Arian's "Atheism" | Split From "My Lord, I'm an Atheist"

[Recusant]

I'm sure you believe in the Big-bang theory, right?

As a short-hand description of my view of the consensus in current cosmology, that is not inaccurate.  

How much of that theory do you understand, down to the quantum gravitation level?

Quantum gravitation? There are people trying to develop models of quantum gravity, but no one "understands" the "quantum gravitation level," whatever that is. To answer your question, I try to keep up with developments in the field of cosmology, and like to think that I have a reasonably accurate layman's understanding of the basic concepts in modern cosmology.

What was the 'point in space' that the universe at the 'Planck Epoch' resided in getting ready to create 'space/time' in?

Why do you say "point in space"? There is no evidence that "space" as we know it even existed in the Planck era. If you know anything about cosmology, you know that current science says nothing at all about the singularity which is thought to have existed in the Planck era, nor about a continuum in which it might have existed, let alone whether such a concept is applicable to that era. There is no answer to your question, and it's possible that there never will be an answer in which we could place any confidence.

Of the thousands upon thousands of books written on the Big-bang theory alone, how many have you read, how many have you studied? Have you weighed out all the hypothesis relating to the Gravitational singularity? What was before time/space was created by the big bang? There are a lot of ideas out there and some contradict the others, have you weight them all out? Which idea, or theory did you pick and why?

I'm not going to bother to recite for you what books I have and haven't read on the topic of cosmology, and in fact most of my recent reading on it comes from such publications as Sky and Telescope and Astronomy, as well as from places like ScienceDaily.com and any papers published online that I get access to.

Your questions above reveal a striking ignorance of the topic. There is no one "Gravitational singularity," for instance. That term is used to describe various possible phenomena. Cosmologists might speculate on "what was before time/space was created by the big bang," but no reputable cosmologist will tell you that they have anything approaching a solid hypothesis on it.

How many 'atheists' understand the big bang theory to the quantum level, and make up their own ideas as to what might of bring about the ... oh whatever was there first, maybe just 'energy' acting upon 'energy' or just some unknown 'information'?

I don't know the answer to that question. Why do you consider it relevant? Atheism is not predicated on an understanding of modern cosmology; it is merely a position on the existence of gods: Some atheists believe that gods do not exist, while others merely believe that they are extremely unlikely to exist. I think many atheists are probably aware of the fact that cosmologists unequivocally state that nothing is known about what might have occurred in the Planck era. This admission by no means suggests that the late Bronze Age mythology found in the Bible, or the similarly uninformed mythology found in the Quran, contain valid insights into cosmology.

Do people who don't know everything there is to know about the theory of the Big bang have a right to believe in it? How about 'biological evolution'? How much of those that believe 'evolution' to be a fact know 'about' evolution? Generally people belive in a 'mangled version', I'm sure you must agree.

Your point? If I were involved in a discussion and read a statement which presented cosmology or evolutionary biology in what I knew or thought to be an inaccurate manner, I would point out the inaccuracies and/or request supporting information from reputable sources. If somebody started presenting their thoughts on one of these topics and then admitted they didn't really understand it, I would question the value of their opinions, and most likely dismiss them. The ignorance of the general public on these topics doesn't seem relevant to this discussion.

As I was reading up alittle on those in history that did not believe in the Trinity doctrine, the main points on Tillich was mentioned. But yes, it would be a good idea for those interested to read Tillich for themselves.

I have read some of his thoughts on "god above God" and interestingly, he uses the Christian trinity in his description of his god, so I'm not sure why you think that he agrees with your unitarian position. Perhaps you might tell me where you read about Tillich's writings, so that I might try to understand why you think his theological ideas support your position.

You do sincerely believe that Jesus is God, right?

Of course not. Jesus is the Son of God, who repeatedly claimed His Father was greater than he. And those 'Christian religions' that don't believe in the trinity, made up their own versions of god, like Jehovah, the Sabbath, Allah, Joseph Smith and on and on.

