>>541350281
Atheism is a position on a claim.
Nothing more, nothing less.
We don't accept anyone's claims because they are conflicting and lack solid evidence.

>>541350281
Because they lost the argument 15 years ago.

>>541350281
Because atheism is the logical position if you know how to think. The only thing left to do when you don't have an argument is to attack the other person.

>>541350679
fuck off stupid christkike

File: skycake.png (50 KB, 249x132)

50 KB PNG

Theism doesn't have a solid definition, and so Atheism is even less strongly positioned.

Theism doesn't specify which Religious arrangement and so since there are ten thousand different arrangements, the word Theism loses almost all of its usefulness to mean anything at all.

Christians use it to speak about their own God as if it's the only one. Which is absolutely comic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkLMrt_eQA8

Theism and Atheism debate is a retard test. If it commands insights per second out of your spinning synthases in your cortical pattern matcher engines between your ears, you have already failed the propaganda test.

These words are grabbing a jelly like slime. Your palm closes in on a fluid, and when you're done pours through your fingers, and collects back up to a new Shape in Plato's cave.

Those of you who went to school for Theology, you got fucking scammed harder than the women who went for Communist womens studies.

wake up and let me break your chains. I have bolt cutters, freshly sharpened, made of depleted netherite. But I need your help to actually cut it.

>>541350281
Because Christcucks know deep down that centering their entire lives around worshipping a fiction book written by a sand jew eons ago is retarded but admitting it would be admitting that they're retarded so all they can do is drag you into the mud with them.

‘God’ in those books is a fictional character by the way he’s portrayed. However something greater behind the scenes that kickstarted all life? Could be possible

ATHEISM IS FOR PLEBES !!!! JOIN THE ILLUMINATI!!!! https://youtu.be/UDZ_ldUNRcY

>>541350281
Because atheism isn't an argument. Atheism is simply not believing someone's religious claims.

>>541350281
because it's a retarded subject to even argue over, since NEITHER viewpoint can ever be proven or disproven (without God's intervention)

you can't prove there is one, you can't prove there isn't, abrahamists are as fucking retarded as atheists

File: killyourself.png (474 KB, 1377x837)

474 KB PNG

>>541350281
This.

>>541351043
So Islam is the best religion, per this chart?

>>541351264
according to that judaism is, since it's not even listed

>>541350779
Friendly fire retard.

>>541351264
In terms of suicides probably, I mean they have a huge stigma against an heroing and they live in reactionary shitholes, so it makes sense.

>>541350841
Will midwits keep seeing the world through this framework forever?
That's retarded. To say you are gnostic or agnostic is a claim on the nature of knowledge and whether or not you can have knowledge.
Which you can't. Not for god, not for anything. So technically you are 'agnostic' in regards to everything. I'm 'agnostic' about the sky being blue because what is blue other than a flawed interpretation of the world and not the world itself.
Using the term agnostic is retarded unless you are having a very specific philosophical discussion about the nature of knowledge.
In reality an atheist and an agnostic are the same thing.

>>541350281
Because /pol/ is seriously illiterate, and ignorant of the definition of "ad-hominem".

>>541350281
>believing in nothing is….. LE GOOD
it’s a worthless truth at best. there is no reason to promote it unless you are a spiteful faggot that wants to harm society

File: 1784394444451986.png (293 KB, 2569x544)

293 KB PNG

>>541350281

>>541350841
Comics like this, where the sympathetic faces (eyes open, unsure expressions, lack of unofficial uniform) express the views endorsed by the creator and the unsympathetic faces (eyes closed, dogmatic gestures, unofficial uniform) express the opposite views are propaganda designed by and for midwits. AI art slop survives because it is not more stupid than the third rate human art of our era.

>>541351544
>we have to believe in the magic jew….or ELSE!!!

>>541350900
>wake up and let me break your chains. I have bolt cutters, freshly sharpened, made of depleted netherite. But I need your help to actually cut it.
Nice fedora, man.

>>541351544
>it’s a worthless truth at best.
>the actual truth is worthless if it's not the truth I like
trannies do this

>>541351544
>atheism leads to believing in nothing
shouldn't it lead to believing in yourself?

>>541351398
That's kind of the point. The number of suicides doesn't really reflect how good or valid a viewpoint is. Granted, atheism lends itself naturally to a more pessimistic view of life, but life is pretty shitty for a lot of people. Religion is a really nice bandaid solution for all the injustices in the world, in that 'Oh, your life is terrible, but you'll inherit the kingdom of God,' sort of way.

File: 1787504232466872.jpg (136 KB, 878x1024)

136 KB JPG

>>541351401
Atheism is more like religion, you belive that there is no god
Agnostic does not belive that there is no god but also does not belive that aby religion is actually true. I am dumb, that's why i dont get your comment

>>541352421
>Granted, atheism lends itself naturally to a more pessimistic view of life
it's not life itself being judged here it's an afterlife and a purpose to existence, or a lack of it
people can suck on that like a pacifier through anything

>>541352560
to me, atheism was always a firm belief there was no god; agnosticism was the shoulder shrugging one, that's actually the best and wisest course

>>541350281
Atheists get very angry if you describe their position as an idea (it is a lack of belief, not a belief in itself.) What else is there to attack?

>>541352673
>it is a lack of belief, not a belief in itself.
not if you believe there is no God, that's not a lack of belief

athiesm has caused the destruction of western identity and mass immigration. it also results in lower birth rates. Athiests are replaced by islamists over time.

>>541352732
jews caused that, not atheists

jews actually believe in their thing more than any other religion; why the fuck would you go through all that bullshit with the eruvs and kapparots and shit if you didn't believe in your God

>>541351043
>theists don't suicide because they believe they will go to hell for eternity if they do
>this means they leave happier lives
Jej.

>>541352771
jews caused atheism

>>541350281
Because they have no good arguments so they ad hom and strawman instead

The problem with atheism is that it's dishonest. It's not about any personal development it's about bringing everyone else down around you.
Look up Proverbs 14:6, it'll help explain why atheists are retarded.
I don't actually care if someone is agnostic and I enjoy many conversations with agnostics, and I've even convinced a number of agnostics about God just not a christian god, which is fine in my opinion since even I am struggling with my christianity but I am gnostic in the sense that I am certain of god.
>>541352771
Jews caused atheism though, because atheism is a form of satanism and jews worship the devil. Says so in the bible.
>NOOOOO YOU CAN'T HAVE ANTISEMITISM IN YOUR BIBLE
So the talmud is never anti jesus or anti goy???
WIth da joos you LOOze

>>541352996
No, dummy

>>541353118
>The problem with atheism is that it's dishonest
No. It's simply an opinion about the existence of God or gods

File: yeah, that bit, off with it.jpg (140 KB, 768x755)

140 KB JPG

>>541352996
jews caused abrahamism

>>541353118
>atheism is a form of satanism
nigger
you can't be satanic without being abrahamic

how the FUCK can you believe in Satan but not God?

>>541353118
>Jews caused atheism though,
No dummy, dipshits like you cause it

>>541350727
>Because atheism is the logical position if you know how to think.
is it though?

fucking religion full of jews having hallucinations in gas filled desert caves with people killing each other over their interpretations of these thousand+ year old hallucinations ever since

>>541353125
Yes. Insulting me won't change that fact it's documented but a retard like yourself is unable to do researchs so what is the point.

>>541350281
Because the person embodies the idea.

>>541353259
>Yes.
Nope

>fact it's documented
It isn't

>>541353118
>atheism is retarded, just look up this passage from my book of worship
Circular reasoning, thy name is /pol/.

>>541353300
You speak too much and know too litle

>>541353301
Atheism is retarded because it assumes that humans are the top of the universal hierarchy, and there is nothing more intelligent or powerful than a human.

