"God is dead and we killed him"; that's what the atheists have been saying for decades now, as they are proud of their handicraft in "destroying" God because it's profitable. Let's face it, atheists are literally PAID by leftists organizations to destroy the very fabric that woven the West after the Roman Empire crumbled.
And now what do we have? Their wet dreams of course. With their hatred upon the Abrahamic God and their aim to destroy it have been realized, they paved the way to THEIR religion of choice: Marxism. They're so logical, so intelligent, so reasonable, that they decided that the very fabric of culture, society, history and nations have to be destroyed because it is, according to them, also mandated by that old religion because fuck it.
God isn’t dead, this is the delusional stupidity that atheism grasps onto. Finding flaws in books written by humans doesn’t disprove a being beyond our comprehension. Dawkins is an egotistical faggot who thinks finding flaws in life equals no god. He then got canceled by trannies, so congratulations atheists.
*Islam-loving trannies at that, if I remember correctly. An RL friend I have who fancies himself an enlightened atheist and quasi-Marxist literally doesn't like Dawkins anymore (he was certainly a big enough fan back when we were in high school) because he's anti-Muslim and a racist apparently. Allah 1, fedora-tippers 0.
This was something mixed into leftist thought after 9/11 and W's invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Before that Atheists MOSTLY hated all religion equally because Christianity was the direct villain. Somewhere just after 9/11 the leftist became sympathetic to Islamists because they hated W and the Republicans - so the enemy of my enemy is my ally and there was a concerted effort to defend and become sensitive to islamic fundamentalism and defend them as being mere victims to American Oppression. This is why South Park was forced to censor their episode showing Mohammed because doing so would be supporting W and the Iraq war (which, as we all know, was haram!)
It was this self-censorship that spurred on the anti-bullying stuff which originally was to stop Islamic harassment and then quickly got extended to LGBT groups and heck anyone who was "victimized" by the evil GOP and that's how we ended up where we're at today.
As if abstract argumentation could produce any truth about the matter. True atheism leads to the tower of Babylon, while Christianity properly lived leads to the best life one could hope for (plus the promise of the eternal).
Christianity works. Everything else breeds death. You shall know them by their fruits.
We are still waiting for proof that there is a God.
I’m still waiting for proof you’re capable of original thought.
By definition, we'll never get it.
Make the leap of faith.
Is this a brilliant, beautiful, good, and amazing world? If it is, then ask yourself how it got this way.
There's more to God than organized religion.
https://parvati.tripod.com/perennial.html
You're right, there's appeals to emotion and magical thinking.
No one should be making a leap of faith into something that isn't there and can't support you.
If you're gonna be a Christian, don't be a fucking "Jesus take the wheel" Christian.
As a Christian, those types also drive me up the freaking wall.
From a purely pragmatic point of view, it is a terrible way of getting converts (if that is your goal), and its also a very unhealthy/unhelpful way of living your life.
More importantly, it runs contrary to what the Bible itself says, as God does not meddle in the affairs of mortals outside of a few extreme examples. Speaking to people maybe, I believe I have heard it*, but he is not going to give you vast riches because you prayed hard enough to him.
Of course, I have found that in almost every case, its overcompensation. Those with guilty consciences who hide their crimes or sins with zealotry, while those who are solid in their faith and living their life to the best of their moral ability generally do so in quiet. Which is a trait that even Jesus pointed out, saying that the man who prays in private is usually more pious than the man who prays loudly and openly in the church. And as we all know, this same observation also applies to Woke Leftist (since it is more or less a secular religion).
/*(unless you have a logical reason for why someone screamed my name, in a car with no one else in it, with no one on the sidewalk, that happened to get me to look in the direction of a car running a stop sign and getting me to react fast enough to avoid getting t-boned)
The JTTW Christians and the Leftists use the incentive the way that all authoritarians do, it's why I have a significant issue with damn near all organized religions:
To which there is one an only one response to the creature that makes this sermon.
As an Anti-Theist, I see this all the time in most religions. Many of those weak-willed and harmless JTTW Christians subscribe to it. Or predators use this to enable themselves.
But, I get it. I get why a fire-and-brimstone Christian would call it Satanic... because it is. By these measures, we are in a fallen world, where devils of all kinds run amok, where every leader is the anti-Christ, and there was no rapture to save anyone. When I, as someone who opposes Christian ordering of the world, seem almost more pious than many Christians I know; then truly God has forsaken this world.
