Don't argue about the trinity with Cristians unless you want a fight to see which explanation makes the least amount of sense. It cannot be explained with logic, therefor you will hear nothing but babbling.

Essentially, they are all the same entity, except for the times when the story needs them to be different entities.

Again, they're not the same person. Jesus wasn't praying to Himself, He was praying to His Father. When He became human, He took on our nature and weaknesses..it was necessarily for Him to pray for the same reasons it is necessary for us to pray. Your view point is not only not trinitarian, because you're saying there is no difference between Jesus and the Father, it is just completely ignorant of basic theology.

>> ^DerHasisttot:
>> ^shinyblurry:
You said "Why would an omnipotent and omniscient being pray to itself and not grant itself the thing wished for
Jesus wasn't praying to Himself, He was praying to the Father..they're different people. Therefore, your view is not trinitarian.
My viewpoint is that Jesus was and is fully God, which is the trinitarian view. That He took on the nature of man for our sake does not diminish His divine nature, which is affirmed in the nicean creed. It would be helpful in this discussion if you actually knew what you were talking about. Here is a resource:
http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/chphnwr.htm
http://www.gci.org/Jesus/dualnature
>> ^DerHasisttot:
>> ^shinyblurry:
What Der said pretty much 100 percent of Christians would call flawed..what I said, not so much..most Christians believe in the trinity. I had personal revelation the trinity is truth before I ever became a Christian.
>> ^schlub:
I love how all xtians have their own interpretation of their religion and they insist that their interpretation is the correct one. There are many other xtians who would call your "understanding" flawed, shinyblurry...
>> ^shinyblurry:
Jesus had a dual nature, he was both man and God. He was made a little lower than the angels for our sake, and He put aside all that was His due to suffer for us..Your understanding here is just hopelessly flawed..it's a cute little atheist meme but it has no theological basis. Jesus and the Father are not the same person..they are one in the essential nature of being God, but they are different people.



Well aaaactually your viewpoint would be Nontrinitarian by definition. So according to this, my view of Trinity is correct:
According to this doctrine, God exists as three persons but is one God, meaning that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have exactly the same nature or being as God the Father in every way.[4] Whatever attributes and power God the Father has, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have as well.[4] "Thus, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are also eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinitely wise, infinitely holy, infinitely loving, omniscient."


Why would an omniscient and omnipotent being need to pray? "Thus, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are also eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinitely wise, infinitely holy, infinitely loving, omniscient." ... which is still trinitarian. Just not your personal definition of it.

>> ^shinyblurry:

You said "Why would an omnipotent and omniscient being pray to itself and not grant itself the thing wished for
Jesus wasn't praying to Himself, He was praying to the Father..they're different people. Therefore, your view is not trinitarian.
My viewpoint is that Jesus was and is fully God, which is the trinitarian view. That He took on the nature of man for our sake does not diminish His divine nature, which is affirmed in the nicean creed. It would be helpful in this discussion if you actually knew what you were talking about. Here is a resource:
http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/chphnwr.htm
http://www.gci.org/Jesus/dualnature

>> ^DerHasisttot:
>> ^shinyblurry:
What Der said pretty much 100 percent of Christians would call flawed..what I said, not so much..most Christians believe in the trinity. I had personal revelation the trinity is truth before I ever became a Christian.
>> ^schlub:
I love how all xtians have their own interpretation of their religion and they insist that their interpretation is the correct one. There are many other xtians who would call your "understanding" flawed, shinyblurry...
>> ^shinyblurry:
Jesus had a dual nature, he was both man and God. He was made a little lower than the angels for our sake, and He put aside all that was His due to suffer for us..Your understanding here is just hopelessly flawed..it's a cute little atheist meme but it has no theological basis. Jesus and the Father are not the same person..they are one in the essential nature of being God, but they are different people.



Well aaaactually your viewpoint would be Nontrinitarian by definition. So according to this, my view of Trinity is correct:
According to this doctrine, God exists as three persons but is one God, meaning that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have exactly the same nature or being as God the Father in every way.[4] Whatever attributes and power God the Father has, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have as well.[4] "Thus, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are also eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinitely wise, infinitely holy, infinitely loving, omniscient."



