How can any logical person be an atheist?

The leading of the Holy Spirit is not political. I will have to get back to you on the first question, I do not have that at my finger tips. However there are mant commentators, historians, and theologians that support that position. But if you read, for example, the gospel of judas, what is related there is utterly not true. It does not line up with the gospels or with old testament prophecy.

 

so what was the "yeah right"?

 

There is false religion, and worse, false prophets. The best part of the gospel is that it is easy to understand. Jesus came from God as a sacrifice for our sin to redeem us to the Father. If a person knows what the Bible says for himself and comes to understand it, when you hear false teaching you know.

 

oh I know alright

 

That is too long to answer. I said what I said.

 

No. It reflects truth. The church is absent of agenda. Truth I suppose could be an agenda, but that is not what Nicene was about. It was convened to dispell false teaching. The bible was written by men under the direction of the Holy Spirit, that is beyond the ability of a non believer to understand. The Bible does claim to be the word of God and it does claim to be the truth. The opening verses of the Gospel of John, the prohpets, The epistels, Revelation...common Shiva...

I have no idea what Jews believe, I know what I believe. I believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of the Living God. Truth is not nefarious nor were the actions of Jesus or the apostles. It seems you are loosely referring to the political church. ANY politicised religion is bad news and Jesus never thought it should be...ie...render to ceaser that which is ceaser's, and render to God that which is God's...you could do that, but genuine people of faith would laugh at you and wag their heads as they walk away...like the guy in Florida who says he is Jesus- he's a joke- but people follow him.

 

So, what you are saying is, that even though those ancient texts confirm the authenticity and accuracy of newer texts, they are still unreliable?

The New Testament was not yet written why those ancient texts were hidden.

 

Do you? How so?

 

No, that is not what I am saying. I can show you what I am saying, because I already said it: "I mean, it's entirely possible that it still has the same central messages, but anyone who denies that the structure and wording has not been altered is not a reliable speaker."

Short version: They are not the exact words inspired by god.

Well, yes, that's kind of the exact point I was making.

 

There are no texts that are still extant from before the Babylonian Captivity, where we expect the most innovation due to contact with Zoroastrianism, a religion with a savior, a paradise, and an end of days, all with a deity of total goodness against a lesser entity of complete evil.

 

But not God, not Jesus, and not the Holy Spirit. Zoroastrianism is just another false religion among many.

 

We should return to the basic question asked in the title of this thread. What are the reasons?

1. While "religion" predates written history the written historical evidence is compelling that all religions have evolved from prior religious beliefs. For example there are stories in the Torah (Old Testament) that are clearly adopted from the Epic of Gilgamesh that predated the Hebrew religion. The concept of a Supreme God in the Hebrew religion was also an evolution of prior Egyptian beliefs. The "virgin" birth of Jesus was an adaptation of Greek Mythology where demigods were the offspring of Gods and Mortals. Any unbiased researcher into the history of religion can see the historical development of one religion from past religions. The Christian religion was based upon the adaptation of the Hebrew religion. The Islamic religion and later the Mormon religion were adaptations of the Christian religion. The evolution of religion is very well documented.

2. Every religion was based upon the leaders of the religion seeking political control over the followers. The religious leaders always had an agenda and that is reflected in the religious texts and dogma they created.

3. Every religious text ever written was based upon the agenda of the religious leaders that were seeking power over the followers. It even goes further because with "enough followers" the religious leaders seek to extend their political power over non-believers as well. Can there be any greater example of that today than the opposition to same-sex (gender) marriage and abortion in the United States that are both based upon fundamentalist Christian beliefs that violate the Inalienable Rights of the Person? Religion is about political power of the "church" and not about the believer. The believer is a pawn being used by the religious leaders in their political power games.

4, Every religion claimed to be the "real religion" and declared all others as false religions. Once again this was to establish the power of the religious leaders over the followers of the religion and was politically motivated.

5. Every religion has been oppressive of those that were "not of the faith" as they always created an "Us" and "Them" situation where it was the "true believers" opposing the "heretics" that were the unbelievers. Once agian this relates to the "political power" of the religious leaders where they seek to control the people often for nefarious purposes.

6. Every religious text contains errors even when every effort is made by the religious leaders to ensure against those errors.

