Major Threat to Religion? Clergy People Coming Out as Atheists

Again proving my point that Religions are flawed, not God nor the Truth of Scripture. I do agree that man cannot grasp the Creator, so He had to reveal Himself, and His intentions to the world to live the Godly life. TRADITIONS of both the religions of Christianity and Judaism are flawed because they also refuse to follow their own Scripture, but adhere to the traditions of men, which, as you say, adopted a lot of pagan mythology in order to "convert" pagan cultures, again against the Instructions of their own Scripture. Nowhere in Scripture will you find the rites of the Pagan Mythologies except when the people they are describing are going against the Instructions that God put in place. The same applies today. I can go into the History with you if you favor the debate at some time, but I will address the second argument that you have.

I believe Albert Einstein put it best when he was only 10 years old in this short, but poinant story. The teacher was railing on this one kid for his faith in God, deriding this kid with the same argument you ended with in a Science Class. Here was Albert's Response:
Excuse me, sir. Do you believe Darkness exists? Yes. Why? When it is night, I can differentiate the Darkness from the light. Sorry sir, Darkness does not exist. We measure all forms of light, waves, beams, bright light/low light. Not Darkness. There is no measurement for varying levels of darkness, so it does not not exist according to the Scientific Method. Continue. Do you believe Cold exists? Yes. How do you know? In the winter, I can experience Cold through my senses. No sir, Cold does not exist. It is the absence of heat. If Cold could be measured, there would not be an absolute zero. We have High heat/low heat, different measurements for heat, but not cold. So, Cold does not exist. Finally sir, Does bad/evil exist? Yes. You just need to read a newspaper to figure that one out. No sir, it does not. It is the ABSENCE OF GOD. You can be somewhat holy, very holy, Christlike even. But evil cannot be measured, only by the absence of of God that people act or show in their own lives.

So, hopefully that answers your argument against such a Creator.

It is a story based on an actual event, just as the Bible is more based on historical events than it is story. There are fictional stories that speak to Spiritual Truths within it--such as parables, but more often a rendition of actual events in human history. Plus, the story I shared had to do more with Scientific Facts, which do have basis in reality, and logic than questioning whether or not the story actually happened in history, which it did--Albert Einstein had a pronounced belief in God. I don't care if Porky Pig was telling the story, it doesn't change the validity of the logic of what is in it. See Albert Einstein knew, just like a lot of Scientists who believe have come to know, True Science validates God's Existence instead of disproving it. The Atom is awesome! With the technology we have today, we had to abandon the traditional "simplicity of the atom", and look at Engineering blueprints to begin to figure out the complexity that happens inside an atom. Even science has TRADITION it doesn't want to shake when new evidence is found.

You may be as heavy in your faith as I am in mine, but I challenge you to the fact that everything else we agree on that you fight against: Illuminati, elite, corruption in politics, evil and senseless war comes from Athiesm, or at the very least disobedience of YAHWEH's Instructions, and the most amoral of men/women come as well as those that want to leave a legacy for themselves--uncaring if that legacy is good or evil. Hitler played to the German people by calling Jews "Christ Killers", but he was a pronounced Evolutionist, Pagan Mystic and Athiest. Only those who have no respect of persons because they believe they are "more evolved" as well as no fear of retribrution can descend to the depths at which these men and women then and today have gone. Stalin forced an Athiestic Soviet Union by killing 20 million believing Russians and Jews. Even those that ruled the Catholic Church in it's Darkest time were hidden Satanists or athiests during the inquisition and Counter Reformation. And only one who has no more respect for man than they have a tree can arbitrarily decide might makes right. If you ever want to email and debate further, I am open to it; however, if you are truly set, then I must respectfully disagree with you and leave it at that.

actually no it isn't based on an actual event,its an urban legend.
einstein was an agnostic.

"Analysis: This apocryphal tale of a college-age Albert Einstein proving the existence of God to his atheist professor first began circulating in 2004. One reason we know it isn't true is that the same story was already making the rounds five years earlier with no mention of Einstein in it at all.

