Why are you a Theist?

[CleanShavenJesus]

You mean, when one studies the history of religion reading a 200 page paperback that was written by an atheist.

Yes, and you read, listen, and study the history of religion and theology that's written by a Christian.

But the books you study have no bias, right?

[jstrodel]

CleanShavenJesus I studied philosophy at secular schools and I was an atheist before I was a Christian, so I have had my share of atheism. I go through atheist arguments in my spare time. I think I have covered most of them.

If you are concerned with logical rigor and impartiality and want to offer a critique of Christianity, do yourself a favor and read more than 250 pages of a popular level book by Richard Dawkins, actually read either popular level apologetics or read scholarly books.

The answers are out there, there are thousands of books written about atheist objections to Christianity, but the average atheist is much too comfortable and timid in his atheism to offer more than a rebuttal of mass market Christianity.

---

Mr Infidel, if you cannot name the top 5 scholars who are working in an area, and you post something controversial, there is absolutely no way that you understand what you are posting. You may know what the words mean, but you have no idea whether it is true.

In all honesty, it should not matter what a religious theologist deems important according to his mythology. It is deemed mythology for a reason. The only effectual way to properly understand religion in its context of informative living by its skewed sense of virtue and morality is through the logic that the very dogma deems irrelevant. Religion, after all, is considered by the common people to be true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. ~ Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Think on that. Take all the time you need.

There is no argument there, just a conspiracy theory. Is this really your strongest argument?

[CleanShavenJesus]

Religion, after all, is considered by the common people to be true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. ~ Lucius Annaeus Seneca

There is no argument there, just a conspiracy theory. Is this really your strongest argument?

Conspiracy theory? You mean religion has never been used by rulers?

[Silver]

There is no argument there, just a conspiracy theory. Is this really your strongest argument?

So, your deluded argument winning skills are in direct relation to you always thinking the other person has no argument? Well played. How could you ever lose that way?

[fr0d0]

The reason is plain as day, none of you are serious thinkers, you are all under 25 and you havn't read more than maybe 5 books about the subject you are talking about, none of them serious scholarly books.

Rhythm is 5 years old. Min is 4. I'm 6 and very mature.

---

Why are you still blanket-terming atheists?
I've already rejected your assertions about me not wanting to read outside my comfort zone, not thinking for myself, objecting to Christianity, repeating only what others have said.

Mean man is talking stereotypes.

*strokes Joel's head and sticks a pacifier in his mouth*

[Angrboda]

Religion, after all, is considered by the common people to be true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. ~ Lucius Annaeus Seneca

As quoted in What Great Men Think About Religion (1945) by Ira D. Cardiff, p. 342; No original source for this has been found in the works of Seneca, or published translations. It is likely that the quote originates with Edward Gibbon who wrote:

The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosopher as equally false; and by the magistrate as equally useful. --- Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. I, Ch. II

Elbert Hubbard would claim in 1904 (Little Journeys: To the homes of great philosophers: Seneca) that Gibbon was "making a free translation from Seneca".

When one is attempting to rebut an accusation that one's scholarship is inadequate, it's best not to resort to quotations of questionable authenticity, lest one be considered to have abetted that accusation.

[Silver]

When one is attempting to rebut an accusation that one's scholarship is inadequate, it's best not to resort to quotations of questionable authenticity, lest one be considered to have abetted that accusation.

It is quite easy to do an internet search and find that every quote site has Seneca listed as the author. Until you can provide a reliable source stating that Seneca did not author that quote, you are being silly. All I can find of any relevance is that no one is certain from which of his works it could have possibly derived, that perhaps it was something of his that was undocumented.

[Angrboda]

When one is attempting to rebut an accusation that one's scholarship is inadequate, it's best not to resort to quotations of questionable authenticity, lest one be considered to have abetted that accusation.

It is quite easy to do an internet search and find that every quote site has Seneca listed as the author. Until you can provide a source stating that Seneca did not author that quote, you are being silly. All I can find of any relevance is that no one is certain from which of his works it could have possibly derived, that perhaps it was something of his that was undocumented.

You're asking me to prove a negative are you? Sorry friend, that's not how it works. Produce a source for the quote in Seneca or shut the fuck up.

[Silver]

Produce a source for the quote in Seneca.

The fact that every internet quote site has him sourced as the author is enough for me. Otherwise, would it not be unknown or anonymous?

[Violet]

I believe in myself, and in the 'real existence' of myself. Therefore: I am a theist