• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Atheist Activism

Good enough. I don't believe in hell or the devil, they are the invention of medieval monks and other scholars with a perverted mind and too much time on their hands. Consequently, if there is no hell there is no reason for the existence of a God ruling in heaven and ready to upload the good guys as they pass away. That greatly simplifies matters as it confirms that my choice to be an atheist has a sound foundation in reason and logic.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Good enough. I don't believe in hell or the devil, they are the invention of medieval monks and other scholars with a perverted mind and too much time on their hands. Consequently, if there is no hell there is no reason for the existence of a God ruling in heaven and ready to upload the good guys as they pass away. That greatly simplifies matters as it confirms that my choice to be an atheist has a sound foundation in reason and logic.
"to be an atheist has a sound foundation in reason and logic."
It is not.
Humans, , many a time, understand things with symbols easily. Hell and devil are symbols not correctly understood from the truthful Word.
Like hurricanes and typhoons are given different names, just to identify a phenomenon, in reality it has no proper name:

The practice of using names to identify tropical cyclones goes back several centuries, with systems named after places, saints or things they hit before the formal start of naming in the Western Pacific.[1] These included the Kamikaze, 1906 Hong Kong typhoon, 1922 Swatow typhoon and the 1934 Muroto typhoon.[2]

"The practice of retiring significant names was started during 1955 by the United States Weather Bureau in the Northern Atlantic basin, after hurricanes Carol, Edna, and Hazel struck the East Coast of the United States and caused a significant amount of damage in the previous year.[3] Initially the names were only designed to be retired for ten years after which they might be reintroduced; however, it was decided at the 1969 Interdepartmental hurricane conference, that any significant hurricane in the future would have its name permanently retired.[3][4]The first tropical cyclone name to be removed in the South Pacific, was Rosie after it had impacted Vanuatu and New Caledonia during 1971. Several names have been removed from the Pacific naming lists for various other reasons than causing a significant amount of death/destruction, which include being pronounced in a very similar way to other names and political reasons.[5][6]"
List of retired Pacific typhoon names - Wikipedia

Right, please?
Regards
 
Top