I hate Christians

[SkinWalker]

If ATHEISTS didn't shove their beliefs down our throats, there would be no concerns.

Other than internet message boards, what are some examples you see as "atheists [who] shove their beliefs down our throats?"

I have already made comments about the atheist RELIGION on many different posts on many threads.

There are many definitions of religion, but most are consistent in certain characteristics. Atheism doesn't appear to fall within mainstream definitions of religion. Which definition(s) is(are) you using so we can all see your perspective?

I have yet to encounter an atheist that doesn't fanatically impose self-righteous BELIEFS.

Couldn't it be possible that you have and even know one or more atheists who simply don't discuss the issue?

I have yet to encounter an atheist that wishes to come to a reasonable conclusion.

What would be an example of a "reasonable conclusion?" Wouldn't the atheist conclusion that empirical evidence doesn't support the existence of gods be considered a "reasoned" conclusion? Or perhaps the anthropological examination of human religion in general that demonstrates the diversity in beliefs that leads to a "reasoned" conclusion that none are necessarily superior to all the others?

All the atheists I have encountered thus far have resulted in personal attacks: insulting and calling names.

And you don't? Are you Christian, cool skill? If so, are you representative of all christians? If not, wouldn't it follow similarly that the rude atheists you've noted might not be representative of the atheist population?

 

[mustafhakofi]

I hjave explained everything already.
You continue to prove your own ignorance.
Then cry that I am assuming everybody that doesn't have my belief is ignorant.
What makes you ignorant is your refusal to accomplish a conclusion.
All you do is restate allegations that have already been responded to and call people names and trolls and bla bla bla.
Try something new. Or go away.



You claim I have a false belief that is delusional. You have no idea what you are even talking about. You obviously haven't read a single thing I have stated. Then you accuse me of being the delusional one. The only person that has an infanile mind is you. If you only wish to sit here and attack me, you are going to get nowhere. You are only here to impose and harrass.

I have'nt attacked you just stated facts, you quite clearly have no grasp of words and there meaning, the only conclusion you can make from this is, you have not learn enough at school yet, therefore must have the mind of an infant this is not a slur just a logical fact gathered from you writings, I'll repeat to you again hopefully you will grasp it this time,
you cannot be deemed to be delusional if you have no belief in a thing.
please try to understand that.
and as you cant seem to grasp that fact, hence the reason I stated you had a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

 

[mustafhakofi]

An atheist believes that there is no god...has a belief that there is no god, strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, a fixed false belief blah, blah, blah...

duh! wrong, no another one, wow!.

What is an atheist? An atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of a god, i.e., in the existence of a supernatural being.


Why doesn't the atheist believe in a god? Quite simply, because belief in a god is unreasonable.


Can the atheist prove that a god does not exist? The atheist need not "prove" the nonexistence of a god, just as one who does not believe in magic elves, fairies, and gremlins does not have to prove their nonexistence. A person who asserts the existence of something assumes the burden of proof. The theist, or god-believer, asserts the existence of a god and must prove the claim. If the theist fails in this task, reasonable people will reject the belief as groundless. Atheists do not believe in a god because there is no reason they should.


But haven't philosophers proved the existence of a god? No. All such attempts have failed. Most philosophers and theologians now concede that belief in a god must rest on faith, not on reason.


Then why not accept the existence of a god on faith? Because to believe on faith is to defy and abandon the judgment of one's mind. Faith conflicts with reason. It cannot give you knowledge; it can only delude you into believing that you know more than you really do. Faith is intellectually dishonest, and it should be rejected by every person of integrity.


Isn't it possible for reason to err? Yes, reason is fallible, but this calls for a more diligent and conscientious use of reason, not its abandonment. Our eyesight may occasionally fail us or lead us astray, but this does not mean that we should blind ourselves or walk with our eyes closed.