>>541353301
>how do you know the bible is real?
>"well, you see, it says in the Bible that it's real"

>>541352560
At least you acknowledge it's a dumb position to have.
A-theism and A-gnostic. The A stands for without. Without God and without knowledge.
If I don't have a belief in god I am atheist by definition.
If I don't believe pure knowledge can be obtained by human beings due to the inherent subjectivity of the human condition I am agnostic.
To apply this standard exclusively to god is dumb.
If I ask you if the sky is blue or if trees are real are you also going to answer that you are 'agnostic' about it? Because you should, you can't know anything for sure.
Why is this conversation about the nature of knowledge only applied to the discussion of god?
The answer is because people are retarded.
Atheist and agnostic mean the same thing in a colloquial sense.

>>541353343
You're not backing your claims I see.

Typical

>>541353345
>Atheism is retarded because it assumes that humans are the top of the universal hierarchy,
No it doesn't. It's a disbelief or lack of belief in God or gods.

>>541353352
>If I ask you if the sky is blue or if trees are real are you also going to answer that you are 'agnostic' about it?
I can see both those things; now point to God, and don't just fucking point at an ant or something

>>541353401
>No it doesn't. It's a disbelief or lack of belief in God or gods.
what is a god?

>>541353433
>what is a god?
Man's subjective interpretation

File: 6 million D chess goy.jpg (51 KB, 581x504)

51 KB JPG

>you see, you exist, so that's proof God exists, since you can't exist without God having made you
fucking pilpul tier mental gymnastics bullshit

>>541352771
>muh jews
no, midwits caused it. Retards bslieve in god, education has shown us athiesm makes sense, but only the smartest realise that religion is far more than extortion, tax evasion, control and a floating sky person.

It is the embodiment of our culture, traditions that hold us together and keep outsiders out. We always needsd it.
and, again, education caused this, because we stopped being retards but weren't smart enough to realise the midwits are even worse than retards.

>>541353472
>Man's subjective interpretation
if you deny something exists, then you need to first define what that 'something' is

if atheism is convinced Y doesn't exist, they need to explain what Y is.
If you say Y is "man's subjective interpretation" then are you talking about politics, love, war in ukraine, or something else?

>>541353352
>The A stands for without. Without God and without knowledge.
Atheism and agnosticism address two separate concepts: belief (what you accept as true) and knowledge (what you claim to know).

>>541353508
>then you need to first define what that 'something' is
Incorrect. The burden is on thise claiming God exist.

I lack belief until evidence convinces me otherwise

>>541353505
>It is the embodiment of our culture, traditions that hold us together and keep outsiders out.
so, whether the religion itself is true at all is completely unrelated, and we can just make up some bullshit or worship the sun or something and get the desired effect; christianity and abrahamism are completely unnecessary
>n-nooo not like that it HAS to be christianity
why

>>541351789
Faggot

>>541353378
I won't resume you decades of European history. You have to do your own researchs at some point.

>>541350727
No it isn't. That doesn't mean zombie jew, or Mohammed Pedo, Jew shit is correct. But Atheism isn't the only logical position. Agnostic thinking is the only way to true progress.

>>541353433
Hard to define when the whole point is that nobody knows what 'god' really is. A Christian can't describe what God looks like or how He does all the things that He does or even why. Hence you get stuff like 'mysterious ways' to handwave anything inconvenient to the narrative. Same for Muslims and Jews.

>>541353672
>can't back up his claim
Have a nice day :^)

>>541353578
>Incorrect. The burden is on thise claiming God exist.
the burden is both on those who claim God exists and on those who claim it doesn't exist.

Because if they do not use the same definition of God, then they're really not disagreeing.
It's simple maths really.

x + y = A
x + y =/= B
are not really contradicting statements

>>541353714
I can but kike just deserve to be shitted on

File: Agnosticism-Atheism (1).png (9 KB, 400x400)

9 KB PNG

>>541353732
>the burden is both on those who claim God exists and on those who claim it doesn't exist
Like I said
>>541353578
>I lack belief until evidence convinces me otherwise

>>541353732
one of these positions IS actually stronger than the other, marginally; since God can easily and indisputably prove its existence any time it chose to

>>541353782
Also this

>>541353605
Discarding Christianity would be discarding our identities anc submitting to the endless brown hordes.
sure, it could be different, such as a pagan religion. Pagans however died out because they did not have a solid, uniform idea. They lost the culture war.
If you could make a better religion then maybe it would replace the others but right now we really need to protect our identity and heritage or else ... well, you're an American so it's different, but Europe getting turned into third world shitholes is happening as Christianity is lost and churches are taken down and replaced with mosques.

>>541353700
>Hard to define when the whole point is that nobody knows what 'god' really is. A Christian can't describe what God looks like or how He does all the things that He does or even why. Hence you get stuff like 'mysterious ways' to handwave anything inconvenient to the narrative. Same for Muslims and Jews.
It's really not that difficult though, God's description is as follows:

1. He is all-knowing
2. omnipresent (present in all things at all times)
3. omnipotent (all powerful)

These are basically the 3 fundamental qualities of god.

And if we go by Old Testament tradition, and invoke Adam and Eve:
- Adam and Eve were made in God's likeness and image.
- But after they fall, they lost God's likeness, but retained God's image.

Meaning, Adam and Eve possessed at least one of God's traits, more specificially - "all knowing". And fall from heaven was attested to Adam growing stupid.

If we live in a simulation and the person or thing running it revealed the truth to us would he be considered god? Would theists claim they were right even though that guy doesn't particularly have anything to do with their religions?

>>541353854
>well, you're an American so it's different
we DO have a culture you know, stop being ageist just because your area's been occupied for far longer than ours
>Europe getting turned into third world shitholes is happening as *men became pussies and just let everyone walk all over us now, if we all had the exact same ideal of God this wouldn't be happening

>>541353407
>I can see
Yea but your knowledge is imperfect because you are relying on your senses not to mention mind concepts. There's no reason why your agnosticism should be exclusive to the concept of god and not to everything else. That's why it's pointless to use this term, just say atheist. Same thing.
>>541353534
Yea. But now you're having a conversation about knowledge and what a human can really know. When talking about god it's enough to say atheist or theist. To bring forward a whole discussion about the nature of knowledge is nonsensical.

I also think more men, especially in modern times, need to be properly exposed to the Garden of Eden story, and properly taught what it meant, why Eve did what she did, but only Adam was blamed for it.

Would rescue so many guys from shitty women.

>>541353508
God is a supernatural conscious creator being

>>541354021
>if we all had the exact same ideal of God this wouldn't be happening
Not the exact same. ANY vision of god that is different to that of the immigrants. We have never in 10,000 years had immigration like this and it all comes at the same time as athiesm. Religion forces "assimilate with our culture (if we even let you) or perish" and now we no ponger have that, we've lost.

It's why Northern Ireland still has a chance and why northern ireland is separate from south ireland. Different religions.

File: 1787609448893.png (162 KB, 664x334)

162 KB PNG

>>541350281
Christcucks don't know how to logically reason. It's antithetical to religiosity.

>>541354146
>If I ask you if the sky is blue or if trees are real are you also going to answer that you are 'agnostic' about it?
>your knowledge is imperfect because you are relying on your senses not to mention mind concepts.
>if I ask you if something you can both touch and see and cut down and make into a table is "real" you can't just rely on your senses, you have to question whether it's real or not since I can't apply the same proofs to God as I can to a fucking tree
you should learn how to metaphor frendo cause this ain't it

>>541354220
I don't think Jesus dying was a sacrifice to God though

>>541354146
>When talking about god it's enough to say atheist or theist.
Which breaks down further as agnostic and gnostic a branches in both theism and atheism.

>To bring forward a whole discussion about the nature of knowledge is nonsensical
Not when you make false claims about what atheism is

File: IMG_0663.jpg (362 KB, 1274x1700)

362 KB JPG

>>541350281
Because most atheists are retarded, except for a few variants. Such as picrel.

>>541353856
>These are basically the 3 fundamental qualities of god.
But these qualities don't make sense with the world we live in. If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, He can cure a sick child, and if He's omnipresent, He is literally in the room and available to help. And yet the child remains sick. There are only two possible answers for how this can be. One, we need to add a fourth attribute, such as malevolent or apathetic, which no Christian is willing to do. Or two, leaving the child to remain sick is the moral option, for reasons no one on Earth can explain, the 'mysterious ways' I mentioned before. No matter how you try to slice it, the definition of God is that He is undefinable.

I like Carl Jung because of his work on archetypes and cross-cultural patterns. The fundamental aspect of his research was that he found correlation between religious stories, myths, folktales and dreams. All of those that remain and have a huge impact on human history - are different variations of scenarios already encoded into the DNA of our species.

Jesus dying for everyone's sins is actually a fairly repeating story many people experience or witness in their life. When the only way to do the morally good thing requires you to be seen as the enemy by those you are helping. It is a moral self-sacrifice for the greater good - and often friends do it for friends, parents do it for their children, colleagues do it for the team, officers do it for the squad, etc.

File: I love you, I'll kill you(...).webm (2.28 MB, 1024x1024)

2.28 MB WEBM

>>541354202
>We have never in 10,000 years had immigration like this and it all comes at the same time as athiesm.
man if only we still had uniformity of abrahamic beliefs those abrahamists with the big noses and funny hats couldn't subvert us by compromising our abrahamism, now they're flooding us with other abrahamists

should have never stopped worshipping the thing we can actually see that logically, indisputably enables our continued existence every single day

>>541353155
No because atheists specifically attempt to bring everyone else to their level of retardation.
The reject god in every manner that's not skepticism. An agnostic is skeptical and therefore more honest.
>>541353162
>you can't be satanic without being abrahamic
explain india then, nigga.
also you don't need to believe in satan to be his cock sleeve, you just need to be a faggot which atheists are.

>>541354425
>But these qualities don't make sense with the world we live in. If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, He can cure a sick child, and if He's omnipresent, He is literally in the room and available to help. And yet the child remains sick.
there is a logical error in what you just said.

If God is present in everything and at all times, it means God is present not only in the child, but also in the illness that aflicts the child.
Let that sink it for a bit.

>>541354461
>explain india then
I can't explain that, it's completely alien to me and still would have been when I was in my edgy atheist phase

>>541353185
WRONG
Dipshits like me caused schism and sects.
If you don't believe in god it's impossible to have an IQ higher than 120.
It's a basic requirement in pattern generation (beyond pattern recognition.)

>>541354461
>No because atheists specifically attempt to bring everyone else to their level of retardation
No different than some religious people.

I don't care if you're a theist or atheist. Just don't push your bullshit on me

>>541354461
>An agnostic is skeptical and therefore more honest.
See
>>541353777

>>541354526
>WRONG
100% right

>>541354474
I don't see the error. You just changed it from 'God isn't curing the disease' to 'God IS the disease.' Why would He take the form of something harmful?

>>541354526
121 only time I was measured at 7 here; I believe

I believe the jews are right and there is no satan, it's just ALLL Yahweh's will, even Peter Scully

>>541354575
>I don't see the error. You just changed it from 'God isn't curing the disease' to 'God IS the disease.' Why would He take the form of something harmful?
1. In your definition there is virtually no difference between God and Wizard.
Maybe you noticed already. But there's a reason these 2 things have different names.
2. Did you know that God created the Devil?

>>541354575
>Why would He take the form of something harmful?
because a world created by a benevolent deity would not have such incredible suffering built into its very core

watch a mammal eat another one real slow sometime

>>541350281
Because the idea is worthless. Oh wow you don't believe anything how fucking interesting. What do you expect, a dissertation on why believing nothing is gay?

>>541354672
Cope

>>541351001
THE ILLUMINATI were just athiests that were mad they couldn't be freemasons

>>541354717
You can't even come up with anything yourself. There's no material to work with. The absence of faith is worthless and not worth discussing.

>>541354780
don't guys with no blind faith just give you the ick? my pussy is dry too sister

>>541354631
>1. In your definition there is virtually no difference between God and Wizard.
Well, a wizard isn't guaranteed to be in the room with the child, isn't all-powerful, isn't all-knowing, and his motives could be unscrupulous. So I'd say there is plenty of difference.
>2. Did you know that God created the Devil?
Yes, another thing that makes no sense for such an entity to do.

>>541354244
This goes beyond empiricism. You should start with Kant
>>541354359
No it doesn't. Discussing the nature of knowledge is completely unnecessary in this context because it's a different conversation altogether.
What is the false claim? I don't believe in god therefore I'm atheist (without theism). Getting dragged into a discussion on the nature of knowledge is unnecessary noise.

File: 1595361108760.gif (428 KB, 200x183)

428 KB GIF

>>541354220
An almighty God, tried to show the way, without forcing it upon everyone (He definitely could).
The ones who killed him did it because they didn't want to follow the way, and still continue to not follow the way. Not following the way = to sin.
Killing someone so you could continue to sin = person died for your sins.

The way people should look at the sacrifice is that imagine your liver was failing due you drinking too much, and your friend decides to donate a piece of his liver to you, but he dies from the operation. He died because he was that much of bro to you. Now will you continue drinking and dishonoring your friend's sacrifice or will you honor him by never touching booze again, so his sacrifice wasn't for nothing?
He died for his brotherly love to you, you know you matter because he already proved how much you're worth to him when he died to save you.
All you have to do is to accept this gift, understand the sacrifice and honor it. That is, if you want to.

>>541354942
>No it doesn't
Sure does

>>541354942
>What is the false claim?
You think atheism is claim God doesn't exist

>>541354843
God created Man to be good.
God created the Devil to test the Man's goodness.
If Man is created good, but there is no enticement for him to do evil, then how can you confirm that Man is actually good? You need a dichotomy of choice between good and evil.
Man will do good, if his loyalty to God is strong.
Man will do evil, if his loyalty to God is weak, because the Devil will always try to test and lead him astray.

The word "sin" comes from the ancient word for "to miss (the target)", and can otherwise also be interpreted as "to stray from the path".
When you "sin" (or stray) you not only hurt others, you also hurt yourself, as you drive your life into a ditch.

There is no easy "right" or "wrong" in real life, and no set of rules, morals, laws of constitutions can provide you with answers to goodness. That is why the stronger is your loyalty to God, the stronger is your ability to notice the Devil's presence, his tricks and schemes to lead you away from the path.

God is present in you, because he is present in all things, but Devil is interpreted as the weaker, and lesser force that leads you astray. Whether your actions are truly your own, or whether the Devil played you like a fool - the consequences and faults ultimately remain on you. And that is why you cannot ask God to do Wizardy for you, you can only ask for forgiveness.

>>541355013
>God created the Devil to test the Man's goodness.
Which he had no need to do, since He is all-knowing and thus knows the result of any test.

>>541354564

>>541354564

>>541354564

>"look guys, I'm retarded!"
>"um wtf why are you calling me retarded? Why are you not attacking the idea???"

>>541355013
>because nothing is more important to God than loyalty and blind faith, not only in the absence of any evidence but in spite of evidence to the contrary
you have to have this abused spouse tier of benefit of doubt to not see God's utter insanity in the OT

>>541354220
OR
Atheists are spiritual dwarves and intellectual cowards that are intimidated by the big confusing mix of books in the Bible and know it would take years of reading for them to begin to understand the context and history let alone speculate valuably themselves and therefore they chicken out and tell themselves they were clever to do so.

>>541354821
There is no such thing as "blind faith" only faithful people who also happen to be retarded. God loves a fool, much to my chagrin.

>you can't judge God like you would a human, he's beyond you and the standards he himself judges you by, you couldn't possibly "get it"
what fucking ridiculous egotism

>>541350281
SHUT IT, FAGGOT

>>541355380
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aA5NxTujqg
>There is no such thing as "blind faith" only faithful people who also happen to be retarded.
the "blind faith" part comes into it when you still believe "in spite of"

>>541355542
In spire of what? A godless world that promises nothing but the continuous chase of vanity and greed?

>>541355066
>Which he had no need to do, since He is all-knowing and thus knows the result of any test.
Yes, but that is the fundamental difference between Man and animal/plant.

Again, going back to the Garden of Eden story:
Adam and Eve were hierarchically above animals, because they were created in God's image and God's likeness.
This means that Adam and Eve (or Man in general) was endoved with God-like traits. They were also all-knowing, and in many ways all-powerful.
However, the fall from heaven began with the serpent (Devil) who manipulated Eve into taking the forbidden fruit.
She knew that it was forbidden to do so, but she nevertheless did it - which exposed a fundamental weakness in female nature.
However, God didn't punish Eve or Adam yet. Nothing happened.
Then Eve brought the forbidden fruit to Adam, and convinced him to bite it. Adam would have followed God in his presence, and would have disposed of the serpent (Devil) if he'd encounter him - but he had one fundamental male weakness - his love for his wife overpowered his loyalty to God.
And once Adam accepted Eve's offer, that is when God intervened and accused Adam of growing stupid.

This is why it is advised to always prioritise your love/loyalty to God, over your love/loyalty to your wife or husband.

>>541350281
Why would someone hate a god they believe does not exist?

>>541354411
The irony of Nietzsche was that most of his works were against a secular society and because using christian frameworks in a world were god is dead is illogical and incomplete.
Nietzsche himself even claimed he was the first psychologist which means he didn't believe science was an answer to life but that life came from the mind and that a nihilistic world of mechanists atop of the corpse of a dead god would become an existential crisis to the race.
He was completely right. Still died an incel bitch though.

>>541355586
>In spire of what?
did you know in Exodus, the timeline is:
-God has Moses demand Pharoh free the jews
-God hardens Pharoh's heart AGAINST doing what he wants Pharoh to do
-God then kills every firstborn goyim in Egypt as punishment for Pharoh not doing what God wanted like God made him not do

>>541355066
>>541355588
in order words, to answer your question:
Adam and Eve (or Man in general) were given free will, and God allowed them to exercise it.
Whether God already knew what would happen is irrelevant, because the job of Man is to choose between doing good and evil. Animals cannot do that. And if choice meant fall from heaven, well then that is the price of free will.

>>541355734
>do as I say or I burn you forever (I already know what will happen when I say this)

that's not "free will" that's a statement the guy keeping you locked in a basement makes

>>541355690
Did you know God is jealous and vengeful? Shocking, I know, especially since it's clearly and plainly stated by the damn book you are referencing. This modern faggot shit of claiming God is a purely nice being is pure heresy peddled by a bunch of privileged white bitches.

>>541355788
it's the opposite actually
the whole point of fall from heaven is for Man to restore/rebuild heaven again.
However, it's true that different religions and interpretations disagree on whether it is an achievable goal.
Christianity in general views it impossible to return to heaven, because if Man destroyed something that was pure and perfect, it can never be pure or perfect again. Or alternatively, if man became stupid - then he will destroy something that requires knowledge.

But whichever the case, it is Man's choice to stray further from heaven, or to move towards it. The God is there to advise and to observe.

But God will never intervene, because this will rob Men of their free will, and turn them back into animals.

>>541350281

Because you are Jewish

>>541355788
It's more like "do as I say and I will save you from your destiny of burning forever", chief.

>>541350281
The big bang created the universe, but created the big bang? What created the thing that created the big bang? What created the thing that created the thing that created the big bang? I could keep counting turtles but they keep going down. At the end of it all there has to be something beyond comprehension that kicked everything off.

>>541355815
Nope, that's not how it goes. It's like building club house, and asking a friend to join.
The friend says "Fuck your gay little clubhouse, don't care. That's lame lmao."
Does that mean you condemn that person to hell, when he himself says no to an invite?
You, being the awesome dude you are, say, "Well the door's open and you are welcome walk through it any time you want."

>>541355734
>And if choice meant fall from heaven, well then that is the price of free will.
Free will sounds like it blows, then. I don't see why God would give it to us, since it just leads away from maximal good.

File: what atheists believe.gif (1.43 MB, 291x229)

1.43 MB GIF

>>541350281
Atheism is what edgelord rebelious teenagers believe in. If you are an adult and you never grew out of that mindset still seeing yourself as an atheist then you are essentially an idiot manchild.

>>541350727
>is the logical position
>The universe willed itself into existence because it just did okay
>Molecules one day decided to just come together resulting in the big bang forming the universe because of pure chance that it all happened
>Every complex biological system, laws of nature, etc. are just there and happened by pure chance
Does this sound logical to you? People abandoned atheism because everyone saw how illogical it is.

>>541354550
>No different than some religious people.
I don't disagree with that, many christians and clergy openly find evangelists to be retarded.
The idea that being a christian or a god lover in anyway makes you not retarded is absurd, I mean look at india. Objective proof that being religious can be giga retarded.
Also pretty retarded chart.
>>541354566
keep coping tranny.

>>541356254
>Free will sounds like it blows, then. I don't see why God would give it to us, since it just leads away from maximal good.
Good emerges from choice. It cannot emerge from hard-coded instincts.

This is why animals can be neither viewed as "good" or "bad", and are not punished for murder, nor held morally accountable for their behaviour. Animals have no choice, because their behaviour is driven by a choice-less program.

Good and evil can only manifest when both options are present, and one is chosen over the other. Free will, therefore, in a way is also a God-like quality, which in a way turns Men into mini-Gods (or children of God).

So don't disappoint daddy.

>>541354581
>believe the jews
FUCKING KEK

>>541350548
Atheism’s entire argument is that you don’t need knowledge to make a claim. So that’s blatantly false.

>>541355915
>Did you know God is jealous and vengeful? That he acts like an obsessed BPD chick all over the OT, and Jesus never once says "this is NOT the nature of God"?
yes, I am aware
the mystifying part to me is where people acknowledge this while acting like people who don't see the nature of God as "desirable" or "engendering of worship" are "immoral", somehow

>>541355949
>God will never intervene
>*again
so did he make a mistake when he did, or is not intervening the mistake?
or was he retarded on purpose?

>>541355984
>"do as I say and I will save you from your destiny of burning forever"
>"I'm the one who created the place where you burn forever and the one who sentences you to it, by the way"
but sure let's act like it's out of his control

>>541356395
50/50, I'll take that

>>541356380
>Good emerges from choice
So God couldn't have made a world where this conditional didn't apply. Anon, we can play this game of ring around the rosie forever. Every time you try to patch a hole in the Christian narrative, I can find a new one. There is no reason for the world to exist the way it does, assuming your definition for God. I'm leaving it at that, because I've heard most of this same stuff before.

File: 1753919873085280.jpg (344 KB, 768x768)

344 KB JPG

>>541356121
Actually anyone who has done any parenting resonates way better with a scenario of a child who has a temper tantrum for whatever reason and stubbornly stays pouting outside in the rain, instead of coming inside the house.
The child angrily shouting at the parent to go away, shunning away any contact the parent tries to make, yet still crying in the miserable rain waiting for someone to save them.
The parent has already told them to just come inside when ready.

File: Fedora Tip.jpg (43 KB, 474x528)

43 KB JPG

>>541350281
>Why are arguments against it here always attacking the person, not the idea?


Because only a whiny faggot would care that other people don't believe in God. Its your religion, its not enough that you believe it, you want to convert others because you're a proselytizing faggot.

I studied philosophy enough to tell you that you can't prove God does or doesn't exist. The only purely rational position is agnosticism so you don't even have facts on your side when you bitch about religion. Hell atheists even had to invent simulation theory because they kept finding indications of intelligent design in the universe. Your philosophy is trash, its justification is trash, and you're a whiny annoying faggot for caring what other people believe.

File: gimmickcheck'd (consider) (22).png (96 KB, 545x457)

96 KB PNG

>>541356433
if there's anything they sincerely believe, it's in their version of God, and the validity of their elaborate evasions of his often retarded laws

Jesus was a KIKE criminal who: inciteed riots, interrupted commerce at the temple, instructed his followers to illegally arm themselves,
and claimed he was the son of God. He did all this during Passover when all the Jews gathered.

He wasn't the first criminal KIKE nor the last.
ChristKike was arrested by a 600 man Roman cohort plus temple guard. He wasn't a Roman citizen and wasn't entitled to trial.
He was crucified by the Romans and was labeled King of the Jews.

Then later on Based Emperor Trajan who expanded the Roman Empire to it's greatest extent, in 117 expelled the Jews forever and destroyed the Kike Temple. The Romans destroyed Kikes and ChristKike.

>>541356483
>so did he make a mistake when he did, or is not intervening the mistake?
>or was he retarded on purpose?
I was expecting that question, but to be honest, if you're referring to banishment from heaven as his intervention - then in a way it can be also seen as self-banishment by Adam and Eve as well.

The key itself is the garden - its existence heavily relied on several basic principles, but one of those basic principles was Adam's duty to protect it (including against the Devil).
But once he chose his love for his wife, over his love/loyalty for God, he lost the ability to perform his duty - and therefore even if God didn't banish them from heaven, then heaven itself would still collapse. And then the question stands,

what is the difference between
>leaving heaven and not having the ability to return to it
and
>staying in heaven, but it is no longer heaven because you destroyed it

to me these 2 fundamentally represent the same consequence and the same origin

>>541356483
>the mystifying part to me is where people acknowledge this while acting like people who don't see the nature of God as "desirable" or "engendering of worship" are "immoral", somehow
It's not particularly mystifying as long as you understand it's God's right to act as He pleases, just like it's your right to act how you please in your domain. The only people who can say any differently are higher powers, and there is no higher power than God. That's speaking broadly of course. There's no shortage of imbeciles in a Church.
>but sure let's act like it's out of his control
God didn't make the choice to sin, man and woman did. I will remind you that God exists outside of time and, assuming free will exists, each individual choice human beings make narrow down time into a causal sequence. God can simply alter causality, true, but then that would make Him responsible for everything that ever happened or will ever happen which is breaking the logic of the situation.

>>541356553
>So God couldn't have made a world where this conditional didn't apply
He did - that world is the animal kindgom. If you want, you can join them.

>>541356679
>if you're referring to banishment from heaven as his intervention -
>The key itself is the garden
God is all over the OT being immediately present in the world
>Sodom and Gommorah
also, Noah

File: 1787613032292.jpg (43 KB, 659x506)

43 KB JPG

>>541355261
>spiritual dwarves
Being spiritual at all is primitive brainlet behavior.

>intimidated by the big confusing mix of books in the Bible
Kek. Lmao even

>>541350727
>The only thing left to do when you don't have an argument is to attack the other person.
>atheism is the logical position if you know how to think.

>>541356687
>God can simply alter causality, true, but then that would make Him responsible for everything that ever happened or will ever happen which is breaking the logic of the situation.

>somehow, seeing what will happen and deciding NOT to alter it, when you are the "creator of all", absolves you from responsibility for it
seems like very jewish logic, sorry to say since you seem polite enough about it

File: 1787613109418.jpg (43 KB, 346x461)

43 KB JPG

>>541354955
>An almighty God, tried to show the way, without forcing it upon everyone
Already lying. God isn't sending his best warriors

>>541354268
>I don't think Jesus dying was a sacrifice to God though
If that's the case, why but just ask his dad to spare humanity instead of dying? Seems a lot more simple and straightforward.

>>541356483
>but sure let's act like it's out of his control
Yes, because it's about making a choice.

My question is: if you believed in a god, what would that god be like? Would you even like there to be one? Would you like to believe in a god, if you could decide what that god could be like? If so, tell me what would that god be like?

>>541356827
Okay Satan

>>541356810
>somehow, seeing what will happen and deciding NOT to alter it
1) You are making the assumption that time is absolutely linear.
2) If God were to alter such things before they occur that would be the abolition of free will and choice.
>seems like very jewish logic
No Anon I think you're just obstinate.

File: AmericanPinUp.jpg (128 KB, 335x547)

128 KB JPG

>>541350281
>Why are arguments against it here always attacking the person, not the idea?
God says there are no such thing as "atheists", only those who profess "atheism"...but God says everyone knows He exists. It's just that scoffers hate Him, because they love their sin.

So called "atheists" live INCONSISTENT with their professed worldview. Everything an "atheist" thinks, says, and does proves he/she isn't an "atheist".

>>541356875
Jewish sacrificial tradition. Jews atone for sins through blood sacrifice. Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice, so by accepting Him you no longer have to butcher chickens for a temporary pardon. That's how the story goes, at least.

>>541356827
Are pro-immigration by any chance?
Because if you are not, then not letting those people in your country is akin to condemning them to hell by your logic.

If you are pro-immigration, would you let anyone of those immigrants live inside your house, without any vetting?
If not, you are condemning them to stay outside.

>>541356732
would need to go deeper into studies of ancient texts, some say the 3 visitors (for example) could represent the trinity. Or that the phrase "God rained fire from God out of heaven" doesn't even make any sense semantically.

But as we know, there's lots of mistranslations, including the "God created the world in 7 days" while in reality the word "7 days" refers to "7 phases" or "7 epochs".

My general interpretation remains that God speaks and acts through people, and Jesus kind of represented that as well.

>>541356875
>If that's the case, why but just ask his dad to spare humanity instead of dying?
What is the point? If you can do evil, and then just ask someone to reset your balance for free - then what is the point of even resetting it in the first place?

It's like saying you can go into debt as much as you want, as long as you can ask the bank to forgive the debt whenever you want. Then why even seek to reset it at all? If it holds no value anyway.

>>541356902
>if you believed in a god
>>541354581
>I believe the jews are right and there is no satan, it's just ALLL Yahweh's will, even Peter Scully
>>541354665
>a world created by a benevolent deity would not have such incredible suffering built into its very core
>watch a mammal eat another one real slow sometime
I was raised evangelist and have gone through just about every possible phase with it over decades including max edgelord atheism; to end up here

I also believe Jesus was the only legitimately good jew

>>541356979
>If God were to alter such things before *he created them so that they occur that would be the abolition of free will and choice.
you're not really getting the implications of omniscience in an omnipotent creator of everything existing
>I think you're just obstinate.
I have had sex so it's volcel tyvm

>>541356902
*but afaik it's not about what I WANT to be the case
only what is the case, unless we're having an entirely different egregore tier discussion

>>541357064
>Jewish sacrificial tradition
Teenage girls love to cut their hair off when they want to cleanse themselves from bad mojo.

File: 2981894824989.jpg (105 KB, 998x1024)

105 KB JPG

>>541350281
Hey OP and any other atheists in the thread can you answer this question for me, why do atheists have a huge problem with a cross being on the White House lawn taking action to have it removed but have no problem with a giant menorah on the White House lawn? Care to explain? Could this possibly be why people started to view atheism as the joke that it is?

File: ChristianLife3.jpg (179 KB, 1024x1024)

179 KB JPG

"Atheism" can not account for truth, and therefore..knowledge. Every truth claim made by a so called "atheist" is the "atheist" being INCONSISTENT with his/her professed worldview.

>>541357171
>you're not really getting the implications of omniscience in an omnipotent creator of everything existing
Whereas I think you're overcomplicating it. Omniscience and Omnipotence together make every single choice for God a binary: "Do" or "Do not." Maybe I can illustrate it for you: Are you familiar with the thought experiment asking whether God can create a rock he can't lift? It is ultimately a trick question. Omnipotence assumes that God is capable of anything and therefore must be capable of creating any rock, but renders the creation of a hypothetical God-proof rock an impossibility. Ergo, God could create a rock that he simply chooses not to lift. The difference between inability and unwillingness is meaningless.

Atheists are arguably idiots since they entertain the question of gods existence. Instead of attacking the question itself by saying the statement god is real or not isn't a meaningful statement since the term God is self contradictory or only defined negativity from what God isn't. Theological Noncognitivism is the ultimate nuke against Religion.

>>541357260
That's what the Jews of old did, yeah. Place your sin in a chicken, kill it, and boom, pardoned. Jesus is the sacrifice to end all sacrifices.

File: gimmickcheck'd (gimmick) (12).png (176 KB, 612x408)

176 KB PNG

>>541357333
>Whereas I think you're overcomplicating it.
not an outright dismissible notion; I do be doing that
>The difference between inability and unwillingness is meaningless.
I disagree; there is a distinct meaning in the difference between the chink watching a child drown in front of him with a bored expression is that between inability to save it, and unwillingness to save it

>>541357646
>there is a distinct meaning in the difference between the chink watching a child drown in front of him with a bored expression, *and it's found between inability to save it, and unwillingness to save it
butchered that statement a bit

aaaand it still sucks but think the intended meaning comes across

>>541357646
>I disagree; there is a distinct meaning in the difference between the chink watching a child drown in front of him with a bored expression is that between inability to save it, and unwillingness to save it
Therein lies the issue: The chink is not omnipotent. Perhaps he can't swim. Perhaps he could jump in and try to save the kid only to drown himself. He can make an attempt. There are no attempts for God, He either does or does not intercede.

File: ClipboardGif.gif (1.28 MB, 450x202)

1.28 MB GIF

>>541357751
>He can make an attempt.
>There are no attempts for God, He either does or does not intercede.
both the making of the attempt and the intercession speak to benevolence, or an absence of it
various omni-pences aside

>>541357906
>both the making of the attempt and the intercession speak to benevolence
It does, from our perspective in this hypothetical situation. But then we're not omniscient. We can't know God's methods or His reasons. Sometimes we are granted a glimpse or a revelation of these things if we're lucky. More often than not we simply don't and can't know the true consequences of our actions.

>>541356295
In fact, it does sound logical, if we understand a fundamental principle of logic. All logical argumentation must take its most fundamental concepts for granted, for no other reason than those concepts themselves. Think about this: if we accept that everything that exists in the universe can be explained by a series of previous processes, then we would have to assume that there is an infinite chain of previous events that explain each other. But then, are we really explaining anything? Is an infinite succession of events logical? The truth is, no, and furthermore, this contradicts astronomical observations that suggest that the universe as we know it did have an origin. Therefore, logical principles REQUIRE that something exists simply for the sake of existing, or that something is true simply because it is. It sounds strange because these kinds of questions challenge the limits of logic, but this is because the question about the origin of the universe is a question of the same kind as "why does anything even exist in the first place?" and that question is impossible to answer logically, since it is, in reality, a metaphysical question.

Whether you're an atheist, a believer, or an agnostic, the most fundamental question of all cannot be answered logically, and therefore it's pointless to use logic, from either side. Some try to use logic, thinking that logic and "scientific" are synonymous, but that is not the case here.

>>541358039
>>you can't judge God like you would a human, he's beyond you and the standards he himself judges you by, you couldn't possibly "get it"
you're not putting it shitty with an attitude like my greentext strawman earlier did, but you're still effectively saying this

maybe he should have used that time in the OT he spends making sure you kiss his ass "properly" and you know how seriously he takes it taking a stab at explaining some of those things in a much more effective way than "do as I say and not as I do because I said so, now worship me for it"

>>541358227
>but you're still effectively saying this
Because it's not entirely wrong, despite being a reductionism. God judges Himself and there is no higher authority. Sometimes God takes suggestions and feedback from men, like Abraham during the Sodom & Gomorrah story, often with disastrous consequences.

If God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient then God knew about 9/11 and willed it. Deus Vult.

>>541358400
He also will you to be a faggot.

>>541350281
because christians have a victim mentality that makes them think any pushback on their unwanted ministry is a personal attack so they form all their counter "arguments" as personal attacks to feel better.

>>541358316
Imagine you had to wrangle a bunch of savage kikes in the desert. They're retarded and start worshipping gold calf statues the moment you stop smiting them for ten minutes. Telling them what you want just makes them codify everything you say as some kind of insane retarded maxim they have to live their entire lives around. The Ten Commandments are spelled out rather plainly and look at how much the Israelites fucked those up.

>>541358390
>Sometimes God takes suggestions and feedback from men, like Abraham during the Sodom & Gomorrah story, often with disastrous consequences.
>with omniscience, he would have known this was coming, and the consequences
>also is supposed to be infallible, so nothing is a "mistake" >>541355690
it's a good thing he can't be judged by our standards cause it just looks like he really wanted to kill some kids there despite nothing about it being "necessary"

Pharoh would have done "the right thing" on his own, but God stops him, so he can kill children

>>541358874
>The Ten Commandments (formerly 20 before Moses smashed half of them) are spelled out rather plainly and look at how much the Israelites fucked those up
wonder what was on the other 10

>>541358904
>with omniscience, he would have known this was coming, and the consequences
Yes, he did know, and he did it anyway. That's kind of the point. He was erring on the side of man's judgement and, as a plot element of the story, this tells us how fucked up things get when human beings call the shots. You're missing the forest for the trees here.
>Pharoh would have done "the right thing" on his own, but God stops him, so he can kill children
Yes, he does. The God of the Old Testament is rather violent and bloodthirsty. That's why his Son is kind of a big deal in the New one.
>>541358963
>wonder what was on the other 10
Kabbalah, apparently.

>>541358661
I remember when ChristFags were a vocal minority before around 2016 and then it exploded in 2019 with CovidFags. Circa 2011-2014 they were universally made fun of. I have no idea where they came from. It's basically brigading onto 4chan.

>>541359026
>He was erring on the side of man's judgement and, as a plot element of the story, this tells us how fucked up things get when human beings call the shots. You're missing the forest for the trees here.
>The God of the Old Testament is rather violent and bloodthirsty.
doesn't seem all that much better when he's "correcting" us calling the shots we would have called "the right way" anyway

and nothing about Jesus in the NT changes the nature of God; it's still the same being

>>541359045
Christianity and MAGA were introduced to subvert some very dangerous knowledge the board had stumbled onto from being acted on

it was super effective, board will never really recover

>>541359524
>doesn't seem all that much better when he's "correcting" us calling the shots we would have called "the right way" anyway
Practically speaking, one should be able to figure out how God wants us to react to situations assuming one actually listens. Prayer, for example, is supposed to be a two way street. You don't just talk to God you listen too.
>and nothing about Jesus in the NT changes the nature of God; it's still the same being
That's a whole other can of worms doctrinally and I'm not a big fan of debating the nature of the Trinity or semantics regarding it. The nature of God is what it is, but the point of Christendom is that standards of humanity's relationship with God have changed.

>>541359889
>Practically speaking, one should be able to figure out how God wants us to react to situations assuming one actually listens.
this would be a much better response out of the context of the discussion about Exodus and Passover it's in, where he makes Pharoh do the opposite of what he told Moses to tell him he wanted him to do
>the point of Christendom is that standards of humanity's relationship with God have changed.
yup, instead of only jews having access to kapparot, now goyim do too
>>541357629
>Place your sin in a chicken, kill it, and boom, pardoned. Jesus is the sacrifice to end all sacrifices.
but I consider the religion unfixably corrupted from the moment Saul has a hallucination on, and he wrote half the NT and likely altered the rest as he pleased, while the rest of the apostles clapped or something

been a pleasant discussion though, thanks

>instead of only jews having access to kapparot, now goyim do too
btw I think this is how you can best see the shitty jewish subversion of the religion
Jesus tried to take their "chosen" status away, so they subverted it to make him the only chosen

>>541360209
>this would be a much better response out of the context of the discussion
I was under the impression we were discussing the more abstract aspect et al. As I recall, the Pharaoh's heart was hardened. A sequence of events enacted by God caused this, but Pharaoh also chose it. There are Biblical figures that just get fucked that way. Judas got a pretty raw deal too.

>>541360519
>As I recall, the Pharaoh's heart was hardened. A sequence of events enacted by God caused this, but Pharaoh also chose it.
"hardened his heart against it" is difficult to interpret any other way but "he was going to do as God was asking, and God altered his heart so he instead did not"
and the timing of it in the narrative, it directly leads to the plagues including Passover
>Judas got a pretty raw deal too.
agreed, if him dying was always the plan and in fact the only way it worked
but who knows how it actually went; jews say sometimes Judas killed Jesus himself, no Romans involved at all
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8lia7Bs4RA

>>541360209
>but I consider the religion unfixably corrupted from the moment Saul has a hallucination on, and he wrote half the NT and likely altered the rest as he pleased, while the rest of the apostles clapped or something
I don't blame you. Paul should rightfully be a highly controversial figure in any church instead of just accepted as pure truth. He was very much a necessary figure to reconcile the early Messianic Jews with Christendom but a lot of his edicts bend over backward to integrate Mosiac law into a religion that left Mosaic law behind.
>>541360658
>"hardened his heart against it" is difficult to interpret any other way but "he was going to do as God was asking, and God altered his heart so he instead did not"
Indeed, and it's difficult to determine if God quite literally forced Pharaoh's heart to harden. I would think not, since free will is the basic premise upon which responsibility for sin is founded. That's the sort of question a lot of people should talk about for a long time and share their ideas. Comparing older scriptures against the newer ones would be a good idea, but then you get the IT'S THE EXACT WORD OF GOD people despite the fact it's been translated multiple times. Christendom is stagnating for exactly this reason.

File: images - 2026-07-07T065356.667.jpg (36 KB, 480x640)

36 KB JPG

>>541350281
I know, right? Like why would you think your God is the right god and not the 3000 other gods humans have worshipped throughout history? Because we all know it is a sound assumption that the gods are all mutually exclusive and equally likely to be true, right?

>>541355788
you hab free will :DDD
(nod really :DDD)

>>541360818
>He was very much a necessary figure to reconcile the early Messianic Jews with Christendom but a lot of his edicts bend over backward to integrate Mosiac law into a religion that left Mosaic law behind.
purely speculating but I think his actual vision (had while trying to stomp the growing movement Jesus started out) was that it could not be stomped out, and in fact would completely fuck them if not heavily subverted, and that's why it all bends over backwards integrating Messianic principles and doctrine and protecting jews
catholicism is jewish as shit, they even spitefully call their city-state "Rome" just like petty jews would over some thousands-year old grudge
>you get the IT'S THE EXACT WORD OF GOD people despite the fact it's been translated multiple times.
it's supposed to be a cover for the things that sound laughably unrealistic to take literally and even then people still pick and choose as they please, because some things are simply not realistic at all to take literally as stated, like the depiction of Noah
but you dismiss things like Noah as having been inaccurate and then get to the virgin birth and resurrection that are always supposed to be taken 100% literally

>>541357073
What if you're pro-immigration and pro-vetting, and acknowledge that anyone who fails the vetting process will be condemned to hell, aka a cartel run hellhole?

ChristFags:

"The Gay Niggers from Outer Space come from the Planet Anus in the AidsSun System. Here is a German speaking Gay Nigger, named Mr. Schwul, from the region of Anus that still practices the old Gay Nigger Religion - a ritual worship of human excrement."

File: 1787619831318.jpg (36 KB, 712x595)

36 KB JPG

>>541357168
>If you can do evil, and then just ask someone to reset your balance for free - then what is the point of even resetting it in the first place?
Remind me again how it's not for free.

Also, does not reset your balance all the time whenever you simply pray and reaffirm your faith in Christ after you sin? You're literally just asking.

File: fuck off.jpg (69 KB, 750x750)

69 KB JPG

wouldn't it be some shit if actually worshipping Jesus himself was the last thing Jesus would have ever wanted, and that's what jews turned his attempts to make all goyim chosen into

>>541361517
>Remind me again how it's not for free.
Absolution requires contrition and penance.

>>541357646

Ontology of an infinite being is ultimate. Everything else is derivative and thusly nothing created could produce God’s ontology. Everything in creation can witness to him, but God has to provide himself. It’s top down opaque. Causal reasoning and deduction can only get you so far. Your limit is derivative ontology.

File: 1753617798860846.jpg (106 KB, 768x1024)

106 KB JPG

>>541361386
Yes, now imagine if the vetting process was just to accept gift. If that's too much for you, then enjoy the cartel hell then I guess

>>541361315
>it could not be stomped out, and in fact would completely fuck them if not heavily subverted, and that's why it all bends over backwards integrating Messianic principles and doctrine and protecting jews
Maybe. I think Paul's works are important to the greater picture but definitely not on par with the gospels as far as doctrine is concerned. Then again I've been to a lot of churches and always run afoul of fundie cliques eventually.
>but you dismiss things like Noah as having been inaccurate and then get to the virgin birth and resurrection that are always supposed to be taken 100% literally
Such is the state of a floundering religion populated by fair-weather believers. They're the last group of people that should be listened to for theological wisdom though.

>>541361517

Most people misunderstand that it’s not a debt ledger. God anchors your frame of reference to Jesus. So the point is you’d be conflating your frame of judgement as ultimate when God objectively rendered it null and void by providing himself on a cross and the entire point of Moses with the bronze serpent was to underline merely looking at Jesus in faith rather than yourself renders death and sin non ultimate. Meaning what you do doesn’t define you because God created you and has final say over what applies, and given when Jesus did you cannot possibly say that anything done temporally during your life will stick. Including the good shit. That was the point, lest you be able to boast. This is why religion and secularism conspired to murder Jesus, this was his point.

File: the young pope.jpg (432 KB, 1600x900)

432 KB JPG

>>541361621
>Causal reasoning and deduction can only get you so far.
>you can even add lateral thought into it and still not understand the nature of God that makes him beyond and above the standards he judges you by
I can get all that, but it still sounds like this vagueposted bullshit excuse for an asshole to act like an asshole and it to be "okay" for him to

>>541361793
>Such is the state of a floundering religion populated by fair-weather believers.
makes me want to rewatch pic rel

File: 1647365274712.jpg (40 KB, 728x1024)

40 KB JPG

I think why Christianity is so hated is because the ones that ultimately are behind the hate want to take advantage of you.
The core idea behind Christianity and the New Covenant is that you don't have to prove yourself to matter and that is something that cannot be taken advantage of.

Understanding the following is the key:
"You were never meant to justify your self-worth and you were never meant to be your own savior.
The moment you stop trying to prove that you're enough, is the moment that grace actually begins.
And grace means that when you stand before God, instead of being judged by the imperfect life that you lived, your salvation would be judged by the perfect life that Christ lived for you, which he offers as a free and undeserved gift. All you have to do is accept it.
Once you do, you start to realize that you no longer have to perform in order to prove that you matter. Instead, you can know your worth is secure because the God of the universe already proved how much you're worth to him when he died to save you."
TL;DR: It's okay, you can chill

File: P.jpg (634 KB, 1008x1792)

634 KB JPG

>>541350281
Atheism is a jew psyop to make people worship their central government model. It is fake and gay.

>>541350281
The main argument is that you have no fucking clue what gods are or whether they exist.
Did you encounter aliens? No.
Do aliens exist?

>>541361693
>just to accept gift
Requiring worship and Eternal devotion under the threat of infinite suffering is not a "free gift". This kind of dishonest farming and blatant lying is why fewer and fewer people take christcucks like you seriously.

>>541361603
>Absolution requires contrition and penance.
Okay. So Jesus can do that in a way that didn't require dying on a cross? I.e. Just asking God with contrition to forgive humanity.

>>541362173
>to act like an asshole and it to be "okay" for him to
Do you know what his acts are? I have the suspicion he's not acting a whole lot. Maybe he's busy with other shit or doesn't want to mess up the simulation; all understandable.
>maybe it's too painful to watch
Even the nature of what would constitute an "act of god" is questionable. Stuff passively happening wasn't caused by god in any active sense; at best it's a (possible) consequence to his actions long ago.
Does he have an obligation to act? To save his drowning Sim after deconstructing the pool's ladder?
>unironically no

>>541361876
Anon, I'm not trying to be mean but this all sounds pretty schizo. It's hard for me to argue against something that's rooted in metaphysics and non-empiricism. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

>>541365707
>So Jesus can do that in a way that didn't require dying on a cross?
You're viewing this through a far too deterministic lens. Christ did not have to die on that cross, he chose to. Remember that He was tempted, and in his moments of agony He believed God had forsaken Him. The story of Christ is one of God having a human experience, i.e. what it is like to unjustly suffer and die as a man. If it helps I'd recommend you look at the Bible first as a piece of literature telling you a story. I think a lot of people could benefit from a secular Bible study.

File: 1787630043218.jpg (263 KB, 976x852)

263 KB JPG

>>541366071
>he chose to
Why if it's ultimately unnecessary?
>The story of Christ is one of God having a human experience, i.e. what it is like to unjustly suffer and die as a man
But we're dealing with God who himself is omniscient. He already knows what that experience is, and if somehow he didn't through his own omniscience he could simulate it for himself.

It seems like you're trying to engage with me in good faith, but it sounds like you're making up a plausible narrative and interpretation as you go. Aka "look at the Bible first as a piece of literature telling you a story." When you're allowed to pick and choose what aspects are metaphors and what are literal, we inevitably run up against these logical inconsistencies. What you call "being too deterministic" is now simply me having a separate equally valid interpretation of the same story. Nothing is empirical or positive statements; instead it's all opinion and normative statements. This is how you end up with hundreds of denominations from the same book.
For instance, there are likely billions of other Christians who would vehemently disagree with what you're saying right now. "Christ did not have to die", the central act upon which the Christian faith is founded, alone would seem incredibly sacrilegious to most people.

>>541367938
>Why if it's ultimately unnecessary?
You don't think saving your soul is necessary? I mean, the entire burning eternal torment in Hell thing is just some fanfiction by Catholics. By all accounts it's possible your soul literally just dies if it's not saved.
>But we're dealing with God who himself is omniscient. He already knows what that experience is
You can watch other people suffer and die but you're never gonna know what it's like unless you suffer and die yourself. QED: Why Christ thought he was forsaken. The agony was overwhelming.
>When you're allowed to pick and choose what aspects are metaphors and what are literal
You can thank translations and lost cultural context for a lot of that. Islam has a nice little phrase it uses when scripture is intended to be taken as a straight concept. Would be useful for Bible study but alas, no dice.
>What you call "being too deterministic" is now simply me having a separate equally valid interpretation of the same story
Valid does not mean correct, nor does it imply a comprehensive understanding of the point of the story. The asshole who made the Starship Troopers movie had a "valid interpretation" of the novel but he was also full of shit about it.
>Nothing is empirical or positive statements
Which is why it's important to have these conversations.
>there are likely billions of other Christians who would vehemently disagree with what you're saying right now
They would also be heretics who are wrong. :)

>>541367938
Its post-hoc acterproc it's the same shit flat earth era do. They make up justifications as the arguments against pile up.

>>541350281
>Why are arguments against it here always attacking the person, not the idea?
Well, frist that isn't true, second, atheists are majority unwashed, dumb incel autists, so attacking them is super easy and satisyfing - they attack themselves basically. It's like going to a scientific convention dressed like a gay clown and expecting nobody to comment on that.

File: IMG_0608.gif (20 KB, 220x212)

20 KB GIF

>>541367938
Teleology and intelligibility are supplied by the context because its derivative, if it seems circular to you, perhaps you need to read Kant in order to understand that you cannot use reality to judge reality while being within it without faith. The book demonstrates extremes by showing you Job being tortured by satan. Job immediately takes all of creation and stacks it against God demanding he answer and his response was that he made everything and Job was no where to be found when he did it, his point was that job was taking an accusatory stance against God just because beings within the context were torturing Job. He was idolizing creation which is why he thought he could judge God by what occurred within the context God had made.

Kant’s observations line right up with God’s point, that attempting to ground reality while being within it and part of its causal order poses an impossibility of grounding it. It’s recursive circular thinking and the reason why it occurs is because reality is top down. God doesn’t need to answer for anything because everything he made is ontologically Good to start. There is no ontological evil, evil is a misorientation expressed by beings when they recursively believe that they can define themselves by actions and take pride in labels/factions/identity. The entire verse in revelation about recieving a unique name that only God and the one who receives it will know is precisely because every single human name we have is literally derived from what man has done and thought from within this context. It’s derivative, second order and non unique.

>>541367938
Smart post

File: 1783662010104359.jpg (42 KB, 500x400)

42 KB JPG

>>541350281

File: 1783645088056992.png (419 KB, 598x730)

419 KB PNG

>>541350779

File: 1773729119964009.jpg (600 KB, 700x6826)

600 KB JPG

>>541350900

File: 1778495110793678.jpg (802 KB, 1333x3893)

802 KB JPG

>>541350911
Here is a list of ancient historical figures whose existence is widely accepted by historians, even though the evidence for them is weaker than the evidence for Jesus of Nazareth when judged by standard historical criteria (number of sources, independence, dating, and hostile attestation).

Figures with Less Evidence Than Jesus

Socrates (469–399 BC)
Sources: Plato, Xenophon, Aristophanes
Weakness: No writings of his own; all sources are followers or literary critics
Still universally accepted as historical

Pythagoras (c. 570–495 BC)
Sources written 200–500 years later
Weakness: No contemporary evidence; heavily legendary material
Accepted as historical with uncertain details

Spartacus (d. 71 BC)
Sources: Plutarch, Appian (decades later)
Weakness: Few sources; all hostile Roman accounts
Accepted as historical

Hillel the Elder (c. 110 BC–AD 10)
Sources: Mishnah and Talmud (compiled centuries later)
Weakness: No contemporary records; religious tradition only
Accepted as historical Jewish teacher

Buddha (Siddhārtha Gautama, c. 5th century BC)
Sources written 300–400 years after his life
Weakness: No contemporary or hostile sources
Majority of scholars accept his existence

Lycurgus of Sparta
Sources: Plutarch (centuries later)
Weakness: Possibly legendary; no contemporary evidence
Often treated as semi-historical

Apollonius of Tyana
Source: Philostratus (3rd century AD)
Weakness: Single late, hagiographic source
Accepted as a real person; miracles rejected

Why Jesus Has Stronger Evidence
Jesus is attested by:
Multiple independent sources
Hostile non-Christian writers (Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny, Lucian)
Early references (within ~20–60 years)
Embarrassing details (crucifixion)

Conclusion: Many ancient figures are accepted as historical with less evidence than Jesus. Rejecting Jesus’ existence while accepting these figures applies an inconsistent historical standard.

File: 1621519898394.gif (2.77 MB, 3558x3364)

2.77 MB GIF

>>541351408
the scientists in your science books are christian