The main reason I'm an atheist

[Redbeard The Pink]

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.

Aha! The old "Pretend I don't know what a Troll is so they won't think I'm trolling" trick! I'm onto you, troll!


And yes, I think you have nothing better to do with your life.

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.

The first Christian theology...whatever...hopscotchin' little poot-huffer. The point is that you think it's correct because it's supposedly closer in time and content to these "church fathers" and "apostles" of yours. What you've failed to offer is any reason to believe them, either. It doesn't matter whether the claim comes from the Bible or the founders of the early church; claims require evidence before belief is justified.


Also, Judaism is not the oldest religion. Not by a long shot.

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.

And we should believe these founding fathers of your why, exactly? They could have been mistaken, or they could have been making shit up. Where is the evidence of their claims? Where is the geological evidence of the flood? Where is the archaeological evidence of the Egyptian Captivity and Exodus? Where is the research showing that their god answers prayer on a more consistent basis than other gods?

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?

Neither. They're both basing their claims on the same unsupported bullshit. They have a little more of an excuse than you, considering the time during which they lived, but there is no reason to believe either of them unless there's some kind of demonstrable, repeatable data supporting their claims (which there isn't).


As for Jesus Christ, the character from the Bible...that dude most definitely did not exist as a real person. That motherfucker is made up.