But hey, I don't believe in God. I think Nietzsche was correct: "God is dead and it is we who have killed him." Through the march of technology, and the expansion of knowledge, we have removed the mysticism that reinforced traditions we didn't understand. The illusion of God is dead, and it is now fully our responsibility to pay the price of that murder: we must learn to rise above our petulant wants, and take responsibility of our own lives, families, communities, and societies through courage of will.
When Civilization looses God, the training wheels come off. There's no longer anything to fall back on. There's no protection from failing. From my Libertarian perspective: that's a good thing. You no longer get to make excuses, and now you really do have to take responsibility.
It's not, half of this sub's reason to exist would not exist if it was. Am i supposed to turn myself into Satanist now instead of keeping to agnostic atheism?
This world is a lovely place, in my view. Humans have done some stupid things however. It's time to roll those back and embrace the order of nature and the gods instead.
That's subjective, hence, not an argument worth applying to anyone else.
Do your part, turn off Internet connection and rest of stupid things humanity has created those years :)
I don't believe in objective/subjective as distinctions. It's a false dichotomy.
You seem to have confused technology with functional social order. Very sorry to hear that.
What is functional social order? Proto socialism that used to collapse on itself with little external help?
Lets see. Marxism require faith as there is no proof of actually working.
It requires people to be 100% for everything the current version of marxism requests of the followers, being CRT or vaccines. Sometimes you need to ignore reality completely.
Anyone who is not part of the following is a heretic and needs to be removed from society.
It has an original sin if you are white or male.
It does not tolerate any other religion.
It has a promise of heaven, although a mortal one on earth.
It is used to control the masses for political power.
Conclusion: It is a religion without a god
If we weren't living in clown world I would say make the case that "pride"/degeneracy is a religion and that any state power exercised to recognize or promote it violates the establishment clause.
So no more faggot flags in schools or government institutions, no more rainbow crosswalks, no more taxpayer funded events that promote it.
Atheist's are what they are purely because of their lack of God. Even if you don't believe in God, the morals of the Christian faith are without doubt superior to nearly every other faith, and in my opinion contain an element of purity that protects men who walk said path. The man who lives in sin, is rarely a happy man. The man who lives by the words of God, is often content with life. If you've been on both sides, you'll know how true this is. My only problem with Christianity is war. The pacifist shit should only exist in times of peace, and should be thrown out the window once war in on our doorstep. After all, what's the point in your faith, if you aren't willing to do everything necessary to maintain its power.
The Bible says men are superior to women, it's ok to own humans as property, it's required to kill a child if they disobey their parents, getting tattoos requires the death penalty, And other people can be punished for crimes you committed.
That's the morality you find to be the best on Earth? Our own Constitution has better morals than that.
"the morals of the Christian faith are without doubt superior to nearly every other faith" You mean like turning the other cheek? Fuck that, if someone hits you , you should have the right to hit them back.
Revisiting scripture as an adult has proven quite interesting.
That passage from Exodus referenced in your image also plays into Luke 22:36, wherein Jesus tells his apostles to sell even their cloaks to arm themselves.
We are told that Jesus even as a child had an appropriately supernatural grasp of the law of his people - including Exodus. It would therefore be foolish to assume that he chose his words idly, or that reference to the laws and history of his audience are unintentional.
Fair enough, I've learnt something new today
to turn the other cheek back then forced the Romans to hit without a backhand which was considered assault under Roman law, basically it was "use your enemies laws against him"
You say that, but good things don't come from everybody thinking in terms of retaliation instead of forgiveness.
More like a warning: if you leave me alone, I'll leave you alone
I'm an atheist.
I'm not Marxist or communist.
I don't get paid by the left. In fact I hate the left and the Dems.
God isn't dead. I don't think god exists so it can't be dead or alive.
So now that your strawman has failed you can stop spouting nonsense.
All that atheism tells you about a person is they are not convinced a god exists.
There are 5000 gods actively worshiped on Earth right now, today. Every believer will tell me that the over 4999 are wrong. No one has proof of their claim which is why I don't believe. It has nothing to do with politics. I've never met an atheist that would say otherwise.
Atheism is a gnostic claim, and therefore simultaneously ignorant and arrogant.
