Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[1aguar]

Hi BADecker,
What exactly is so fictional about these writings, and how do you judge this to be so?
Why is it that you would need to assert that God used the hand of many different men to add content to the Gospels because "they were incomplete the first time around"?
And why all of the fictional stories in the Bible--like the one where the child Isaac is terrorized and threatened with death so that God can "teach his father a lesson"?
Then, you allege that Jesus is my savior even though he never suggested that; your "Doctrine of Paul" states something to the effect, "You need do NOTHING to receive God's Blessings and Grace". This sounds a bit like the "just BE" philosophy of many New Agers, does it not?

Furthermore, do you not propose that we all join a church and therefore a cult?

I think we should first define the terms so we have explicit understanding of meaning.

1. Cults: A system of religious rites and observances; zealous devotion to a person, ideal, or thing.

I assume that even though the author claims to even be a “Christian Pastor” of a Church called Calvary Chapel, that he does not consider that they, or himself, is a member of a cult? How can you be a member of a church (body of--) without falling into this category by pure definition?

I am guilty--one hundred percent totally guilty. I come in total service to God of Light, the Christ Truth, the Creation of Godness and the Laws of God and The Creation as given forth for Mankind. The Christ energy, having acquired his Godness, comes again with the Hosts of which I am in Command--I don’t believe you can get much closer than that, my friends.

So, Hatonn serves God of Light, the Christ Truth.
Who do YOU serve, BADecker?
Why would you assert that your book is truth and mine is not when you don't even have any facts to support that claim?
Why do you reject outright the possibility that God may have sent messengers JUST AS PROMISED?

I have noted that the true WORD OF GOD--AND GOD IS THE WORD, is totally understandable without interpretation--the commandments (laws) are explicit in every detail from “...not kill” to “...no adultery”. It certainly requires no self-styled “preacher” to foist off his opinions on an unsuspecting and unthinking public because he deceives them into thinking he is somehow better or more informed than they.

[1714045223]

1714045223

[BitNow]

Hi BADecker,
What exactly is so fictional about these writings, and how do you judge this to be so?
Why is it that you would need to assert that God used the hand of many different men to add content to the Gospels because "they were incomplete the first time around"?
And why all of the fictional stories in the Bible--like the one where the child Isaac is terrorized and threatened with death so that God can "teach his father a lesson"?
Then, you allege that Jesus is my savior even though he never suggested that; your "Doctrine of Paul" states something to the effect, "You need do NOTHING to receive God's Blessings and Grace". This sounds a bit like the "just BE" philosophy of many New Agers, does it not?

Furthermore, do you not propose that we all join a church and therefore a cult?

I think we should first define the terms so we have explicit understanding of meaning.

1. Cults: A system of religious rites and observances; zealous devotion to a person, ideal, or thing.

I assume that even though the author claims to even be a “Christian Pastor” of a Church called Calvary Chapel, that he does not consider that they, or himself, is a member of a cult? How can you be a member of a church (body of--) without falling into this category by pure definition?

I am guilty--one hundred percent totally guilty. I come in total service to God of Light, the Christ Truth, the Creation of Godness and the Laws of God and The Creation as given forth for Mankind. The Christ energy, having acquired his Godness, comes again with the Hosts of which I am in Command--I don’t believe you can get much closer than that, my friends.

So, Hatonn serves God of Light, the Christ Truth.
Who do YOU serve, BADecker?
Why would you assert that your book is truth and mine is not when you don't even have any facts to support that claim?
Why do you reject outright the possibility that God may have sent messengers JUST AS PROMISED?

I have noted that the true WORD OF GOD--AND GOD IS THE WORD, is totally understandable without interpretation--the commandments (laws) are explicit in every detail from “...not kill” to “...no adultery”. It certainly requires no self-styled “preacher” to foist off his opinions on an unsuspecting and unthinking public because he deceives them into thinking he is somehow better or more informed than they.

I lost faith in this conversation.

What's the point of discussing that when there is a person on this planet that is the vicar of Jesus Christ.

That person is the Pope.


Thank You.

[Vod]

The pope is just my little bitch, for I am the one true Vod.

[BitNow]

The pope is just my little bitch, for I am the one true Vod.

Exactly: that is called respect.

Quoting myself:

I lost faith in this conversation.

[1aguar]

What's the point of discussing that when there is a person on this planet that is the vicar of Jesus Christ.

That person is the Pope.

