The main reason I'm an atheist

[Little Rik]

Once you or anyone else start the flattery and the jokes you or anyone else must be ready to get the
same things back.
It is fair.  

I think you missed the tone of my response.  I was thanking you for being kind!  May I ask, is English your first language?

Obviously not but next time i born i will born in Australia possibly in Cairns the best place on earth.  
My English will be perfect.  

And guess what?  

You will be on my list of girls to marry provided you get rid of that guy first.      

[Angrboda]

Atheists also fail because if God exist he got to be MULTIdimensional ...

He GOT TO BE. Why? Cause Little Rik says so.

[Little Rik]

Atheists also fail because if God exist he got to be MULTIdimensional ...

He GOT TO BE.  Why?  Cause Little Rik says so.

Man (man & women of course) by nature is UNIdimensional.
He can only do one thing at the time, be in one place at the time and he is stuck inside a body.
He can not create a universe, run it and so on.
His consciousness is abstract but again it is stuck inside a physical body.
This constrain prevent him from doing big things like creating a universe therefore only an entity that
is not constrain by physicality is able to do big things like creating an universe if of course such an entity exist.
I am not here to prove that he exist as it would be impossible for an atheist to understand how the whole system works considering that atheist lock themselves inside a corral of various dogmas.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

We call the Bible a "filthy book" because it contains nearly-innumerable things that we find morally repugnant.

Among those things are sexism, deity-ordered genocide, racism (though Jesus did a bit to moderate it with parables like the Good Samaritan, and Paul, to his credit, did try to "clean it up" a bit in that regard), homophobia, and blood-sacrifice and/or vicarious atonement. That is the "very short list".

The book is clearly, to an unbiased (disinterested... meaning we read all the holy books of the world with the same eye, including yours) observer, the product of a Bronze/Iron-Age barbaric, Patriarchal, ethnocentric, theocratic culture. We show it the amount of contempt we feel it deserves, especially when some doe-eyed fanatic comes in here telling us it's something we should base our lives upon.

Can't. Too moral.

[Angrboda]

He GOT TO BE.  Why?  Cause Little Rik says so.

Man (man & women of course) by nature is UNIdimensional.
He can only do one thing at the time, be in one place at the time and he is stuck inside a body.
He can not create a universe, run it and so on.
His consciousness is abstract but again it is stuck inside a physical body.
This constrain prevent him from doing big things like creating a universe therefore only an entity that
is not constrain by physicality is able to do big things like creating an universe if of course such an entity exist.
I am not here to prove that he exist as it would be impossible for an atheist to understand how the whole system works considering that atheist lock themselves inside a corral of various dogmas.

Mooom! He's doing it again! Make him stop!

[Wryetui]

Once you or anyone else start the flattery and the jokes you or anyone else must be ready to get the
same things back.
It is fair.  

I think you missed the tone of my response.  I was thanking you for being kind!  May I ask, is English your first language?

Romanian is.

[drfuzzy]

We call the Bible a "filthy book" because it contains nearly-innumerable things that we find morally repugnant.

Among those things are sexism, deity-ordered genocide, racism (though Jesus did a bit to moderate it with parables like the Good Samaritan, and Paul, to his credit, did try to "clean it up" a bit in that regard), homophobia, and blood-sacrifice and/or vicarious atonement. That is the "very short list".

The book is clearly, to an unbiased (disinterested... meaning we read all the holy books of the world with the same eye, including yours) observer, the product of a Bronze/Iron-Age barbaric, Patriarchal, ethnocentric, theocratic culture. We show it the amount of contempt we feel it deserves, especially when some doe-eyed fanatic comes in here telling us it's something we should base our lives upon.

Can't. Too moral.

^This.^  Exactly.  

