The main reason I'm an atheist

[TheRocketSurgeon]

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 love that musical. Watched the whole clip. Thanks, Redbeard!

[TheRocketSurgeon]

The Bible is a book. It's a book in the same way any other anthology is a book, you semantics-mongering little smear.

I feel I should add that pointing out that the Bible is an anthology, and not a single book written-all-at-once, does not help his case. The fact that its claims about time and authorship have been heavily challenged by modern (Christian!) scholarship shows that it's something which was constructed by humans, over time, and that the times being claimed were not the times of actual writing. (Things like referencing cities that did not yet exist.) We also see the problem of the progress the Jesus myth made as it evolved from whatever its origins were (Q document?) to a slightly magic man who shows the way to god, in Mark, to increasing levels of magic and divinity through the penning of John, by which time he's God Incarnate.

These are things which are obvious to those of us who look at your book with an eye that is not covered by rose-colored glasses. You should take yours off and really LOOK. The notion that there exists such a thing as sola scriptura is only to say that you have accepted that the Orthodox church's domination of the myriad religious traditions that called themselves Christianity is the One True Faith™, and nothing more. We not only reject this claim, we find it laughable.

Thus, we respond to bald assertions of its Universal Truth™ with derision and contempt.

[abaris]

The fact that its claims about time and authorship have been heavily challenged by modern (Christian!) scholarship shows that it's something which was constructed by humans, over time, and that the times being claimed were not the times of actual writing.

Tales being told along caravan routes, at some time penned down by unknown authors for unknown reasons. Partly probably archaic books of law for a lawless society. Later on edited, reedited, translated multiple times into multiple languages, partly without sufficient knowledge to hit the right terminology used by the ancient languages.

[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?

[drfuzzy]

---

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?

---

Geezus crisps . . . you're on an internet forum and you don't know what a "troll" is?  You don't even know how to use Google?
From Urban Dictionary - Internet Troll:  "A person whose sole purpose in life is to seek out people to argue with on the internet over extremely trivial issues. Such arguments can happen on blogs, Facebook, Myspace and a host of others."

And how cute.  You believe something because you believe that the people close to people who made up a silly lie in order to control people and take their money are more believable.  Wow.  So, if I find the people who turned St. Wenceslaus into Father Christmas, that means Santa Claus is automatically real?  That's interesting.  Ok, I'm going to go find the guy who made up the story of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (I'm sure I have it here somewhere) make him a Saint and give him all my money. 

[Cyberman]

You did not even give a definition of what "troll" means but I assume it is someone who bothers other people.

He doesn't need to. 'Troll' is defined here:

We consider trolling to be the creation of deliberately provocative posts with the aim of upsetting a member or inciting an angry or otherwise emotional response.

As discussions that involve controversial or taboo subjects often tend to get heated for those involved, not all provocative posts will get classed as trolling. However, if a member is found to be making such posts more often than not within their most recent posts, they will be in violation of this rule.

[LadyForCamus]

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.      

[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.

[robvalue]

Jesus literally is a motherfucker, as well. He fucked his own mum so she could get pregnant with him.

In the ear, some people have claimed.

[Wryetui]

Jesus literally is a motherfucker, as well. He fucked his own mum so she could get pregnant with him.

In the ear, some people have claimed.

I have seen that the main atheist method is to mock religion and to insult it, without providing any coherent argument against it so I am not surprised, but I will answer anyway because you are wrong.

Jesus did not have intercourse with His mother, besides the blasphemy in this idea it hides a deep ignorance. Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. The Trinity has one ousia that is shared by three hypostases. It was the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, that carried Christ into Mary's womb, but if you read the Gospel of Luke you will see that there is no kind of sexual intercourse.

At this point I believe without a doubt that the main reason of your atheism and of many others is ignorance and a poor culture.