Why would an omniscient and omnipotent being need to pray? "Thus, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are also eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinitely wise, infinitely holy, infinitely loving, omniscient." ... which is still trinitarian. Just not your personal definition of it.

You said "Why would an omnipotent and omniscient being pray to itself and not grant itself the thing wished for

Jesus wasn't praying to Himself, He was praying to the Father..they're different people. Therefore, your view is not trinitarian.

My viewpoint is that Jesus was and is fully God, which is the trinitarian view. That He took on the nature of man for our sake does not diminish His divine nature, which is affirmed in the nicean creed. It would be helpful in this discussion if you actually knew what you were talking about. Here are some resources:

http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/chphnwr.htm
http://www.gci.org/Jesus/dualnature


>> ^DerHasisttot:
>> ^shinyblurry:
What Der said pretty much 100 percent of Christians would call flawed..what I said, not so much..most Christians believe in the trinity. I had personal revelation the trinity is truth before I ever became a Christian.
>> ^schlub:
I love how all xtians have their own interpretation of their religion and they insist that their interpretation is the correct one. There are many other xtians who would call your "understanding" flawed, shinyblurry...
>> ^shinyblurry:
Jesus had a dual nature, he was both man and God. He was made a little lower than the angels for our sake, and He put aside all that was His due to suffer for us..Your understanding here is just hopelessly flawed..it's a cute little atheist meme but it has no theological basis. Jesus and the Father are not the same person..they are one in the essential nature of being God, but they are different people.



Well aaaactually your viewpoint would be Nontrinitarian by definition. So according to this, my view of Trinity is correct:
According to this doctrine, God exists as three persons but is one God, meaning that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have exactly the same nature or being as God the Father in every way.[4] Whatever attributes and power God the Father has, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have as well.[4] "Thus, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are also eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinitely wise, infinitely holy, infinitely loving, omniscient."

>> ^shinyblurry:

What Der said pretty much 100 percent of Christians would call flawed..what I said, not so much..most Christians believe in the trinity. I had personal revelation the trinity is truth before I ever became a Christian.
>> ^schlub:
I love how all xtians have their own interpretation of their religion and they insist that their interpretation is the correct one. There are many other xtians who would call your "understanding" flawed, shinyblurry...
>> ^shinyblurry:
Jesus had a dual nature, he was both man and God. He was made a little lower than the angels for our sake, and He put aside all that was His due to suffer for us..Your understanding here is just hopelessly flawed..it's a cute little atheist meme but it has no theological basis. Jesus and the Father are not the same person..they are one in the essential nature of being God, but they are different people.




Well aaaactually your viewpoint would be Nontrinitarian by definition. So according to this, my view of Trinity is correct:

According to this doctrine, God exists as three persons but is one God, meaning that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have exactly the same nature or being as God the Father in every way.[4] Whatever attributes and power God the Father has, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have as well.[4] "Thus, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are also eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinitely wise, infinitely holy, infinitely loving, omniscient."

And almost nothing concerning human beings' opinions is ever pretty much 100%. not even in dogmatic subgroups.

What Der said pretty much 100 percent of Christians would call flawed..what I said, not so much..most Christians believe in the trinity. I had personal revelation the trinity is truth before I ever became a Christian.

>> ^schlub:
I love how all xtians have their own interpretation of their religion and they insist that their interpretation is the correct one. There are many other xtians who would call your "understanding" flawed, shinyblurry...
>> ^shinyblurry:
Jesus had a dual nature, he was both man and God. He was made a little lower than the angels for our sake, and He put aside all that was His due to suffer for us..Your understanding here is just hopelessly flawed..it's a cute little atheist meme but it has no theological basis. Jesus and the Father are not the same person..they are one in the essential nature of being God, but they are different people.

>> ^shinyblurry:

These people should have treated their child..there was no reason to put it on God to heal the baby when the medicine was available to use. That's like asking a locksmith to open your door when you have the keys in your hand. And God does grant prayers but not every prayer. Jesus prayed to the Father asking that He would not have to go to the cross. If there was ever a prayer God would have wanted to grant, it would have been that one.