We'll ignore the Biblical basis for the common Christian understanding that Jesus is the Christian god for the moment. Please explain what you think Jesus was. A prophet, maybe?

He was the Messiah, as described in the Bible:

John 1:1-3
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
NKJV

In the beginning was the Word, and we know God has no beginning, and we know Jesus is the Word of God. Before God sent His Son the Word into the world, He was 'with God' and before that, the 'Word' was God as Eve was Adam before God took her out of him.

This passage says that, "the Word was God," and you say that "the Word" is Jesus. Yet you also say that Jesus is not God. I look forward to your explanation of why this isn't the glaring contradiction that it appears to be.

Your analogy with Eve and Adam appears to be a fabrication; nowhere in the Bible does it say that Eve was "with Adam" before God supposedly created her from Adam's rib.

There is also an unwarranted assumption in your formulation. Something that exists "in the beginning" may have existed before the beginning. There is nothing in the Bible which says that "the Word" only began to exist "in the beginning."

John 1:14
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
NKJV

The Word (the begotten Son of God) became flesh, implanted as a DNA into the egg of virgin girl named Mary by the Holy Spirit, and was born and named Jesus.

Why is "His" capitalized in this passage, if Jesus is not God? Is the "Son of God" merely human, in your opinion? If he is not merely human, is he some sort of god/human hybrid? Where is DNA mentioned in the Bible?

Please cite a reputable authority who says that the translation of "Χριστιανός" is "Christ-like," which is what I asked you to do in the first place. While you're at it, you might give a historic basis for your assertions regarding the theology of "the Gentile church."

CHRISTIAN

CHRISTIAN. A Christian is a believer in and a follower of Jesus Christ the Messiah. This name is more widely employed than any other designation of those who believe unto salvation. However, it occurs in the Scriptures only three times: "And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch" (Acts 11:26); "and Agrippa replied to Paul, 'In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian'" (26:28); "If anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not feel ashamed" (1 Peter 4:16). The term Christian is clearly a Gentile designation for believers because the word Christ, upon which the term was constructed, suggests recognition of the Messiah, which no unbelieving Jew was prepared to do. Becoming a Christian, according to the NT, is a definite act with significant results. According to Lewis Sperry Chafer, no fewer than thirty-three simultaneous and instantaneous divine undertakings and transformations, which collectively constitute the salvation of a soul, take place the moment one exercises faith in Christ and is saved. Among these is that a believer in Christ has the guilt of his sins removed. Second, he is taken out of Adam, the sphere of condemnation, and placed in Christ, the sphere of righteousness and justification. Third, he is given a new standing by virtue of his being placed "in Christ" by the Spirit's baptizing work (1 Cor 12:13; Rom 6:3-4). A Christian then, as Chafer says, "Is not one who does certain things for God but . . . one for whom God has done certain things; he is not so much one who conforms to a certain manner of life as he is one who has received the gift of eternal life; he is not one who depends upon a hopelessly imperfect state but rather one who has reached a perfect standing before God as being in Christ" (Systematic Theology, 7:75).
(from The New Unger's Bible Dictionary. Originally published by Moody Press of Chicago, Illinois. Copyright (c) 1988.)

Thank you. Nowhere in that quote from the New Unger's (including the section you bolded) does it say that "Χριστιανός" is correctly translated as "Christ-like." If this is the best you can do, I think it is reasonable to retire that particular assertion as unsupported and apparently unsupportable, thus invalid.

What was Constantine's definition of "Christian"? (Preferably supported by a reputable source.) Who were those that remained 'followers of Christ, or Christ-like,' and where are they mentioned in history? You of course are aware that Constantine reconciled with the Arians and was baptized by an Arian bishop.

The Arians at the time were very influential, but when he opposed the Trinity Doctrine, I believe he was killed, and his books burnt, and those kept were reinterpreted.