Jesus never set up a church nor a "Vicar", and certainly not a bank;
however, Papal Supremacy is evident in the political realm,
that is why The Vatican is not a party to The Hague Apostille Convention;
it is basically The Vatican's Law called "Private International Law".

The Church of Rome has been responsible for a lot of the EVIL in the world today; please give this letter some thought:
http://scannedretina.com/2014/07/19/anna-addresses-cardinal-george/

Jesus said "For behold the kingdom of God is within you." So, the kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom and therefore needs only a spiritual head or king.

I advise you to double-check the facts of the matter, for you are placing your faith in a false authority; God's kingdom is not in The Vatican, it is within YOU.

If you want to discuss with me about the Pope, you will have to use reason; argument from authority will not convince anyone but the gullible.

[BADecker]

Most of that post is just making up stories about why that evidence might be wrong without really investigating the evidence or by backing up stories with facts. Even if all that you said is correct, I think you have not done an adequate job at refuting any of the points on the near-death site, nor have you given cause to consider the possibility of hypergraphia in the case of the Phoenix Journals. You base your beliefs upon assumptions which are unstated, then give inadequate stories as explanations without considering all of the circumstantial evidence and the possibility of new paradigms.

I am not countering with 'evidence' I am countering with an explanation for why what you consider to be 'evidence' does not qualify as such.

Big difference.

If you do not want to counter each and every piece of evidence that I have provided you with then you have not provided reason to reject every single point of evidence that I propose. Therefore, I have evidence to support my view and you do not, you are merely proposing stories without proposing a reason to discredit the evidence. For example, you did not point out what is wrong with the Mereon Matrix, you merely suggested that it could be wrong... no science can stand up to that kind of criticism, that is like saying "it could be wrong for reasons we don't yet know about".

Let me give you an example:

I did not read it; I would rather you bother yourself with giving reason to dismiss each point of evidence that I referenced; after you get through these 52, we can move on to other evidence that I am familiar with.

Trouble is, you have no basis for asserting such a thing when there is long recorded history of recognising and understanding the medical condition, 'hypergraphia' in humans, many of whom claim to be writing some sort of 'secret knowledge' and there is absolutely no recorded history of it being found, instead, to be a case of a human being channelling information from time-travelling space beings.

What would qualify as "recorded history"?
Who said that the Journals were channeled? I believe that I stated that they were not...
Who said that the messengers Hatonn, Sananda, and others are time-travelers; where are you getting this??

Another example would be the wild claims made by Mellen-Thomas Benedict,

The only 'evidence' you have for his claims are his claims, which is known as the fallacy of 'circular reasoning'. Therefore it is not acceptable as evidence.

Fair enough; I still contend that people having NDE have brought back valid scientific knowledge, as explained in that link.

Every single 'scientific' point that NDE website cites as 'proof' is grossly flawed.

Oh? Do enlighten us!

We've been here before and unless you are willing to strike out each one I objectively debunk, I am not going to waste my time doing so only for you to go back and cite them again because you're incapable of rational thought and unwilling to recognise that you are probably caught up in the 'sunk cost' fallacy, which is the fact you have expended so much time and energy in making this a core element of your identity and belief that you would rather maintain intellectual dishonesty in the face of critical analysis than accept the actual truth.

Believe you me, I am rational and willing to provisionally accept that Mellen-Thomas Benedict is a liar. Now, that still does not refute the point that people having NDE have brought back valid scientific knowledge, nor have you "wasted your time" in evaluating all points of evidence on that page. Not even close.

Whatever cryptodevil is saying here doesn't really matter... except for one point. That point boils down to this: The only evidence you have for any of the blabber you say being fact, is that you call it evidence or fact. There is nothing else.

In other words, the Phoenix Journals may literally be written down, but the only evidence you have for them being fact is, you say they are fact.

Why should anyone believe you? You want us to get in there and read them so that we can see that they are fact? Silly boy. Doc Savage is far more entertaining. At least if anything you have had to say so far is a real example of what is found in the Journals.

[Vod]

Jesus never set up a church nor a "Vicar", and certainly not a bank;

I never set up anything. 

Your entire religion is based off fraud.   

[BADecker]

Hi BADecker,
What exactly is so fictional about these writings, and how do you judge this to be so?

If you mean fiction in the Journals...

Who cares? It isn't the individual words that are fictional. After all, words have real meaning.

It may not be some facts in the Journals that are fictional. All science fiction has a little (sometimes a lot) fact in it to make it realistic.

