Atheism is a faith like anyone else

366 posts / 0 new
Last post
Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Fergie

@ Fergie

It is not our prerogative to decide whether God exists or does not exist.
That is intellectual arrogance.
God exists or does not exist irrespective of our opinion.

Then why the fuck do you and your ilk keep trying to shove it down our throats?.
Legislate your agendas?
Brainwash all children?

Once again the gross hypocrisy of theists is exposed like a flasher in the kiddies' playground....

Tin-Man's picture
@Old Man Re: To Fergie -

@Old Man Re: To Fergie - "Then why the fuck do you and your ilk keep trying to shove it down our throats?"

Why are you asking questions that have such obvious answers. It is perfectly obvious why Fergie and his pals continuously push their god idea. You see, their god is ALLLLLLLL-Powerful, remember? He/she/it can do absolutely ANYTHING he/she/it wants to do. Oh, and he/she/it knows EVERYTHING. Knows anything and everything we puny humans could ever imagine, and many more things we are likely to never be able to imagine. Which stands to reason their god knows the importance and usefulness of delegation. Therefore, their god delegates the task of convincing humanity he/she/it is real to those faithful pet humans to whom he/she/it has given "special insight" into his/her/its mind so that they know exactly what the god desires and commands of his perfect creations. And those faithful pet humans are sent out into the world to relay those vitally important messages to the rest of us rebellious and disobedient curs. Oh, and here is the best part! It is all done this way as a supreme TEST by the god in order for he/she/it to observe how we all react to such situations so that he/she/it can pass a not-so-pleasant judgement on those of us who it deems to be "too rational" to believe in him/her/it. (Even though this god supposedly already knows EXACTLYY how everybody will react/behave.)

See? Pretty damn simple. And you call ME dense? Sheesh!... *rolling eyes*...

Tin-Man's picture
@Fergie Re: "That is

@Fergie Re: "That is intellectual arrogance."

This coming from the guy who KNOWS he has cosen THE ONE right god out of all the thousands of gods, religions, and even the thousands of Christian sects that have been created by Man over thousands of years. Also the same guy who looks down his snooty nose at us puny little atheist peasants and basically calls us all a bunch of rational idiots. Hmmmm.... Irony much?... LMAO...

Calilasseia's picture
What part of "It is

What part of "It is assertions by human beings on this matter that attract our suspicion" did you not understand from the very beginning of this thread?

Because, wait for it, that's all we've ever had on this subject - assertions by human beings. Which is one of the reasons we regard the entire issue with entirely proper suspicion.

Now, if any god-type entity that actually exists, could provide us at some point with unambiguous observational data informing us of the existence of said entity, then this would be welcome. The problem here being, of course, that any data of this sort, the moment it arrives, will almost certainly falsify all of our mythologies at a stroke, and that's the last thing supernaturalists want. They want to go on pretending that the fatuous candidates for the role asserted to be thus in their silly little mythologies are real, and actual data from an actual god-type entity would destroy that pretence in an instant.

Of course, matters would be even more hilarious, if the speculation I presented in this post ever became a reality, and as a result of said scenario becoming a reality, observational data arrived in our hands telling us that our observable universe was brewed in a lab by some other scientists. At which point, that other set of (alien) scientists in their own other universe, along with their lab apparatus, would be our de facto "god".

I'd actually enjoy that scenario becoming a reality, just to see all the smug, self-satisfied and complacent supernaturalists blow a fucking artery, when they realised the implications of the data that had arrived as a result.

Ah, the sweet smell of schadenfreude ... which would be particularly exquisite to savour if that happened ...

But even if that speculative scenario of mine never happened, there is no way that genuine observational data validating the existence of a god-type entity, will do anything other than piss all over mythological assertions, and the pretensions of the fanboys thereof. The fatuous and internally contradictory cosmic Donald Trumps of these mythologies, don't even rise to the level of competence required to be thought of as actually wrong, because this would imply that genuine cognitive effort was applied in the fabrication thereof. Instead, all the evidence points inexorably to the fact that my discarded toenail clippings exert more effort decaying, than the authors of Abrahamic mythologies in particular exerted when fabricating their micro-gods.