But don't people need to believe in a god? No. First and foremost, a person needs to know the truth, for this is the basic means by which we function successfully in the world. To say that a person needs to believe in the irrational is a prescription for disaster.


Is atheism immoral? Far from it. An honest, carefully examined conviction can never be immoral. On the contrary, the scrupulous use of one's reason is a supreme virtue.


How can there be meaning and purpose to life without a god? This is a matter of personal responsibility. Only you, the individual, can decide whether to live your life with meaning and purpose. Pushing the responsibility onto a mysterious god is an escape, not a solution.


Why is atheism important? Atheism is important because it is reasonable, and reason is of crucial importance in human affairs. Atheism is an alternative to the morass of irrational, antimind doctrines found in various religions.

why is that so hard to grasp. ( an atheist does not believe in a god )

 

[VossistArts]

mustafha, excellent post. Saves me from trying to say what you said only not as well

 

[lixluke]

"you would much rather have a world in which everyones beliefs were the same as yours."
********************
I never said that nor did I ever imply it.


"I can only conclude you are a paranoid delusionist."
********************
That is an attack. Obviously the only delusional individual is you.
You are another atheist that has provided reinforced my theories.
You have not debated my theories. You have only called names and made personal attacks.
Which was part of what I claimed from the beginning.

 

[mustafhakofi]

"I can only conclude you are a paranoid delusionist."
********************
That is an attack. Obviously the only delusional individual is you.
You are another atheist that has provided reinforced my theories.
You have not debated my theories. You have only called names and made personal attacks.
Which was part of what I claimed from the beginning.

if you did'nt keep coming back with the same inane rubbish, I would take you seriously
I said "I have'nt attacked you just stated facts, you quite clearly have no grasp of words and there meaning, the only conclusion you can make from this is, you have not learn enough at school yet, therefore must have the mind of an infant this is not a slur just a logical fact gathered from you writings, I'll repeat to you again hopefully you will grasp it this time,
you cannot be deemed to be delusional if you have no belief in a thing.
please try to understand that".
and so I have no choice but to repeat myself yet again and this is not a personal attack just a fact gathered from you writing and replies,
you just dont seen to get it, you have a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: so therefore must be deemed a paranoid delusion.
so if you believe that from all the evidence from your posts and replies that I'm being personal and not make a logical deduction then so be it, but it is silly of you to take it personal.
if you acted like an adult then it would not seem personal.

 

[lixluke]

what are some examples you see as "atheists [who] shove their beliefs down our throats?"

I have already provided a ton of examples. Most of your comments were such examples. I even pointed them out each of your comments, and what they are about. What is so difficult?

Which definition(s) is(are) you using so we can all see your perspective?

Definition for what? I have already posted my definitions enough times on this thread. What part of anything I have stated do you not understand. Please specify.

Couldn't it be possible that you have and even know one or more atheists who simply don't discuss the issue?

Obviously I have stated a ton of times that I have yet to encounter an atheist that is simply an atheist that discusses atheism for what it is and defends the belief of atheism logically. All you people do is throw personal attacks at me. Then call me delusional when I claim to be attacked. This entire thread is full of proof.

What would be an example of a "reasonable conclusion?" Wouldn't the atheist conclusion that empirical evidence doesn't support the existence of gods be considered a "reasoned" conclusion? Or perhaps the anthropological examination of human religion in general that demonstrates the diversity in beliefs that leads to a "reasoned" conclusion that none are necessarily superior to all the others?

Those are not conclusions. Conclusions are answers to questions. Conclusions are the outcome.

Process:
Make an assertion or an argument against an assertion.
Give support for your position, and consider the other position.
Eventually arrive at a conclusion.

This is exactly what I have been doing throughout this discussion. This is exactly what not a single one of you has been doing throughout this discussion.  This is an assertion.