Agnosticism is the more rational position - we lack the ability to observe or comprehend far too much to make a gnostic claim about the origins of the universe or many of its workings.
Atheist make no claims about knowledge. Saying I'm unconvinced of a god is not the same as saying there is no god.
I'm not agnostic on my belief. I don't believe because there is insufficient evidence. The same reason I don't believe in bigfoot. Can't prove bigfoot doesn't exist, but there isn't reason to believe it does.
Agnostics by definition are atheist. You cannot believe and be unsure at the same time. If you don't believe then you are an atheist. The same way that all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.
Agnosticism is not about uncertainty, it is about whether you can actually have knowledge of the answer. Agnosticism just outright states that we can't, and should one proceed to claim God exists out of pure belief it would not create a contradiction. Granted, at this point I would make sure to clarify what God really means, because there are definitely certain sets of properties that can be used to define it which are just contradictory (see the famous benevolent omniscient omnipotent trifecta).
I'm not one to argue definitions. Using your own definition if someone believes in god without proof that is not Rational even if you define it as agnostic.
More to the point OP has stated that Dawkins is an atheist. Well Dawkins doesn't fit the definition of atheist if you define it as someone who claims there is no god. There isn't a single well known atheist that makes that claim. Dawkins, Dennett, Hitches, Harris, Dillahunty, Aaron Ra, Maher all take the stance of not believing because of lack of evidence. And I take the same stance. All would be considered agnostic by your definition.
And I think the semantics are moot. OP clearly made claims about atheist with no backing. If you're going to make a claim there should be evidence to back it up.
Yes, it is exactly not rational. Humans in general are not very friendly with this whole "rational thought" thing, so i settle for "non-contradictory".
Stance of "not believing because of lack of evidence" is exactly "there is no god for there is no evidence there is a god". Compare with "there is no need to assume god exists, for there is no evidence he affects anything" of a perfectly 'rational' being. Though i admit, the difference between these two is very subtle.
OP's dumb post is it's own separate story, frankly, given Christianity's rise was not exactly any peaceful or pretty.
I pretty much agree with everything you replied with except this:
I can't choose to believe in god. I'm either convinced or I'm not based on the data I've been given. I'm not convinced because the evidence doesn't support the god claim. I'm not claiming there is no god. I'm saying there isn't enough evidence to reach a conclusion that there is one . However I don't feel there is reason to live my life taking a god I to consideration anymore than I take dragons into consideration. There simply isn't proof that it exists so I live as if it doesn't until proven otherwise.
In a nutshell I think we disagree on terms and definitions and you would probably classify me and most atheist as agnostic. And that's fine I don't care about the semantics or labels.
Bigfoot, if such a creature were to exist, would do so on the material plane, in three-dimensional space, entirely within the realm of our ability to grasp. A creator that exists outside of space-time as we are able to perceive it is a different matter.
The inability of theist to provide evidence is not my problem. Claiming it's impossible to have evidence for god means you admit you have no rational reason to believe.
I can just as easily say bigfoot is a spaceless timeless creature that exists outside our spacetime. See it's easy just to say stuff. Evidence is the hard part.
Always was.
Always is.
You go through the Bible and it was always amazing that people act so stupidly and you're wondering how people could be that moronic and it must be a little hyperbole in there. (and even if you don't believe in God - the Bible is at the very least a passing down of recorded human civilization and what worked and what didn't and that certain laws and rules encoded therein were established for a good reason that's withstood the test of time)
Why would people create a golden calf 40 days after being rescued from Israel where they observed God's direct actions? They couldn't be THAT stupid...
What's the meaning behind God striking down the Tower of Babel - that human unity is bad? Yes there's arrogance to be sure - but acting as one people for a common goal like all the Saturday morning cartoons say is a good thing - why would God be against that?! (see also Germany and WW2)
And now we have soy latte drinking purple haired fat boys dictating civilization from behind a recliner and scared to go out into the world.
You read about "God's Word" and "God is Truth" and, until this last year, I always thought that was a rhetorical phrase to help keep you on a moral path.
Not any more - now I realize it's a philosophical edict! Without the establishment of objective reality (presented by God) without His word - people will utterly believe whatever stupidity appeals to them this minute. And it's not even like the 60s "if it feels good then do it" type stuff - It's pure animal, superstitious, emotional thinking.
It's like we're living Asimov's Nightfall story...
ok - rant off.
