It almost seems like atheists don't want to believe in God. Do you just simply not want to believe in God because you don't want to give up your own free will?
ADMIN EDIT: Mercedes has left ThinkAtheist.com on her own accord. This discussion will remain, however do not expect a response from the author.
There are a lot of Hispanics who would disagree with you, some violently.
That is what the 2nd amendment is all about.
"The Bible was written by man but that makes it authentic. It was their relationship with the living God the way they saw it."
How can you say that, Mercedes? Think of all of the fictional books that were "written by man" - does that make them authentic?
Yes, the key phrase here is, "the way they saw it" - these were people living in the Bronze Age, who believed the sky was blue because space was filled with water, and we on earth were protected from it by a bubble called "the firmament." They believed their god lived in the sky, along with his angels - we've been to the moon and haven't run into him yet.
They were a bunch of superstitious, primitive people, who didn't know much about how the world worked, so they believed a supernatural being did everything. Now that we have a much clearer picture of how things work, we don't need those silly superstitions anymore.
How does the Bible being written by men make it authentic? The Egyptian Book of the Dead was written by men, so does that make it authentic? The Norse, Greek and Celtic beliefs were recorded by men, so does that make them authentic?
Also, the caveat that the Bible is true because it points to Jesus shows a huge error in your reasoning. You can only draw that as an important distinction if you already accept Christianity as true. If you don't already believe, then Jesus being the last big thing in the Bible is of no import. The Norse would tell you that their beliefs all pointed toward Ragnarok, and the second life in Valhalla. Are you now sold on the Norse traditions?
Additionally, do you know that Jesus is in the Qur'an as well. Islam is pretty much the new new testament, thought they say that Jesus was but a human prophet and not actually God on Earth. So the Qur'an has Jesus AND leads to Muhammad as well. So why not believe in Islam instead.?
Before you put too much emphasis on Jesus, perhaps you should consider the fact that he has never been confirmed to exist either.
I would say that you are welcome here. Some are more abrupt than others, and I certainly take issue with those that jump straight to calling believers 'mental'. The biggest frustration that some may have is that the same points keep being repeated over and over, and that you keep offering the same 'proof' that has been found to be empty of worth long ago. So some would feel that you are ignoring our replies. But it could be the language barrier as well. Keep and open mind and answer honestly and everyone will get along fine.
Bull! There is no evidence of these stories being other than the original Septuagint in Greek. NO OTHER priests had the power of life and death and summary execution for anything much less hundreds of trivial offenses. Yet when the Maccabes declared themselves priest-kings they had this totalitarian authority and powers. It was enough to make Stalin drool with envy. It is the kind of power the civilized world always ascribes to savages.
Google "gabriel stone" to see the Jesus thing was nothing new in Roman times. The usual lame excuse is, Jesus isn't EXACTLY the same.
I DID check it out, Matt, and found it fascinating - I intend researching it further.
Read the actual existing translations. It is interesting and simply the "I Gabriel" opening puts it into the class of "sacred" works without grounds to exclude it. But the actual translation is so fragmentary it barely lives up to the claims made for it.
Not to run down my own suggestion but rather to suggest read it and draw your own conclusions rather than relying upon the description of it by people with an axe to grind. Taken as a whole it reflects as poorly on the Yahweh cult as the Jesus cult. As Monty Python said, I should know a Messiah when I see one, I've followed enough of them.
Or those of backwoods hillbillies living in Roman times. One assumes the Romans called it anus mundi from experience. The 76 AD revolt was started because the emperor tried to ban the ritual genital mutilation of children just as we do today with this one religious exception for males but not older girls. Rome's treatment of women and children was positively enlightened compared to the hillbillies. They even forceably mutilated the genitalia of slaves and forced their Yahweh cult on them. BTW: If circumcised they had to pay the temple tax any place in the empire -- it was all about money.
You want to think about bibleland think Deliverance.
@Shawn - Spot on - One could possibly have a psychopath for a parent, but just the ordinary run of the mill parent with sick child -
Child - Dad, I am sick, will you help me?
Dad - Nup, you have to suffer, I could help, but I just don't want to. A parent would be sued for child abuse.
This was the premise of the lovely Mother Teresa - thousands of people in her care suffered, when there pain could have been alleviated. It is the way of the catholic church.
Yea, somebody should kill that bitch......Oh, never mind the doG already did. :D