Aha, so you too have a calling. Are those your personal views or collective views of atheists all over? Maybe what I'm asking, is their any clear guideline of what you atheists do? Or its purely based on feeling, personal or otherwise? If you decided to beat the Jehova Witnesses disturbing your Sunday, or the Pastors fleecing people, as you put it, would you be justified?

You mention development and progress, is that what atheisim is all about? Movement from third to first world, or from rich to poor? Is yours more of a socio-economic movement?

And finally does your backlash only rest with religion? Say, if you didn't like my mode of dressing, or the way I mix and match colors, maybe the way I chew my food, or the culture of using the bush as opposed to digging pit latrines.. would atheists all over come together to address such? I sometimes see my Bishops in the media on matters politics, sexuality etc do your leaders also address such issues? Or its religion religion religion

https://www.tuko.co.ke/2...fe-tuko-ke-details.html

More takataka from these conmen who are too lazy and too shady to find legitimate employment.

Why can't the government save its gullible citizens from getting fleeced by these people? This is an economic crime. All these pastors and prophets ho prey on the naive members of society should face the law and go to prison.

Governments all over the world have a responsibility of protecting the weak from animals like these but they choose to look the other way because they don't want to mess with religion and all it's stupidity. I call bs on that.

Our weak point is Our African forefathers who welcomed,hosted and embraced White / Arab man way of worship. They should have been ruthless like ancient japanese towards any imported religions

Atheist logic...

God is created by Man and Man is created by God.

@mavegs, wait bro. Have a little patience. We believe in life after death. We will all get up, resurrected, and we will be confronted by our creator, it is a fantastic opportunity for us to ask Him, where you came from, who made you? And you will get the answer. Just like you can ask me where you come from, who is your father etc etc

God is eternal evolution of himself.

Everything and everywhere is God.

Hamburgler is quite proud of himself for being an atheist - that is his right. Atheism itself is a religion full of its own dogmas such as "there is no afterlife," "God does not exist" and so on. When you ask them to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the aforementioned dogmas are true they go quiet or give wishy washy explanations. The fool says in his heart that there is no God, and is so in love with his own sin, he cannot be convinced otherwise! But they have only themselves to blame when it is time to step into the coffin and they discover everything they were told about God, heaven and hell was all true. By then it will be too late Shalom.

I will defend Hamburglar here because you mis-characterize atheism. Atheism is not a belief in the lack of the afterlife or non-existence of a deity. For the atheist or particularly the non-theist, it is the lack of evidence for the existence of such deity or of the after-life, that defines the atheist. If anyone can produce evidence to show that the dead shall be restored and that there is a deity that cares about our everyday struggles, cares what we eat or who we sleep with, does miracles, etc, the atheist would have no trouble believing. By the way the atheist knows their bible/Koran/Torah very well. But all he/she gets are assertions, threats of torment in eternal flame and reminders to read the bible or other revealed books to find the truth. Such evidence is only useful to the faithful... From the The Rubaiyat, I leave you this quote “Beyond the earth, beyond the farthest skies I try to find Heaven and Hell.Then I hear a solemn voice that says: "Heaven and hell are inside.” ― Omar Khayyám, The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam

[/quote]

Your argument above on atheism ...oops excuse me, I mean non-theism... is like an argument about needing proof of the existence of wind and stubbornly refusing to see its effects as the proof itself, because you want proof on your own terms only! Non-theism IS a religion insofar as it sticks to dogmatic need for "proof" even when said proof is self evident! Science too (in its broadest definition) is also a religion. Its followers dogmatically cling to empiricism as the only yardstick of proof they will accept. If that is not a religion I do not know what is. But how can concepts like love, or happiness or wanderlust, or the meaning of a babies' smile for example, be explained, measured empirically or "proved" scientifically? An Atheist is one who sees his backside in the mirror each day and demands proof that what he is seeing actually exists because he needs his own peculiar type of proof to truly believe! Or someone who finds an old volkswagen that has washed ashore on a deserted island and says as complex and intricately made as it is, it has no creator because he did not physically see with his own eyes the entities (or deities) that put it together. No serious historian would dispute the fact that the Judaeo-Christian moral worldview is the cornerstone of Western Civilization that is now world civilization. Even the atheist who has never read the Bible or Torah (which is basically the Old Testament of the Bible) knows killing his mother is wrong. Where does that moral ethic come from if not from a conscience planted in man's heart and mind from birth from God? The historicity of Jesus is not in dispute in the extra-Biblical historical record (Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Babylonian Talmud, and so many more). The only point of contention is whether he was God or man. Heck, the whole world calendar was reconfigured to mark the years before his birth and after, with his birth life deeds and death as the inflection point of world history. No other human being in history did the things He did and no other book in world history has been as influential and predictive as the Bible, which from Genesis to Revelation is a book all about Him. The book of Daniel for example is often called a "forgery" by some atheist historians because despite having been written thousands of years before the fact, it predicted world events such as those surrounding the empire of Alexander the Great with such accuracy and in such detail that they assume it had to have been "forged" and backdated after the events happened! Yet to the non-theist of course all this means nothing Shalom.[/quote]

I appreciate your ontological approach to support your theistic beliefs. It is a clever approach but by half.
Wind or any other name you’d want to call it, is a force of nature and its speed, direction, temperature, dew point can all be characterized. Anyone with the right instruments and knowledge can replicate this. I don’t need to see wind to know it is there. So is magnetism, electricity, light, gravity, space, time and many other forms of nature that have amazed man. Don’t get me wrong, atheist do appreciate the numinous and the transcendent. What they don’t need is to go the extra yard to put a finger of God on it. That type of arrogance is left to the theist.
I don’t get your attack on science and your claim that it is a religion! When I make a scientific claim, I make a hypothesis or a guess that can be tested. If evidence adduced supports my claim and anyone anywhere using the same set of conditions can replicate my claim, then my claim is accepted as a valid theory. Where is the religion in that? Science allows others to disprove its claim using evidence to the contrary. Does religion do that? You know very well it does not because it makes claims that are not falsifiable. They cannot be disproved! Claims such as Matthew 27:51 where souls of the dead were resurrected when Jesus died. Or that the sun can be stopped at midday so that Joshua can win war.
If you accept that I do not need to read any revealed text to know that killing my mother is wrong, how then do you make a jump (except by leap of faith) that God planted that conscience in my heart. For heavens sake (pun intended) how do you do that? Can these not mutually exclusive, or is it that one cannot operate without the other assertion?
The historicity of Jesus is in dispute. His celestial existence is not. Paul’s Jesus is not in doubt and neither is he falsifiable. He is revealed to him. Josephus mention of Jesus has nothing to do with his claimed divinity and it is minute. It is also believed to be a later accretion, like many others whose main goal is to show a historicity of Jesus. The gospels contradict each other whether and when not doing so, they are growing the legend. No proof of the disciples or of Moses or of other characters in the bible can be adduced like that of Alexander the Greek or Pontius Pilate can be. There is plenty of similarity between Judeo-Christian belief and Zoroastrianism, Osiris, Anana, Romulus, etc and while the gods of these cultures are myths, that of Judeo-Christian has to be plugged into historicity. You fail to mention the role of the Greek (Hellenistic), Romans and Persian in the growth of what is today’s civilization. It is a large topic to cover.