Another reason we know it isn't true is that Einstein was a self-described agnostic who didn't believe in what he called a "personal God." He wrote: "[T]he word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

And, finally, we know it isn't true because Einstein was a careful thinker who wouldn't have abided the specious logic attributed to him here. As written, the argument neither disproves the existence of evil nor proves the existence of God. "

the bible is not historical at all.and has been proven to be inaccurate. the stories are re-tellings and rehashing of events that the hebrews picked up about other older cultures. by the time the bible was 1st being written,the events occurring were ignored by the writers,which was about 650 bce.

and no,the problems in the world are brought about by the religious,those who claim to be christians and zionists . hitler was a catholic who had the pope and the church on his side.
“The fact that the Vatican is concluding a treaty with the new Germany means the acknowledgement of the National Socialist state by the Catholic Church. This treaty shows the whole world clearly and unequivocally that the assertion that National Socialism [Nazism] is hostile to religion is a lie.” Adolf Hitler, 22 July 1933, writing to the Nazi Party. and just like bush,he felt he was doing god's work.
Hitler backed up the notion that all people need faith and religious education: “By helping to raise man above the level of bestial vegetation, faith contributes in reality to the securing and safeguarding of his existence. Take away from present-day mankind its education-based, religious- dogmatic principles-- or, practically speaking, ethical-moral principles-- by abolishing this religious education, but without replacing it by an equivalent, and the result will be a grave shock to the foundations of their existence.” – Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

the Nazi regime began to control schools insisting that Christianity was taught.
The Nazi regime included anti-Semitic Christian writings in textbooks and they were not removed from Christian doctrines until 1961.

The Nazi regime having full blown power over the people began to forcibly convert all its military.

The Nazi regime forced the German soldiers to wear religious symbols such as the swastika and they placed religious sayings on military gear. An example here is this German army belt buckle (I believe my Opa had one) which reads “Gott Mit Uns”. For those of you who do not speak German it is translated as “God With Us”.

The German troops were often forced to get sprinkled with holy water and listen to a sermon by a Catholic priest before going out on a maneuver.
hitler admired martin luther who hated jews. the problem with the jews in germany was one of resentment. not only did they keep themselves isolated in their own community,they thought they were better than everyone else. also they held almost all the banks and law offices. a lot of german farmers were charged usurious rates on loans and lost their farms and homes because of this. hitler rose to power for bringing germany out of crushing economic depression due to the treaty of versailles. by throwing the jewish bankers out of germany and starting a barter system he rejuvenated the german economy id a few yrs.
you do realize the bosheviks were jews don't you?, most of the leading Communists who took control of Russia in 1917-20 were Jews. and this was another reason hitler and the germans hated jews. they were the communists. and they feared communism.
David R. Francis, United States ambassador in Russia, warned in a January 1918 dispatch to Washington: "The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution."14

The Netherlands' ambassador in Russia, Oudendyke, made much the same point a few months later: "Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things."15

"The Bolshevik Revolution," declared a leading American Jewish community paper in 1920, "was largely the product of Jewish thinking, Jewish discontent, Jewish effort to reconstruct."16
As an expression of its radically anti-nationalist character, the fledgling Soviet government issued a decree a few months after taking power that made anti-Semitism a crime in Russia. The new Communist regime thus became the first in the world to severely punish all expressions of anti-Jewish sentiment.17 Soviet officials apparently regarded such measures as indispensable. Based on careful observation during a lengthy stay in Russia, American-Jewish scholar Frank Golder reported in 1925 that "because so many of the Soviet leaders are Jews anti-Semitism is gaining [in Russia], particularly in the army [and] among the old and new intelligentsia who are being crowded for positions by the sons of Israel."18
Summing up the situation at that time, Israeli historian Louis Rapoport writes:19

Immediately after the [Bolshevik] Revolution, many Jews were euphoric over their high representation in the new government. Lenin's first Politburo was dominated by men of Jewish origins

Under Lenin, Jews became involved in all aspects of the Revolution, including its dirtiest work. Despite the Communists' vows to eradicate anti-Semitism, it spread rapidly after the Revolution -- partly because of the prominence of so many Jews in the Soviet administration, as well as in the traumatic, inhuman Sovietization drives that followed. Historian Salo Baron has noted that an immensely disproportionate number of Jews joined the new Bolshevik secret police, the Cheka And many of those who fell afoul of the Cheka would be shot by Jewish investigators.

The collective leadership that emerged in Lenin's dying days was headed by the Jew Zinoviev, a loquacious, mean-spirited, curly-haired Adonis whose vanity knew no bounds.

"Anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka," wrote Jewish historian Leonard Schapiro, "stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with, and possibly shot by, a Jewish investigator."20 In Ukraine, "Jews made up nearly 80 percent of the rank-and-file Cheka agents," reports W. Bruce Lincoln, an American professor of Russian history.21 (Beginning as the Cheka, or Vecheka) the Soviet secret police was later known as the GPU, OGPU, NKVD, MVD and KGB.)
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v1...

you need to do some serious rethinking that atheists are responsible for the horrors of this world. its the religious who are .

First, Einstein was a Deist, which means he believed Athiests just as whack a do as the Religious. I said he had a pronounced faith in God, meaning of unwavering opinion that God, or a Supreme Being, existed--which is the essence of this debate, and he only became increasingly Deist as he got older. Your reasons for saying that it was not have no basis in logic. A. just because there was no mention of the author 5 years earlier neither proves or disproves the validity. I give you the fact that it puts up some questions, but it doesn't change the validity of the logic inside, which was my original point--remember, I don't care if Porky Pig wrote it. B. Just because he never believed in the personal God of Scripture, Einstein was an avid Deist seeing order and engineering that he could not deny. Also, the story did not in any way say, and that's why I accept a personal God. No, it says plainly that evil is the absence of God, not whether or not God is personal or impersonal. Just the way that He set up the universe comes out in the good and absent in Evil. I don't agree with his Deist belief, but neither was he an athiest, nor agnostic.

Scripture has been proven to be very accurate. Historical records in both Egypt with Caananite Construction and Israelite presence found in Goshen as early as 18th Century B.C.E., the Step Pyramid at Sukkot, which has evidence of great, and unprecedented, grain storage around the time of Joseph, as well as with Israel with Invasion in the 14th Century BC.E., tablets written as cries for help from the Canaanites who were being destroyed or assimilated, and Israel settlements and encampments from Archaelogical digs, some of which I was apart of in the mid '90s, finding the Exodus point at the Gulf Of Aqaba, not looking in the land of Egypt against the biblical record, the Real Mt. Sinai in Midian in Saudi Arabia, not some foolish tourist site in the Sinai Peninsula. Noah's Ark being found in Turkey, the real Crucifixion and Burial site(not that stupid Aphrodite Temple that the Catholics claim as Messiah's site), I can go on. Look up the Documentary, The Exodus Revealed on Youtube for starters. This tracks the exploits of Dr. Leonart Moeller from the Karolinski Institute in Sweeden(the ones that bring us the Nobel Prize) as he searches scientifically for evidence.

See, most scientists and archaelogists look in where Religions have placed certain places and events, or find some place where a naturalistic explanation is more acceptable, and then, when they do not find any evidence, claim the Bible is in error. If you follow Scripture to the sites that IT claims things happen, you find plenty of evidence. Also, don't confuse errors in translation that form seeming contradictions when you read it in your native language--English for Example--as contradictions. There are no Contradictions in the Biblical record. We can examine all the apparent contradictions at your leisure, and I can either show you, using the original Hebrew from both Testaments, where either the translation is in error, or there is misunderstandng do to lack of understanding of the Culture of the time period.

Finally, we get to the Biggest thing you are not getting: A lot of Religious, including Hitler and high ranking members of the Catholic Church, ARE Athiest. That is my point. All of what you said I already knew, which is why I immediately went to the Catholic Church after Hitler, who himself was half-Jew. It is why clergy are coming out in their athiesm of your original model. RELIGION does NOT equal FAITH in GOD. A lot of Rabbinic Socialist Zionists who are Jew by Blood only are Athiest. They follow the guidelines of their Religion, which goes against Scripture left and right because with Rabbinical Judaism, Catholicism, and umpteen other Religious systems claim that their rules Supercede that of God's Word. Islam even goes as far with its "word" saying that the later texts in the Koran that contradict the earlier ones that are more peace loving, are null and void. Only what is written later is the true "word". No, men make up their religious systems that try to reinterpret, mix in some paganism, and make themselves the all out authority of Truth, and an athiest like yourself looks at it and goes, well that is a contradiction. Yes, it is a contradiction because man in religion is claiming to be more powerful and have more authority than God, which gives them permission to do their evil acts. Yes, A LOT of Religions cause wars and evil, but those Religions are headed by men and women who either believe there is no God, that They are God and can rewrite the rules, or that they are secretly against God, fighting in rebellion with the other side. Everyone from Muhammud to Rabbis in the Sanhedrin to some of the Darkest Popes in history are guilty of this.

My challenge to you is separate the people claiming to follow the Truth, and just look at the Truth for itself. Every athiest I have known that has seriously taken an objective look at the evidence apart from Religious Influence or staunch commitment to their athiestic worldview, has come out a believer. The clergy, and others in the article that have made the reverse action, are those that have found that their particular Religion is false. My Prayers are with you Irish, and thouroughly enjoy the debate :)

Like I said, patterned Deist philosophy. Infinite Intelligence, Spinoza's God, that does not matter. Nature has been worshipped as a deity such as Gaia for millenia so Spinoza wasn't saying anything new, just trying to explain the unexplainable--again does not disprove the logic of the story. You are stuck on the author. It is "the will not observe the forrest from the trees philosophy here". Point is, Einstein had a faith, either personal or impersonal and leave it at that. Also, I doubt he had that postulation at 10 yrs old.

The Bible is history. Yes, the Dome of the Book in Israel, which contains the Aleppo Kodex, is the oldest COPY of a Biblical text dated to 650 B.C.E., does not mean that the Bible was written in 650 B.C.E. That is like saying the oldest copy of the Illyad that we have dates to 12th Century C.E., therefore Homer was not a real author and someone in the middle ages wrote the Greek novels under such pseudonym. Just because we do not currently have a copy dated previously to 650B.C.E. does not mean that the Aleppo Kodex is in any way an original, nor does it prove that it was authored at the time. In fact, certain Hebraisms and Pictograph meanings of the Hebrew letters are very evident in the copying of the text, and that dates back to the time of Moses, and the culture in 650B.C.E. would have had no knowledge of that culture or the writings of the period which actually proves that they were copying and changing the script as the writing style changed. Kind of why we read the Bible today in Modern English and have trouble understanding Old English copies from 1611 because words aren't used the same way anymore.

Look up the archaelogical evidence. There is plenty. Stop relying on artificial evidence of people looking in the wrong places. There is evidence specifically of Jewish invasion. In fact, in Egyptian record from the 12th Century B.C.E., one of the Pharaohs describing a campaign in the area says, Israel is laid waste. Not the Canaanites, not some traveling nomadic group. After 200 years of occupation, that area was already known as Israel, not some nomads flying around in other people's lands. Watch that video. It is a documentary by skeptics and believers, so you can judge for yourself at the visual evidence.

I am sorry, Irish, not true. God wrote originally, and it was placed in the Ark of the Covenant on the plain Surrounding Mt. Sinai, before that was placed there, Moses had Scribes of the Levite tribe painstakingly make one from the original, and there are eons of Historical evidence, mostly from the Cultures surrounding Israel. Even the Canaanite Tribes knew how to write because they pled for help in the 14th Century B.C.E. to the Pharaoah Happanaptra(Sp?) for help against the invasion. Egypt and China had written languages that predate that time period that spread beyond the religious and royalty. You cannot compare the polytheistic tribes of the area with Israel. Especially since they lived for 400 years under Egyptian tyranny and slavery(which did not happen overnight), so they had to learn in order to live in that culture. They became more educated than their polytheistic brothers by the time the first Torah was enscribed in stone in the Mid 14th Century B.C.E.

In Israel, remains have been found of Canaanite Cities that have been demolished, and there gods heads and hands severed around the same time period. Only one group of people would do that to Idols. Polytheists had a code that when you conquered a land, you respected the gods of that land so as not to cause their anger. Around 18th Cent. B.C.E., evidence has been found for the remains of Sodom, Gommorah, Zeboim, on the old Cannanite borders of the Red Sea that stand to this day as an ensample, part of my research in 2004, and I saw it with my own eyes. Exact 90 Degree angles and Sulfer that is so pure and all over that area like candy.

There were only 70yrs between early 1400s B.C.E and 68 C.E. that Israel did not exist as a nation in that area. Granted, from the Babylonian exile of the Northern Kingdom, only 2 of the Tribes from the defunct Southern Kingdom, Judah and Levi, remained in Israel from around 450B.C.E. until 68C.E. The Northern Tribes were scattered to the 4 corners of the globe. In fact, the word Jew comes from the tribe of Judah, Judeo, Yahudah, in Hebrew.

Settlements have been found all over like horse maneur, the biggest piece is the Temple, itself, It has been cited by major universities in the Karolinski Institute in Sweeden, among other prestigious Universities, to evidence being found.

See, it would be a major detriment to the Islamic faith, and the Arab claim to the land for such sites to be exposed and adequately investigated. So, like in Saudi Arabia around Jabal El Laws, and in the Gulf of Aqaba, there are laws that prohibit independent research. In the Gulf, you cannot lift up Coral from the sea floor to investigate it because the last one to do it in the late 80s brought his findings to the Egyptian Antiquities Department, their leading researcher came out of his office without knowing the story or where the Coral was found stated that the coral in his office was an 18th Dynasty Chariot wheel. In Saudi Arabia, there is a fence around Jabal El Laws to prohibit in depth investigation of the sight by anyone outside the Saudi Government, and Bedouins will shoot you if they find you violating that order.

You want to hold to that belief that there is no evidence, I cannot stop you. It is simply not the case. The evidence exists, and is overwhelming to someone actually searching for the Truth. If you are not, then to quote Scripture, you would not believe even "if you saw someone rise from the dead." Any evidence can be twisted and discounted if someone refuses to believe in such things. I wish you the best in your quest, but remember: if there are people that will hide and conspire about things, and predetermine an education system to indoctrinate people into Socialism, Then the same can be true for other things as well.

The universities and heads of religion control the documents and the evidence. What no one wants is people thinking, reading, and looking at the evidence objectively for themselves. You might actually come to a conclusion that you have INALIENABLE RIGHTS that cannot be taken away because they were given to you by a Creator, not government nor even the Constitution. See, if men and Government give you rights, men and Government have full ability to take them away. If God gives you rights, men nor Government have any power over the people except to Govern and serve to make sure no one else tries to take those rights away. Have a Glorious Day!

"...if you think about it properly, the belief in no god, is still a belief ..." No it ISN'T. It is this kind of loose and woolly-headed thinking that critical thinking teaches you how to avoid.

Here's how to understand it. Imagine Christianity, say, is a bucket of strawberries, Islam is a bucket of figs and Buddhism is a bucket of apricots. Ask an atheist what's in his bucket; he'll say "What bucket?". You assume that everyone has a bucket and it must be full of something, and that even the atheist has an empty one. We don't think there's a bucket.

You see you are suggesting that atheism is a belief in no god, but it isn't, it's no belief in god, and the order of the words here IS significant.

Admittedly there ARE people out there who have a belief that there's no god, and some of them are atheists, but this atheist, working on the strict definition of the word, simply DOES NOT BELIEVE that there IS A GOD.

"...and there is a large organized group of people with that belief..." No there isn't. There are many individuals out there who are atheists, but they do not constitute an organised group BECAUSE they do not share a belief. In fact the REASON it is NOT an organised group is that we DON'T hold any common beliefs.

That's like saying everyone in the US who does not own a gun are members of a large organised group. They aren't, they simply, for many different reasons, don't own a gun.


"..What threatens religion is people like you..." Yes, I do, if you will admit that the intellectual rigour of my arguments is persuasive, particularly since I think that religion is the most significant hindrance to peace in the world and rational enquiry.

"...the ill-informed..." Says YOU? Who writes "too" when you mean "to"? I submit that I am SIGNIFICANTLY better informed than you. But you made the assertion that I am ill informed in your reply, so please demonstrate why you believe this assertion to be true. Evidence is required.

"...who think they know everything..." When did I claim that?

"...and are self-righteous enough to believe they are smarter than all those around them..." I don't need to be self righteous to be aware of my own intellectual capacity. I know my own IQ and therefore at what level my "smarts" are. If you think I am self righteous I apologise if I gave you that impression, but I beg you to consider that ANYONE who takes a contrary position to yours is likely to appear that way, especially when I can produce evidence or logic to support my position.

"..Thats what threatens religion and has been ruining religions for years..." No, what threatens religion is simply thinking for oneself and searching for evidence rather than blindly accepting what other people tell you.

I would have to disagree. You cannot prove to me that there is no God. The burden of proof always lies on the Negative, or Prosecution, as Athiests really are. You have to believe in the absolute that there is no God. I would further postulate that the majority of Athiests have to adhere to some form of Macro-evolution, or their whole belief system falls apart. Faith is an act of will by mental assent as well as by physical action that puts you under a specific worldview. Athiests have no congregations, except the meeting halls of most Prestigious Universities as they threaten any physical or historical evidence to any theory that does not represent an Old Earth or Darwinistic Philosophy. That sounds a lot to me like a Radical Muslim who threatens Jihad when Hebrew Sandal Engravings are found all over Saudi Arabia, including Mecca. No, you have to have faith that you are right, and that human science provides all the evidence needed to refute God, otherwise, you wouldn't need to rejoice every time the slightest bit of news that seems to favor your worldview comes across your table.

See, to a believer, the above article doesn't shake my faith in the least because I do not rely on Religions or Clergy to justify my position. I've had enough personal experience and read enough historical evidence to bolster by faith beyond reproach. All this says to me is that Clergy of Religions that are becoming athiests either believe in false Worldviews like Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. or are reading the Correct Worldview trying to make it fit with their Religious Contradictions coming to the conclusion that their own faith doesn't follow the God they claim to, so there musn't be a God. Very poor logic, but someone so into their faith cannot stomach to come to the other conclusion--that their Religion in fact is going against the God they claim to worship so the religion is worthless.

Hope that helps clarify my position.

Of course not. That is why the burden of proof in any formal debate is on the person who proposes the existence of something.

Incidentally, your equation means nothing until you specify the meanings of the symbols you used.

Pi is nearly always used to represent the ratio of the radius of a circle to its circumference and, as such, would be unlikely to play any role in the proof of the existence of god. (The bible actually has one of the least accurate numerical values for pi by making it 3.)

Omega, however, can mean lots of things:
ohm – SI unit of electrical resistance

angular frequency

In statistical mechanics Ω refers to the multiplicity (number of microstates) in a system.

The solid angle or the rate of precession in a gyroscope.
In particle physics to represent the Omega baryons.
In astronomy (cosmology) Ω refers to the density of the universe, also called the density parameter.
In astronomy (orbital mechanics), Ω refers to the longitude of the ascending node of an orbit

In mathematics / computer science: in notation related to Big O notation to describe the asymptotic behavior of functions.

Chaitin's constant.

In mathematics In complex analysis, the Omega constant, a solution of Lambert's W function
A variable for a 2-dimensional region in calculus, usually corresponding to the domain of a double integral.
In topos theory, the (codomain of the) subobject classifier of an elementary topos.
In combinatory logic, the looping combinator, (λ x. x x) (λ x. x x)
In group theory, the omega and agemo subgroups of a p-group, Ω(G) and ℧(G)
In statistics, it is used as the symbol for the sample space, or total set of possible outcomes.
In number theory, Ω(n) is the number of prime divisors of n.

C is usally indicitive of an arbitrary constant.

So please tell us what each of these symbols means.

"If precedent has been set for millenia, which belief in God has..."

Yes, but not ONE PARTICULAR GOD and not by everyone. Also, we do this thing called "moral development" as time goes by.

Suggesting that something is right because "we have always done it that way" would suggest that we should still be keeping slaves and treating women as property.

And not believing in god is hardly a "new idea". After all, atheism has been around since before your god was invented.

You keep trying to inflate atheism (it doesn't have a capital letter) to a "worldview", which it is not. In the same way that not believing in the merit of horeshoes above your door is not a worldview.

People have been (in general) superstitious to a larger extent in the past than they are now. So now please prove (for by your argument the burden is on you) why astrology, fairies and the existence of the Krishna are NOT true. Do you see what I mean.

Essentially you are making a proposition that there's a god. I am not making a proposition at all, I'm just asking you to show me some evidence or reason that would persuade me to take up this belief rather than to not do so.

You are making a proposition, I am not.

You are making a positive assertion or as you call it, afirmation. Fine. I am not making an assertion. I am saying something like "Oh really? That's an interesting idea. What convinces you and might convince me that it is true?"

You seem to think that I am asserting that there is no god. False. I do NOT make any such assertion. I simply do not happen to think that there is one, and I have seen no compelling evidence to change that, but if I do, I will. I will be unable NOT to believe it as I am currently unable to believe it.

Belief is not a choice; you are convinced by something (argument, logic, evidence or perhaps faith in the words of a trusted friend or mentor) or you are not. That's all there is to it.

And if you think atheism is new you are sadly mistaken.

The logical falicy in the middle part of the above is where you paint atheism as a "new Idea" and the belief in your (I presume Christian God) as old.

It is the other way around. After all, three thousand years ago, NO-ONE believed in Jesus as the son of god and only about 50,000 people believed in his predecessor. At what point did the "New" idea (Jesus is God) show the evidence required by your logic to displace the old?

"This is why you bring evidence of clergy becoming athiests as a "nail in the coffin" of the defense..." No I didn't, and if you look carefully at my original answer you will see that.

And yes, I DO agree in part with your last point...