Overall I think OP made a bad emotional argument, one that doesn't go deeper into this complex subject, and thus seem to be this new wave of Christian pushers that conveniently is making their way through the internet right when the fate of the Western world is looking for a stronger religion/path. "God" dying or at least Christianity dying isn't necessarily bad since it as a religion overall can be said to have made the European soul/man weak. People often leave out that since the beginning of time the European has had virtues and values that made them who they were and the success they had. All thanks to their master/overman morality, which were curiously trampled on when Christianity was created. And that is where I will head to next for those of you wanting to gain knowledge and further expand on the subject. Most academics today that delve into the topic have to do so tip toeing since the evangelicals and Christians can have them fired and outright banned. It has been a discussion in many deep circles of the Right-Wing of the origins of Christianity and whether it was created for the benefit of the European, and it hasn't. Christianity was created mainly to denigrate and weaken the Roman Empire by Jews who didn't want to convert or get along with their Greeks neighbors. They themselves aren't against Christianity per se, they are against Jesus Christ, because he was a reformer of their ways, and they hated that.
A wakeup call is needed by the collective West that finally we can get rid of this Middle Eastern Abrahamic illness and create something better, stronger, and more natural to the European soul. I will link some well made researched articles that I recommend everyone to read since this is a complex topic. Anyone attempting to make light of it should be met with suspicion.
Interesting read on how Christianity came to be, whether it was good for Rome or the West, whether Paul was a liar, fake, etc. https://www.unz.com/article/how-yahweh-conquered-rome/
An actual Jew admitting it, a writer and big influencer of the time, as well as of course, a proponent in wanting America to have open immigration. https://ia903009.us.archive.org/24/items/antimarcusEliRavage-ARealCaseAgainstTheJews/antimarcusEliRavage-ARealCaseAgainstTheJews.pdf
Judea Contra Roma, Roma Contra Judea. Written by a Spanish academic who uses a pseudonym to hide his identity also goes into more depth as to how the Jewish Rabbis of the time convinced and influenced many of the Roman leaders in politics and many other implementation of law and religion. Also quotes another academic.
https://www.mediafire.com/file/mn141hwwlwjsorj/Rome_Contra_Judaea%252C_Judaea_Contra_Rome_by_Evropa_Soberana.pdf/file
Origins of Christianity The Christian Gospels 1st Century | Richard Carrier PhD https://youtu.be/WblpWWKsW_8
"Pagan" parallels to Jesus with Dr. Robert M. Price (Christian Apologetics and dying & rising gods). https://youtu.be/WEVrheGzIaQ
And so on, haven't even linked Counter Current ones.
80% related https://odysee.com/@ShortFatOtaku:1/consent-is-deontological:6
So..what you're saying is that when they're useful idiots being pious one hour a year at their christmas service and torturing others for not being of the same faith, they're good useful idiots. But when they have a new religion, they're bad useful idiots?
I would love to send 1.21 Gigawatts into John Lennon’s corpse and reanimate the fucker, just to put another bullet in his skull.
Filthy commie/hippy scum 😡
This was the goal all along. My choice is do I want to go along with it.
The existence of God means hierarchy.
Leftists are just individualists, following The Enlightenment.™
They want the individual to be "free" from all tradition, reality, order, nature, etc., so they "liberalize" rules so that the individual does not have to pay attention to anything but his beautiful self.
Is that why you want this guy as your leader? Or this guy?
There are some low-quality aristocrats, but as a whole, they did better than democracy or dictatorship.
Marxism is wrong but so is believing in God. Why should I believe in something that is unproven?
Only fools believe in God. if you need religion to be a good person, were you good in the first place?
Stephen Fry explains why God isn't good if he existed in the first place: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo
What does being a good person mean?
A good person is defined as "an honest, helpful, or morally good person". You don't need to believe in a God in order to be a good person. Many people all around the word qualify without believing in God.
lol, nice circular definition.
What a shallow definition of good, implicitly condoning Christian values.
Like there were no good people before Christianity came along. Christianity made Europeans weaker.
That's YOUR definition.
In my definition a good person is defined as one who "Crushes their enemies, sees them driven before him, and to hear the lamentations of their women!"
Why is yours "right"?
I got that definition off the internet bro. It's difficult to say what good is as being good differs from each person./
Ah yes - so everything is nothing, bro.
I’ve never seen so many strawmen crammed into one post before.