Because atheists are often bad characters and it's not smart to associate with bad characters because "Do not be misled: “Bad company corrupts good character.”" 1 Cor 15:33.You started out by saying I sounded too intelligent to be an atheist, a clear implication that not being smart was a characteristic of atheism.
So the proverb tells us that there is a danger of being infected with all kinds of fallacies and irrationality, along with deep cynicism, from associating with atheists (as well as religious hypocrites). Not quite sure why you do. It's not going to help you discover the truth about religion, if there is truth to be discovered, because atheists don't admit the truth about any religion.
I'm past arguing with you, but you're clearly not getting my gist.You walked that back with your bit about worldly wise, but then you went back on that by saying that atheism is characterized by a lack of intelligence. Clever fellow, a lack of intelligence is the very definition of stupidity, not deception. So please, you have characterized atheism as stupid: do not be dishonest, and face yourself squarely.
1 Cor 1:20 "Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?"
In Christianity there is the idea of being too puffed up and too clever for your own good. i.e. the one who is clever and who knows he's academically gifted may in the end prove to be unintelligent just because he trusts to himself and his own abilities too much, and so is deceived, as he never comes to that understanding of a subject that others with a more humble attitude attain.
If you're to learn anything of Christianity you have to humble and not "wise in your own eyes."
I think I said there were different types of genocide, which there are. There are two types (a) attacks on captive native populations (Rwanda, Nazi Germany, Armenia, Cambodia, Stalinist Ukraine (famine), French Huguenots in 16th century, Albigenses in 13th century, etc, and (b) incidents of war (Israelite invasion of Canaan, Balkans theatre of war, Ghengis Khan invasions of especially the Khwarazmian dynasty, etc).Thank you. I will reflect also that the person alluding to any belligerency saw fit to associate me with stupid "scum" as well, and wonder why they think they can convince anyone of anything other than their own poor self control.
Oh no: I discount the semantic content of your abuse as informative.
And at one point, in order to stave off an accusation of hypocrisy (you said) you actually provided a rationale for genocide. So again, you stated that a chief attack on Christianity was an accusation of hypocrisy, and you even pre-emptively made an argument to forestall a particular accusation, none of which I have engaged in. Why are you so anxious about being called a hypocrite? You have avoided this question several times.
I also said you have to look at the whole history and have to be particularly careful when engaging with the latter (genocide incident to military actions). I don't have to be defensive personally as I've never killed anyone. However it's an academic/legal subject I find personally interesting. Obviously you don't.
There is plenty of evidence for God. Creation and your own existence. According to the bible (Roms 1), this is reason sufficient of itself. That is to say, that you were created by happenstance is deemed by the bible an absurd thing to think. Also science cannot prove it to be so.Follow the conversation, please.
If there is no good evidence for God, there is no good evidence for a judge, and therefore death itself is a terrible reason to believe in God.
Philosophy is incredibly egotistical: it puffs up those who engage with it, even Christians. But on the other hand, there are some reasonable philosophers. It's difficult to generalize, but as you have testified, it led someone away from religion and has led many away from religion. The Emperor known as Julian the Apostate was a Hellenistic philosopher.But this story, absent good evidence for its veracity, is not relevant.
No: that you are not me is obvious: you anticipated arguments from me that I would not make. That you are not "most atheists on this board" seems a n assertion painfully easy to evidence. Telepathy is not required.
I'm not sure why you think this is informative. Nothing in your current posts would seem to contradict such a past.
lol.
I didn't say anything about anyone becoming a philosopher. Please keep up.
Some philosophies are antithetical to the Christian religion. But I think it is possible that you are projecting what you would do with philosophy onto the field itself, absent your religion. The reason I say that is that a man who seriously thinks philosophy is the antithesis of religion is either ill-read in philosophy or has a wholly idiosyncratic definition of religion. In your case, the latter of course could also be true. On reflection, I suppose it is also possible that you don't really mean many of the things you say here, and perhaps that is the most charitable interpretation.
Christianity became corrupted by philosophers of the Greek schools, which is why the strong Trinity doctrine arose at all; but which never did it any favours as it rent Christendom asunder and allowed Islam to flourish.