So what you are saying is: 1. God answers some prayers, but those concerning whether a baby lives or dies... not.

2. That Jesus is not God. Why would an omnipotent and omniscient being pray to itself and not grant itself the thing wished for? Redundant. So Jesus is also not the holy spirit. Because the holy spirit is god. Well thanks, shiny, for destroying the holy trinity.

Oh yes, and I triple post because I'm the trinity, man.

Dexter really started losing myself and my wife around the end of season 4 (Trinity). Trinity was an awesome character, but the way that Dexter made everything so ridiculously complicated for himself and everyone when it so didn't need to be (really, he really had to let Trinity go for so long and not lead police to him because he wanted to do it himself, but then didn't and then left it and then, and then... urgh, so drawn out).

So, yeah, that leading to what happened in the final episode of Season 4, which was completely avoidable had he been just slightly smarter/less self interested... that pretty much made us lose a lot of interest in the show.

Then we only got a few episodes into season 5 before we just gave up and figured we had better things to do/watch. It's a pity because seasons 1-3 were amazing, we watched them in the space of a fortnight or so. Having put it off so long because I thought I could never get into a show that had you empathise with a serial killer... but there you go, it did a great job.

Until then... until then.

I don't think we'll be able to pick it back up again, we'll always have our memories

Well, Christianity as it is practiced in America is extremely skewed..most of those evengelicals, the trinity broadcasting network, the lunatics known as the republican party..their brand of Christianity is a disgrace and a perversion. Things like the prosperity gospel should make any Christian sick to their stomach. Sadly a lot of people buy into it because living prudently, with a healthy dose of self-denial is not very popular in this gross materialism we are drowning in. I can understand why atheists cant stand these people..because I cant stand them either.