You are not outcome focused. You are only attacking and have no clue what conclusion you are attempting to arrive at. As evidenced by the statement above, you have considered your assertions to be conclusions. They are conclusions in the sense that you have come to those conclusions. Relative to the discussion, however, they cannot be considered conclusions until the parties in the discussion have settled on a single assertion.
Your claim that you assertions are conclusions in this discussion support all of my assertions/generalizations about atheists.

wouldn't it follow similarly that the rude atheists you've noted might not be representative of the atheist population?

I made a generalization about atheists. I even specified in a few posts in this very thread that all generalizations have exceptions.
What exactly are you getting at?

I have'nt attacked you just stated facts

What facts? Do you even know what facts are?
I asserted that atheists are delusional, and I provided many points to support my assertion.
You disagreed with my assertion, yet you have not stated any faults with my points.

You have only asserted that Cool Skill is delusional. That is a personal attack.
Do you really expect me to take your psychosis seriously? You are a joke. Yes that is an attack. I respond to attacks with attacks.
Guess what happens when you only want to attack. There will never be a conclusion.

Furthermore, it does not support you argument even if it was true.
You stated Cool Skill is delusional.
Therefore, atheists are not delusional.
Sorry, but I could be the biggest delusional paranoid whatever you want to call me on the planet, it has no affect on the general state of the atheist.
Atheists are delusional. Attacking my character will not change that. If you are still under the impression that you did not attack my character, you are simply stating fact, you obviously don’t know an attack when you see it. You are a complete MORON!!!! Hopefully you will consider that a fact, and try to attack me again.

you quite clearly have no grasp of words and there meaning, the only conclusion you can make from this is, you have not learn enough at school yet, therefore must have the mind of an infant this is not a slur just a logical fact gathered from you writings

You have no logic. You have no brain. Attack me with something better because the only thing you seem to be interested in is flaming. You have no desire to come to any conclusion about any assertion. If you consider flames fact, flame away. I’ll be waiting. You are nothing but a joke, and nobody in their right mind would take you seriously. Your so-called logical fact is nothing more that lame stupidity. Typical delusional atheist that believes flames are fact. Flaming me, and considering it logical fact only supports my claim that you are delusional. You are completely and utterly delusional. Furthermore, you will do as I say, and come flame me because that is all you know how to do.

hence the reason I stated you had a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

Wrong. You have a fixed false belief. You are a paranoid delusion. Unless you come with any intelligent comment, you are doing nothing more than talking in circles. You do not even have any clue what is being discussed.

 

[SkinWalker]

You are another atheist that has provided reinforced my theories

"Theories?" At best, you have a set of untested hypotheses. One of those hypotheses is that atheists are delusional. My questions above are a beginning to testing that hypothesis, but you won't answer them.

 

[lixluke]

what are you talking about?
I have stated my assertions and supported them REPEATEDLY.
What more do you want?

 

[SkinWalker]

I have already provided a ton of examples. Most of your comments were such examples.

Ahh. But if you would have actually paid attention and perhaps read my post rather than skimmed it as you apparently have, you would have noticed that I said, "Other than internet message boards, what are some examples you see as "atheists [who] shove their beliefs down our throats?"

Definition for what? I have already posted my definitions enough times on this thread. What part of anything I have stated do you not understand. Please specify.

Ahh. But if you would have actually paid attention and perhaps read my post rather than skimmed it as you apparently have, you would have noticed that I said, "There are many definitions of religion, but most are consistent in certain characteristics. Atheism doesn't appear to fall within mainstream definitions of religion. Which definition(s) is(are) you using so we can all see your perspective?"

Your encounters with vocal atheists on message boards should be expected, particularly here, in a science board, where discussion of religion would naturally become critical since science-minded people are more likely to think critically and thus reject supernaturalism since it cannot be tested and has no potential for falsification.

Those are not conclusions. Conclusions are answers to questions. Conclusions are the outcome.

Question: Is there reason to believe in a god?