Cognostic's picture
@ferguson1951: "God exists

@ferguson1951: "God exists or does not exist irrespective of our opinion."

Is there anything else in the world that we could make this claim about? Rocks exist or do not exist independent of our opinion? What if my opinion is "Rocks do not exist?" Obviously I am demonstrably wrong. Hamsters exist or do not exist independent of my opinion? But what if my opinion is "Hamsters do not exist?" Quite obviously, and once again. I can be proved demonstrably wrong. Things that exist, actually do continue to exist, independent of our opinions about them. This is not true of things that do not exist, You do not get to "assert" things into existence. Ex: A purple people eater either exists or does not exist irrespective of our opinion. But what if I believe a purple people eater does not exist? It would be the same thing as asserting a purple people eater does exist. There is no evidence either way and so opinions are moot. This is the same as your opinion of God. God either exists or does not exist and having an opinion of any kind about it will not change it. So I do not believe your god actually exists. What evidence can you show me to validate your claim?

ferguson1951's picture
We can have some historical

We can have some historical evidence that Jesus existed, although it is debatable for most people whether He was God.
Luckily enough for me, God decided that believing in Him would take FAITH and not evidence. I am one of the lucky few who had faith since I was a little kid, always kept my faith but not much else, until I was 36, when I decided to abandon world mentality and start practicing my faith. Then I could see things happen as "promised". Then I discovered I needed nothing else to feel achieved as a human being. Problems did not disappear, on the contrary - owing to the evil that there is in so many people - they got worse, but that also was promised. It only remains to be seen whether Heaven, as promised, also comes about. I did not get rich nor famous but the feeling of feeling achieved makes that redundant. I did not need to bury myself in a monastery. I listen to rock music, I joke a lot with my neighbours, I travel half of the world, I write books, I feel at home with just about anyone, I use a computer, I drink some beer, I feel free, I speak my mind occasionally even if people do not like it, I read politics, economics, sociology, philosophy, science and of course religion up to a satisfactory degree just because I have an enquiring mind, now I am getting ready to try and settle down for some time in lovely Ireland, I dress the way I like (I don't like jacket and tie), I keep learning languages, I watch nice girls in the street and pay them compliments although I do not want to have a woman, I drink coffe at the café, I used to drive a car but not anymore because i do not like it, money has always come by, although sometimes I found myself penniless (but never homeless and needing charity), I have two close friends but at the same time I consider the whole of mankind as my friends and talk a little with just about anyone (even those I do not know), and - most of all . I like myself, I do not need to change just to please someone and - to be honest - sometimes I feel like I am one of a kind. I refuse the bourgeois life, where everything has to be planned in advance according to certain standards because you have to project and safeguard your image. I do not care what people think about me. I go my own way and got the hang of it. I have been doing this for 33 years and feel confident enough things will keep going that way until I die. Death means nothing to me. I could not have lived this life if I was not the kind who is not afraid of anything. You simply don't know what you are missing. You may have a brilliant mind, but you miss life. The feeling of being alive, having learnt from the Bible a certain way of life, a certain knowledge about people and events and having, little by little, not without sacrifice, mastered the art. Faith, hope and charity. That is mostly what it takes to get things going as promised.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Fergie

@ Fergie

We can have some historical evidence that Jesus existed, although it is debatable for most people whether He was God.

There is no contemporary evidence for a Jesus character as described in the gospels, none.
Please correct your statement to reflect historical accuracy.
If you have evidence or corroboration of the jesus figure's existence then please elucidate.

Note you used the term historical evidence so please do not introduce historiography into the mix. It's a furphy.