>> ^dag:
It's great of you to concede this SB.
Christianity in America is more like a personal empowerment and wealth creation seminar than a religion. Christ never said "the Lord helps those who help themselves" - though that's the primary tenant that most American Christians seem to follow. Maybe Tony Robbins is the second coming.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Sadly, he's right. I was fairly astonished that so many Christians didn't see anything wrong with celebrating someones death, Bin Laden or not. Though, what Bill Maher doesn't mention is that there was also a large number of Christians who did understand that was wrong and spoke out against it.
Many people do follow Christ in name only. The bible says they are only borrowing the name at a price. It's really no different however than anything else human beings do. That humans can mess up something good should be no surprise to anyone.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Since you asked, I'll tell you why I believe in God. Up until 8 years ago I was agnostic. I was raised agnostic, without any religion. We celebrated Christmas and Easter, but that was about it. I wasn't raised to like or dislike religion, I was simply left free to decide what I believed.
At the time I became a theist, I didn't believe in a spiritual reality, or any God I had ever heard of, because like most of the people here I saw no evidence for it at all. I actually used to go into christian chat rooms and debate christians on what I saw to be inconsistances in the bible. A lot of what people have said in this thread are thoughts that I once had and arguments I used to use myself.
Then one day it all changed. I guess you could say my third eye was opened. I had something akin to a kundalini awakening, spontaneously out of nowhere. When it was over, I could suddenly perceive the spiritual reality. I didn't quite know what I was looking at, at the time..didn't truly understand what had happened to me (though through intuition i understood the great potential of it). It was only after researching it online and finding out about the chakras did I start to understand.
It's an amazing, truly truly amazing thing to find out everything you know is wrong. It is really utterly mind blowing. This however, was the conclusion I was forced to immediately reach however, because the evidence for it was right in front of my face. Everything that I had known up until the point I could perceive the spiritual was missing so many essential elements that I may as well have been just born.
I started to receive signs..little miracles, I would call them..like stepping in front of a vast panarama of nature and suddenly seeing it at an angle impossible to human sight, where everything is in focus at the same time, that produced such startling beauty it filled me to overflowing with estatic joy. I started to perceive there was a higher beauty, a higher love that had always been there but I had somehow missed it. I started to get the point, that there was something more. That there was a God.
When I conceded it was possible, to myself, it was then that I started to hear from Him directly. He let me know a couple of things, and proved to me that I wasn't just imagining Him. He showed me that He had been there my entire life, teaching me and guiding me as a child on, only I had been totally unaware of it. He showed me how we "shared space", and that not only could He read my mind, but in some essential way that He was what my mind is. That He is mind itself. He showed me how my thought process was more of a cooperative than a solitary thing.
Now before you say I just jumped at all of this because everyone wants to imagine a loving God, etc etc..untrue in my case. When I first found out He was definitely real, i was scared shitless. Up until that point, my thoughts about God were all negative. I figured if He did exist He probably hated me. You see, that is what I had gleaned growing up in a Christian society without actually knowing anything about it.
At this point I became a theist. I thought of God as a He because He seemed masculine rather than feminine, and also I thought of Him as the Creator. I didn't know anything about the bible, or the Holy Trinity, or what a messiah was, or any of that. I thought the God I knew must not be generally known because I had never seen anything out there that pointed to a loving God.
For the next 6 yeears I was on a spiritual journey. I studied all the various belief systems, spiritual or otherwise, all the religious history..east and west, north and south. I studied philosophy and esoteric wisdom, gurus and prophets. The one I really hadn't studied though, was Christianity. The reason being I didn't believe Jesus actually ever existed so I dismissed it out of hand.
Before I knew anything about Christianity, God taught me three important things about who He is. One, He taught me His nature is triune, that God is three. I didn't understand what that meant precisely, I just knew that was His nature. He also taught me that there was a Messiah. He taught me that there was someone whose job it was to save the world. The third thing and most important thing He taught me was about His love. That He loved everyone, and that He secretly took care of them whether they believed in Him or not. He showed me His perfect heart.
What led me to the bible was this: I asked Him who the Messiah was and He told me to look in a mirror. At the time I had been away from civilization for a few months and my beard had grown out for the first time in my life. I hadn't seen a mirror since I was clean shaven. I sought one out and when I saw my reflection I couldn't believe my eyes. I looked exactly like Jesus Christ. I mean to a T.
It was then I was forced to accept the possibility that Jesus was real. To be honest, I really didn't want to. I felt like I had a really special relationship with the Father and that Jesus could only get in the way of that. I didn't even feel like I could pay Him any real respect, because I knew the Father was greater than He was. But, I couldn't ignore what He was showing me, so I started to read the bible. To my surprise, I found out it was about the God I already knew.
Everything I read in the bible matched what I already knew about God . The Holy Trinity matched His triune nature. That there was a Messiah and Jesus was it. And most of all His love, His great and majestic love, for all people, was perfectly laid out in ways I had never before comprehended. The bible was the only information on Earth that accurately described what I already knew about God. That is how I knew it was true from the outset.
So that's when I became a Christian. I couldn't ignore the evidence. My journey to Christianity was based on rationality and logic, believe it or not, albiet with miracles and spirituality mixed in. Even the miracles themselves were logical, as God showed me how He worked from a meta-perspective, and that time and space didn't restrict Him at all. So there you have it..an interesting testimony to be sure.
I am unusual in that I didn't come to God on my own. God chose me, I didn't choose Him. I might never have come to God if He hadn't. I found out later that this means I was elected..in that, before God made the world He had already planned to create me to do His will. After He woke me up it never really took much faith to believe in God because He demonstrated to me His amazing power and ASTONISHING intellect in ways that were impossible to refute. Whatever brick wall I would put up, He would smash it down into oblivion. He favored me because I stayed hungry. I knew the truth was knowable, and I gunned for it 200 percent. I would have died for it.
So I empathize with the people here. Some of you might actually be elected too, it just is not your time to know. Some are probably angry/scared/rebelliious, while still others are intellectually incurious and swayed by hyperbole. I'm pretty sure not many people here have actually read the bible. I hadn't either..I was simply arrogant at the time.
So what I would say to people here is..there is far more going on than seems apparent..if you don't believe at least that there is a spiritual reality, you're practically rubbing two sticks together. God definitely exists and will prove it to you if you humble yourself, come to Him in sincerity, with your total heart and pray. Admit you're a sinner, and ask Him to be your Lord and Savior. Anyone can know God is real. I wish I had read it earlier..would have saved me a hardship. Save yourself the trouble and find out the truth for yourself, that God is real He loves you. God bless..


Wow, thanks for that detailed reply. Forgive me, but I've broken it down to basics here. Can you confirm that I've understood you correctly?:

OK, so in short:

- You were an atheist from birth.

- You had a dramatic and sudden spiritual awakening and began to perceive an extra spiritual dimension in the material world around you.

- You began to have visions that were akin to out of body experiences or remote viewing, but with an extra dimension of spiritual perception. You interpreted these experiences as little miracles, and that they were provided by a higher being: a god.

- At this point god spoke you directly and explicitly, and proved to you that you were not imagining him. He explained that he permeated *everything*, including your being, and that in many respects he *was* you.

- Over the next 6 years you studied, and were guided and tutored directly by god who explained to you more specifically about his nature, and what the bible was all about.

Or to break this down even further!:

You believe there is a god because, after a sudden spiritual awakening he spoke to you directly and proved to you that he exists.

Have I got the basics correct here? Just the very basics?

Since you asked, I'll tell you why I believe in God. Up until 8 years ago I was agnostic. I was raised agnostic, without any religion. We celebrated Christmas and Easter, but that was about it. I wasn't raised to like or dislike religion, I was simply left free to decide what I believed.

At the time I became a theist, I didn't believe in a spiritual reality, or any God I had ever heard of, because like most of the people here I saw no evidence for it at all. I actually used to go into christian chat rooms and debate christians on what I saw to be inconsistances in the bible. A lot of what people have said in this thread are thoughts that I once had and arguments I used to use myself.

Then one day it all changed. I guess you could say my third eye was opened. I had something akin to a kundalini awakening, spontaneously out of nowhere. When it was over, I could suddenly perceive the spiritual reality. I didn't quite know what I was looking at, at the time..didn't truly understand what had happened to me (though through intuition i understood the great potential of it). It was only after researching it online and finding out about the chakras did I start to understand.

It's an amazing, truly truly amazing thing to find out everything you know is wrong. It is really utterly mind blowing. This however, was the conclusion I was forced to immediately reach however, because the evidence for it was right in front of my face. Everything that I had known up until the point I could perceive the spiritual was missing so many essential elements that I may as well have been just born.

I started to receive signs..little miracles, I would call them..like stepping in front of a vast panarama of nature and suddenly seeing it at an angle impossible to human sight, where everything is in focus at the same time, that produced such startling beauty it filled me to overflowing with estatic joy. I started to perceive there was a higher beauty, a higher love that had always been there but I had somehow missed it. I started to get the point, that there was something more. That there was a God.

When I conceded it was possible, to myself, it was then that I started to hear from Him directly. He let me know a couple of things, and proved to me that I wasn't just imagining Him. He showed me that He had been there my entire life, teaching me and guiding me as a child on, only I had been totally unaware of it. He showed me how we "shared space", and that not only could He read my mind, but in some essential way that He was what my mind is. That He is mind itself. He showed me how my thought process was more of a cooperative than a solitary thing.

Now before you say I just jumped at all of this because everyone wants to imagine a loving God, etc etc..untrue in my case. When I first found out He was definitely real, i was scared shitless. Up until that point, my thoughts about God were all negative. I figured if He did exist He probably hated me. You see, that is what I had gleaned growing up in a Christian society without actually knowing anything about it.

At this point I became a theist. I thought of God as a He because He seemed masculine rather than feminine, and also I thought of Him as the Creator. I didn't know anything about the bible, or the Holy Trinity, or what a messiah was, or any of that. I thought the God I knew must not be generally known because I had never seen anything out there that pointed to a loving God.

For the next 6 yeears I was on a spiritual journey. I studied all the various belief systems, spiritual or otherwise, all the religious history..east and west, north and south. I studied philosophy and esoteric wisdom, gurus and prophets. The one I really hadn't studied though, was Christianity. The reason being I didn't believe Jesus actually ever existed so I dismissed it out of hand.