Conclusion: No. Because there is no empirical evidence to support such superstition and much evidence to support the idea that modern religions like christianity are the result of human greed and the rise of hierarchies like the priestly class.

what are you talking about?
I have stated my assertions and supported them REPEATEDLY.
What more do you want?

I'm talking about the very pointed questions I asked of you throughout this thread. Which included:

I simply asked if you believed that worldviews other than your own were "delusional."

Is the Hindu delusional in her belief of a polytheistic pantheon?

Is the Navajo delusional in his belief that a sandpainting can cure an illness?

Is the Fang hunter delusional in his belief that a flying witch on a banana leaf might abduct him if he strays too far from home at night?

Are the Pentacostals of West Virginia and South Carolina delusional because they believe that handling venomous snakes embodies them with the Holy Ghost?

You don't have to go into details... you can just answer yes or no for each or all.

I'm also curious why you choose to respond rudely and with hostility. Is this consistent with the teachings of Christ? Or perhaps you don't subscribe to those teachings. I'm not trying to make any assumptions about your religion as I don't recall it mentioned in this thread.

 

[lixluke]

"Which definition(s) is(are) you using so we can all see your perspective?""
****************************************
I already went over this.


"I'm also curious why you choose to respond rudely and with hostility. Is this consistent with the teachings of Christ?"
****************************************
If you flame me, do you not expect me to flame you back?
I do not respond with flames unless I am flamed first.
I guess you are forgetting that you the moron that started the flame session. I have no reason to attack somebody that doesn't attack me in the first place. If I am attacked, you will get attacked back ten times worse.


"I'm talking about the very pointed questions I asked of you throughout this thread. Which included:"
****************************************
I am not talking about those. My assertion is toward atheists. My opinion of other religions has zero bearing on whether or not atheists are delusional. My opinion about another religion will not change a characteristic of a particular religion. Try arguing the assertion: Atheists are delusional. Whether it is true or not true, the delusion of atheists is completely independent of my opinion about other religions.

 

[SkinWalker]

Your refusal to actually engage in conversation and answer questions regarding the issues at hand demonstrates only that you have no real assertion.

My questions are relevant and pertinent.

I find your "flame you 10 times more" comment humorous enough to actually chuckle aloud. Not much in this forum does that for, thank you. Perhaps the humor lies in the irony of "turn the other cheek," but there I go assuming that you are christian agian. You might not be.

You are wise to not answer the questions, however. Avoidance is far easier.

 

[mustafhakofi]

What facts? Do you even know what facts are?
I asserted that atheists are delusional, and I provided many points to support my assertion.
You disagreed with my assertion, yet you have not stated any faults with my points.

because you have provided no evidence for these assertion, we cannot reply to something that is just heresay, it would be stupid to do so. if you supplied answers with back up, like skinwalker has requested on numerous occasions.
then you would be taken seriously, but instead you insist on continuing with these inane irrational ramblings.

as you believe that atheist are all delusional but provide no evidence for this.
means you are working under a false believe.
as I have shown on several occasions, if you have no believe in a thing, you cannot be deemed delusional, these sir are the facts.

the atheist are not out to get you, you need not fear them.

so as your belief is irrational, you must be delusional, there is no other reasoning.
and yes sir, that can be deemed as personal.

 

[water]

stretched,

"And? They ought to be "comfortable", according to you, Oprah?"

How does that make you FEEL?

What do you mean?

* It remains a CRUEL test. This is demonstrating this gods cruel character. Its not about who is testing who here. But I understand your angle. And I totally agree.

Cruel or not -- the test had to be REAL and SERIOUS. The moment Abraham put the knife to Isaac's throat, he showed the willingness to obey God in everything. It seems this is the realization God wanted Abraham to come to (that he puts all his trust in God), and only a serious and real enough test could do that. If there is little for you at stake, it won't have much of an effect on you.

"And? You think God ought to pal around with people, and be like one giant Oprah?"

* Why ever not? Then we can all be one BIG happy family. Obviously, this is not gods plan.

