The main reason I'm an atheist

[Wryetui]

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:

I came to this forum for the mere pleasure of debate, if you believe I have nothing better to do with my life than to come here to speak with people I don't know about subjects that, in their majority, bore me you are wrong. You did not even give a definition of what "troll" means but I assume it is someone who bothers other people.

Anyway. No, I did not assume my theology is good because it was first, than, I would have assumed that judaism was the true theological approach since it came first. However, I have told you that I consider Orthodox theology to be the fullfillment of the christian faith because it is of apostolic origin. That is, a quarter of the Fathers of the Church were contemporary with the apostles and they learned from them, for example, Clement the Roman or Ignatius of Antioch, and the other Fathers did nothing but to develop this theology not changing its essence, but spreading it with teachings according to them. Assume that you were a christian even if it is ridiculous to you, who would you believe in matters of faith about, let's say, Jesus Christ? Clement the Roman, made bishop of Rome by the apostle Peter himself, who knew the Lord very well, or Marthin Luther, a german monk of the 16th century?