Cognostic's picture
ferguson1951 RE: "We can

ferguson1951 RE: "We can have some historical evidence that Jesus existed, "

Yes, we could have, It's unfortunate that we don't. What we have are reports about what Christian's once believed and a vague Bible verse from Paul that was written 60 years after the fact/ Do we have any evidence contemporary to the life of Jesus that would substantiate his existence? Anything at all?

algebe's picture
@FergusonI951 I do not care

@FergusonI951 I do not care what people think about me.

And yet you seem driven to impress a bunch of atheists by endlessly reciting your myriad achievements and witnessing your faith. You should try a little humility. You seem to have been dealt a reasonably good hand in the game of life. Others live with enormous challenges and need the help of the "graduates" that you so despise.

Anecdotes about your life do not constitute principles by which we can all live.

ferguson1951's picture
You are wrong, one more.

You are wrong, one more.
Anecdotes about my life are meant to show what a Christian life sounds like, only that. I do that because idiots may believe that the Christian religion is full of prohibitions.

I also gave some principles by which a true Christian lives: Faith, Hope and Charity.

With people such as you I would be a fool to be humble. I am humble with those who deserve it.

John 10:10

"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly."

Rather, I get the impression that atheism has no principles, anything goes. You are left alone with your problems and in the end, all the consolation you get is in trying to destroy religion, so that you feel happier thinking that, religion being useless, there is nothing left but atheism.

John 8:32 King James Version (KJV)
32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Here again, you question the fact that Truth exists, so that you get consolation in your relativism.
If you like living in a world plagued by confusion, suit yourselves.

Cognostic's picture
@ferguson1951: "With

@ferguson1951: "With arrogant people such as you I would be a fool to be humble. I am humble with those who deserve it.

* S U R P R l S E *

"Humble or not, you still meet the definition of "fool." Why else enter an atheist forum, spout nonsense that is clearly debunked, over and over and over again, and then insist you are right by repeating the same nonsense.

A fool is a person who keeps saying the same thing while expecting something different to come of it. Keep repeating your nonsense and you keep validating your foolishness.

algebe's picture
@Ferguson: Anecdotes about my

@Ferguson: Anecdotes about my life are meant to show what a Christian life sounds like, only that.

Bullshit. You're the archetypical "holier-than-thou" believer. Every word you write drips with pride, which last time I checked was still one of the deadly sins.

Rather, I get the impression that atheism has no principles, anything goes.

Then you are deluded. If I wanted an unprincipled philosophy in which "anything goes", I'd choose Christianity. You can commit any sin and still be forgiven by Jesus, while salving your conscience by blaming Satan. Atheism doesn't have those escape clauses. As an atheist, I own my sins.

David Killens's picture


"With people such as you I would be a fool to be humble. I am humble with those who deserve it."

Humility is a personal trait you cannot turn off and on depending on your preference. You do not have a humble bone in your body.

"I also gave some principles by which a true Christian lives: Faith, Hope and Charity."

That is also a load of bullshit. You live a life on the run, an itinerant loner who has no roots and no family.

Tin-Man's picture
Re: "With people such as you

Re: "With people such as you I would be a fool to be humble. I am humble with those who deserve it."

Ladies and gentlemen, I dedicate this one to Fergie. My hero, and a true inspiration to us all! Fergie, we love ya, man...

ferguson1951's picture
From the Guardian UK

From the Guardian UK

What is the historical evidence that Jesus Christ lived and died?
Today some claim that Jesus is just an idea, rather than a real historical figure, but there is a good deal of written evidence for his existence 2,000 years ago

Dr Simon Gathercole

How confident can we be that Jesus Christ actually lived?
The historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is both long-established and widespread. Within a few decades of his supposed lifetime, he is mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians, as well as by dozens of Christian writings. Compare that with, for example, King Arthur, who supposedly lived around AD500. The major historical source for events of that time does not even mention Arthur, and he is first referred to 300 or 400 years after he is supposed to have lived. The evidence for Jesus is not limited to later folklore, as are accounts of Arthur.

What did non-Christian authors say about Jesus?
As far as we know, the first author outside the church to mention Jesus is the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who wrote a history of Judaism around AD93. He has two references to Jesus. One of these is controversial because it is thought to be corrupted by Christian scribes (probably turning Josephus’s negative account into a more positive one), but the other is not suspicious – a reference to James, the brother of “Jesus, the so-called Christ”.

About 20 years after Josephus we have the Roman politicians Pliny and Tacitus, who held some of the highest offices of state at the beginning of the second century AD. From Tacitus we learn that Jesus was executed while Pontius Pilate was the Roman prefect in charge of Judaea (AD26-36) and Tiberius was emperor (AD14-37) – reports that fit with the timeframe of the gospels. Pliny contributes the information that, where he was governor in northern Turkey, Christians worshipped Christ as a god. Neither of them liked Christians – Pliny writes of their “pig-headed obstinacy” and Tacitus calls their religion a destructive superstition.

algebe's picture
@Ferguson1951: The evidence

@Ferguson1951: The evidence for Jesus is not limited to later folklore, as are accounts of Arthur.

King Arthur!? Is that your bar for historicity? King Arthur, like Robin Hood, may have been based on an actual person, but the stories about him are universally accepted as legends. You're committing the straw man fallacy by bringing Arthur into your argument about the existence of a historical Jesus. I don't believe in magical swords any more than I believe in magical crosses, nails, and spears.

The evidence for Jesus is not limited to later folklore

Well by your own admission the first reference to Jesus by a non-Christian author was 93AD, which was at least two generations after Jesus' supposed death. That's a heck of a long time in the first century world. Even in the 20th century, "facts" about historical figures became distorted over similar periods. Look at all the legends about Rasputin.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Fergie

@ Fergie

You are just one in a long line of christians with little but budgerigar (parakeet) understanding of 1st century religion and politics.

Here is a cut and paste refresher:
This is the Historical Method : “Depending on the degree of importance of knowing the truth of something we make sure we are being told the truth by checking such things as:
Who is telling us this?
How do I know if I can trust them?
Can their claims be confirmed somehow?”
How do I know if this document is genuine?

1> Tacitus, writing some 40-60 years after the events refers only to the beliefs of the jewish christians in Rome blamed for the Great Fire in 60CE.
2> Josephus makes only one direct reference to "jesus" and that is a late 3rd century interpolation, aka fraud. Neither is it contemporary. The other reference is to James at the Jerusalem Temple. Scholars are still debating which Jesus is referred to, also the phrase brother 'in' christ or brother 'of christ' Again Josephus was writing many years after the events. Not contemporary.
3> Pliny was writing in 112 CE...hardly contemporary and was writing about the legal status of christians, he didn't mention a physical Jesus or christ.
And just in case you go back tpo read your apologetic website again.....
4>Lucian: You are joking aren't you? I quote: "Lucian's statement was written near 170 CE (about 140 years after the crucifixion), and Lucian himself was born in 125 CE (about 95 years after the crucifixion). It seems rather unlikely that Lucian was an eyewitness."

Oh and 'Dr Simon Gathercole" is a fucking theologian you twat. If you do not understand the difference between theologian and historian then you are really out of your fucking depth.

You really should study more if you want to discuss this stuff on this forum.

Cognostic's picture
Oh Fuck: You throw all that

Oh Fuck: You throw all that shit out there as if it means something. None of it is contemporary to the life of Jesus and all of it has been clearly debunked by Historians (Christian and Non-christian alike) NONE OF IT QUALIFIES AS USEFUL EVIDENCE. We already know Christians were talking about Jesus. That is all that can be affirmed through any of these sources.

ferguson1951's picture
Jesus was very critical

Jesus was very critical against the pharisees and doctor of the Law. The Law contained only 10 commandments but the pharisees added over 600 rules, which made life impossible to live, apart from the fact that the rules were only for the lay people because they would not lift a finger to follow them.

The problem is not religion. The problem is mankind and its knack for ruining everything.

algebe's picture
@ferguson1951: The Law

@ferguson1951: The Law contained only 10 commandments

And about half of them are purely about stoking the ego of a jealous, bad-tempered tribal deity. Why aren't there commandments about honoring your children, and not trafficking people? There's nothing about rape or torture, either.

The problem is not religion. The problem is mankind and its knack for ruining everything.

Look around you. Look up the word "irony". Religion is by far the biggest mechanism that mankind has used to "ruin everything". People have died in their millions in religious wars, right down to modern times. People are still dying of preventable diseases because of religion. Countless young lives are blighted by priestly pedophiles. But you're right in the sense that religion is purely a product of mankind.

ferguson1951's picture
Atheists are adamant about

Atheists are adamant about the origin of life (3,5 billion years ago) by chance because it is convenient to them, it fits into their scheme that God does not exist. They cannot prove (produce evidence) that it went like that: they just BELIEVE it. They come up with junk theories that presumably make that rational, logical, "scientific". They spend their lives and money to look for that one evidence that can prove it beyond reasonable doubt, just because they have to prove that there was nothing supernatural in it. They are simply biased.

Cognostic's picture
@ferguson1951: "Atheists are

@ferguson1951: "Atheists are adamant about the origin of life (3,5 billion years ago) by chance."

FFS: Will the ignorance ever cease. Not all atheists are biologists, archaeologists, or geologists. Atheists are people who do not believe in god or gods. The "ORIGIN OF LIFE" Biological or Cosmological has nothing to do with Atheism. Atheism is about "NOT BELIEVING IN GODS." That's it, nothing more.

I will give you evolution. It is completely wrong. There is no reason at all to believe in evolution. You Win. Now, prove your God hypothesis.

David Killens's picture


"Atheists are adamant about the origin of life (3,5 billion years ago) by chance because it is convenient to them, it fits into their scheme that God does not exist."

Many theists accept the theory of evolution and the big bang.

Those scientific theories are built on following the evidence, making intelligent guesses, and peer review. The religious stories are just made up nonsense.

ferguson1951's picture
You atheism has made your

You atheism has made your mind blunt. I have already said that God requires faith, not evidence.
It is OK with me.
To me abiogenesis is just a load of junk. Atheist scientists will never be able to go back 3,5 billion years to see how life arose and in any case I could not care less.
The good news is the New Testament, the new Alliance God made with mankind, by which we are supposed to love our neighbour, that is give people, especially the weakest, the material, psychological and spiritual support that they need.
The fact that almost nobody does it only reveals that mankind is too dumb even to know what is good for it.
It is all in the Bible.The Bible has all the answers, especially the New Testament.
Jesus came to convert the Jews, but they were too stupid to understand and He failed. That is because God does not impose Himself: he leaves people free to accept or refuse (at their own expenses).

John 3 New International Version (NIV)
Jesus Teaches Nicodemus
3 Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.[a]”

4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”[d]

9 “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.

10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11 Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.[e] 14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,[f] 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”[g]

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.

20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

John Testifies Again About Jesus
22 After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized. 23 Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water, and people were coming and being baptized. 24 (This was before John was put in prison.) 25 An argument developed between some of John’s disciples and a certain Jew over the matter of ceremonial washing. 26 They came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan—the one you testified about—look, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him.”

27 To this John replied, “A person can receive only what is given them from heaven. 28 You yourselves can testify that I said, ‘I am not the Messiah but am sent ahead of him.’ 29 The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom’s voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete. 30 He must become greater; I must become less.”[h]

31 The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all.

32 He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony.

33 Whoever has accepted it has certified that God is truthful. 34 For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God[i] gives the Spirit without limit. 35 The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. 36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.

algebe's picture
@Ferguson1951: To me

@Ferguson1951: To me abiogenesis is just a load of junk.

So god's creation of Adam from mud doesn't qualify as abiogenesis?

The fact is life is here. Once it wasn't here. So at some point, life came into being. You're right that we don't know for sure how it happened, but it's premature to say we'll never know. Attributing genesis to god is a surrender to perpetual ignorance (what a great name for an order of nuns--Sisters of Perpetual Ignorance).

Atheist scientists will never be able to go back 3,5 billion years

LOL. And theologians will never be able to go back to the early first century or 6 millennia before the present to check the narratives in the Bible. However, while scientists can deduce knowledge from physical evidence and known processes, theologians will ever be limited to pulling their "knowledge" out of their arses.

Ferguson1951: Why don't you stow your endless Bible quotes and speak for yourself?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Fewrgie

@ Fewrgie

Keep haven't attempted to answer any rational questions to your posts.

You forget, as all theists do, your book is full of the claims of your religion. It is not the evidence for your religion.

I say again, there is not one piece of contemporary evidence for the jesus figure as described in the gospels. NOT ONE.

When confronted by this truth you resort to quotes from texts that were written in the very late 1st century, interpolated, altered and "fixed up" in translations.
The truth is you have no idea (nor anyone else) what was really in the original texts we designate as the synoptic gospels.

We do know each individual author of the texts wrote "the" gospel, not "a" gospel.
They were never intended to be cross referenced, collated into a book and subjected to the idiocy of "infallibility" .
They are all, ALL ANONYMOUS.....and none of them 1st person "eye witness accounts"

We KNOW that early versions of both Luke and Matthew did not contain the nativity should do some reading, as it is, you are, like many of your ilk showing yourself to be a blindfolded fool.

Tin-Man's picture
Re: The Sermon of Fergie

Re: The Sermon of Fergie

Wow! All of a sudden I feel like I am sitting in the pew back in church during my younger days. Hey, Old Man! Why don't you get on the organ and start playing "Amazing Grace". Cog, you can start running up and down the aisles like a lunatic in a fit of Holy Ghost possession. Meanwhile, I will sit in the front pew with my hands raised in the air, head tilted back, eyes closed, and repeatedly murmuring, "Praise the Lord! Thank you Jesus! Thank you Father! Hallelujah! Glory be to God!" I mean, if we are going to have to sit through a sermon every time Fergie makes a post, we might as well set the scene properly.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Tin Man

@ Tin Man

If I was going to play anything it would be either Basin Street Blues, Little Wing or Smoke on the Water church that is....If I knew I would be playing while Fergie was sermonising? Then it would be this.....

Wait for the is Fergie to a T.

Cognostic's picture


RE: "abiogenesis is just a load of junk" It does not matter. This is an atheist site and not a cosmology or biology site. You are in the wrong place. You want to argue with cosmologists not atheists.

RE: "Born Again" You are born again every moment of your life. You are not the person you were when you were 5, You are not the person you were when you were 10. You were not the person you were when you were 15. You are completely confused. You are a process and not a thing. You are in a state of constant momentum. You are not the same person you were yesterday. You began reading this post as one person and finished as another. You are born again with each breath you take. The one thing that seems consistent is your ignorance. No matter who you are you cling to it as though it were a life preserver. What if you were actually born again and woke up to the moment you are living here and now instead of pretending you are special and have a personal relationship with the all powerful creator of the universe. You are deluding yourself.

RE: "Idiotic Bible verses." Is there any valid justification what so ever for listening to this bullshit? Even if there is, how do you choose which verses to pay attention to? Do you just pull out the ones you like or do you equally value the passages of inane stupidity?

David Killens's picture
When I was a practicing

When I was a practicing christian, I always did the WWJD, what would jesus do? I always tried to practice the example set down by jesus. And when I compare my expectations of jesus against this fergie guy, I see the complete opposite. Instead of love, there is hatred. Instead of compassion and understanding, I see ignorance and intolerance.

fergie may read the bible, but what he practices is the complete opposite of what jesus expected of all of us.

I forgive you fergie, you are carrying a terrible burden of hatred, ignorance, and fear. I hope you resolve your issues and live a long and happy life devoid of the toxic sewage you marinate in these days.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.