Ask yourself: Do people want to be one big happy family? Do they? Would *you* like to be one big happy family with GW Bush and Saddam Hussein and the person who killed your children and raped your wife, in front of your eyes?
Or, more immediately, how many people in this forum would *you* want to be one big happy family with? Or with how many people from *your* town?
If you yourself are not ready to be one big happy family with all the people in the world, it's pointless talking about this one biiiiiiig happppppppppppppy famiiiiily.

"I take that if you would have been granted understanding, you would not be so negatively biased.
But if you have indeed been granted understanding, if God has revealed Himself to you, and yet you oppose Him, then woe is you."

* How about … just maybe god HAS revealed himself to me … and what I commit to paper here is my understanding?

What was it like? A burning bush, a parted sea?

And what is negative about abhorring violence?

You are too emotional about it.

Remember, we are only talking Christian "god" here.

Then you need to be consistent and keep to what the Bible says.

Imagine the surprise on your face if you get to heaven and Buddha is at the gate!

And?
Really, I would love to know what you think the implications of what you said above are.

"Do you know this for a fact? Have you spoken to Him?"

* None of us know the facts, other than what we have come to understand.

We are talking about a living, acting God, so if you have spoken to that one, then you should be having facts.

But yes, for what it is worth, I believe I have spoken to "god". (for want of a better word)

But do you have *confirmation* from Jehovah, the God of Israel, that it was indeed Him you have spoken to?

* How about … "Forget everything you ever heard about god, and find him for yourself"

Niiiiiiice. This is like making up a language that only you can understand, and you cannot talk to nobody in it but yourself.

"If you think Christianity is about idolatry, then you aren't talking about Christianity."

* Well? Where is god then?

You have to look for Him, and He will find you.


* * *


VossistArts,

the why do you feel like god favors christians more than god does you? most of them just sign up. if what you say here is true, then your original statement that god favors christians isnt necessarily true.

Yes, I know.
I am disappointed by Christians, and I don't have a good way of saying it.

I dont think by definition modern sciences anyways, are considered to be alchemy.

No, they aren't. But what is at some point in history considered to be the highest science, is a couple of hundred years later viewed as alchemy. Go figure.

Maybe Im not reading you correctly somehow, but you seem to hold the assumption that christian doctrine is correct and that it is a reality beyond the christian words that claim their ideas of the truth are correct. why do you think that it is if you do?

Yes, there is some misunderstanding.
The part about language was a comparison -- as language is a discourse, religion is a discourse. My point wasn't in actually verbalizing your religious experience. But that your experience may be such that you will be left alone with it, in it.

As for what you are saying above: Yes, so it seems to me, I don't know why. It could be, of course, just my particular subjective understanding of Christianity.

 

[water]

Adstar,

What do you think my last reply was? if i wasn't persevering with you i would not have posted it.

Well, to translate what you've said: "You sinful creature, you are willfully rebelling against God!" I'd not be surprised if you would accompany this with a slap or two.
Perseverance ...

Ok Jenyar i do not want to get into a discussion with you but i will comment on your comments. You are a catholic apologist. To me you are not my brother in Jesus. You may as well be a hindu or a buddst or any other religion. Actually catholicisim is worse than buddisim or hinduism they do not twist the Word Of God and teach a balaam jesus. The catholic church was born out of harloty with constantine when it's founders rejected the Messiah's call to "Love you emamies" and joined constantine to kill his enamies for earthly security and wealth. They sold out Jesus for mammon.

To inform you, I live in a country that is officially more than 90% Catholic. There are only three churches in reachable distance for me: the Catholics, the Mormons, and the Evangelists (who are very, very few, and the pastor almost impossible to reach as she is out on the way most of the time).

Consider what influence I had on me, and still have.