And who knows if you are lying about the Journals or not, when you say that they express that you can get to Heaven by works. Nobody needs the Journals for that, even if the Journals truly say that, because people can have the Bible that has been around for a long time for that.

Why is it that you would need to assert that God used the hand of many different men to add content to the Gospels because "they were incomplete the first time around"?

This question is not answerable because it seems to be based on an assumption that suggests that I have such a need.

And why all of the fictional stories in the Bible--like the one where the child Isaac is terrorized and threatened with death so that God can "teach his father a lesson"?

Nobody knows that any stories in the Bible are fictional. Traditionally, the Hebrew people say that they are real. This tradition has been handed down, parents to children, from the times that they happened, through the ages. The fictional stories are the ones that tried to get into the Bible, but that you won't find within it, because the test of any so-called prophet that tried to push such a story into the Bible, showed that he wasn't a prophet, and so the story was left out.

I can understand how you would find terror in the story of Abraham that you mentioned. Anybody believing in the Journals should be terrified when he sees God in action.

Then, you allege that Jesus is my savior even though he never suggested that;

The fact that you are alive, shows that Jesus is your Savior for this life. He is the only reason that the earth, and probably the universe, remained, in the face of the sin of mankind back near the Beginning.

Will Jesus be your Savior for eternity? That's a question, the answer to which, remains to be seen.

your "Doctrine of Paul" states something to the effect, "You need do NOTHING to receive God's Blessings and Grace". This sounds a bit like the "just BE" philosophy of many New Agers, does it not?

I was not aware that I had a "Doctrine of Paul." What evidence do you have that I have such a doctrine?

If you are talking about salvation by Jesus, you are mistaken in your understanding. The fact is, you can do nothing to gain salvation. Nobody has the strength that it takes to do something that will gain him/her salvation. If people had such strength, the ones that did would prove it by living, say, 500 years or more in this life. That still wouldn't prove it, but it would be a start.

Furthermore, do you not propose that we all join a church and therefore a cult?

That I am aware of, I have not proposed this, nor am I proposing it now. Why do you keep trying to twist things? The fact that you continually attempt to twist things, shows exactly what is to be expected for someone steeped in the Journals... constant twisting, simply because their base is false.

I think we should first define the terms so we have explicit understanding of meaning.

1. Cults: A system of religious rites and observances; zealous devotion to a person, ideal, or thing.

I assume that even though the author claims to even be a “Christian Pastor” of a Church called Calvary Chapel, that he does not consider that they, or himself, is a member of a cult? How can you be a member of a church (body of--) without falling into this category by pure definition?

I am guilty--one hundred percent totally guilty. I come in total service to God of Light, the Christ Truth, the Creation of Godness and the Laws of God and The Creation as given forth for Mankind. The Christ energy, having acquired his Godness, comes again with the Hosts of which I am in Command--I don’t believe you can get much closer than that, my friends.

So, Hatonn serves God of Light, the Christ Truth.

Anyone who doesn't profess to salvation by Jesus as is taught in the Bible, and especially if he speaks against it, any truth he has is incidental, and he is promoting damnation for all who follow him.

Who do YOU serve, BADecker?

Does it matter Who I serve? You serve the devil or a host of devils.

Why would you assert that your book is truth and mine is not when you don't even have any facts to support that claim?

If you are talking about the Bible here, I only have a couple of copies.

The history of the people of Israel, and how the Bible was put together over the hundreds of years that it took, and how God has kept the teaching alive, and how the Holy Spirit works through the words of the Bible, show that the Bible can't exist. It is impossible for a book like the Bible to exist by the odds. Because of this, there is strength in it.

Why do you reject outright the possibility that God may have sent messengers JUST AS PROMISED?

I have noted that the true WORD OF GOD--AND GOD IS THE WORD, is totally understandable without interpretation--the commandments (laws) are explicit in every detail from “...not kill” to “...no adultery”. It certainly requires no self-styled “preacher” to foist off his opinions on an unsuspecting and unthinking public because he deceives them into thinking he is somehow better or more informed than they.

God most certainly has sent messengers just as He promised. All you need do to see what they have to say is read the Bible.

The commands to follow the moral laws are not the point. Many religions have moral commands in whatever law they express. Let me state again. It isn't the laws, or the learning of the laws, or the keeping of the laws that counts. Rather, it is the keeping of the laws PERFECTLY that counts.

How can we tell when someone has kept the laws perfectly? We can tell when we see a person who does not die.

