Yet here you are criticizing what you claim you do not state. You attack any who have the nerve to counter you. You claim to know all about religion yet refuse to accept that it has no meaning to some. Hypocritical; of you.
That's not what I've said at all but you go ahead with this attacking defense while saying nothing to refute me. Dispute what I present rather than attack me.
No, if one doesn't believe in a god then one can't hate it....can't hate something that doesn't exist, I would think that's OBVIOUS....
Now that was an enormous stretch! Hope you didn't hurt yourself coming up with that baseless allegation.
Spending eternity in the company of smug fundamentalist Christians would be the equivalent of hell but since that is probably where they will end up given their proclivities there really should be more than just a binary choice.
What we already know establishes that the bible is far from accurate. Where is the evidence of the flood or that the earth stopped moving?
It is actually a fundamental difference in the mindset of most theists and atheists. I can simultaneously lack belief in the concept but, hypothesise about the nature of that concept for arguments sake while most theists cannot even entertain the reverse idea and will openly evade the question, even if privately they have doubts.
Within the last few pages here's one... 'Atheists hate religion because it conflicts with their thirst for power.' How do you know that I think that?
I rarely quote the Bible but, this one always seems apt... Philippians 1:18, NIV: "But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice," The Paulian liars charter.
You do know that according to the fairy tale when God finally shows up everyone will curse him because he's a prick.
Well, actually the writers revised the Bible to delete "hell" from some Bible versions. They inserted the words "sheol" or the "grave" instead to make it more user friendly. Here's a January 21, 1878 article from the NYTimes about it in a PDF format = http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9F02E4DE113FE63BBC4951DFB7668383669FDE This January 14, 1878 article from the New York Times is about a a preacher who is of the fire and brimstone clan = http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9505EFDC113AE63BBC4C52DFB7668383669FDE It's more interesting than the first one. This guy didn't like the idea of eternal punishment in a January 26, 1878 article = http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9D07E7DF143EE73BBC4E51DFB7668383669FDE If interested you can read numerous articles about this issue from that time period about the controversy over hell. http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/hell++bible/from18600101to18900101/. This time period is noteworthy because the Apocrypha was deleted from the Protestant Bible during the revision of 1880-1885. They made some major changes.
You have the right to be informed. The relevant verses are Revelation 16:9, 16:11, and 16:21 = https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation16&version=CEV;CEB;NOG;NLT;TLB I gave the whole chapter so you can see the context.
The Baptists didn't like the word "baptize" so they wanted to insert "immersion" as the alternative. June 2, 1882 = http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9D00E4D6113EE433A25751C0A9609C94639FD7CF The Catholics didn't like the idea that you have to believe in order to be baptized so they deleted Acts 8:37. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts8%3A37&version=CEV;CEB;NOG;NLT; That's so that Catholics could baptize (sprinkle) babies and recruit them into the fold.
You're confusing the dream and allegorical nature of the revelation with God's actual real punishment which did not occur. https://www.christianity.com/bible/commentary.php?com=mhc&b=66&c=16
I did not know atheists had commandments. Not surprising although they are more of a cult than religion.