Besides the point, I argued against the Trinity doctrine way before I learned of Arian. I was actually called an Arian-heretic, and so I looked him up.

Are you unable to give Constantine's definition of "Christian," despite the fact that you specifically said that the contemporary true followers of Christ rejected that definition? If we don't know what these people rejected, how are we to distinguish them from (presumably) false Christians of that era?

It seems that you are saying that the Arians were the true followers of Christ; at least we've established that.

The man's name was Arius, by the way, not "Arian," and the story of his death does not mention anybody killing him. There was later conjecture that he may have been poisoned, but it remains a conjecture, not a historical fact.

. . .as I pointed out, you can not tell us what was in Constantine's heart, nor what his faith was or wasn't, whatever his actions were.

But atheists are allowed to point out the contradicting actions of Christians? Our actions reveal a big part of who we are.

Our actions may reveal a big part of who we are, depending on how closely those actions actually reflect who we are, and depending on how others interpret them. Your first sentence seems to be another non sequitur.

You remind me of other Christians we've had trotting through here spouting their personal re-definitions of commonly understood terms and acting as if they're bestowing some profound wisdom on the benighted unbelievers. Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

You do call yourselves 'atheists' am I right? You have a place to gather, those who you share yor testemonials with and so on, right? You have a 'belief sytem' of which theistic gods you don't believe in, right? Two sides of the same coin. You are actually closer to knowing Bible-God than the Theists. They are hopeless because they think they 'know' they are right.

Yes, many here call themselves atheists, but we have Christian members and Muslim members as well. We've had members who believe in Sikhism, and pagans, etc.

Atheism is not a "belief system," arian. It is a (negative) position regarding the existence of gods. Atheists can (and do) believe any number of things aside from their lack of belief in gods. You betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the term "atheist" here, and I suspect you will refuse to acknowledge that you are repeating a common canard which has been parroted by religious people for years.

Yes, I don't believe in any of those 'theistic gods'. Theism 'does NOT necesseraly include the God of the Bible', and my GOD is very necesseraly the Bible God, and ONLY the Bible God. Not 'may, or may not' be.

You can redefine "theism" to your heart's content, but there's no reason why anybody should give serious consideration to the products of your peculiar predilection for willful inaccuracy.

[arian (Banned)]

ok...still confused on how you came to view yourself as not a theist.

Where did you get your understanding of the word theist and how did you cram the concept of angels and demons into it?

To be completely blunt, I think you have to be trolling the forum because you are pulling your definitions of theist and atheist out of left field.  I was hoping that you defining all of those words would help to show you that you are really still a theist but your understanding of the word theist is fundamentally flawed as you are arbitrarily considering what you believe to be "the creator" as being God that somehow isn't a god.  Philosophically you appear to be all over the place.

What argument do you have for ignoring these basic (and widely accepted) definitions?
http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/t.htm#theism
http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a9.htm#athe

I am NOT preaching, I am revealing the truth.

Actually you were just throwing out bible verses that have no apparent application given the context in which they were provided.  Much closer to preaching than providing rational arguments or proof.

God, as with Adam and Eve, no theism yet, no god or gods yet, but only ONE God who Is. Creator and Father of all created, including the begotten Son.

Please point out my missuse of Scripture, I will gladly retract it.

A 'common' definition of Jesus is that He is God, .. right? That is not true of Bible Jesus, but it is very true in Christianity today. I do not 'follow' a Christin religious version of Jesus, but a Bible version/definition One. So tell me, what should I do?

Have I fallen? Help me up.

[Whitney]

God, as with Adam and Eve, no theism yet, no god or gods yet, but only ONE God who Is. Creator and Father of all created, including the begotten Son.

If we entertain Adam and Eve as actual people and not just mythical beings...they were theists because they believed God was/is real.  It's really that simple.

Please point out my missuse of Scripture, I will gladly retract it.

you quoted it for no practical reason in the context of your 'argument'...aka preaching.