Before I knew anything about Christianity, God taught me three important things about who He is. One, He taught me His nature is triune, that God is three. I didn't understand what that meant precisely, I just knew that was His nature. He also taught me that there was a Messiah. He taught me that there was someone whose job it was to save the world. The third thing and most important thing He taught me was about His love. That He loved everyone, and that He secretly took care of them whether they believed in Him or not. He showed me His perfect heart.

What led me to the bible was this: I asked Him who the Messiah was and He told me to look in a mirror. At the time I had been away from civilization for a few months and my beard had grown out for the first time in my life. I hadn't seen a mirror since I was clean shaven. I sought one out and when I saw my reflection I couldn't believe my eyes. I looked *exactly* like Jesus Christ. I mean to a T.

It was then I was forced to accept the possibility that Jesus was real. To be honest, I really didn't want to. I felt like I had a really special relationship with the Father and that Jesus could only get in the way of that. I didn't even feel like I could pay Him any real respect, because I knew the Father was greater than He was. But, I couldn't ignore what He was showing me, so I started to read the bible. To my surprise, I found out it was about the God I already knew.

Everything I read in the bible matched what I already knew about God . The Holy Trinity matched His triune nature. That there was a Messiah and Jesus was it. And most of all His love, His great and majestic love, for all people, was perfectly laid out in ways I had never before comprehended. The bible was the only information on Earth that accurately described what I already knew about God. That is how I knew it was true from the outset.

So that's when I became a Christian. I couldn't ignore the evidence. My journey to Christianity was based on rationality and logic, believe it or not, albiet with miracles and spirituality mixed in. Even the miracles themselves were logical, as God showed me how He worked from a meta-perspective, and that time and space didn't restrict Him at all. So there you have it..an interesting testimony to be sure.

I am unusual in that I didn't come to God on my own. God chose me, I didn't choose Him. I might never have come to God if He hadn't. I found out later that this means I was elected..in that, before God made the world He had already planned to create me to do His will. After He woke me up it never really took much faith to believe in God because He demonstrated to me His amazing power and ASTONISHING intellect in ways that were impossible to refute. Whatever brick wall I would put up, He would smash it down into oblivion. He favored me because I stayed hungry. I knew the truth was knowable, and I gunned for it 200 percent. I would have died for it.

So I empathize with the people here. Some of you might actually be elected too, it just is not your time to know. Some are probably angry/scared/rebelliious, while still others are intellectually incurious and swayed by hyperbole. I'm pretty sure not many people here have actually read the bible. I hadn't either..I was simply arrogant at the time.

So what I would say to people here is..there is far more going on than seems apparent..if you don't believe at least that there is a spiritual reality, you're practically rubbing two sticks together. God definitely exists and will prove it to you if you humble yourself, come to Him in sincerity, with your total heart and pray. Admit you're a sinner, and ask Him to be your Lord and Savior. Anyone can know God is real. I wish I had read it earlier..would have saved me a hardship. Save yourself the trouble and find out the truth for yourself, that God is real He loves you. God bless..



>> ^TheSluiceGate:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, according to the dictionary:
dict.org
Atheism \A"the ism\, n. [Cf. F. ath['e]isme. See Atheist.]
1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or
supreme intelligent Being.
merriam-webster.com
Definition of ATHEISM
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
a·the·ism   /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled
[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
dictionary.reference.com
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
The definition of atheism is very clear; the belief that there is no God. If you don't really believe that, IE .0001 percent, then you're not an atheist. You can't just reinvent the definition so you have no burden of proof. That .0001 might as well be 99 percent for all the difference it makes. Personally, I think the definitions people are trying to use today for atheism are extremely intellectually dishonest.

