To record their version of “truth.” There was no distinction between fact and fiction, they were written to establish the “official” history with the political and religious (again, no distinction) agenda they wanted people to follow. The idea that history should involve accurate facts of what actually happened is a relatively new phenomenon in human culture.

Did the people of the time understand that nuance? I honestly don’t know. I assume most of the uneducated masses didn’t, which is why the elites wrote that way.

What a bizarre thing to say.

Your trolling is tiresome. I’m done pretending you’re discussing anything with any integrity.

Biden is the one deciding US policy, and the responsibility for our foreign policy failures rest with him. There are two viable candidates running to replace him. One candidate promises a less conciliatory approach with Netanyahu, the other promises to help escalate the atrocities.

Which do you think will get you closer to your stated goals?

When you start engaging in good faith, you will get good faith in return.

No, your second point doesn’t make your case. Biden isn’t running now, or did you forget? Not to mention, it doesn’t change anything about what the author has to say about the political goals of evangelicals and how Trump would deliver for them, which is the topic of the article.

I hear Putin calling. You better check and see what he wants.

Nevermind that. He said he wanted to call out the military on anyone who didn’t vote for him on live television. Why isn’t the NYT reporting on that?

Oh, it’s just Trump!

At this point, I’m fairly convinced that the people trying to argue that we shouldn’t support Democrats because of a single issue, no matter how important that issue, are Russian assets.

You still haven’t explained how the author is wrong here. All you’ve told me is why you think the author is icky.

My point stands.

…I’m not seeing anything explaining how the author is wrong. Ad hominem is not an argument.

I hope you checked again and made sure you’re still registered this weekend.

Right. I don’t believe is my position as an atheist. I don’t know is why.

How is this so difficult for you?

That’s pretty weak tea, especially considering how so many Christians (but not all, I know) insist that Jesus and Yahweh are the same person, just different aspects.

Sure, but the text claims he was already dead by that point. So we’re back to my original claim.

You’re using the modified definition of “agnostic” that believers favor. We have no reason to accept that.

“Agnostic” literally means “I don’t know.” “Atheist” means “I don’t believe.” I don’t know that gods are real, and I have no reason to believe they do.

No faith required.

When it comes to the Christian God, that’s easy.

https://biblehub.com/judges/1-19.htm

The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron.

https://biblehub.com/1_kings/6-7.htm

In building the temple, only blocks dressed at the quarry were used, and no hammer, chisel or any other iron tool was heard at the temple site while it was being built.

While the Bible never says what was used to fix Jesus to the cross, tradition says it was three iron nails. There are two reasons why the account of the crucifixion is atypical of normal Roman executions: first of all, they didn’t usually waste good iron nailing victims to their crosses. They tied them to the posts. Secondly, crucifixion victims normally took days to die of dehydration and suffocation, which is why the Romans did it that way. But Jesus allegedly died in hours, not days.

So clearly, Yahweh has a weakness to iron. I fear no gods I know how to kill.

Do you think they’ll go away if Trump fails to take the White House?

They’re using this to provoke challenges against the wall of separation between church and state. They feel confident, with good reason, that the christofascist majority on the Supreme Court will reinterpret our Constitution to eliminate that law.

Religious indoctrination doesn’t promote progress:

This paper studies when religion can hamper diffusion of knowledge and economic development, and through which mechanism. I examine Catholicism in France during the Second Industrial Revolution (1870–1914). In this period, technology became skill-intensive, leading to the introduction of technical education in primary schools. I find that more religious locations had lower economic development after 1870. Schooling appears to be the key mechanism: more religious areas saw a slower adoption of the technical curriculum and a push for religious education. In turn, religious education was negatively associated with industrial development 10 to 15 years later, when schoolchildren entered the labor market.

Atheism doesn’t mean I know there are no gods. I suspect there aren’t, because religious claims about gods and reality don’t stand up to scrutiny. The more excuses you have to make for why reality doesn’t work the way you insist it should, the less inclined I am to believe you know what you’re talking about. Arguing for a prime mover or appealing to consequences doesn’t convince me either. I’m intellectually honest enough to say that I don’t have concrete knowledge that there are no gods the way I know there’s no money in my wallet, but not being able to prove there are no gods isn’t enough for me to believe that there are. Wanting to believe there are gods is no more useful than wanting there to be money in my wallet. It’s still a claim that requires validation, not a default assumption.

No it doesn’t. The only reason I bother calling myself an atheist is because believers keep insisting I have to share their beliefs. If they didn’t, I wouldn’t need the label.

None. Atheism isn’t a religion or philosophy. It’s an answer to one question, and only one: do you believe in gods? The answer is “no.”

Where we go from there is up to us.