A 'common' definition of Jesus is that He is God, .. right? That is not true of Bible Jesus, but it is very true in Christianity today. I do not 'follow' a Christin religious version of Jesus, but a Bible version/definition One. So tell me, what should I do?

I think you should quit butchering the English language in an attempt to disassociate yourself from mainstream Christianity.  For the record, most christian churches accept the trinity even if their followers suck at understanding it.  Not to mention that the bible doesn't actually mention the trinity the idea of it was developed in order to reconcile there being only one God with the idea of Jesus as the son without having to make Jesus into a minor God and change the religion into polytheism.

[Asmodean]

Have I fallen? Help me up.

Sorry, what?!

Have you fallen? Get up, brush off the dust and move on. Don't wait for a stranger to assist you.

[Too Few Lions]

Arian, if you believe Jesus is your saviour and the son of your god you're a Christian, plain and simple. That's what defines a Christian, and just about the only thing that has defined all Christians throughout history.

You're not the first Christian I've seen on this forum claiming that they're not a Christian. We had a guy who called himself 'Earthling' doing the same thing last year. He believed the Bible was the 'Word of God' and that Jesus was the 'Son of God', but got quite angry if he was called a Christian. Thankfully, you're a lot better natured than he was, but I'd still define you as a Christian, and definitely not an atheist. If you were an atheist, you wouldn't believe in your fairy tale Bible god.

Given that you believe in the god of the Bible, and believe that Jesus is your saviour and the son of your god, in what way do your beliefs differ from those of Christians? (given that there are and have been many different types of Christians).

[Ali]

I guess I just don't understand why you are clinging to the label "atheist" when every conventional definition of the word would be directly opposite of what you believe.  I'm starting to think that you're just trying to whip us into some sort of atheist "Well Actually"* frenzy.

*My husband's cousin once pointed out that that entire side of the family constantly uses the phrase "well actually" to correct each other because they can't stand to let an inaccuracy pass, uncommented upon.  That's exactly how I'm starting to feel about this thread. 

[Firebird]

Sorry Arian, but you've lost this person too. Speaking just for myself (though I suspect others may agree with me), when you start citing the bible and passages in it to support your argument, I can't take you seriously. As far as I'm concerned, the bible is a collection of stories from people, not the word of god or any other mystical being. It means just as much to me as it does the koran or any other religious text; interesting historical documents, but not to be taken literally.
This does not mean I am close-minded, as you have implied that people who call themselves  "atheists" or "theists" are. I am simply declaring that I am skeptical of anything without evidence. You have not cited any real evidence to support your position, which can barely be defined anymore anyway. You call yourself atheist, yet you speak of higher beings by citing a religious text that contains fantastic stories that have never been proven.
As far as I'm concerned, you're a theist, and probably Christian. I wouldn't normally have an issue with that, except that you're trying to deny it using long, circular arguments that ultimately say nothing.

[arian (Banned)]

God, as with Adam and Eve, no theism yet, no god or gods yet, but only ONE God who Is. Creator and Father of all created, including the begotten Son.

If we entertain Adam and Eve as actual people and not just mythical beings...they were theists because they believed God was/is real.  It's really that simple.

Adam and Eve mythical beings? Does Galileo, Abraham Lincoln and all them others in history fall into that same category? I have seen pictures/paintings of them, oh yea, a bunch of books too, so what separates them from Adam and Eve?

What gives 'cave-paintings', you know those that supposedly contribute to the 'proof' that evolution is a 'fact', have any more credibility then the stories in the Bible?

"Theism is the belief in God or gods, the capital G God is 'not necessarily of the Bible'." What good would such word do for Adam and Eve?

Gods command: "You shall have no other gods before Me" came long 'after', when the world was already full of theistic gods.

Please point out my misuse of Scripture, I will gladly retract it.

you quoted it for no practical reason in the context of your 'argument'...aka preaching.