And why should I care that maybe you have been studying the Generally Accepted Epistles of Ignatius?  Sure, there a lot of writings that our wholly babble doesn't include.  The Council of Nicea didn't just put a bunch of gospels on the altar, and gawd made some of them fall off - that's a myth.  It took well over 75 years (325 to in the 400's) before the Catholic Bible was finalized.  More than that for other versions.  So what if Constantine's bible included the book of Judith?  There are hundreds of books that were lucky enough to NOT get included in the evil canon.
Here's one list . . . too many to mention.  http://wesley.nnu.edu/sermons-essays-boo...iterature/

So 325 years after Jesus' death, a group of witch doctors got together to argue what the story was going to be.  
So what?  The dying and rising god story was at least 2000 years old before Jesus was born. It was just a new version of the old tale - updated under Roman rule.  And Christian churches have been arguing (and often killing each other) over who has the right book and the right attitude and the right practices for 2000 years, and not once has God stepped in and said "you guys, THIS one, now stop killing each other and worship me properly!".  All of the different schisms and sects, all claiming to have god's favor, with not one shred of proof other than baseless assertions. 

That's because it is all a fantasy, created by MEN, in order to control other men.  And I simply don't believe their bullshit.  And I won't, until someone comes up with some hard data and real proof that god exists.

[Joods]

It is right because it is the original one and because it was developed from the apostolic fathers, that learned from the apostles.

Provide proof that it is the "original one". You simply stating so, doesn't make it true or right. All that exists are copies of copies of copies of translated manuscripts that were re-translated many times over. There is zero evidence of anything "original". This is yet another bs claim by a religitard.

However, the Bible is not a book. It is a collection of 80 writings of different epochs and persons.

bold mine

In other words, a book. You now want to argue semantics over the usage of the word "book".

And it is a product of Sacred Tradition, that existed from the beginning of the revelation, only later it got written.

Again, you want to argue semantics because from where I sit, you weren't satisfied with the answers you got from the people that responded, so you do what every other theist on these forums does: word salad, shift your goal posts to better your argument and deny that people have actually answered you. Typical.

[Joods]

I think you missed the tone of my response.  I was thanking you for being kind!  May I ask, is English your first language?

Romanian is.

Sock of LR? You are new here, how could you possibly know what someone else's first language is, that you don't know?

Interesting. This may be one for the staff to look at.

[Redbeard The Pink]

Sooo...because it was first, it must be correct?


That is asinine. If your Theology is better, there should be some kind of demonstrable evidence that shows this fact. Otherwise, your religious beliefs are just as made up as everyone else's.


The "filthy book from the Bronze Age" would be the Bible. Please tell me you're not that obtuse.

It is right because it is the original one and because it was developed from the apostolic fathers, that learned from the apostles.

And what kind of demonstrable evidence would you be satisfacted with? You said I did not read "the Bible", what evidence do you have for this?

However, the Bible is not a book. It is a collection of 80 writings of different epochs and persons. And it is a product of Sacred Tradition, that existed from the beginning of the revelation, only later it got written. And no, my main fountaine of knowledge it is not any of the books of Sacred Scripture, but rather Sacred Tradition.

So because it was first. Ridiculous. If we just stuck with the first idea we had about everything, do you know how wrong we'd be about, well, everything?



Actually, the Bible is a pretty good example of that, come to think of it. The fact that it  was produced by ancient, desert-dwelling, goat-herding scribes does not help matters in the least.


Also...satis-what? Ok, I was suspicious before, but seriously, are you a troll? Answer honestly. I am a Wizard, and I'll know if you're lying.


As for what kind of evidence would satisfactorificizationalize me, anything empirical/tangible would do it. The people in your Bible could produce demonstrable results with, say, their prayers for instance (that miracle-off with the bulls and the wet altar comes to mind), and yet when studied scientifically, prayer in any denomination of any religion completely fails to tip the scales in the positive, and in the case of some medical conditions (heart disease, for example), people who know they're being prayed for survive at an objectively worse rate.


I'm aware that The Bible is a collection of books, letters, and other writings. As you say, your very religion (or some early form of it) sifted through all of that (along with a bunch of other things) and decided which things would and would not be compiled into this one big thing...bunch of pages, bound around the sides...has a spine holding it all together in the back...say it with me...


The Bible is a book. It's a book in the same way any other anthology is a book, you semantics-mongering little smear. Also, this is what you sound like: