Even one such as you should realize that the atheist does not need a martyr as that is a religious designation, thus not applicable to the atheist. It is not rocket science to figure this out.
You have changed the meaning of atheist from its original meaning. The French Catholics used the word as a curse word against the French Protestants, who were fighting to their religious freedom. They both believed in the same fairy tale and holy book and same list of characters. The difference was that the French Protestants didn't want to be Catholics anymore. They wanted to start their own religious franchise and get in on the gravy train. So the Catholics start killing them and the Protestants fought back and the blood flowed. As for me, I don't give a damn if anyone's favorite deity exists. It means nothing to me and I would never worship it. Have Atheists Ever Died for Their Lack of Faith? “I do, however, want to add one important proviso. Students of early Christianity and early modern Europe are familiar with a curious and widespread use of the word “atheist”: It was used as a term of derision directed against a believer. “Atheist” was what you called someone whose religious views you disagreed with—even though that someone thought God existed (see Alan Kors’ Atheism in France, 1650-1720, Volume I: The Orthodox Sources of Disbelief for a learned discussion of this question). That someone might come right back at you with a charge of “atheist,” even though you too were certain God existed! In this sense, countless “atheists” were imprisoned, tortured, and murdered in Europe of the 16th-18th centuries. This was a Europe, incidentally, were historians are very hard pressed to find unambiguous atheists as we know them today—that is to say, people who explicitly denied the existence of any God whatsoever.” https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/have-atheists-ever-died-for-their-lack-of-faith/34162
Well please point out what assertions you think I made that were...religious hypocrisy? Pathetic? I honestly don't understand your complaint since you didn't understand my posts in the first place. Feel free to show me what I wrote that you think I "attempting to change its meaning."
So...you agree with me that it's nuts for an atheist to foolishly throw their life away or....the opposite? You're very confusing!
Wow we may have a genuine problem over word definitions. I'm using the term atheist to mean, "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods." It's not just the first definition that comes up but the only one. And you're using it to mean a French Protestant? I'm sorry, I really don't want to waste time with someone who has their own private definition for every word. Apparently we've both wasted our time since I thought we were talking about nonbelievers and you thought we were talking about French Protestants.
No, they're different versions, but saying the same thing. Some are better than others. However, the only one I've found that is really false is the New World Translation, the Jehovah's witnesses. They twisted Scripture to fit their doctrines, which is an abomination. The New American Standard, NIV, New King James, and a few others are very good.
Man I've been begging you to point out my "falsehoods!" The problem is that you are having a totally different argument in your head than what I've written down here. I've seen this before, so it's not the first time. I've tried to get you to explain what you think my argument is, and you can't because you never read it. Or worse, you did read it, and just didn't have the capability to understand it. So which is it, did you just not read it or not understand it?
No, I'm actually asking you to point out what my "falsehoods" are. I'm trying to understand you what your argument has to do with anything I've written, and you would rather insult me than try to explain what you are talking about. Put them down as bullet points if it makes you feel more comfortable, but right now, you just seem like a crazy old man screaming at the clouds.
So Jesus was never tempted. Right? Pretty sure I read of one in The Story of Civilization by Will and Ariel Durant. IIRC, during the Spanish Inquisition an atheist woman told her Inquisitor that rather than be like him, she'd go to Hell - which I'm pretty sure she didn't.
Jesus was tempted. God in the flesh, tempted in all ways as we are. The New Testament explains it. Jesus is God and man. Do you need Scripture references?
Scripture says Jesus was God, came to earth as a man where he was tempted, and now sits on the throne of God. Do you need Scripture references?
I would say that the question calls.for you to guess that if for some reason you come to believe your current religion is not true, which one, of any, come closest to what you believe and is the likely choice.
To answer the OP question, Wicca. I'm currently Christian (no denomination), but if something were to present itself such that I felt I had been misled in my current choice Wicca is the next closest for me.
If i cam to the conclusion that Christianity was bogus. I would assume all religions were bs. And I'd become a satanist. Satanism is very rational. It puts the greatest emphasis on rights of the individual even to the exclusion of the rights of others. It's the ultimate hedonism, you have rights and no responsibility except to yourself. Essentially. I'd be out for me and screw everyone else. The exact opposite of Christianity.
Perhaps you can explain how it is that God lacked the authority to grant a seat on His right hand or His left hand, or how it is that He asked Himself to relieve Himself of the ordeal of crucifixion, or how exactly He managed to forsake Himself. Then He wasn't God. I gotcher scriptural reference right here: Jas 1:13 - Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
If there is a Holy Spirit then there is probably an Evil Spirit and maybe even an Indifferent Spirit.
