Why did the New Atheist movement fail to stop the rise of the Christian tradlarp aisle of the Far-Right?
>>534123920Harris is a faggot
because everyone looks at you and sees this
Religions proved too strong as tax havens, political organizing tools, and bulldozers over ordinances protecting human rights one doesn’t feel like following.
>>534123920Atheists are nihilistic dorks.
>>534123920Because Christ is king, the Redeemer of mankind.
>>534123920>MEME FLAG FAGGOT GO KYS
>>534123920Atheists cant justify their worldview. It always boils down to not wanting to feel guilty for being gay hedonistic pedophiles
>>534123920dumb questiona better one is why did the atheislam movement successfully pretend to be against religion while actually ushering in the total invasion of islam while still having you unironically believe it wasn't about doing that
>>534123920New atheism was killed by atheism+ (intersectionalist feminism/antiracism) during the Obama era and Dawkins got sidelined for being an islamophobic white man.
>>534124814If you remember, the actual hardcore fedora tippers tried that, with the "dear muslima" letter of Dawkins, only to be instantly canceled and deplatformed everywhere into irrelevance. The jew discarded them in the moment they outlived their usefulness.
>>534125005i didn't know thatu got a link?
>>534123920I think harris is a supporter of the current governments judeo-christianism.
>>534125036You dont have google on your computer?
>>534124565/thread. >>534124929The seeds of new atheism's downfall were already there. It was built around being the opposite of Christians so they could build their more rational world.
They thought the big issue was institutional religion when it's actually kikes and billionaires. The amount of misinformation that spread around Covid in 2020 proves that people are just as dumb and superstitious today as the were during the Plague in 1347 and the whole Trump phenomena proves that even without a church which claims authority from God you can still get authoritarian dipshits in charge with fanatic followings
Religion is correlated with poverty. As late stage crapitalism impoverishes everyone, religion will begin to rise again.
>>534124565You're welcome to your personal feelings and opinions
Atheism doesn't need a movement. As long as there is theism then there will always be atheism
Richard Dawkins: Should have just stuck to teaching and doing science instead of running his mouth on feminism and social justiceSam Harris: Zionist faggot. Never had anything relevant or unique to sayDennet: Unironically think he's just there so it's a quartet and not a trio. The other three work all on their own, Dennet's a complete literal who when not associated with the other 3. Christopher Hitchens: Gotta love this guy for how he ran his mouth like a 15 year-old long before that became the modus operandi. Called Mother Theresa a Fraud, Condemned Iran, condemned Israel, called his book "God is not Great" to piss off muslims, said multiculturalism was a bad idea. The movement was doomed to die when he did.
>>534123920It doesn't take much scrutiny to reveal the fact that atheism is nothing more than superstition. Materialism is an incoherent ideology that denies basic cause and effect, and even children can refute it.
>>534124690>can't justify their worldviewWhy does a person have to justify their worldview because they don't believe something that you believe? Maybe they just don't think the stories in whatever religious text you follow are to be taken literally.
>>534123920New atheism was mostly a reaction to the neocon establishment from the 2000s.
>>534123920because nu-atheists reject only the surface of christianity and they are still stuck within humanitarian guilt-based moral systems, they are effectively just temporarily confused christians, politically nearly indistinguishable from what the pope shills for
>>534126472Every worldview needs to be justified, otherwise it's unfounded and therefore wrong by definition. There are no coherent philosophical positions that lead to atheism, materialism or nihilism. All of them rely on self contradictions that null their own position.
>>534126325Hitchens had a handful of based takes, this one being chief among them.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpLik9VOdQo
Atheism will always fail because the world contains paranormal/supernatural stuff. The whole "It doesn't exist if I can't control it in a laboratory!" has never been a rational way of thinking and it just falls flat with most people.
>>534126061Very nice of you, but that remains a fact, regardless how it makes you feel. >>534126404Its not just that, it would be completely fine to be an engineering minded, atheist materialist and it would be an acceptable, if incomplete worldview. It is fine to say "we don't know" in science, and especially in cosmology. They were not atheists because they loved heckin science though, they were athesists because they wanted to attack religion. The concept of morality and inevitably getting judged for your actions just rankles the neurotic jewish brain eternally.
>>534124690>Atheists cant justify their worldviewLack of convincing evidence to make me believe in God or gods
>>534126611>but that remains a factTo you
>>534126607>Atheism will always fail because the world contains paranormal/supernatural stuffOne can be an atheist and still believe in paranormal things
>>534124690Or maybe, I can't just bring myself to believe in a Jewish foreskin demon creating the universe
>>534123920Youre gay and im not. Simple as.
>>534126562Isnt his best friend a boy fucking faggot?
>>534126698You can be an agnostic. Atheism denies the metaphysical entirely.
>>534126540Atheism is a rejection of your worldview. I don't need to claim to know why the universe exists in order to think there is a lack of evidence of a god. Maybe you just need to get more comfortable with not knowing things.
>>534126664Being emotional about a fact does not affect it. That's why they are facts.
>>534126759Agnostic atheist and atheism doesn't deny metaphysical entirely. It's just a disbelief or lack of belief in God or gods.
>>534126611You literally believe that the Jewish god is the uncaused cause, thereby breaking causality
>>534126826>Being emotional about a fact does not affect itBut that's all you have is emotions about it.>That's why they are facts.You're personal feelings and opinions about God are subjective
>>534126799>I don't need to claim to know why the universe exists in order to think there is a lack of evidence of a godYes, you literally do. You just said "I don't need to look into whether or not there's evidence before I decided that there's no evidence". You just admitted to being prejudiced, which means you are objectively wrong. An impartial look into the philosophy of ontology will always result in the belief that a Deity does exist.
>>534126875The fact that this image originated on 9gag, speaks for itself
>>534126984>can't argue the content>poisons the well instead
>>534123920Banana incident 2010
>I don't need to look into whether or not there's evidence before I decided that there's no evidenceYou are conflating believing with knowing. I do not believe your claims to why the universe exists, because the evidence is weak. I don't need to KNOW why the universe exists or even have my own beliefs to why it exists to reject your beliefs for a lack of evidence.I don't claim to know why the universe exists, because I don't KNOW why it exists.I was raised Christian, admittedly catholic where I received my first communion and was confirmed. I know their beliefs, and I simply do not agree.
>>534127374>>534126968Accidentally removed the reply
>>534126927What do you hope, what will your seething accomplish, rebbe? No one hates more Christianity than jews>>534126938Being emotional about a fact does not affect it.
>>534126968>>534127374Also I think it is worth admitting that I largely agree/prefer Christian values. If I had to choose to live in a place full of christians, jews, or muslims I would choose christians every time. I don't reject what christianity did to help humanity become what it is today. Unlike Sam Harris, I don't reject that modern society is largely shaped by Christian morality and not just naturally evolved morality.I just don't think I need to believe in god literally to follow those values. I think those values and the stories they are derived from were written by very wise men.
>>534127674>Being emotional about a fact does not affect itYet you keep telling me your personal feelings and opinions
they all took DMT and stfurealized they are just babies babbling about bullshit
>>534127674Wrong. Jews have multiple vectors of attack. Some jews hate the rabbi jeshua, some love him, but they all love christkeks
>>534123920It’s edgy to be trad and Christian these daysOnce that wears off, people (younger ones) will gravitate to something else
>>534127894>Being emotional about a fact does not affect it.>>534128275You have ben outed, jew.
>>534126875Not a thing.
>>534127374>>534127764You're conflating the existence of a deity in general with a specific religious tradition. You ought to look past your prejudices and hangups and look into the matter yourself with sincerity. Pure logic dictates that God must exist. You can take or leave Christianity as you please, but ontology is objective and there's no room for doubt. A first cause does and must exist, and this first cause must itself be uncaused.
>>534128343That's the thing. You haven't given any facts.
>>534127674>Being emotional about a fact does not affect it.Being emotional about facts means your opinions are biased, and a biased interpretation does effect the facts.
>>534128526To you
>>534128612At all. Its not a thing. Its like calling yourself a radical centrist. Faggot shit for people who can't accept what they are.
>>534128568>Pure logic dictates that God must existNot really. >but ontology is objective and there's no room for doubtNot really
>>534123920https://youtube.com/shorts/9io0ldpeQsI
>>534128657>Its not a thingTo you.I lack belief in God or gods until evidence convincing enough changes my mind
>>534128706Yes, really. Your refusal to admit reality does not influence reality.
>>534128804>Yes, reallyNah, your "logic" is nothing more than a presupposition based on circular reasoning and bias.
>>534123920"understanding" is the biggest trap of the matrix simulation, what you do when you "understand" things logically is putting concepts in a box. the matrix is a consciousness driven simulation and your consciousness is all you need, if you look at any animal, they are god's children, designed as a self replicating system in symbiosis with their habitat. they have all the tools they need to live and experience as it is their designed purpose. does god judge them on the other side, do you judge them? we don't because we understand they use their god given faculties and perception to fill their rol. humans are animals with the added brain capacity to observe themselves observing, that is awareness of self, which carries the byproduct of "understanding" the biggest trap, because by understanding you close the limits of possibilities and solidify the simulation, the simulation works like a dream, they are both the same technology, the simulation is however a collective dream solidified by collective understanding, ergo, intellectualism is what keep humans in their human shell and souls reincarnating in the cycle of memory loss. there is no single worse enemy to humanity than their own capacity to "understand". this is the true meaning of eating the apple
>>534123920Why would anyone pay attention to those midwits? lmao
>>534128868>presupposition>biasSays the man rejecting an argument that he hasn't even heard yet.
>>534129187I've heard em all kiddo. But go-ahead. Let me hear about your personal feelings and opinions about "God"
>>534128760Youre just an atheist with confidence problems.
>>534129298Confidence about?
>>534129264Basic logic is that for every effect there is a cause. Who is the primary mover?
>>534129334Your own rational ability.
>>534129264>I've heard em all kiddoConceit is the biggest presupposition of them all. You assume you already know the truth, thus shut yourself off from the truth. You can't learn or know anything because your own inflated ego blocks the entry of any new information.
>>534129365>Who is the primary mover?Who caused the primary mover?>>534129403Not an argument.
>>534129461>You assume you already know the truthCan you admit your views about God are opinions like mine?
>>534128575>>534128611Being emotional about a fact does not affect it.
hitchens became a neo con jew and so did sam harris
>>534129483You've presupposed that there was a time at which the primary mover didn't exist.
>>534128575>That's the thing. You haven't given any facts.>>534129529
>>534129559Incorrect
God is people's design. In all of history, people have been creating their own beliefs. Even today, every single person believe in their own sort of a God, which is why there are so many different religious groups even within a single religion. whether the person is altruistic or not is independent from his religious beliefs
>>534129600I'm correct. You literally just did as I said. The evidence is here.>>534129483"Who caused the primary mover?"You have assumed that the first cause needs a cause. It does not, because by definition it is uncaused. There was never a point in time at which it did not exist.
>>534129577Being emotional about a fact does not affect it.
>>534129483>Who caused the primary mover?The alpha and the omega>not an argument It was. There are three positions you can take on the metaphysical. >there is none>I dont know>there is Youre in the, "there is none" camp. Youre just not totally sold on it.
>>534123920When two things happened:1. Leftards started doing "Atheism+" (which was tacking on progressive-stack DEIshit)2. People realized the only abrahamic faith you couldn't criticize was judaism.
>>534129693>I'm correctNope>>534129693>You have assumed that the first cause needs a causeYou assume there is a first cause and the presuppose its your favorite version.You never entertain the idea that it could be what we know eternal. I don't know what started it all, no one does >>534129775>>Who caused the primary mover?>The alpha and the omegaOhh very vague >>534129775>>I dont knowAnd I lack belief until I do know See bud? Not hard at all.
>>534123920Social engineering and computer algorithms. The moment the New Atheist movement started criticising Islam and many ex-Muslims started making Atheist channels and blogs they changed the algorithm. I don't think that it was just the Woketards protecting their brownies, I think that the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or the UAE likely telegraphed the USA to instruct them to censor their platforms. Google, Microsoft, Etc. just follow the American government's orders and they quietly suppressed the online Atheist movement. The rise of Christianity in online spaces largely comes from criticism of the Woke being equated with Conservatives and Conservatives flocked to the left-wing anti-SJW movement because the media kept calling it "a Conservative space" (despite it just being a non-retarded Liberal space).
>>534129842>You assume there is a first cause and the presuppose its your favorite version.No, the existence of the first cause is the conclusion of the argument, not one of its premises. Do you know the difference between a premise and a conclusion?
>>534129631I would alter this statement and say God is people's observation of morality. I think we discover beliefs.
>>534129940>>534129842 (You) #>>You assume there is a first cause and the presuppose its your favorite version.>NoYup
>>534129993Jeez, you actually don't. An argument is a series of premises that support a conclusion. When you refute an argument, you have to refute the premises. You cannot skip right to rejecting the conclusion, because that's called prejudice. So if you want to argue against the necessity of a first cause, you have to argue against the premise that this universe operates on the principles of cause and effect.
>>534130079I don't see where this proves your favorite flavor of god.
>>534129842>Ohh very vagueNot really. >And I lack belief until I do knowThats the whole>>534129403>Your own rational abilityThing. You are asserting the athiest position. You are just uncertain of it. You being uncertain of your own ability to be rational doesnt mean you arent asserting the athiest position.
>>534130184>>Ohh very vague>Not really.100%>>534130184>You are asserting the athiest position.See the definition my friend
>>534130157Yes, you do. That's why you've ceased to argue against the points themselves and are now engaging in hit and run tactics. You've lost, and you know you've lost. If you hadn't lost, you'd be arguing right now instead of posturing.
>>534130312>Yes, you doNope.>That's why you've ceased to argue against the points themselves Which were? Your personal opinions and feelings?
>>534123920We're going to war. Wether it be civil war or the Iran war. How many atheist soldiers do you know?
they went after the easiest targets like obscure young earth creationists and rural homeschooling parents. people with no power. dunking on those people with high school science facts wasn't a good look. it made them look like smug annoying dorks.
>>534130366Point one is that this universe operates on the laws of cause and effect. Point two is that if every effect has a cause, there must be a first cause. This argument is very simply and you failed to refute it. There are no personal feelings involved, you simply lost this argument and are now violently thrashing about trying to convince yourself that you didn't just embarrass yourself.
>>534130501>Point one is that this universe operates on the laws of cause and effectAgreed>Point two is that if every effect has a cause, there must be a first causeWhy can't the universe be eternal? And why doesn't your "argument" just lead to infinite regression? >you simply lost this argumentNothing to lose when you're giving your opinions
>>534130278Just because you dont understand what it is, does not make it vague lol. Your definition of athiesm is just Agnosticism. Those are two different things. If youre unsure if there is a god or not then youre agnostic. If you are asserting there is no god, youre an athiest. There is no in-between
>>534123920Don't worry, it did - just not in the way people expected. I would argue that the "resurgence" of Christian nationalism was in part a frightened response to the New Atheist movement. I put resugence in quotation marks because if you actually go through the data, people saying religion is important dropped from 66% to 49% in a decade, and weekly church attendance is flat or still down compared to past decades, according to the latest Gallup polls. If anything, the drop in Christianity has leveled off a bit, but there is no resurgence.
>>534130638>Why can't the universe be eternal?Because our entire understanding of science is based on cause and effect?Its why so many people that actually understand science are NOT atheists. Lol. Im guessing youre some kind of humanities major.
>>534130741>Just because you dont understand what it isIt's a vague term used account for God.>Your definition of athiesm is just Agnosticism>Your Lol, concession accepted >>534130839>Because our entire understanding of science is based on cause and effect?>our entire understandingWhich has changed a lot and will continue to change. Which is really point
>>534123920>Far-Right?Tends to be anti-religion and anti-government.
>>534130638>Why can't the universe be eternal?I assume by "universe" you mean dead, lifeless matter. Matter can be eternal, but it can't be the first cause. The reason why dead lifeless matter can't be the first cause is because it does not possess the properties it grants to its effects. Matter doesn't have life or mind, yet life and mind exist in the universe. What's more, matter operates under specific laws such as chemistry and physics. Those laws exist prior to matter, meaning matter itself can't be first.>And why doesn't your "argument" just lead to infinite regression?Because it terminates in a first cause that is itself uncaused. Infinite regression isn't possible because an infinite supply of effects with no cause is a nonsense proposition that logic refutes. A series of potentials with no actual to set off the chain does not exist.
>>534131047>It's a vague term used account for God.Its a very specific term talking about the eternal nature of god. It couldnt be much more specific lol. >concession accepted. So why exactly was the term agnostic even coined? >what has changed alot will continue to changeThis means nothing. Youre saying absolutely nothing.
>>534131157>Infinite regression isn't possibleMany physicists are starting to disagree with you.
>>534123920I don't think Christians larp. I think they largely accept that they are flawed and work towards bettering themselves. I've never heard of an atheist admitting they were flawed or sinful, when we're all so full of sin.
>>534131157>Matter can be eternalDone and done >Because it terminates in a first cause that is itself uncaused.Your argument does that until you can prove God objectively >>534131203>Its a very specific term talking about the eternal nature of god.Who's God?>>534131203>>what has changed alot will continue to change>This means nothing. Youre saying absolutely nothing.It means our current understanding is current.
>>534131323No, they aren't. Physics has only developed in ways that agree with what I'm saying.
>>534123920>Why did the New Atheist movement fail to stop the rise of the Christian tradlarp aisle of the Far-Right?I have the answer you are looking for, but you will repost this thread regardless. The reason they failed was because they only had a legitimate case for why a theocracy has zero right to rule over a population. Something largely based on faith has no business running anything other than a testimonial helpline. Where they fucked up was falling into the midwit trap of stating there is no God, when you would need to actually be a God to know this for sure. What they were shooting for is akin to what Marx was: giving shitty people the belief that their actions would not be judged or even stopped if they felt justified in their biology. And that is it. You can see why low IQ and low morals people bought like they did in Marx's time. Taking down the fruits of religion, largely the dismantling of the genocidal tribal state. In the end, they were just another cog trying to take down the very thing supporting their existence. These weaklings would not survive in their utopias, even if their delusions did. Ivory tower midwits are some of the most dangerous humans.
>>534123920The New Atheism and especially The Four Horsemen were a psyop designed to get liberals and libertarians to support or at least not oppose George W. Bush & Tony Blair's's Global War On Terror. Remember Hitch's "Islamofascism" meme? That was designed to appeal to liberals and libertarians, both of whom reflexively foam at the mouth when you say "fascism". Well, times and circumstances have changed. Now that the first iteration of the zogwars is over, the New Atheism psyop has been discontinued and replaced with more appropriate psyops for the second iteration of the zogwars. Today, we need dumb White Southern evangelical boys to go fight and die for Israel over in Iran, to own the libs and protect God's Chosen, so now we get fake trad zio-Christianity to provide Shlomo with his goy cannon fodder. The meatgrinder must be fed.
>>534131352>Who's God?Theres just the one. >means our current understanding is current.This is the scientific method, and that has not changed since the day it was thought up.
>>534131355>No, they aren'tYou should probably do more reading on this subject. In any event, if a god can exist without a cause, why can't the universe exist without a cause? Why do you insist on shoving "god" into anything you don't understand? You realize you're just arguing the latest iteration of the god of the gaps fallacy, right?
>>534123920Ever notice that all of the prominent atheist talking heads are jews, fags, drunkards, or all three? Christ is King.
>>534131529>Theres just the oneTo you>>534131529>This is the scientific methodAs far as we understand it
>>534126637>Lack of convincing evidenceYou're just terminally ignorant.
>>534131626Sounds like a personal problem
>>534123920Religiosity is still declining the reality is the evangelical church is just filthy rich and is basically synonymous with the Republican party.
>>534123920Because american christians are literal schizos who believe their made up semitic desert nigger ripoff of zeus is real and demands they donate all of their money to israel.
>>534131586>As far as we understand itThis isnt one of those things. Its the framework in which modern science is based. Its not even something that can be studied. If the scientific method changes, the entire way in which we do science will change. >to youTo the world.
>>534131565>if a god can exist without a causeBecause it contains all things.>why can't the (physical)universe exist without a cause?Because it doesn't contain all things.>Why do you insist on shoving "god" into anything you don't understand? You realize you're just arguing the latest iteration of the god of the gaps fallacy, right?No, that's what you're doing. You're injecting ambiguity into anything that you don't understand due to your own refusal to look into the subject. Ontology doesn't suffer from any sort of "gap". You're quite literally just shutting your eyes to the topic and insisting that nobody can know because you don't know. That's more dogmatic than any of the arguments for a deity that are being provided.
>>534131780>This isnt one of those things.Very egotistical of you>>534131780>>to you>To the world.Nope
>>534126611>They were not atheists because they loved heckin science though, they were athesists because they wanted to attack religion. The concept of morality and inevitably getting judged for your actions just rankles the neurotic jewish brain eternally.Delusional fantasy atheist that you invented in your head. Or proof of >>534131725 because the church has enough power and reach to broadcast propaganda to dumb fucks like you.
>>534131801>God of the gaps
>>534131801>contains all things.What does that mean? The universe does literally contain everything.
>>534131801>You're injecting ambiguity into anything that you don't understandYeah, it's called skepticism, AKA not believing in shit until there is evidence for it rather than going "hurr durr god." You should try it sometime.
>>534131982The physical universe does not contain geometry, physics, mathematics, logic, justice or morality. These are informing principles that exist prior to matter. Matter could not exist without them, it's entirely dependent upon them, thus they can't be contained within matter. It's more accurate to say that matter is contained within them.
>>534132144>The physical universe does not contain geometry, physics, mathematics, logic, justice or moralityIt sure does
>>534132041>Yeah, it's called skepticismNo, that's not what skepticism is. Refusing to look into a subject and then forming opinions about that subject purely on the basis of your own personal ignorance is called prejudice, not skepticism.
>>534132242>It sure doesYour lack of scientific knowledge is astounding. Why do all the morons worship science lol
>>534123920atheists are cringe, no need to overthink
>>534132144Naaahhhhhhhh platonism is retarded. All that abstract stuff exists and happens in physical brains. The laws of physics for instance are a formal description of our observations of "how the universe is" and it just is like that.
>>534132242No, it doesn't. Nowhere on this earth or in any corner of the material world does a perfect triangle exist, yet the geometric law that states that the three angles of a triangle must add up to 180 degrees does exist. This means that there are immaterial laws, and immaterial laws can't be contained within the material world.
>>534132318Not an argument
>>534123920Atheism is cringe.
>>534132433>Nowhere on this earth or in any corner of the material world does a perfect triangle existLiterally in your head
>>534132433>No, it doesn'tIt sure does. All of those things are demonstrable in the physical world.
>>534123920as explained in [Rom 1], atheists are gay
>>534132395>All that abstract stuff exists and happens in physical brainsIf that were the case it would be subjective. People on one side of the planet would have totally different rules of mathematics compared to the other side. The fact that mathematical and geometric laws are objective means that these laws must exist independently of the human mind. They cannot be inventions of the human mind, and it's absolutely absurd to suppose that they are.
>>534131759Right, but islamist regimes are "fascist" and oppress women & gays, so all good freethinkers in America, Canada, and the UK should hold their noses and go fight against israel's rivals in the Middle East to save the women and allow gay pride parades in Tehran. Looke, I know israel is bad and all, but women and gays come first. You're not some kind of fascist, are you?Oops, sorry, wrong psyop. I forgot it's 2026 now.
>>534125912> you must reach into your soul, find the dubai, and destroy it forever -t. khamenei
>>534132496And in yours. And no matter how hard we try, we can't disagree on this law, because the law is immutable, objective and independent of us. That means we didn't invent it, otherwise we would be able to change it. Meaning it exists prior to us and informs us, we do not inform it.>>534132531Lines and points can't even be accurately represented in the physical world, because by definition they have no breadth or width.
>>534132547>People on one side of the planet would have totally different rules of mathematics compared to the other side.Not if we are all basing our math of an objective material reality.
>>534132547>>All that abstract stuff exists and happens in physical brains>If that were the case it would be subjective.Not really. We can reach the objective co conclusions that 2+2=4>>534132657>Lines and points can't even be accurately represented in the physical worldSure they can.
>>534132678>Not if we are all basing our math of an objective material reality.Which we obviously aren't, because we can conceive of numbers that we've never seen. If we were limited by physical reality, then we could only count up to the number of objects which we have personally seen. Extrapolation would not be possible, because extrapolation depends on principles.
>>534132704>We can reach the objective co conclusions that 2+2=4Which we can only do because math is objective. And math can only be objective if mathematical principles exist outside of the human mind. You just proved my point.>Sure they can.You don't know the first thing about geometry, do you?
>>534132657>Define an object in such a way that it has three sides it just so happens to have the property of always having 180 degreesI don't see how that proves it exists in some immaterial nether realm. We define a thing so it is just that by definition and when you impose constraints you discover properties that these constraints have. Triangles are something we made up.
>>534132899We didn't invent triangles with those constraints, the constraints were discovered in the same way that the Pythagorean theorem was discovered. It's not like Pythagoras sat down and decided to invent numbers and invent rules for those numbers. The rules were discovered through trial and error. The rules and their limits existed first.
>>534132760Does everything I can imagine exist then?
>>534133038Everything that can be conceived of exists, yes. Just not necessarily together. For example, you can conceive of purple and you can conceive of elephants. That means both exist, but it does not mean purple elephants exist. You cannot conceive of a "triangle sphere" or a "square circle" or "an untrue truth", because those do not exist and cannot exist. Conceivability defines the limits of existence.
>>534133241But purple elephants must exist in the immaterial universe or whatever right?
>>534123920Dawkins changed his tune pretty quick when given experience of non Christian culture.Harris is a kike, nuff said.Dennett and Hitchens are both dead so who cares what they think.
>>534123920THESE WILL ALWAYS BE MY FOUR HORSEMEN BROTHERRRRRRR LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING WHEN I GET YOU IN THE OCTAGON AT STARCADE 88 THERE WILL BE HELL TO PAY!!!
>>534133241Actually nvm, conceivability does not imply existence. Therefore just because you can conceive of God he doesn't necessarily exist.
>>534132252>Refusing to look into a subject and then forming opinionsThat's not at all what I do. If I don't understand a subject, I look into it and study it. That's literally how I became an atheist.
>>534133337I don't see anything that makes them logically necessary or logically impossible, but I'd hazard a guess and say that if there were sufficient reason for them to exist in the world of principle then they'd exist in the world of matter, and since they don't exist in the world of matter there's a good chance they don't exist anywhere other than a person's imagination.
>>534133617>say that if there were sufficient reason for them to exist in the world of principle then they'd exist in the world of matterOkay so conceivability doesn't even imply existence in the world of priciple.
>>534133598>Therefore just because you can conceive of God he doesn't necessarily exist.That's not an argument I'd have ever used, personally.>Okay so conceivability doesn't even imply existence in the world of priciple.It does, just not in combinations that we've invented. Just because rhinos must exist and spiders must exist, doesn't mean that rhinos with spider legs must exist. That applies to the world of matter as well as principles.
>>534134089>Just because rhinos must exist and spiders must exist, doesn't mean that rhinos with spider legs must exist.And how do you know this?
>>534134089>>534134283I mean how do you know that things that can be conceived do not necessarily exist in the world of principle in general.
>>534134283Because it's not logically necessary that they would. Note that I only said "doesn't mean that they must exist", not "they must not exist". They could possibly exist somewhere, I just don't see a logical argument for why they would absolutely have to.
>>534134376Because if it only exists in my imagination, there's no need for it to exist in principle. It only needs to exist in principle if it exists with certainty outside of and independent of my imagination, which is the case with geometric and mathematical principles.
>>534134613You seem to rely a lot on logic, as if it is the utmost de facto force in understanding the universe. Let me ask you this - prior to Einstein, do you think it was "logical" for someone to believe that a particle could exist in two places at once? I'm pretty sure logic would have failed you on that one. The point is, what seems illogical now (like an infinite universe) can easily be displaced by scientific discovery. Human logic only takes you so far.
>>534132844>Which we can only do because math is objectiveAnd is demonstrable in the physical world
>>534134859>as if it is the utmost de facto force in understanding the universe.It absolutely is.>prior to Einstein, do you think it was "logical" for someone to believe that a particle could exist in two places at once? I'm pretty sure logic would have failed you on that one.Plotinus literally proved that the simplest object must exist outside of time, using nothing but pure logic. He already knew what Einstein claimed to have discovered almost 2000 years prior. That's how utterly flawless logic is at solving problems.>can easily be displaced by scientific discoveryNo, it can't. Scientific discovery depends upon logic. The scientific method itself is nothing more than the application of logic to the natural world.
>>534134859>particles exist in two places at once>universe is infinitemaybe you are just a retard who misunderstands superposition and infinity, neither of those things are necessarily true, unless your interpretation of physics is new?
>>534134884>And is demonstrable in the physical worldSo are the laws of cause and effect which inevitably conclude that a first cause must exist. We can extrapolate, in the same way that we can know "a trillion plus one equals a trillion and one" without actually having needed to count a trillion apples.
>>534134732Why do I need a world of principle to imagine something like a straight line? Someone had to explain to another person what is meant by a straight line with language that means the idea had to be materially transferred from one brain to another right?>>534135245>So are the laws of cause and effect which inevitably conclude that a first cause must exist.No it absolutely does not.
>>534135219I didn't say one caused the other, you illiterate retard. I was illustrating a point.>>534135135>It absolutely isYou couldn't possibly be more wrong for points I already demonstrated.>Plotinus literally proved that the simplest object must exist outside of time, using nothing but pure logic.Nothing has been "proven" in that regard. At all. For you to actually say that demonstrates how lost in the weeds you really are. >No, it can't. Scientific discovery depends upon logic. The scientific method itself is nothing more than the application of logic to the natural world.Yes, we use logic and apply that to studying the universe, and through that process, things that we once believed were "illogical" become reality. Science is the vector that shows what is truly logical or illogical.You're really bad at this.
>>534126637>transcendental argument>cosmological argument>sacred geometrydurrrrrr
>>534135595I was pointing out two separate retarded statements you made, I never implied they were related. You are an ESL retard please kys.
>>534135595You didn't demonstrate anything other than your own misunderstanding of what science is.>Nothing has been "proven" in that regardThen neither can anything be proven in the realm of theoretical physics, since it's theoretical. What you're really driving at is empiricism, except with a weird veneer of science worship by somebody who doesn't understand the first thing about science or its methods.>things that we once believed were "illogical" become realityNo, reality is a constant, as is logic. Everything that's true was already true and logical. The only thing that changes is that we discover the errors in our reasoning. That doesn't undermine reason itself or cast any doubt as to its efficacy.
>>534126705>good thing the atheists never mutilate genitalsanon...
>>534135796Cool. Do you believe everything we know about the nature of the universe today would be "logical" to someone existing 4,000 years ago? Yeah, thought not.
>>534135977>Do you believe everything we know about the nature of the universe today would be "logical" to someone existing 4,000 years ago?Obviously, yes. If you could show them your reasoning then they would be obliged to agree with you. If you were to show well proven and established 20th century mathematical theories to Pythagoras, he would simply say "yes, that all makes perfect sense given the arguments you've provided for me". If you're expecting them to just accept conclusions with no arguments, then that really shows how little you know about anything.
>>534123920easy1. weirdo2. gay nepo baby3. boring4. depressed/suicide
>>534135937Dude, your arguments thus far have boiled down to:-God of the gaps (self-explanatory)-Kalam cosmological argument (flawed on both premises and doesn't even mention god)Do you have anything else?
>>534136164>If you could show them your reasoning then they would be obliged to agree with you.I'm pretty sure they'd just bash your head in with a rock but okay.
>>534135514>Why do I need a world of principle to imagine something like a straight line?Because your senses never informed you of a straight line, since straight lines don't exist in nature. That means it must exist in principle, if it doesn't exist in material. Even if you were to draw a rough approximation of a straight line, that just begs the question of where you got the idea to draw that straight line.>No it absolutely does not.Yes, it absolutely and irrefutably does. If cause and effect are valid, then by necessity there must be a primary cause. You can only refute this by refuting cause and effect itself, which is a self contradicting argument.
>>534135977You are right that it would be hard to reason with the monkey retards from 4000 years ago. It is no different from today, try teaching a normie how to do basic math or high school physics. I was just sperging at your superposition and infinite universe examples. I don't think you should kill yourself btw. Sorry for saying that.
>>534136164>If you could show them your reasoning then they would be obliged to agree with youBut you can't, retard. This was 4,000 years ago. The concepts would be completely illogical to them UNTIL better logic (through science) prevails. My ENTIRE point is that what seems illogical to you now could end up completely logical with new discoveries. Therefore, your "logic" is imperfect and does not meet the standard to conclude that God exists.
>>534136300There's no such thing as "god of the gaps". That's not a real phenomenon, because "god" was never used as an explanation for something that wasn't understood. Metaphysics were understood first, and only afterwards were these things given names. This idea that ancient people just made things up to explain away things they didn't understand yet is completely ahistorical and rooted in nothing other than mindless conceit.
>>534123920atheists don't breed nearly as much as religious people. often the primary source of people being born is religious people creating cycles of religious parents and athiestic children. as those athiestic children grow up they become athiestic adults that are typically cut off from society and therefore lose breeding privalages their only hope then is to find other religious people and convert them to athiesim. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/w6mSSOlvtOs
>>534136505>I don't think you should kill yourself btw. Sorry for saying that.That's ok, I'll probably end up doing it anyway eventually. Fuck being old and sick.
>>534135245>So are the laws of cause and effect which inevitably conclude that a first cause must exist.Or it's eternal. If there is a first cause, no one knows what it is. >>534135757>presuppositionsDerrrr
>>534136448>Because your senses never informed you of a straight line, since straight lines don't exist in nature.They never informed me of greenlings either.>Yes, it absolutely and irrefutably does.No it absolutely does not. You can have an cyclical big bang or you can have a block universe. Also keep in mind cause and effect is a time dependent phenomenon and time is a part of space time which is a part of the universe itself you can't say cause and effect im reference to anything outside of time.
>>534136560>because "god" was never used as an explanation for something that wasn't understood.Sure it was. Lighting wasn't understood so we assigned a "God" to it
>>534136539Yes, you can. Do you think that humans were cavemen with no language 4,000 years ago? Is your understanding of history really this bad? The Egyptians already had a fully worked out system of advanced metaphysics 4,000 years ago, which they taught to the Greeks. They would be able to understand everything you told them, as long as you took them step by step. It would take time and be a lot to digest, but that's just how learning takes place.>My ENTIRE point is that what seems illogical to you now could end up completely logical with new discoveries. Therefore, your "logic" is imperfect and does not meet the standard to conclude that God exists.That's not an argument, that's an appeal to ignorance fallacy. "But your logic MIGHT be wrong" does not refute the logic given. If you can't argue against the logic provided with your own logic, that means you're wrong by definition. Your sloppy, lazy and fallacious attempt at arguing here could be used for literally anything. You could even say "Well the theory of gravity MIGHT be wrong because we don't KNOW that if I drop a stone it'll fall to the earth because someday we MIGHT discover something we don't know YET" and you'd be just as wrong as you are now.
>>534136560>god was never used as an explanation for something that wasn't understoodAre. You. Serious?You're trying to tell me that no natural phenomenon was ever attributed to god rather than nature in the past?
>>534136818No, that's not how Zeus came to be imagined. You're speaking as if you don't know anything other than what you've learned from cartoons.
>>534123920Derailed by politics.That said tradlarp (other than social media aesthetics) also isn't "rising". If nobody can maintain the stay-at-home mom thing anymore the whole fashion disintegrates.
>>534136914>No, that's not how Zeus came to be imaginedI didn't say anything about Zeus You make a lot of retard assumptions and presuppositions
>>534123920Who told you that the goal of the movement was to stop the rise of the Christian tradlarp aisle of the Far-Right? lol
>>534123920Because the rise of Christianity is a reaction to atheism, which was a reaction to religion still holding power in people's lives in the 90's and 2000's. It's not really edgy to dunk on religion these days when hardly anyone is religious anymore.
>>534136734>Fuck being old and sick.I'm sorry brother. I genuinely wish you the best. I'm a caregiver for an old man whom I adore dearly, seeing a good man go through what he is breaks my heart. Godspeed friend
>>534136844>They would be able to understand everything you told them, as long as you took them step by step. It would take time and be a lot to digest, but that's just how learning takes place.You literally just proved my point with the back end of that statement.>"Well the theory of gravity MIGHT be wrong because we don't KNOW that if I drop a stone it'll fall to the earth because someday we MIGHT discover something we don't know YET"Funny you mention it, but the Theory of Gravity literally might be wrong/incomplete according to evidence from the James Webb. As I said before, you should read more.
>>534136900You know even less about history than you do about science, apparently. The ancient world didn't have separate concepts for god and nature. Nature was just the manifestation of the gods, which were understood from a metaphysical perspective well before they were even given names or statues. It doesn't even make sense from a linguistic perspective for them to have blamed gods for things they didn't understand. How can a group of people attribute something to a cause that they don't even have a name for yet? That would be like if I went outside and saw a roadkilled deer, then said "look, a glorb did that". Names don't inform knowledge or experience, knowledge and experience inform names.
>>534123920>scientistYes, almost in the same way Trofim Lysenko was one; egalitarian dumbass. Also, fuck his ex-wife Lalla for being a selfish cunt.>scholarlol>philosopherSophistry disguised as learned wisdom>rebelHe understood that women are not funny from a genetically biological perspective, but his political takes were mostly the same dogshit you could find from moderate sources.
>>534123920there's nothing inspiring about atheism, it's a pseud circle jerk about how smart and enlightened you are. people are driven to aspire to a higher ideal
>>534123920https://youtube.com/shorts/nEUKmKlGbp8
>>534137274>Nature was just the manifestation of the godsWhich seems to contradict your statement.>>534136560>"god" was never used as an explanation for something that wasn't understood.Nature wasn't understood like it is today, so humans assigned gods to nature's different aspects
>>534137227>but the Theory of Gravity literally might be wrong/incomplete according to evidence from the James WebbWhich is only possible because James Webb has an argument of his own to update the previous argument. What James Webb didn't do is sit around saying "I don't trust that old theory because I don't trust logic itself", which is what you're doing. You've missed the point entirely.
>>534123920Atheists cannot offer meaning or purpose. They can only ridicule and criticize. They can only offer banal hedonism.
>>534123920>the New Atheist movementthat is 2 decades old???half of them were british but novbody gave a flying fuck a\bout "new athiesm" in britain.
>>534137274You’re trying to make this sound like a deep historical point, but it doesn’t really work. The idea that people couldn’t attribute events to gods because they didn’t have names yet is just wrong. Humans infer agency before naming it all the time. If early people saw lightning, floods, or disease, they could still think something caused it, even if that cause was vague or unnamed. The name comes later. Your own example actually proves this. Saying “a glorb did that” is exactly how placeholder explanations work. It is not incoherent, it is the beginning of forming an explanation.And your claim that ancient people didn’t distinguish between nature and gods doesn’t refute the point, it supports it. In many cultures, natural forces were treated as intentional agents. Lightning being associated with Zeus or thunder with Thor shows that unknown phenomena were explained through supernatural or intentional forces. Whether they saw nature as gods or caused by gods, the underlying pattern is the same. Anthropological evidence across cultures shows that floods, droughts, and disease were commonly interpreted this way. The idea that there was some fully formed metaphysical understanding before names were attached is not supported by history. Beliefs developed through stories, rituals, and personifications over time, with names and explanations emerging together, not separately.
>>534124814Because they were never against religion, just Christianity. Notice how they never criticize Judaism or Islam, but reframe those as cultures or (oddly in Islam's case) races to make them immune from criticism.
>>534137471It doesn't contradict my statement at all. The natural world was seen to be a reflection of the divine world. That doesn't mean that gods were being used as an "explanation" for lightning, and our current understanding of how lightning functions doesn't undermine the ancient notion of gods in any way at all. What you're saying is as nonsense as saying "we can see how the human heart works now with science, therefore Hercules didn't exist". It's a complete and utter non-sequitur, because Hercules's existence wasn't predicated on the idea that no one knew how his body works. Likewise, the gods weren't predicated on the idea that no one knew how the natural world works.
>>534137633>And your claim that ancient people didn’t distinguish between nature and gods doesn’t refute the point, it supports it.It completely refutes your point. The gods were not invented to explain things that they didn't understand. The gods were representations of principles that they did understand through their study of metaphysics. You'd have to be completely ignorant to think that they just invented the gods to explain things like wind and the tides.
>>534126826faith is all about emotion, its illogical and feminine
>>534137770>What you're saying is as nonsense as saying "we can see how the human heart works now with science, therefore Hercules didn't exist"No dummy, it isn't. What in saying is at one point humans didn't understand the world around them and they used metaphysical explanations like God and gods to explain them. So much so we invented ways to try and please these gods to give us bountiful seasons and favorable weather.
>>534127764living in a christian society is living in a jewish society that transforms into a muslim society, its just delaying the inevitable, their values are weakness and multiculturalism
>>534128328not really, its just a trend of latinx larpers representing the right wing online. Even then the right wing is the new hegemony rn and it will quickly revert back to the left. The charlie kirk situation completely destroyed all the counter cultural goodwill that christcuckery had
>>534137883>The gods were not invented to explain things that they didn't understand. The gods were representations of principles that they did understand through their study of metaphysics.You're just replacing invented with representation and acting like they aren't on in the same in this context. Humans invented the representation that these gods are applied to in metaphysics
>>534137960Metaphysics don't exist to explain the physical world, that's why they're metaphysics and not physics. You really ought to read some Aristotle or Plato before making sweeping claims about a period in time that you've got zero understanding of.
Pile drive niggers, laser them.
Burn! Burn it all!! Skewer! The mind! Mind fuck!
>>534138102>Metaphysics don't exist to explain the physical worldThey exist to explain a representation of the physical world>>534138102>making sweeping claims about a period in time that you've got zero understanding of.I think I have a better understanding than you do.
>>534123920Atheists are approaching the end of their usefulness to the elites. It’s a matter of public record that our leaders are sickos. Their spiritual practices are sick too and they’re not atheists.
>>534137883You’re treating “metaphysics” like it existed first and then got expressed as gods, when in reality early belief systems were NOT abstract philosophical systems. They were stories, rituals, and personifications that developed over time and only LATER got formalized into philosophy. The earliest layers of religion across cultures are not clean metaphysical principles. They are narratives about agents causing events, often tied directly to natural forces and human concerns.And the claim that gods were not used to explain natural phenomena just doesn’t hold up. Again, in Ancient Greece, lightning was attributed to Zeus and the sea to Poseidon. In Norse mythology, thunder was tied to Thor. These were NOT abstract metaphysical placeholders first and explanations second. They were active, intentional agents understood to cause and influence real-world events. You can layer philosophical interpretations on top of that later, and many cultures did, but that does not erase the original explanatory role.So no, this does not refute the point. It reframes later philosophical developments as if they were the starting point, which flips the timeline. Early humans did not begin with refined metaphysical principles and then symbolize them. They experienced a world full of uncertainty, inferred agency behind what they could not control or predict, and built stories and identities around those forces. The philosophical interpretations came afterward, not before.
Drill a hole into the brain! Blast it! Ass blast! Brain fog, brain fart, brain fuck!
>>534138101They're not the same. There was never a point in time in human history when a group of people saw something they couldn't explain, then decided to invent an explanation out of whole cloth and were satisfied that their own random fabrication as a suitable explanation. That's not how humans work. That's not how humans have ever worked at any time. They wouldn't have been satisfied with such conclusions for the same reason why you wouldn't be satisfied if your mechanic told you that your car needed pixie dust to run. It's not as if skepticism and doubt were invented in the last century and never existed before then.
>>534138202>You’re treating “metaphysics” like it existed first and then got expressed as godsYes, that's absolutely the case and every aspect of history backs that up. Metaphysics were understood first as solid, mathematical principles. And only after that were the gods invented as symbols to represent those principles. Thinking otherwise shows that you've been educated by cartoons.
>>534138254>They're not the sameThey really are though. You even demonstrated it lol>>534138254>There was never a point in time in human history when a group of people saw something they couldn't explain, then decided to invent an explanation out of whole cloth and were satisfied that their own random fabrication as a suitable explanationI never said they just made it up out of no where.You are either a very stupid person or very disingenuous to purposely misrepresent what I'm saying by adding in things I didn't say.
Nigger getting blasted to smithereens, art!
I solo the negro race.
>>534138371The only dishonesty here has been yours, throughout the entire thread. Let's not forget that you lost the initial argument so thoroughly that you had to abandon ship and change topics.
>>534138444Look at all these claims you can't back up.
America: Become Nigger
>>534123920Modern christcucks are only christcucks as a reactionary coping mechanism, it’s one of the only ways left to rebel against their (incorrect) image of their “enemies”
It's unironically demographics. Not just atheists, put people with a liberal ideology in general, don't fucking reproduce. It's a huge problem. Mathematically, as a certainty, the world is going to get more religious, more right wing every generation. The left, or the atheists to the extent they overlap, needs to embrace family values type stuff. You cannot be non-reproductive.
>>534138484You lost the moment you admitted to rejecting arguments that you hadn't even heard yet. A biased position is wrong by default.
Niggers are my comfort character, I will never hurt them.
>>534138607>you admitted to rejecting arguments that you hadn't even heard yet.I never did such a thing.
>>534138333>nuh uh, I'm just rightlol, got you on the ropes now.No, that’s just flatly wrong and backwards.There is zero historical evidence that early humans developed “solid, mathematical metaphysics” first and only later invented gods as symbols. The earliest religious records we actually have are myths, rituals, and personified forces, not abstract equations or formal metaphysical systems. In places like Ancient Greece, the gods show up in poetry and storytelling long before philosophy or mathematics become formalized. Thales of Miletus and later thinkers are the ones who move away from myth toward abstraction, not the other way around.Your timeline is inverted. Myth and personification come first, then philosophy tries to reinterpret or replace them. Claiming “every aspect of history backs that up” when the actual historical record shows the opposite is just overconfidence, not an argument.
God of the gaps sounds quirky and all but what does it even mean or say? Isn't it just an appeal to moving the goalpost?Can't believe you heckled my mental breakdown session with this innane bullshit. Don't make me read that gay shit again.
no no no you don't understand, it was not an old man that created the universe, it was a big explosion that came out of nowhere and created everything. WHY DON'T YOU BELIEVE SCIENCE!?
>>534140631>was a big explosion that came out of nowhereNo one says that
>>534132600Go cry to your megachurch pastor about it, chud. Only room temperature IQ individuals feel the need for theism.
>>534123920Funny how these guys can only exist within a Christian society. As the bubble that was American hegemony starts to crack, these guys are having to face the reality of the real Real world. Their influence has lost sway and they themselves have had to change their world views to account for the low IQ of the third world, the savagery of the Islamic hoardes of the middle east and the souless, hyper number crunching of buddho-communistic east asians. Read your Bible, believe in Jesus Christ and stop listening to these losers.
>>534141090>believe in Jesus ChristWhy?
>>534141222God Christ incarnated as a jew (chose them) to show that jews would still reject him and be antichrists.Pretty smart plan. It is god after all. LOL just kidding, Jesus wasn't a genetic jew. He was white.
>>534141430>Jesus wasn't a genetic jew>21 And when eight days were completed [a]for the circumcision of the Child, His name was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb.
>>534141634you left your meds in the hole kike
>>534126490
>>534141727>No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God.
>>534123920>religion continues to decline >religion continues to lose cultural relevance you lost jew worshipers
>>534128275
>>534129542
>>534131119the definition of right wing is christianity- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_political_spectrum#Origins_in_the_French_Revolution
>>534136300
>>534126637>He thinks it an only be one or the other. Peak vaccinated midwit
>>534141792>bringing up circumcision over and over like a kike thinking it's proving anything
>>534142210Even your strawman doesn't make sense. I never got the covid 19 vax
>>534141904first of all, we don't worship jewssecond of all, it's atheists that are going extinct
>>534126637you have faith in your senses (eyes, ears, etc) to tell you what's around you. what's the square root of minus 1?and there is no evidence that you would acceptif jesus appeared in front of you right now, you would say: "i'm hallucinating, i've gone insane, this is a trick from advanced alien technology"meanwhile, even your worldview grants that we might be figments in the dream of a greater being, or as is trendy to say nowadays, that we're living in a computer simulation, with a "spirit" that is the code, a "father" that is the programmer, and "son" that is the avatar(not that this is a 1 to 1 interpretation of christianity, but that your dismissive arguments do not make you correct)you simply do not want to be christian, you do not want to obey the teachings or have hope that those who do will be rewarded, while those who don't will be punished>"For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees"- Romans 8:24
>>534142213>inward jew seething >>534142334>atheists that are going extinctNot really. As long as their is theism, then there will be atheism.You can't guarantee your kids will remain religious as they grow up.
>>534142401>you have faith in your sensesNah, I have reasonable expectations. The opposite of faith
>>534128760christians have the strongest armiesthe most fertile womenthe wealthiest nationslist goes onchristians are blessed
>>534123920Because it is jewish ?
>>534142491You're welcome to your personal feelings and opinions, Tsani
>>534142544>47 postsare you brown ? yes or obvious ?
>>534123920we didn't exactly have an age of reason since the 2000's, did we
>>534142587>how dare you be active in a thread
>>534142334Why have I never heard of these Amish hoards taking over America?
>>534123920The anti to something can never be stronger than the something itself. The more you poise yourself anti Christian, Anti Trump, or anti anything for that matter then you're really just working fornthat thing, since atheism has nothing to offer it's basically just an ad for theism.
>>534140284>why was jesus's sacrifice neededbecause god doesn't liehe's not changing a rule. it could be said he's simplifying it >"i am forgiven"if you repent
>>534140846Dude, I'm on your side. We've got to put down the Islamofascist menace that forces women to wear burqas and bans gay pride parades! Here's to a secular, liberated Iran!
>>534142690thats why a lot of the chud atheists have moved on to calling christianity jewish
>>534142334>christianity bottoms out>increase in the unaffiliated more people are choosing to not be christians than the religion can retain. you lost jew worshiper.
>>534141634>"Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” Then [the jews] took up stones to [kill] Him [...]"- John 48-49
>>534142773>>why was jesus's sacrifice neededGod had to fix a problem he created
>>534142804>- John 48-4948 “How do you know me?” Nathanael asked.Jesus answered, “I saw you while you were still under the fig tree before Philip called you.”49 Then Nathanael declared, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel.”C'mon Tsani, your LARP us slipping
>>534142429>You can't guarantee your kids will remain religious as they grow up.sure i can. atheists are dysgenicon a long enough time scale, atheism disappears
Someone make this about the button pushing.That's what I thought it was.
>>534142458you are not all knowingyou do not know what you do not knowyou trust your senses
>>534142892>>You can't guarantee your kids will remain religious as they grow up.>sure i canNope>>534142892>on a long enough time scale, atheism disappearsThen does theism
>>534142943>you are not all knowingI don't need to be to have reasonable expectations >you trust your sensesAs much as you do
>>534142544>bearing false witnessit's good to see that it's the same hand full of anti-christians every time anyway, here's your daily refutation>"Beware of all whoredom, my son, and chiefly take a wife of the seed of thy fathers, and take not a strange woman to wife, which is not of thy father’s tribe [...]"- Tobit 4:12>"Ye have transgressed, and have taken strange wives, [...] do the Lord's bidding: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from your strange wives." - Ezra 10:10-11>"In those days also saw I Jews that had married [foreign] wives [...] and could not even speak in the Jews' language [...] And I contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto your sons, or for yourselves. Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? [...] Shall we then hearken unto you to do all this great evil, to transgress against our God in marrying strange wives?" - Nehemiah 13:23-27>"Or else, if indeed you do go back, and cling to the remnant of these nations—these that remain among you—and make marriages with them, and go in to them and they to you, know for certain that the Lord your God will no longer drive out these nations from before you. But they shall be snares and traps to you, and scourges on your sides and thorns in your eyes, until you perish from this good land which the Lord your God has given you."- Joshua 23:12-13
>>534142657they're getting therehave you heard of those guys?https://rumble.com/v70fnss-st.-pauls-cathedral-from-glorious-to-groveling.html
>>534143018>>bearing false witnessNah its you Tsani.
>>534123920no aim, materialistic, too liberal, and doesnt use any traditional reasoning. As an atheist, free will is more retarded than believing in god because its the same crap but now the individual is god. Both christian and atheists believe in it making them the same. they only use god as semantics.
>>534142892Your meme is incorrect. Evolution slecr3d for tribalism, which religiosity is a branch of.
>>534143224Astute point. In my view each are a different flavour of egotism. Theists worship the Super Ego, Atheists the Ego, and Hedonists the Id.
>>534143488I just lack belief in God or gods
>>534143488imagine being an unironic freudian. you are locked in a jewish mind-prison. you need to be sent to a re-education camp with the abrahamists.
>>534124690Atheism is not a world view.
>>534143723yes it is
>>534143752Ok, tell me what exactly my world view is?
>>534143800atheism
>>534126490That is just white people on general, not specifically Atheists.
>>534123920>Promise us a golden age of peace and tolerance, knowledge, freedom and progress>Religion is now all but irrelevant>Everyone is at each others throats, retarded and as miserable as ever
>>534143824So, does that mean your world view is a-unicornism, you don't believe in the invisible unicorn that stands behind you.
>>534126404Something something, talking snakes and Jewish zombies.
>>534126759There is no such thing as an "agnostic". Also, atheists reject a man in the sky that created all of existence, and cares what you put in your ass. Also, there is no such thing as the supernatural, by definition. Anything that can be shown to exist is not supernatural.
>>534126968Do you look into the ramblings of every schizo? There are many different sets of made up nonsense, what is so special about yours.
>>534128568What does it even mean to believe in the abstract god. Nobody has any understanding of what that even is. You might as well assert you believe in a random keyboard mash.
>>534143904sure why not? it it were relevant, like if billions of people believed in jewish unicorns, then it would be.
>>534143893We got cooked because we lost world feeling, which is to say mysticism, and from there the ability to systematize transcendence, see >>534143904, I can counter-ask him by telling him to point at "human rights", he will point at a constitution, at some scene of people getting stuff but he will ultimately fail to present us a physical, measurable and tangible thing which can be called "human rights", so:How can atheism sustain a civilization if by definition it denies the non-physical entities, the forces which keep a civilization, a culture as a working system?The answer is it can't, even the most hardcore atheist will have to accept certain abstract concepts which have no basis on material reality to work within a society, instead is the function these concepts have what truly indicate their existence, hence why, for example, the belief in a god, of the divinity however you want to call it, which has an evident effect on human function, can be tested from an empirical point of view, while his invisible unicorn, which comes from a false dichotomy.Can the invisible unicorn convince him to fight for it? To endure hardship? To be kinder and wiser? To overcome his own limitations?is pretty much useless unless we are talking about bronies in which case yeah, his invisible unicorn may be on to something.
This is how it works.
>>534144444atheist can say human beings are limited and constrained by reality that we can only act upon abstract concepts. without god you still have concepts such as nation, family, race, language, etc. there is nothing good enough to call god, and even if god is not defined as a perfect being his exist is arbitrary as he has no obligations to act right.
>>534144751>there is nothing good enough to call godThere is for most people, most people don't even need to rationalize it, the way most people can see RGB without need to systematize it, by definition a god goes beyond mere system definition, some humans simply have low spiritual perception the same way some people are colorblind.