Oh, ... I guess that was pointing my error out, because 'you' found no particular reason for 'me' using it?!? Could you tell me 'when you' believe would be a good reason 'for me' to quote Scripture?

A 'common' definition of Jesus is that He is God, .. right? That is not true of Bible Jesus, but it is very true in Christianity today. I do not 'follow' a Christian religious version of Jesus, but a Bible version/definition One. So tell me, what should I do?

I think you should quit butchering the English language in an attempt to disassociate yourself from mainstream Christianity.

So I guess that the word 'bitch' now relates to all women who experience agitation during their monthly period? If I should use it in its original meaning, I would be 'butchering the English language'?

For the record, most Christian churches accept the trinity even if their followers suck at understanding it.

Not just the followers, but the Ministers, the leaders themselves are lost in the concept of it. I once heard Adrian Rogers on TV to his millions of audiences explain the trinity doctrine like this: "Humpty dumpty sat on a wall, humpty dumpty had a great fall, all the kings horses and all the kings men, could not put humpty back together again, ... now that speaks to me!"
The crowd roared in applause.

Not to mention that the bible doesn't actually mention the trinity the idea of it was developed in order to reconcile there being only one God with the idea of Jesus as the son without having to make Jesus into a minor God and change the religion into polytheism.

The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus IS the Son, so there was never a need for this doctrine. The Trinity clearly defines 3 gods, as on a triangle; Top is 'Father-god', then 'Son-god', and finally 'Spirit-god', with clear explanation that the Father-god is NOT the Son-god, who's not the 'Spirit-god' who is NOT the 'Father-god'. These three-gods (who), make up God the(what), that is the 'idea' of God, or the Churches idea of God.
It is this Trinity Doctrine that split our Creator into three (plural) so the Pagan Christian church could accept Him into their 'poly-Theistic religion'.

Maybe it is not I who butchers the English language, or any language?

[arian (Banned)]

Have I fallen? Help me up.

Sorry, what?!

Have you fallen? Get up, brush off the dust and move on. Don't wait for a stranger to assist you.

LOL, ... boy you sure are a 'Happy Atheist' Asmodean.

Yes, ... I do get up, .. pop my joints back in place and I go onward. Asking someone to help me just made it worse, even slowed me down ... especially that  look on their faces when they heard the 'pop' noise.

Thank you.

[Whitney]

If you can't figure out where the line is between using scripture to support the statements you are making and just quoting it because you think it is "the truth" then you can be banned along with all the other preachers who have come by here.  Consider this fair warning.  

As for everything else, it's completely pointless trying to reason with you because you are not trying at all and are wrong on so many things I don't even know where to begin.

[xSilverPhinx]

Your posts are a bit confusing, I specially don't see why you don't consider yourself to be just as Christian as the rest who call themselves that and believe that Jesus is the son of god.

You mentioned Adam and Eve. Are you a literalist? ???

You also keep quoting bible parts. Maybe it would be simpler if you mentioned which parts you don't agree with, since it really does look like you are a bible-believing Christian. ???

As was mentioned before, 'atheism' is just an umbrella statement for a diverse group of people who don't believe in the existence of gods. You keep mentioning that you believe in a god or the "source of all being" and you call that a 'god'.

What exactly is this "source of all being". Some sort of pantheistic god? Looks a bit like Brahman...

And just a tip: ease up on the bible versus, they don't really hold any argumentative value for atheists, unless you can substantiate them with evidence or arguments that are not linked to the bible. Circular reasoning can get a bit boring after a while...   

[arian (Banned)]

Your posts are a bit confusing, I specially don't see why you don't consider yourself to be just as Christian as the rest who call themselves that and believe that Jesus is the son of god.

You mentioned Adam and Eve. Are you a literalist? ???

May I ask if you litterally believe Darwins books? How about Stephen Hawkings, .. which book or books do you take litterally?

You also keep quoting bible parts. Maybe it would be simpler if you mentioned which parts you don't agree with, since it really does look like you are a bible-believing Christian. ???

I believe in the Bible because it answered everything that happened in my life, and helped me ask the right questions. But I have been warned over and over not to quote the Bible, ... I guess any other religious book is OK.
I am not to call myself an atheist, but it is OK for atheists to go on Christian forums and bash Jesus, God, the Bible and the concept of Jesus teachings., ... but I am not allowed to quote the Bible here... poor, very poor.

As was mentioned before, 'atheism' is just an umbrella statement for a diverse group of people who don't believe in the existence of gods. You keep mentioning that you believe in a god or the "source of all being" and you call that a 'god'.

What exactly is this "source of all being". Some sort of pantheistic god? Looks a bit like Brahman...

Do you believe in any gods? No, .. right? And that's OK. I am introducing you to the God of the Bible, only I am asked not to quote the Bible anymore. Hmm...
Is an atheist allowed to call himself a Christian on this forum, (other than me) without getting kicked off? I'm sure it would be fine, right?

And just a tip: ease up on the bible versus, they don't really hold any argumentative value for atheists, unless you can substantiate them with evidence or arguments that are not linked to the bible. Circular reasoning can get a bit boring after a while...   

Funny, ... only the Bible cant hold up an argument on an atheist forum, but any other book may be used.  ???

[Whitney]

arian, why are you being so obtuse?

You are allowed to quote the bible IF doing so as part of an overall argument...like if you are trying to defend what the bible says.  Just quoting the bible because you like it is preaching and you are not allowed to do that.  If you don't like it, well, that's your problem.

What some atheists do on other forums is not in our control.

And no...an atheist would not be allowed to call themselves a Christian on this forum....and as long as this forum has been around none have tried other than a few obvious trolls who were pretending to be Christian just to make fun; the trolls were banned.

To make it perfectly clear:

THIS IS NOT A FORUM FOR PREACHING OR OTHERWISE SPREADING YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS IN AN EVANGELICAL MANNER. 

it is a forum for DISCUSSING various viewpoints in a REASONED and LOGICAL manner that is supported by EVIDENCE. 

Some theists are intelligent enough to hang around and discuss their views without breaking the rules; others are, well, not.

[xSilverPhinx]

Your posts are a bit confusing, I specially don't see why you don't consider yourself to be just as Christian as the rest who call themselves that and believe that Jesus is the son of god.

You mentioned Adam and Eve. Are you a literalist? ???

May I ask if you litterally believe Darwins books? How about Stephen Hawkings, .. which book or books do you take litterally?

Are Darwin's book metaphorical or written in symbolic language? ???

Just so you know, Darwin's Origin of Species contains a huge amount of observed data which he collected to support his hypothesis. Besides that, there are "extra-biological" evidence to support evolution that he had access to and made use of in his observations (Darwin didn't know about genes, though he predicted that something like them existed from which characteristics were inherited) such as geology.

I've read some criticism of Hawking's latest book that said that it gets a bit philosophical in some places, but where it's scientific, it's scientific. Facts speak for themselves. Biblical scripture, involving Adam and Eve do not, and you really can't call them Genesis 'fact' without a lot of support from extra-biblical sources.

You also keep quoting bible parts. Maybe it would be simpler if you mentioned which parts you don't agree with, since it really does look like you are a bible-believing Christian. ???

I believe in the Bible because it answered everything that happened in my life, and helped me ask the right questions. But I have been warned over and over not to quote the Bible, ... I guess any other religious book is OK.
I am not to call myself an atheist, but it is OK for atheists to go on Christian forums and bash Jesus, God, the Bible and the concept of Jesus teachings., ... but I am not allowed to quote the Bible here... poor, very poor.

You miss the point entirely. Circular reasoning isn't taken very seriously here, for the simple reason that atheists don't believe the bible to be true. Also, if there was any other person of any other religion quoting any other scripture to support their own scripture (circular reasoning), then they would receive just as many eye rolls as you are now.