In elementary school, all children were Catholic except for me, and they had excluded me from their company after learning at Bible school that they should not associate with non-believers. I've lost almost all my friends overnight.
In my mother's family, all grandchildren were baptized, and I wasn't. For church holidays, they got presents, and I was left out. I was always something apart.
My grandfather, father's father, was particularly negative towards me (even though I was his only grandchild) as I was not baptized.
My grandmother, my mother's mother, considered me a pagan, and said so, shut me up with it.

You, Adstar, are in fact not much different than those people. And you want me to trust the God you believe in?

Now lets break this down. You call me selfish then you say my attitude is no different to water. So therefore you are saying that water is selfish.

And so are you. Only that you are the one with the responsibility to present your faith true to Christ. What I have troubles seeing. Unless you want me to believe that this is how faith in Christ is to be.

Your wrong again: She said a definite NO WAY

" Quote from water:
You are blaspheming. You are practically saying that a person can command God around, at will.
"I believe in Christ, so God, save me!" No way. "

Yes. No way that I would think I can command God around, simply by saying "I believe in Christ, so God, save me!"

Thats not "i don't understand" or "I'm not sure." No thats a definit No way answer. Maybe you should read.

Read the whole part. I started out with "You are blaspheming ..." I consider it blasphemy to just say something, even though one doesn't believe what one is saying.

And again:

" Quote from water:
No, I don't believe in the grace through Jesus. "

And to you, this somehow means "I do NOT WANT to believe in the grace through Jesus", right?

That's the thing i believe water understands the concept only too well. She just does not believe in it.

Why do you think I don't believe in it?
I can't make myself believe it, God has to grant me belief.

If believing it would depend on me, then I could believe ANYTHING.

well i am just a human so i can only know what water tells me. she has revealed that she believes her prayers are not heard. She will not reveal what her prayers where for, so i cannot investigate down that path?

I prayed for understanding, strength, and the Holy Spirit, and everyday things like some friend's health and well-being and that the skin on my face would heal.
None of it happened.
These prayers were spread over a couple of weeks.

" Quote from Jenyar:
From what I understand, one of these barriers are Christians who've been treating her like you are now since she can remember. If your behaviour is inconsistent with your message, it's no wonder she has trouble believing it.

What?? Giving the thought i have to her straight? Talking frankly and plainly? I am being honest with her. Not being namby pamby giving her traditions of man and cheap feel good platitudes. She is too smart for that kind of BS.

Talking frankly and plainly, and with such condemnation.
If I were to go to a church where you go, I would avoid you.


* * *

Jenyar,

And again: She doesn't believe, NOT she won't believe. Does anyone outside Christianity start by believing in God's grace? Like I said, she has probably had no experience of grace, and you're not showing any.

Do you see now? Some Christians expect one to already be a Christian before one can become a Christian. That's the circularity I've been telling you about.

 

[water]

Raithere,

" "Do not believe on the strength of traditions even if they have been held in honor for many generations and in many places; do not believe anything because many people speak of it; do not believe on the strength of sagas of old times; do not believe that which you have yourself imagined, thinking a god has inspired you. Believe nothing which depends only on the authority of your masters or of priests. After investigation, believe that which you yourself have tested and found reasonable, and which is for your good and that of others. "

- Siddhartha Gautama "

" "Even the finest teaching is not the Tao itself. Even the finest name is insufficient to define it. Without words, the Tao can be experienced, and without a name, it can be known. To conduct one's life according to the Tao, is to conduct one's life without regrets; to realize that potential within oneself which is of benefit to all.

Though words or names are not required to live one's life this way, to describe it, words and names are used, that we might better clarify the way of which we speak, without confusing it with other ways in which an individual might choose to live.

Through knowledge, intellectual thought and words, the manifestations of the Tao are known, but without such intellectual intent we might experience the Tao itself. Both knowledge and experience are real, but reality has many forms, which seem to cause complexity. By using the means appropriate, we extend ourselves beyond the barriers of such complexity, and so experience the Tao."

- Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching "

All fine, sure, but this is still, "People on each path tell me to take theirs" ...
I don't mean to just oppose for opposition's sake. I would just like that something would finally make sense.

If those you ask do not have the answers you need, seek them elsewhere.

Yes. But there is always the possibility that the answers I got were right, I just don't understand them yet.
Ah, this is killing me!

* * *


Joeman,

I think religion and God are personal matters until I find out Christians point fingers at everyone else who isn't Christian and label them as evil.

Then they aren't Christians. We should not let the subject of our investigation define itself.

The world is connected. Personally I don't want religions to be personal or private, because Christians don't think that way. I will fight the war against religion for the rest of my life.

I think you are actually fighting a war against elitism, but misname this to be a war against religion. This is not fair.



* * *


VossistArts,

but saying things dont make them so. christians can judge until theyre blue in the face and it doesnt change a thing. They can call all the people and things evil theyd like to and it doesnt change a person or a thing.

It does change a person, and it does change things: If nothing else, one turns away from them.

From Romans 2:24: For it is because of you [ie. the Jews] that God's name is cursed among the heathens ...

The thing that Ive found to be the MOST significant when considering christianity and other religions is the way they make me feel in that space near the heart where the Voice of Truth speaks in all of us. Its a twisted sick feeling when I put christianity there. It has been that way since I was so young I didnt even know what it was about. That voice says it been got ALL wrong.

No, no, now you're talking superstition and inductive truism.
We do not have a conclusive, full picture of what Christianity is, we only have little segments of it, based on the relatively few Christians we have met in our lives (relatively few in comparison to the number of all the Christians). I would not dare argue that I have been exposed to a representative sample of Christians or Christianity. If you'd live in Mexico among the Christians, for example, you'd have a whole different experience of Christianity from the one if you'd live among Christians in Germany, for example.

When the Voice of the Truth speaks, there can be no doubt.

I do not know what this "Voice of Truth" is. It seems it is something specific to you, and maybe some like-minded.
Employ the scientific method, and there is no "Voice of Truth".

 

[water]

Skin Walker,

Question: Is there reason to believe in a god?

Conclusion: No. Because there is no empirical evidence to support such superstition and much evidence to support the idea that modern religions like christianity are the result of human greed and the rise of hierarchies like the priestly class.

You are making an argument against *religion*. But this is NOT an argument against God. God and religion are two different things.

The Christian teaching says that a person can believe in God only if God grants her so.

If a person could produce a human-made *reason* to believe in God, she would then believe in this reason, and not in God.
Sadly, it is exactly this what happens many times -- people believe in their reasons for believing in God, while they don't actually believe in God.

Religion is such a reason to believe in God. People who believe in this reason for believing in God are mistaking religion for God.

And once more sadly, this goes both for religionists, as well as atheists. Most atheistic arguments against God are actually arguments against religion.

I yet have to see an atheist or an agnostic who does not argue against a strawman god.

 

[Jeremirroer]

Sounds like you come from a f*cked up city/town Water.

I feel sorry for you dude.

In my city (Sydney) we have christians(protestant/catholic/presbityrian), muslims, hindu, buddhist, atheists, scientologists, shit even Raeliens....and nobody really gives anybody else shit. We generally accept each others views and we all get along.

The christians don't discriminate here, what's the point?

maybe you should move to Australia.

Which country do you live in?

 

[SkinWalker]

Water,

I'll agree with your statement that my arguement was more against religion than a god. I readily admit that I don't know if there are one or more gods or not. I definately hold that if there is a god or set of gods, they are unlikely to be accurately described by any human cult or religion. It is readily apparent to me that human religions serve elites within their given cultures and the participants worship these elites and their material demands.

Human superstition and innate desire to believe in the supernatural are both combined with the human desire for status and prestige. The result is religion.

 

[craterchains (Norval]

To be loved, you must be loveable.

Water, are you loveable?

:m: