Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[BitNow]

People who ignore the bible.

Understandable English: I should have come to the other side of the Ocean to understand that.

That's a step: thank You.


Best regards.

[1713452837]

1713452837

[1713452837]

1713452837

[1713452837]

1713452837

[BADecker]

The major problem with the Pope is that he is the main figure in the Papacy. There is nothing wrong with the Papacy except that it promotes works righteousness for salvation. Jesus salvation is the only way.

Align with the Pope and we will talk the same language.


Best regards.

Nothing against you but, I would rather remain saved that talk the same language as you.

[BADecker]

When are you going to commit suicide? After all, you, yourself, said that atheists must die. And I have shown you how your Bible says that you are an atheist.

You sound like Beliathon there.

Well, if Beliathon knows and quotes the Bible, he may not be wrong in what he knows and quotes. If he doesn't believe in Jesus salvation, all his Bible knowledge and quoting is worthless for him.

Since the Pope is a sinner, and since BitNow's faith seems to be in the Pope, she might as well be an atheist. If she doesn't change, she will die in Hell, even if she lives for a short while here.

I was pointing out that Beliathon said people should kill themselves because he thought they should think that they should, He was thinking for the Christians. You said BitNow should kill themselves, because you thought BitNow should think they should. You were thinking for BitNow.

I understand they were both instances where people were trying to use the example of absurdness to prove a point, but I don't agree with ever telling someone they should commit suicide to try to win an argument. I don't think anyone has ever proven their point using that argument, and it does more damage than benefit.

IMHO.

No. I was only showing BitNow how ridiculous she is for wanting all atheists to die. If she thinks that they should die when God says they should live, and all they were doing is sinning, perhaps she should die for sinning, because that's all that atheists did - sin.

We are all under law because of sin. None of us is righteous enough to live, based on our own doing. Therefore, it is not right to pronounce death on anyone else, because you fall under the same sentence.

That's what I said. You should have started that paragraph with a "yes" not a "no".

I said, your example and Beliathon's example "were both instances where people were trying to use the example of absurdness (ridiculousness as you called it) to prove a point." The example of absurdness is exaggerating your point to the point you said "if you believe that, then you should kill yourself". Both you and Beliathon did that.

Well, I don't always recognize all my sins. Thus, even though I don't accept something as a sin when it is, I accept that God will recognize the truth. And I bow to His greater understand, ask forgiveness for my sinning as well as my lack of understanding, and am forgiven in the forgiveness Jesus spreads abroad.

As for all of us using the English language, Beliathon and you and I, and a great many others do.

Yes, I didn't mean to get into anything, was only just reminded of Beliathon, lol.

Yeah, I think the English language has been tampered with, as per our discussion on Common Law. It's sad no matter how much we may think we may know about things, it can all be turned upside down later.

The forgiveness for all sins is what Jesus is all about, and how glorious it is!

I agree with you. We are on similar tracks.

[sorryforthat]

The major problem with the Pope is that he is the main figure in the Papacy. There is nothing wrong with the Papacy except that it promotes works righteousness for salvation. Jesus salvation is the only way.

Align with the Pope and we will talk the same language.


Best regards.

This seems very demanding which is definitely the wrong approach. Demand is usually brought on by anger which is as previously stated the wrong approach. Statements without claim only create the ideal that one does not really know what they preach or are following suit with what they have been told.

[organofcorti]

TECHNOLOGY.

That's a "yes", then?

Answering too quickly is a sign of Stupidity. Stupidity is the enemy of Wisdom.

It's 12 hours later. Is that enough time for you? I honestly don't think I would consider you stupid for taking half a day to respond, so son't be shy - that was a 'yes', yes?

We made agreement on the definition of atheism. The definition is the one in the Oxford Dictionary:

Atheism
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Source: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/atheism

Can you link to the page where you made that resolution, for context, and so I can see who is the "we" to whom you refer?

Around page 77: I have no time to search that now.

I talk for the reader.

What does "I talk for the reader" mean? Are we having a conversation, or not? If we can't have a stable conversation without you monologuing all over the place, I'll go somewhere else for my interesting and challenging conversations.

This forum is about Bitcoin, which is a Technology.

This resolution is to avoid OT while talking about Technology (Bitcoin in that case).

"Bitcoin is a Technology"


Best regards.

OK, so this thread is about the technological reasons that atheists might hate religionists, and also the reverse? Have I at least understood that much?

If we agreed to kill them all this problem would be overcome now.

Don't confuse fear in God (which leads to Science) with Fear in a man without faith.

I hope to god that I misunderstand this, but you're really coming across as a creepy satanic murderous fuck here.

You really want to kill everyone who doesn't agree with your philosophical belief in a particular god? Has civilisation not advanced at all in the last two thousand years?

[BADecker]

Actually, MMH; I am not ignoring anything; here are the points that I made and YOU did not respond:

he never once suggested that he was your "savior";

Jesus may have never said it the way that you do, but through the things that He said, he proclaimed it.

in fact, he said that the kingdom of God is not "here or there", i.e. in Jesus, but it is within YOU.

Jesus was talking to those who believe in His salvation when He said this.

There were over 28 full gospels written and known. A scholar from South Germany chose the four which were placed into your New Testament--need I say more? How can you continue to be so narrow?

What is the narrowness? The PJs are loads of some kind of "gospel." Since they don't teach the values of the Old Testament, they are not considered part of the New Testament. Any other so-called "gospels" that don't profess the things of the Old Testament and the New as it exists, will never be included in the New Testament. Even if they are correct, why add them? We have what we need to be saved right now, as it is.

he never said it was OK to dump your wicked actions upon him or anyone else.

Nobody says that, not even Christians. Jesus took our sins and mistakes. He did it without us even asking Him to. When He tells us about it, if we accept what He says as truth, then we are saved.

And here is another BIG point:
The Bible has been re-written and modified.

The Hebrew nation is the most stubborn nation of all. Phoenicia is gone. Egypt is barely hanging on. Greece has lost its splendor. Rome is gone. Thrace is gone. China has changed entirely over the millennia, even though we call it by the same name. Israel, the Hebrew nation, is one of the greatest nations of the world today.

The strength of Israel is God-strength. God will never let His name be defamed.

Hebrew tradition has always been to copy the Old Testament with complete accuracy. The scribes copied it accurately right down to the present. Christian Hebrew scribes even copy the New Testament accurately. There is no fallacy in the Bible itself. There may be mistakes in translations.

By Hebrew tradition, tradition that is stubbornly held by possibly the most stubborn nation of all, says that the Bible is accurate. The failure is among those who suggest that the Bible is inaccurate, and by people like you for believing such.

[BitNow]

It's 12 hours later. Is that enough time for you? I honestly don't think I would consider you stupid for taking half a day to respond, so son't be shy - that was a 'yes', yes?

I'm not shy: it's called fear of God.

Fear of God leads to Science.

Science is what we all are trying to achieve here.

What does "I talk for the reader" mean?

It means: "if you are reading this this phrase is for you that you are reading this".

Are we having a conversation, or not?

This is a forum: what do you do in forums?

If we can't have a stable conversation without you monologuing all over the place, I'll go somewhere else for my interesting and challenging conversations.

Why you are reading something that does not interest you?

That's confusing.

If we agreed to kill them all this problem would be overcome now.

Don't confuse fear in God (which leads to Science) with Fear in a man without faith.

I hope to god that I misunderstand this, but you're really coming across as a creepy satanic murderous fuck here.

That's the Bible and the word of our Lord.

You really want to kill everyone who doesn't agree with your philosophical belief in a particular god? Has civilisation not advanced at all in the last two thousand years?

I said that atheism is a capital sin.
Atheism is a capital sin:
1) atheism means replacing God with an idol (sin for the 1st commandments - IDOLATRY - );
2) punishment to idolatry is death (Ex 32:4 - Golden Calf episode - source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_calf)


If you have doubts or info feel free to ask.



Best regards.

[BADecker]

TECHNOLOGY.

That's a "yes", then?

Answering too quickly is a sign of Stupidity. Stupidity is the enemy of Wisdom.

It's 12 hours later. Is that enough time for you? I honestly don't think I would consider you stupid for taking half a day to respond, so son't be shy - that was a 'yes', yes?

We made agreement on the definition of atheism. The definition is the one in the Oxford Dictionary:

Atheism
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Source: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/atheism

Can you link to the page where you made that resolution, for context, and so I can see who is the "we" to whom you refer?

Around page 77: I have no time to search that now.

I talk for the reader.

What does "I talk for the reader" mean? Are we having a conversation, or not? If we can't have a stable conversation without you monologuing all over the place, I'll go somewhere else for my interesting and challenging conversations.

This forum is about Bitcoin, which is a Technology.

This resolution is to avoid OT while talking about Technology (Bitcoin in that case).

"Bitcoin is a Technology"


Best regards.

OK, so this thread is about the technological reasons that atheists might hate religionists, and also the reverse? Have I at least understood that much?

If we agreed to kill them all this problem would be overcome now.

Don't confuse fear in God (which leads to Science) with Fear in a man without faith.

I hope to god that I misunderstand this, but you're really coming across as a creepy satanic murderous fuck here.

You really want to kill everyone who doesn't agree with your philosophical belief in a particular god? Has civilisation not advanced at all in the last two thousand years?

This^^.

The Crusades were done by people who didn't understand that the way of Christianity isn't a violent, earthly-government one. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades:

The Crusades were military campaigns sanctioned by the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages.

Because of this, what can anyone expect?... especially from strictly Roman Catholic countries like Italy and Spain and Portugal?

[BitNow]

This^^.

The Crusades were done by people who didn't understand that the way of Christianity isn't a violent, earthly-government one. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades:

The Crusades were military campaigns sanctioned by the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages.

Because of this, what can anyone expect?... especially from strictly Roman Catholic countries like Italy and Spain and Portugal?

How about Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya?

Luckily NOT this.


Best regards.

[BADecker]

This^^.

The Crusades were done by people who didn't understand that the way of Christianity isn't a violent, earthly-government one. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades:

The Crusades were military campaigns sanctioned by the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages.

Because of this, what can anyone expect?... especially from strictly Roman Catholic countries like Italy and Spain and Portugal?

How about Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya?

Luckily NOT this.


Best regards.

Are those countries Roman Catholic? After all, they didn't take part in the Crusades, did they?

What are you talking about? You need a better translator.



EDIT: No offense, but are you in an insane asylum?

You are doing quite well for a 12-y-o.

[organofcorti]

It's 12 hours later. Is that enough time for you? I honestly don't think I would consider you stupid for taking half a day to respond, so son't be shy - that was a 'yes', yes?

I'm not shy: it's called fear of God.

Fear of God leads to Science.

Science is what we all are trying to achieve here.

Religion is the opposite of science. I don't know what you're referring to, but it's not science. Science requires one to be able to change one's mind if facts change. Dogmatic religions - by definition - can't do that.

If we agreed to kill them all this problem would be overcome now.

Don't confuse fear in God (which leads to Science) with Fear in a man without faith.

I hope to god that I misunderstand this, but you're really coming across as a creepy satanic murderous fuck here.

That's the Bible and the word of our Lord.

You really want to kill everyone who doesn't agree with your philosophical belief in a particular god? Has civilisation not advanced at all in the last two thousand years?

I said that atheism is a capital sin.
Atheism is a capital sin:
1) atheism means replacing God with an idol (sin for the 1st commandments - IDOLATRY - );

You're wrong on this point. Atheism means "without a god". That means atheists do not have any god or idol.

Since you're using wikipedia articles as references, here's one you should read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

 

2) punishment to idolatry is death (Ex 32:4 - Golden Calf episode - source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_calf)


If you have doubts or info feel free to ask.

So you're still going with the "kill the infidel" option? You realise that you'd need to kill around 60% of the planet's population?

That's billions of people, not millions. You really want to be responsible for the biggest mass murder in history?

[BitNow]

Are those countries Roman Catholic? After all, they didn't take part in the Crusades, did they?

What are you talking about? You need a better translator.



EDIT: No offense, but are you in an insane asylum?

You are doing quite well for a 12-y-o.

There you go: avoiding the conversation again.


Best regards.

[BADecker]

Are those countries Roman Catholic? After all, they didn't take part in the Crusades, did they?

What are you talking about? You need a better translator.



EDIT: No offense, but are you in an insane asylum?

You are doing quite well for a 12-y-o.

There you go: avoiding the conversation again.


Best regards.

There you go, avoiding the conversation by suggesting that I am avoiding the conversation.

[BitNow]

It's 12 hours later. Is that enough time for you? I honestly don't think I would consider you stupid for taking half a day to respond, so son't be shy - that was a 'yes', yes?

I'm not shy: it's called fear of God.

Fear of God leads to Science.

Science is what we all are trying to achieve here.

Religion is the opposite of science. I don't know what you're referring to, but it's not science. Science requires one to be able to change one's mind if facts change. Dogmatic religions - by definition - can't do that.

If we agreed to kill them all this problem would be overcome now.

Don't confuse fear in God (which leads to Science) with Fear in a man without faith.

I hope to god that I misunderstand this, but you're really coming across as a creepy satanic murderous fuck here.

That's the Bible and the word of our Lord.

You really want to kill everyone who doesn't agree with your philosophical belief in a particular god? Has civilisation not advanced at all in the last two thousand years?

I said that atheism is a capital sin.
Atheism is a capital sin:
1) atheism means replacing God with an idol (sin for the 1st commandments - IDOLATRY - );

You're wrong on this point. Atheism means "without a god". That means atheists do not have any god or idol.

Since you're using wikipedia articles as references, here's one you should read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

 

2) punishment to idolatry is death (Ex 32:4 - Golden Calf episode - source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_calf)


If you have doubts or info feel free to ask.

So you're still going with the "kill the infidel" option? You realise that you'd need to kill around 60% of the planet's population?

That's billions of people, not millions. You really want to be responsible for the biggest mass murder in history?

You are not Catholic.

I will reply point by point when I have spare time: I'm discussing this since page 77. I don't want to go all over this now.

Hint: I said atheism is a capital sin and atheists need to die, I didn't said I should kill them all. Yet.


Best regards.

[BADecker]

Hint: I said atheism is a capital sin and atheists need to die, I didn't said I should kill them all. Yet.


Best regards.

And I showed you how all sins are capital sins, in James 2:10. This means that all people should die. But you haven't responded to this point, even though you may have responded to my post(s) that talk about this.

[BitNow]

And I showed you how all sins are capital sins, in James 2:10. This means that all people should die. But you haven't responded to this point, even though you may have responded to my post(s) that talk about this.

Look: I'm not an atheist.


Best regards.

[BADecker]

And I showed you how all sins are capital sins, in James 2:10. This means that all people should die. But you haven't responded to this point, even though you may have responded to my post(s) that talk about this.

Look: I'm not an atheist.


Best regards.

Whether you are an atheist or not, you are guilty as though you are an atheist. James 2:10 says so. According to the things you say about atheists, you should die, because you are guilty of being an atheist even if you are not one.

[BitNow]

Whether you are an atheist or not, you are guilty as though you are an atheist. James 2:10 says so. According to the things you say about atheists, you should die, because you are guilty of being an atheist even if you are not one.

How doing a sin is doing all of them?

Where do you find rationality in 1 is 613?

1 is 1.

613 is 613.


Best regards.

[BADecker]

Whether you are an atheist or not, you are guilty as though you are an atheist. James 2:10 says so. According to the things you say about atheists, you should die, because you are guilty of being an atheist even if you are not one.

How doing a sin is doing all of them?

Where do you find rationality in 1 is 613?

1 is 1.

613 is 613.


Best regards.

The rationality is that God says it through James 2:10.

If you don't want to believe all the Bible, then how will you believe any of it? You can't simply pick and choose the parts of the Bible that you are going to believe. Either you believe the Bible or you don't.

If you don't believe the Bible, then your whole faith in the Pope is a lie. Why? Because you are basing your faith in the Pope on what the Bible says about him, even if your understanding of it is wrong.

[organofcorti]

If you're busy, lets just take the points one at a time.

You said:

I'm not shy: it's called fear of God.

Fear of God leads to Science.

Science is what we all are trying to achieve here.

I wrote in response:

Religion is the opposite of science. I don't know what you're referring to, but it's not science. Science requires one to be able to change one's mind if facts change. Dogmatic religions - by definition - can't do that.

To summarise: How do you make religion follow the scientific method?