The whole persecution complex thing is so last two millenia.

As was mentioned before, 'atheism' is just an umbrella statement for a diverse group of people who don't believe in the existence of gods. You keep mentioning that you believe in a god or the "source of all being" and you call that a 'god'.

What exactly is this "source of all being". Some sort of pantheistic god? Looks a bit like Brahman...

Do you believe in any gods? No, .. right? And that's OK. I am introducing you to the God of the Bible, only I am asked not to quote the Bible anymore. Hmm...
Is an atheist allowed to call himself a Christian on this forum, (other than me) without getting kicked off? I'm sure it would be fine, right?

Is that why you called yourself an atheist (one that claims to believe in the god of the bible)? ??? Because you're afraid that you'll get kicked off if you mentioned that you were a Christian?

And just a tip: ease up on the bible versus, they don't really hold any argumentative value for atheists, unless you can substantiate them with evidence or arguments that are not linked to the bible. Circular reasoning can get a bit boring after a while...  

Funny, ... only the Bible cant hold up an argument on an atheist forum, but any other book may be used.  ???

See above.

[arian (Banned)]

arian, why are you being so obtuse?

You are allowed to quote the bible IF doing so as part of an overall argument...like if you are trying to defend what the bible says.  Just quoting the bible because you like it is preaching and you are not allowed to do that.  If you don't like it, well, that's your problem.

May I ask which part of the Bible that I could defend that you do not consider preaching? If you can point even to one Scripture I used as a tool for preaching, I'll get out of your hair and leave the forum.

What some atheists do on other forums is not in our control.

Agreed.

And no...an atheist would not be allowed to call themselves a Christian on this forum....and as long as this forum has been around none have tried other than a few obvious trolls who were pretending to be Christian just to make fun; the trolls were banned.

Do I sound like I'm making fun of Atheists? I like fun as much as the next guy, and know the place and time for it. I make my stand of what I meant by being an atheist clear, my God of the Bible is NOT amongst the theistic religions and their gods. If this is a cause for debate, .. well I thought I was on the right forum for that.  But if I'm to be silenced, shoot, .. I might as well go to the Jehovah Witnesses and let them try to excommunicate me.

To make it perfectly clear:

THIS IS NOT A FORUM FOR PREACHING OR OTHERWISE SPREADING YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS IN AN EVANGELICAL MANNER. 

it is a forum for DISCUSSING various viewpoints in a REASONED and LOGICAL manner that is supported by EVIDENCE.

Are you saying that you are no different than the other Christian denominations where only the 'like-minded' are allowed in? WHAT religious beliefs? I thought you don't believe in god or gods? Without the belief in gods, what religion are you talking about? Hey, let a Christian come on this forum and try to convince me about some Christian denomination, I welcome the challenge. I would not discriminate or put any 'handycap' on them, they could use whatever version of the Bible they want, or whatever book they wish, the TRUTH ALWAY PREVAILS.

Some theists are intelligent enough to hang around and discuss their views without breaking the rules; others are, well, not.

red flag; "theists here discussing their views". What about, their god or gods? Thats automaticly preaching.
And that without breaking the rules, ... now that I want to stick around to see?

I did not come here to preach about some god or gods, that would be preaching. I was hoping to reveal the so far puzling scientific question, where is the universe residing in. Where was the tiny universe the size of a pin-head residing in at the moment of the bang? Or was there a big-bang? I know and can prove it.

I can also prove that 'nothing' exists, and many other things that theists can never explain, nor can science. Why, are you afraid to see the truth?

Then you are not real Atheists, not the open minded, non religious ones I was hoping to find.

But I still love you all, and that my friend is as real as the ground you're standing on.

(I know, .. I know, 'Im not standing on the ground. What ground, we are nothing but energy, we are simply information acting on information' etc.. I heard it all)