The problem here, as MaxWilder suggested, is that arguing about what the word atheist means is just semantics. We could both quote dictionaries until the cows come home, but it would make no difference to the central argument. It's for reasons like this that other new terms such as "rationalist" or "humanist" are being coined all the time as a way of distancing traditional atheism from the word atheist itself. I realise now that me trying to clarify the manner in which many people commonly define their lack of a belief in a god is actually quite pointless. I'm even going to disregard that you didn't respond to the reason why it doesn't take faith to be an atheist. This thread needs to be brought down to brass tacks.
Let's simplify the central point here, the central point of both the video you posted, and of all the arguments in this thread: Can you give one reason why you , shinyblurry, personally believe that there is a god? Just your one best argument for a god's existence.
For my part, and in the interest of fairness, I will tell you briefly how I arrived at being an atheist. (You can comment on this separately if you wish, but please, not before addressing the above question!)
I was about 13 years old when, as a child brought up a catholic and attending weekly mass, I began to question the morality of the god described in the bible. I looked at the atrocities he committed and asked myself what I would think of a real flesh and blood person alive today who behaved in the manner of the actions attributed to him in the bible, and whether or not this person would be worthy of the praise and admiration heaped upon him. This central idea led to an increased questioning of all the aspects of the religion I had been brought up in, and an awareness that although there were many great ideas and philosophical truths in catholic teachings, there was no conclusive proof either in the bible, or in the world in general, for the existence of a supernatural god of any kind.
So if you, shinyblurry, were recording a video in the style of the one that you have posted, what would you be saying on camera was the one central reason for your belief?

sighs..
/doublefacepalm
this is becoming....tiresome.
i came to the decision to stop being a snark towards shinyblurry because his tone had softened a bit and he appeared more willing to interact in a more human and engaging way.
since he stated he had been studying for years (specifically what he never states) i put forth a few questions.
i put a lot of thought in to those questions.
not to be an ass,or pull a gotcha nor even to be "right" but rather to hear his response.
the questions were really not that important but his answers would reveal much on how he viewed certain dilemmas facing todays evangelical christian.
and since he says he has studied for years i framed the questions with tidbits and items a first year seminarian would know and would have already dealt with.
i now suspect that when shinyblurry says he "has studied for years" he means personal study.
nothing wrong with that.
thats how i did it too for many years and then was blessed to meet one of the most amazing people who decided to mentor and teach me..dr paul.

@smooman
you totally missed the point of my post.
i was not attempting to prove the existence of these resurrection deities and by proxy disprove jesus.nor did i gank that from zeitgeist..so lets not get derailed.
the question was how does shinyblurry resolve this issue?
his answer was "satan did it".
now that answer from an evangelical perspective is expected but from an intellectual one it is weak.
i am NOT being an ass here,just pointing out what should be obvious.
"satan did it" is a cheap and lazy way out.

@shinyblurry
the questions i asked were conundrums.
you have to think your way through them...not dismiss out of hand.
you have focused on zoraorastrian.
posted links to pages.
may i just say up front that i am not interested in someones elses research nor their conclusions but rather very interested in yours.
my point bringing up zoraorastrian was to illuminate the fact that the bible has been influenced by MANY different and sometimes conflicting theologies,and written by many different authors.
thats why i mentioned gilgamesh.
does the fact that so many authored the bible take away from the its beauty?literature? wisdom?
not at all,but it does paint a picture that is far more human and i was curious how you resolved that issue being an evangelical.
you did answer.."satan"..(i really find that answer unsatisfactory btw)...but you did not say how you resolved that issue.unless "satan" is your true answer and in that case.ok..fair enough.

you never answered which school of theological thought you adhered to (you made me guess).
nor did you answer if you were a preterist.
which is just somebody who believes that messianic prophecy has already been fulfilled.(you wont find any these days.2000 yrs ago you would have though).
this question was in relation to how christianity has evolved over the centuries.
now my question concerning the nicean creed is actually a trick question because it has never been resolved.
325 a.d and the nicean creed was the third attempt and the council decided to stick with it but it never really resolves the trinity.because of this theological failure of the elder council millions over the years have perished and not a small reason chirtianity began to fracture in to smaller subsets...all gaining (and losing ) and gaining again prominence in the christian world.

the questions i asked would reveal if shinyblurry has limited his studies to the 66 books of the KJV or if he has expanded his studies.
again..not for a gotcha moment nor to belittle him, but rather so i would have an idea the parameters in our discussion.