7. There is not now nor has there ever been any evidence of any "gods" that would support any religious belief. What we do have is a documented history of "religions" being created for political power by the religious leaders.

Seven simple and historically accurate reasons for being an atheist. The reasons are based upon knowledge and "logic" which was the question presented. Others may choose not to agree with these logical reasons and there is nothing wrong with that but they cannot deny that the reasons are based upon the history of religion and provide a logical reason for another person being an atheist.

 

Old brain can not handle information that conflict with beliefs ?

 

Finally!!!! The forgotten of the Holy Trinity, whom I liken to the third tenor: Pavarotti, Domingo and the other guy.

Ditto on Holy Spirit, who maybe need to a hire an ad agency. The dude gets no attention. Jesus H Christ this, God D*** that, Holy Christ the other thing. But never praise holy ghost, or in moments of anger Holy H Ghost, Batman!!!!

What's up with that???

 

There is no "leading of the Holy Spirit" but instead brainwashing by religious "leaders" attempting to spread their religious beliefs for the political control of the People.

There isn't a single example of a person "finding Jesus" on their own without any exposure to followers of the Christian religion where it could be documnented that a supernational experience took place. "Christianity" was completely unknown in most of the world until the Christian missionaries showed up to spread their religious beliefs (to control the people).

 

From a christian perspective and the bible. One must believe Jesus as the Christ. Whether through faith alone, or faith and good works is a big debate.
Whether his mother, Mary, was without sin seems to be another biggie. Does this one matter? Some say yes, as it is understood by non RC that only 1 human walked the earth sinless.

 

Valid points that I agree with. Are you also saying that faith is merely pseudo-intellectualism backed by hubris? I am.

 

Jesus' followers probably never would have called him a messiah had Judaism never adopted many articles of faith from the Zoroastrians.

 

I've heard the junkyard 747 analogy employed before. It was invented by Fred Hoyle, the man who coined the term "Big Bang" as a way of scorning the idea. It was adopted by it's exponents and is now accepted as the factual account of the creation of the universe. The 747 analogy is fallacious from beginning to end. It assumes that evolution happens instantaneously, which it does not. Hoyle's fallacy has been refuted time and time again so I won't go into the details.Look up the counter arguments.

 

That may all be correct, but Energy was the source of Life and the evolution that developed the human mind.
This mind evolved so that it could image with psychic energy the Reality that is the transformation into materialism that the First Cause, the initial energy, now had taken.

The "voice" of Truth is what man hears when his psychic energy will focus on the Facts-of-Life, and see the Reality for what it actually has become.

 

True enough.

However, it is the New Testament which "addressed the issue of "god" from an unbiased position seeking to present the definition that his son is "truth."

This reveals that Christians define the Father-of-this-creation as Reality, itself.
Truth is the mental image of what is Real, or Reality.

The evolution of the Christian concept of trinity supports this dichotomy, that Reality is the ever unfolding father of the Truth which can become the spirit behind man's thinking.

This claim is philosophical but hard to deny in a Technological Age such as this, where what is actually True is all that really matters. Hence all criticism of other writings are warranted, but the New Testament appears immune to what it is you accuse those other religions.

 

Point?

Patriarch marry their women before sexual relations begin, or they are sinners according to their own rules.
We see this today among the muslim patriarchs, while it is the matriarchy of the West that is promiscuous, engages in 14 years of pre-marital sex, encourages homosexuals to come out and promote promiscuous behaviors, and legislates No Fault Divorce.

The dichotomy seems clear between these two opposite behaviors which distinguishes patriarchs from matriarchies, and monotheist from pagan societies called Gentiles.

 

But not withstanding your criticism of Gabby here, the Big Bang creation story of science corresponds with the long held concrete clear claim in Genesis that the Heavens and the Earth did have a beginning.

This is an important thing in that until the 290th century, science was unsure of this claim, and favored ideas which hypothesized a Steady-State Universe that had always been there and would always be there.
Some suggested that a Pulsating Universe would appear, expand, then retreat and disappear.

In light of these uncertainties, the direct statement in Gen 1:1 deserves the acclaim that would be comparable to the criticism had science found otherwise.

 

don't call me gabby again

 

Well atheism is very logical. Religion, by it's very nature is illogical. It requires a suspension of logic and believe based solely on unprovable faith.