How can any logical person be an atheist?

I argue the exact same thing... "they perceive their own internal impulses as external reality, as though a spirit - God, angel, demon, the Devil, whatever -"

We all do this by using the Subconscious archetypes that relate to the external Reality through the seven senses:





1) Id = Lucifer
2) Libido = Satan
3) Ego = Mammon
4) Anima = Devil
5) Self = Beelzebub
6) Superego = False Prophet
7) Harmony = False shepherd
Conscience = Good Shepherd

 

Those are some mighty funny names to give your "seven senses"

 

That's a real fancy way of saying "my god is better than your god."

 

The idea of a divine being is illogical because you can not prove it, or disprove it. Logic is provable, and fact based. So religion is illogical, since it relies sole on faith.

 

Two problems...
1; The bible never mentions the trinity. The entire concept was creaqted centuries after Christ by the Catholic Church. Some earlier Christians held the belief that Christ was a separate being from God, and, citing the death and destruction that was ordered by God in the old Testament, and the peace and love that Christ preached, came to the conclusion that God was evil, and that Christ rescued humanity from him and dethrowned him.

2; None of the prophesies of the Messiah claim that he is the son of God. Christian claim that about Christ, but it would not be the first or last time that they embellished a religious figure. For instance, St. Patrick did not actually rid Ireland of snakes. Christ could still be the Messiah without being the son of god. And Muslims do revere Christ as a prophet, and even accept the virgin birth, they merely do not believe he was the true messiah, but was made into a false one by his follows after his death and against his wishes.

 

my problem with religion is simple.

 

I am right. Always. I did not want to respond to a long post. I like snacks, not huge dinners. Seems obvious.

 

Ah, the victim card., well, alrighty then. Yawn.

- - - Updated - - -

I love simpleton Atheist fundamentalists. Probably a MaO'Bama voter too.

 

"I am right. Always" = Dark Soul

 

By simpleton do you mean one who cant manage a response to a longer post. Someone who can not digest anything more than a sound bite ?

 

Wrong, the "predictable" card. Better than the assumption with no evidence card.

 

OK, I have to spell it out for you. It is practicle for a message board as this. I will not, I have not ever, and will not ever answer posts that have so many questions that responding to them (which I would love to do) makes the answer an unmanageable mess. Ask a question, I answer, you read, ask another question, you read, ask another question...are you picking up the pattern here?

- - - Updated - - -

You got nothing eh? Well, whats a brother to do?

 

That would be nice if you would actually answer a question and not wander down some strawman path.

It is not complicated. If a post is too long you answer the most salient point.

 

Maybe you should blame child rapists instead of God.

 

Ask a question then. I am willing to talk. Sometimes a brother does not have all day to address a parsed out post asking the same question ten different ways. I was at work at the time and did not want to provide ten answers to those ten questions.

 

Which one of your nonsense claims containing no support would you like to discuss ? There are 7 in the post below.

Your last claim responds to my comment that the Bible has been altered. Feel free to choose that one or any other.

Your comments on James, the Nicene Creed, and Bible inerrancy show a complete ignorance in these areas so why don't we start with one of these.

 

You were the one put out 7 comments/ claims. I answered each one of those claims only to have you say "I was right" with no further comment so forgive me if I am being a little short with you.

 

No. My answers show knowledge of the subject. You can not expect me to accept higher criticism that you are regurgitating. If you read actual histories about the Nicene creed, for example, you would know of the arduous task they undertook and the bitter arguing that occurred as they discussed what is the nature and value of truth when comparing what is in the Jewish canon and what was written by the early Christian apostles. They argued about who the Apostles were and why their epistles should be accepted as canon. And they argued about the false Gospels about Jesus and why they were false. It was no simple matter, it was, and apparently still is an important matter. There are always those who try to deconstruct the Bible by pretending they are being "scholarly" while what they are really doing is promoting their Religious Atheist Fundamentalist dogma while pretending that the dogma of canon is false.

 

At Nicaea they did not debate the authenticity of the gospels. I'm not sure where you got this from but it is simply not true.

The main debate at Nicaea was in relation to the nature of the divinity of Christ. The early Church did not have a consistent view of Christ's divinity. This divided the Church and was the cause of constant strife.

Constantine wanted unity. The Roman empire was on the verge of chaos and he wanted to re-establish some kind of order. The Persians had been unified under Zoroastrian monotheism some centuries earlier.

Constantine wanted a unified Church, one God, and himself at the head of this Church as God's emissary on earth.

 

but god made the child rapist, didn't he?

Didn't god make the paedophile priests? the murdering psychopaths?

And for somebody that supposedly doesnt like gays, he sure as hell keeps making a lot of them.

Have you ever noticed that when its good stuff, its all "praise the lord" and "thank you jesus", but for all the bad crap its all on humans. Very convenient and completely hypocritical.

- - - Updated - - -

If I understand you correctly, a bunch of guys sat around and decided how Jesus was going to be devine. Humans shaping their gods. Makes sense.

 

No such thing.

I'm an agnostic atheist. Too many convenient contradictions in our man - made religions.

 

I predicted people would blame me. People blamed me. I ain't the one that's got nothing, bud.

 

When the modern Trinity concept was introduced by Tertullian around 200 AD, the Church at large declared it heresy.

The early Christian Church was very fragmented in the early days. The Jewish Christians (Judeo Christians) who founded Christianity and followed from the Church of Jerusalem (the disciples). You had the Greek Christians (Gentiles) who were converts of Paul. Then you had numerous other Christian groups of all having different beliefs on the nature of Christ. .

Ebionites did not believe that Jesus was Divine
Arians taught that Jesus was a created being, he had a divine nature but was not equal with God.
Gnostics did not believe Jesus was man but was a spiritual being.
Marcionites believed in two Gods, God the Father and Christ the messiah.
Thomasines believed that we are all born with a divine component an that Jesus showed us how to rediscover our divine self


Ascetics Sethians Valentinians Carpocratioans, Thomasines, Manicheans are some others.

Most of the early Church fathers in the second and third centuries generally believed that Jesus had a divine component but subordinate to the Father.

What is interesting is there does not seem to be any of the early respected Christian groups that believed that Jesus and God were on equal footing as stated in modern Trinity doctrine.

Sabellianism which arose around 220 AD had a similar doctrine to the Trinity claiming but this doctrine was renounced as heresy and the early Church fathers such as Dionysius of Alexandria spoke out harshly against it.

 

Oh, the irony.

 

So there was arguing huh? Sounds like a lot of folks had some really personal reasons for wanting their beliefs included or others excluded. Sounds like their wasn't much God driven inspiration and maybe man influenced the outcome.
What makes you think the winners of the arguements got it right?

BTW - Why should we trust your knowledge on the subject. I see no links or other proof what you say is correct.

- - - Updated - - -

Good laughs had by all. It is entertaining.