How can we tell when a person has the strength of God? We can tell this if, when he dies, he then comes back to life in such a way that He cannot die again, forever.

There is only One Person Who has done this. It is Jesus Christ of the Bible.

[BADecker]

What's the point of discussing that when there is a person on this planet that is the vicar of Jesus Christ.

That person is the Pope.

Jesus never set up a church nor a "Vicar", and certainly not a bank;
however, Papal Supremacy is evident in the political realm,
that is why The Vatican is not a party to The Hague Apostille Convention;
it is basically The Vatican's Law called "Private International Law".

The Church of Rome has been responsible for a lot of the EVIL in the world today; please give this letter some thought:
http://scannedretina.com/2014/07/19/anna-addresses-cardinal-george/

Jesus said "For behold the kingdom of God is within you." So, the kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom and therefore needs only a spiritual head or king.

I advise you to double-check the facts of the matter, for you are placing your faith in a false authority; God's kingdom is not in The Vatican, it is within YOU.

If you want to discuss with me about the Pope, you will have to use reason; argument from authority will not convince anyone but the gullible.

When you look at the history of Christianity over the last 1,500 years, you can see all kinds of Popes in various churches in various countries. I haven't looked lately, but there are probably various Roman-like churches in several places in the world (Greece, Russia) that have their own Pope, or at least a Bishop that has the full power of the Pope in their particular religion.

Now we have the Phoenix Journals trying to compete with all the Popes. Get off it. Don't we have enough Popes already? We don't need more devils coming in the form of the Journals. We have enough in the Popes already.

[1aguar]

The fictional stories are the ones that tried to get into the Bible, but that you won't find within it, because the test of any so-called prophet that tried to push such a story into the Bible, showed that he wasn't a prophet, and so the story was left out.

Hi BADecker,
I suppose I will have to school you on logic before our argument goes any further.
Your fallacy is begging the question; your argument goes like this:

whenever anybody offers an argument that challenges the veracity of a story in the Bible, argue that the Bible has no false stories within it because it would conflict with those prophets that have always been assumed to be correct because they are consistent with what we already know, namely, what is asserted in the Bible.

Since you did not specify what "the test" is, it seems like you make the above argument. To "push" one's "story" "into the Bible" is totally subjective and a non-sequitor, it does not relate to the truth of the story. THE way to tell the truth of something is to ask yourself whether it is of GOD.

No God of LOVE would terrorize a child to teach the child's father a lesson; it is not the father but the child who suffers in such a case. God does not cause suffering, least of all the innocent children.

In my research today, I found more evidence that the Bible was re-written to suit Man's political agenda; Matthew 28:19 was fabricated. Now, it seems like this verse is in all the modern-day Bibles, so do you then accept it?

http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/catholic/matthew-proof.html

[1aguar]

Now we have the Phoenix Journals trying to compete with all the Popes. Get off it. Don't we have enough Popes already? We don't need more devils coming in the form of the Journals. We have enough in the Popes already.

You have not read any Journal, so you do not know what you are talking about; I think you know next-to-nothing about the teachings of Emmanuel.

Emmanuel taught reincarnation, not resurrection, and further the evidence supports reincarnation, but you do not care one whit about evidence so now you are on my ignore list just like Vod and BitNow.

[BADecker]

The fictional stories are the ones that tried to get into the Bible, but that you won't find within it, because the test of any so-called prophet that tried to push such a story into the Bible, showed that he wasn't a prophet, and so the story was left out.

Hi BADecker,
I suppose I will have to school you on logic before our argument goes any further.
Your fallacy is begging the question; your argument goes like this:

whenever anybody offers an argument that challenges the veracity of a story in the Bible, argue that the Bible has no false stories within it because it would conflict with those prophets that have always been assumed to be correct because they are consistent with what we already know, namely, what is asserted in the Bible.

Since you did not specify what "the test" is, it seems like you make the above argument. To "push" one's "story" "into the Bible" is totally subjective and a non-sequitor, it does not relate to the truth of the story. THE way to tell the truth of something is to ask yourself whether it is of GOD.

No God of LOVE would terrorize a child to teach the child's father a lesson; it is not the father but the child who suffers in such a case. God does not cause suffering, least of all the innocent children.

In my research today, I found more evidence that the Bible was re-written to suit Man's political agenda; Matthew 28:19 was fabricated. Now, it seems like this verse is in all the modern-day Bibles, so do you then accept it?

http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/catholic/matthew-proof.html

You are missing the point of the history written in the Bible. The point is that if it is in there, it's because the guy who wrote it was accepted as a person of truth by the people of Israel. The reason they accepted him is that he stood up to the test of a prophet that Moses laid down back in the Torah. The reason that this is truth is, it has been handed down parents to children, by the Jewish people, who are very zealous and jealous for maintaining their traditions.

In other words, the whole Jewish community is the witness to the authenticity of the Old Testament, and some to the New Testament. For the New Testament, besides the believing Jews, we have many ancient manuscripts, themselves, along with the writings of early church fathers.

----------

When you look at the story of Abraham that you mentioned, there was no terrorizing involved. The terror is only yours, right along with the idea that you know how God is going to act. Besides, there aren't any innocent children. They are all corrupted genetically. If they weren't, there would be a lot of 500-year-old folks around. The innocence of children involves the natural faith in Jesus that they have, because it is He that builds them in the womb.

----------

Many people over the ages have written that the Bible is partial or complete fabrication. You are just another.

[BADecker]

Now we have the Phoenix Journals trying to compete with all the Popes. Get off it. Don't we have enough Popes already? We don't need more devils coming in the form of the Journals. We have enough in the Popes already.

You have not read any Journal, so you do not know what you are talking about; I think you know next-to-nothing about the teachings of Emmanuel.

Emmanuel taught reincarnation, not resurrection, and further the evidence supports reincarnation, but you do not care one whit about evidence so now you are on my ignore list just like Vod and BitNow.

If they weren't trying to compete with the Pope, or with any other religion, they would not exist, or at least they would not have folks like you promoting them.

Jesus teaching reincarnation is simply another fabrication.

The fact that Jesus was called Emanuel, shows that He is God. Thanks for recognizing God in the Bible.

[1aguar]

You need to take the word of a book,prophet or god that there is a after life.

Why would you need an authority when you can just evaluate the evidence and decide for yourself?
http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html

[Vod]

You need to take the word of a book,prophet or god that there is a after life.

This is my god word - there is no afterlife.  I make you once and if you are stupid enough to die, oh well.

[Hellium]

Me my self is not a huge fan of any religion, but one I admire about
Them is faith. Relying entirely on faith for what you belive is quite something.

[Lauda]

I have stumbled upon something recently that got my interest. It is said (in some religions) that 'God' created everything in 7 days. These are also called 'the day of creation'. I do understand that this should not be literally translated/understood. However, if time is a measurement that humans made up (days - we did), then how would this even be possible?  

This is my god word - there is no afterlife.  I make you once and if you are stupid enough to die, oh well.

This actually makes more sense. I'm pretty sure that religions (i.e. promising afterlife) have so many followers due to the fear of death, the fear of nothingness. Most do not like thinking about death at all.
Update:

It would be stupid if someone really thinks that the creation took
Only 7 earth days. Im sure many people misinterpreted the other
Words in th bible making it more exagerated.

This is not my interpretation. This is the interpretation that Christians are being taught.

[acroman08]

I have stumbled upon something recently that got my interest. It is said (in some religions) that 'God' created everything in 7 days. These are also called 'the day of creation'. I do understand that this should not be literally translated/understood. However, if time is a measurement that humans made up (days - we did), then how would this even be possible?

It would be stupid if someone really thinks that the creation took
Only 7 earth days. Im sure many people misinterpreted the other
Words in th bible making it more exagerated.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

This actually makes more sense. I'm pretty sure that religions (i.e. promising afterlife) have so many followers due to the fear of death, the fear of nothingness. Most do not like thinking about death at all.

I find that hard to believe. An afterlife of nothingness, is nothing. Who would care?

[BADecker]

I have stumbled upon something recently that got my interest. It is said (in some religions) that 'God' created everything in 7 days. These are also called 'the day of creation'. I do understand that this should not be literally translated/understood. However, if time is a measurement that humans made up (days - we did), then how would this even be possible?

It would be stupid if someone really thinks that the creation took
Only 7 earth days. Im sure many people misinterpreted the other
Words in th bible making it more exagerated.

The 7-day thing is wrong. God created everything is 6 days. He rested the 7th day.

Why would it be stupid to think that God created everything in 6 days? Look at Big Bang Theory. This theory suggests that in the first 6 days following the start of the Big Bang, that the universe jumped from a sub-microscopic point, to a gigantically tremendous size. So, even our scientists suggest that a humongous amount of creation can happen in just 6 days.