that.

 

[ding]

I was told that I can't join the Elks, because I am an atheist. That is disappointing, because their bar is one of the best in my small town. On the other hand, whenever I think of joining fraternal orders, such as the Elks, Moose, Shriner's, etc., I simply can't take it seriously. It makes me think of the Mystic Knights of the Sea from Amos and Andy, or whatever Ralph and Ed belonged to in the Honeymooners. What this country needs is an atheist fraternal organization, perhaps named, the Royal Order of the Godless Drinkers.

You could always lie, amirite?

Lie for the privilege to hang out with a bunch of drinking Christians? Naw. I just don't see myself doing that.

Yeah, filthy Christians.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I was told that I can't join the Elks, because I am an atheist. That is disappointing, because their bar is one of the best in my small town. On the other hand, whenever I think of joining fraternal orders, such as the Elks, Moose, Shriner's, etc., I simply can't take it seriously. It makes me think of the Mystic Knights of the Sea from Amos and Andy, or whatever Ralph and Ed belonged to in the Honeymooners. What this country needs is an atheist fraternal organization, perhaps named, the Royal Order of the Godless Drinkers.

You could always lie, amirite?

Lie for the privilege to hang out with a bunch of drinking Christians? Naw. I just don't see myself doing that.

Yeah, filthy Christians.

No. Mostly just self righteous and judgemental Christians.

 

[ding]

Ok, but when was the event? And when were Cassius Dio Histories, Caesar's Commentaries, The writings of Plutarch compiled?

Because I seem to recall there being only 10 manuscripts with the earliest being 1000 years after the event. Is that wrong?

I believe it is. I believe that Plutarch's writings have been dated to around 30 BC - that would have been within a couple of decades of the wars. And Caesar's accounts are of course from that time. The cassius Deo was within 100 years.

Your point? There are likewise no accounts of Jesus,

You sure about that?

Sources for Caesar and Jesus Compared

"...Around 12 manuscripts are essential for determining the wording of Caesar’s account. The oldest manuscript is from the ninth century—a full 900 years removed from the actual events. The list extends to manuscripts from the 12th century. Cicero’s speeches have an even older pedigree. They have about 15 manuscripts ranging from AD 400 to 800. Sallust’s account has around 20 manuscripts from the 10th and 11th centuries. Plutarch’s Lives is also mostly divided across six key manuscripts that range from the 10th and 11th centuries. Suetonius’s manuscript is dated AD 820. Classics scholars build much of our understanding of Caesar around these sources, even though their manuscript traditions contain significant gaps of time..."

You do get that Plutrarch's Lives is a medieval collection put together by reading Plutarch's original transcripts, which were notably older, right?

No, I didn't get that. Do you have a source for that?

Here is a list of the Greek, and Roman materials used to collect the stories. Almost all of them within a century of Caesar's reign.

I'm not seeing where it says that Plutarch’s Lives isn't mostly divided across six key manuscripts that range from the 10th and 11th centuries.

 

[ding]

I was told that I can't join the Elks, because I am an atheist. That is disappointing, because their bar is one of the best in my small town. On the other hand, whenever I think of joining fraternal orders, such as the Elks, Moose, Shriner's, etc., I simply can't take it seriously. It makes me think of the Mystic Knights of the Sea from Amos and Andy, or whatever Ralph and Ed belonged to in the Honeymooners. What this country needs is an atheist fraternal organization, perhaps named, the Royal Order of the Godless Drinkers.

You could always lie, amirite?

Lie for the privilege to hang out with a bunch of drinking Christians? Naw. I just don't see myself doing that.

Yeah, filthy Christians.

No. Mostly just self righteous and judgemental Christians.

Maybe we should form a mob.

 

[Czernobog]

I believe it is. I believe that Plutarch's writings have been dated to around 30 BC - that would have been within a couple of decades of the wars. And Caesar's accounts are of course from that time. The cassius Deo was within 100 years.

Your point? There are likewise no accounts of Jesus,

You sure about that?