In order to Postulate that one particular God is true, one has to believe in any existence of God first. To try to show you evidence of one God over another would be futile without the inital Postulate being agreed on, so that first argument falls apart, especially since everyone agreed that God existed, just to His nature, how many, etc., there was disagreement.

Also, there is no set pattern for moral development, like an "evolution" of morality. That makes morality relative, and subject to change as time goes on. No, history has shown over and over again that Morality is a constant, and how close or how far one's religious system, culture or worldview adheres to that Constant is how prosperous and dare I say, blessed, in order, civility and achievement for mankind.

No, I am not suggesting that. Any truth must live up to and withstand scrutiny. How many Scientific and Mathematic postulates over the Centuries changed or were abandoned due to increase in knowledge and understanding of how things work? In the same sense though, how many have stayed the same? The idea or premise was done away with, though, ONLY when a new formula, hypothesis, proved to be more reliable after intense scrutiny of it's own.

Keeping slaves and treating women as property was scrutinized and put up against the Morality Constant and found dutifully lacking. Even in the times when that was the Cultural Norm, Scripture only validated voluntary servitude out of love and treating your wife as He treats us. According to the law, one released their slaves every 7 years. They weren't allowed to use people. Pretty counter-cultural if you are claiming men entrenched in that culture wrote this.

Yes, Athiesm is a new idea. Yes, there were many individuals who did not believe in the Existence of God at least since the time of greek Philosophy-though that was based in the worship of the goddess Sophia, Greek goddess of Wisdom, as well as older in some Eastern Thought, though the thought of a balance and thought greater than themselves was always prevalent; however, no one coalesced it into a dominant worldview, or came out as more than an agnostic to challenge the dominant thoughts until much later in development: Niche being one of the most outspoken on the subject as attacking the Status Quo. He, Sartre and others combined into the Enlightenment Movement, which was the first attempt to present the Athiestic Worldview logically. It held a tighter hold in Europe, to which it Spread to Asia, but took a lot longer to gain a root system here.

I assert Athiesm with a capital A because to be a true Athiest, you must agree with the worldview that there is no God. Otherwise, you are an agnostic who is open to debate, and to the idea that there might be one. Also, the heart of the Athiestic Worldview lies in the A. A-theism. Without God. Where as A-Gnostic is just an admission. I don't have enough knowledge to make a decision of faith.

As far as your challenge, I really don't have to prove that they don't exist, just that they are not what people think they are. Demons can take many different forms and track very convincing arguments to, as you said, a fearful and easily supersticious people. Plus, when put up against the Moral Constant, they are considerably lacking. The most convincing, however, would be an historical argument. Most Eastern and Western Polytheistic rituals were/are the same. Their gods have the exact same birthdays, do similar things, and have similar symbols that represent them. From Woden's Pole in the middle of a fire to the Obelisk of Ra to the Roman Mithra's Cross to the Druidic Stonehenge to the Flaming Shiva of Hinduism. This tells me that they all came from the same source, and since the tongues were confuses at Babel, it makes perfect sense that all those Supersticions came from the same "Land of Shinar" Babylonian Source. Before you try to use this against me, the Pagan influence in Christianity and Jewish traditions came from man-made outside sources. You won't find them in Scripture, and one day I can guarantee Yeshua of Nazareth was not born, December 25th with Tammuz, Nimrod, Woden, Zeus, Shiva and all the others. In fact, he was born in the 7th Biblical month on the 15th day at the beginning of the Feast of Sukkot, but that is for a different arguement on a different day.

You do, however, presume falsely that I believe Christianity is older than Athiesm, though as a Coalescent Worldview, what you would call Christianity, as a religion, developed around the same time period--Eatern thought may have preceded it as well as Western Philosophy is a tad older. The Judeo-Christian worldview, which includes all the history that is written in the totality of Scripture, not just the date of the oldest Copy of the Aleppo/Ben-Asher Kodex, is much older than the Polytheistic ones that rebelled against it, and much older than Athiesm or athiesm.

In the end, I am glad we can agree on something, even if it is just in part, and as I said: Evidence after evidence can be shown, but anything Supernatural, such as belief or disbelief in God, will always take a measure of faith. Any athiest or agnostic truly searching for the Truth will find it, if they are searching with an open heart. If you already are predisposed, I can show you miracles, and you will explain it away. I am thankful for the discussion, thank you for such an intellectually and faith bolstering discussion!