i read the gospels far different than mainstream christianity.
i study origins.
i study the socio-economic and education of that period of time.
the cultural practices and institutions.
when you put all these factors together you gain a much more insightful and complete picture.
i guess i dont understand when someone ignores that very vital part of the equation.
hence my questions.
i wanted to know how shinyblurry dealt with these dilemmas or if he thought of them at all.

living in the bible belt i deal with evangelicals all the time.
in fact i spoke at a local baptist church a few weeks ago.
my sermon was "the mechanics of prayer".they were welcoming and responsive,conversely i have also been told by another group of evangelicals that i will burn in the pit of fire because my idea and understanding of scripture happened to be different from theirs.

i do not understand how some people conflate their religion as themselves.
as somehow they ARE their religion and if their religion comes under any criticism or scrutiny they react like it is THEY who are being personally attacked and lash out with violent intentions (disguised as righteousness).
religion is a system of doctrine and dogma with written scripture as a vehicle.
since scripture is the written word, it is tangible and therefore subject to scrutiny and/or criticism.
and thats how it SHOULD be.i do not know ONE theologian who would disagree with that statement but i have encountered hundreds who feel that ANY scrutiny of their holy text is tantamount to a personal attack upon them.

i was unsure if blurry was a troll or if he was even aware that he was coming across like one.
i am still not sure.
i was ok with making snarky remarks and match blurry tone for tone.until i realized i was behaving poorly and nothing positive would really come out of that form of interaction...maybe amusement for a time.
so i decided to take a different approach and all i got was more of the same.
sad..really.
what a wasted opportunity.
my expectations for this discussion have dwindled considerably.
religion is communal..
faith is personal.
i guess mine is so far removed from shinyblurry's that we are incapable of having a decent discussion with each other.

so there it is folks.as openly and as honestly as i am able.
with sincerity and humility i say this to you shinyblurry.
namaste.

^Back in the 90's, I used to marvel at the laughably bad programming on TBN (The Trinity Broadcasting Network) but Carman was by far the worst/best. It looks like there is only one Carman video on the sift: http://videosift.com/video/Think-twice-before-you-rumble-with-a-man-of-god There is plenty more terrible out there for those looking for something to sift.

There are far more mistruths in this interview.

He (I believe in part 3) that he has never had to submit a retraction of anything he has said. This is blatantly false. Though it's no longer on his website, for years he did have an article on Wallbuilders apologizing for his use of supposed quotes from the Founders for which no source could be found--quotes in some of his earliest books.

He claims that John Adams seriously meant to say that the Holy Spirit was a necessary foundation for just government in a letter to Benjamin Rush. He even invites people to go on his website and view the original in its entirety. If you go there and read it for yourself, you will clearly see that, as John Stewart averred, the statement is clearly ironic. Immediately after describing a view that says all legitimate government must be blessed by the Holy Spirit, Adams decries this view in the strongest terms as deceptive and inspiring awful fanaticism.

Barton claims that the Unitarians did not reject the trinity until 1839. This is also blatantly false. It was in 1839 that the Unitarians came together as a formal body. Before then, the Unitarians were largely a disorganized religious movement. But the rejection of the Trinity by the Unitarians occurred well before the Revolution. The preaching of the unity of God, as opposed to the Trinity of God, preceded its adoption by a formal body.

Barton notes that the Treaty of Tripoli as held in the State department archives indeed does not have an Article 11. But he falsely claims that the original did not have this article. But we know for a fact that the Treaty as signed by the President, and as published in numerous newspaper throughout the country, did indeed contain this article. It was not until later that it was somehow removed from the State department archives--perhaps by someone embarrassed by its statement that the US is NOT a Christian nation.

Barton's characterization of the text of the treaty is also incorrect. Read the text of the article itself. It very clearly states, with no caveats, that the United States government is "not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." The following clauses do add focus and weight to the statement, making it clear that the intent of including this passage was indeed to clarify that the government of the US has not enmity toward Islam. But these clarifying statements do not change the broad qualifier "in any sense."

In nearly every case in this interview, when Barton makes a declarative statement about history, the history he presents is either false or misleading.