Sources for Caesar and Jesus Compared

"...Around 12 manuscripts are essential for determining the wording of Caesar’s account. The oldest manuscript is from the ninth century—a full 900 years removed from the actual events. The list extends to manuscripts from the 12th century. Cicero’s speeches have an even older pedigree. They have about 15 manuscripts ranging from AD 400 to 800. Sallust’s account has around 20 manuscripts from the 10th and 11th centuries. Plutarch’s Lives is also mostly divided across six key manuscripts that range from the 10th and 11th centuries. Suetonius’s manuscript is dated AD 820. Classics scholars build much of our understanding of Caesar around these sources, even though their manuscript traditions contain significant gaps of time..."

You do get that Plutrarch's Lives is a medieval collection put together by reading Plutarch's original transcripts, which were notably older, right?

No, I didn't get that. Do you have a source for that?

Here is a list of the Greek, and Roman materials used to collect the stories. Almost all of them within a century of Caesar's reign.

I'm not seeing where it says that Plutarch’s Lives isn't mostly divided across six key manuscripts that range from the 10th and 11th centuries.

What do you think the sources were for these manuscripts, considering that Plutarch lived 900 years before that?

 

[ding]

You sure about that?

Sources for Caesar and Jesus Compared

"...Around 12 manuscripts are essential for determining the wording of Caesar’s account. The oldest manuscript is from the ninth century—a full 900 years removed from the actual events. The list extends to manuscripts from the 12th century. Cicero’s speeches have an even older pedigree. They have about 15 manuscripts ranging from AD 400 to 800. Sallust’s account has around 20 manuscripts from the 10th and 11th centuries. Plutarch’s Lives is also mostly divided across six key manuscripts that range from the 10th and 11th centuries. Suetonius’s manuscript is dated AD 820. Classics scholars build much of our understanding of Caesar around these sources, even though their manuscript traditions contain significant gaps of time..."

You do get that Plutrarch's Lives is a medieval collection put together by reading Plutarch's original transcripts, which were notably older, right?

No, I didn't get that. Do you have a source for that?

Here is a list of the Greek, and Roman materials used to collect the stories. Almost all of them within a century of Caesar's reign.

I'm not seeing where it says that Plutarch’s Lives isn't mostly divided across six key manuscripts that range from the 10th and 11th centuries.

What do you think the sources were for these manuscripts, considering that Plutarch lived 900 years before that?

I don't know what all they used. According to the link I provided earlier, two of the most important sources for the Caesar’s life were Suetonius and Plutarch, written in the early second century. That’s more than 100 years after the time of Caesar. Which is comparable to some of the manuscripts about the life of Christ. While others are much closer in time to the event.

I can only assume the original work was lost or incomplete so that the only remaining manuscripts are from Plutarch Lives which are not a copy of the original work.

You tell me?

And then tell me why this isn't comparable to the manuscripts about the life of Christ.

 

[Czernobog]

You do get that Plutrarch's Lives is a medieval collection put together by reading Plutarch's original transcripts, which were notably older, right?

No, I didn't get that. Do you have a source for that?

Here is a list of the Greek, and Roman materials used to collect the stories. Almost all of them within a century of Caesar's reign.

I'm not seeing where it says that Plutarch’s Lives isn't mostly divided across six key manuscripts that range from the 10th and 11th centuries.

What do you think the sources were for these manuscripts, considering that Plutarch lived 900 years before that?

I don't know what all they used. According to the link I provided earlier, two of the most important sources for the Caesar’s life were Suetonius and Plutarch, written in the early second century. That’s more than 100 years after the time of Caesar. Which is comparable to some of the manuscripts about the life of Christ. While others are much closer in time to the event.

I can only assume the original work was lost or incomplete so that the only remaining manuscripts are from Plutarch Lives which are not a copy of the original work.

You tell me?

And then tell me why this isn't comparable to the manuscripts about the life of Christ.

Well, considering that both Plutarch, and Suetonius died at the beginning of the 2nd Century (Plutarch 120, and Suetonius 130), meaning that the majority of their writings would have been first century - less than a hundred years after the Gallic Wars - I'd say your source is less than accurate in the timing of the writings.

The reason it isn't comparable is because there are no "sources" for the life of Jesus outside of the bible. The best you have are some early writings confirming the existence of a Christos cult, which is not, itself, evidence of the accuracy of anything in the Bible.

 

[ding]

No, I didn't get that. Do you have a source for that?

Here is a list of the Greek, and Roman materials used to collect the stories. Almost all of them within a century of Caesar's reign.

I'm not seeing where it says that Plutarch’s Lives isn't mostly divided across six key manuscripts that range from the 10th and 11th centuries.

What do you think the sources were for these manuscripts, considering that Plutarch lived 900 years before that?

I don't know what all they used. According to the link I provided earlier, two of the most important sources for the Caesar’s life were Suetonius and Plutarch, written in the early second century. That’s more than 100 years after the time of Caesar. Which is comparable to some of the manuscripts about the life of Christ. While others are much closer in time to the event.

I can only assume the original work was lost or incomplete so that the only remaining manuscripts are from Plutarch Lives which are not a copy of the original work.

You tell me?

And then tell me why this isn't comparable to the manuscripts about the life of Christ.

Well, considering that both Plutarch, and Suetonius died at the beginning of the 2nd Century (Plutarch 120, and Suetonius 130), meaning that the majority of their writings would have been first century - less than a hundred years after the Gallic Wars - I'd say your source is less than accurate in the timing of the writings.

The reason it isn't comparable is because there are no "sources" for the life of Jesus outside of the bible. The best you have are some early writings confirming the existence of a Christos cult, which is not, itself, evidence of the accuracy of anything in the Bible.

You aren't understanding. The Bible was taken from those sources. The manuscripts came first. They are the contemporary writings you are seeking. All 24,000 of them.

There is no material differences between the sources for Julius Caesar's Gallic War and the sources for the ministry of Jesus Christ. Except there are more sources and manuscripts for the ministry of Jesus Christ than there are for Julius Caesar's Gallic War and the time between those manuscripts and the events is shorter.

 

[LittleNipper]

So. Big Bang.

What caused the "Big Bang"?

Did the Big Bang bring existence into existence? Or did something exist before that?

If so, how?

What caused "God"?

Did God bring existence into existence? Or did something exist before that?

If so, how?

GOD created TIME. Before that there was none --- yet GOD was.

So who created God? If you try to claim God was always here, how can you be so sure that what caused the Big Bang wasn't always here?

Prove love, it is probably a myth, self interest at best. Some beliefs, feelings, and ideas defy science.

Why? I have no need or desire to prove love to you. You can believe in love or not, makes no difference to me. Religious nuts like yourself claim you have an obligation to "share" God., and you do it by insulting and trying to remove the rights of all who aren't just like you.

I don't see how I've been insulting, unless it's where we disagree and that upsets you. I believe in a social order where everyone is on the same playing field and able to express themselves openly everywhere at anytime and not just select a few who happen to be in charge or manipulating social thought. I don't think that atheists are nuts, if anything they are rather slick. They fully believe that since what they believe doesn't regard GOD it's the only thought allowed to be taught in public education by the Supreme Court. and unfortunately that is not far from reality.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I am now an atheist. It just makes so much more sense and all the evidence points to science and the processes of science causing the universe and life.

I won't believe in such evil as your god.

 

[ding]

I am now an atheist. It just makes so much more sense and all the evidence points to science and the processes of science causing the universe and life.

I won't believe in such evil as your god.

He said He was cool with that and that he'd see you in about 15 years and explain it to you then. Until then He said for you to read Job Chapter 40.

 

[Meriweather]

The Jews say Jesus wasn’t the messia. Like us atheists they’re pretty much calling bs on your entire premise.

You now can’t call the Jewish religion out as being ridiculous because you are a spin off.

Muslims can’t call you out because they make the same claims.

Yes all religions have a truce. They don’t call each other out same as pick pockets and con men

The Messiah Jews expect is a man like King David who they expect will rule the world and the world will see the wisdom of serving Jews. Judaism is not ridiculous. It is how they understand Old Testament prophecies.