Secularization was a mistake

Imagine a world where Christianity never stopped being the state religious of the West. Imagine a world where every Western civilization believed in the same principles of good. Imagine world where Muslim where not allowed into a country unless they gave it all up and accepted Western ideals as their true belief. Imagine a world where communism and diversity didn't exist.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_Christianity_in_civilization
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_Nobel_laureates
reddit.com/r/ReasonableFaith/comments/1nawwc/claim_a_galilean_preacher_who_fits_the_general/
ntwrightpage.com/2016/07/12/christian-origins-and-the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-resurrection-of-jesus-as-a-historical-problem/
leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html
answering-islam.org/Shamoun/documents.htm
pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/why-should-i-believe-in-the-resurrection/
reasonablefaith.org/rediscovering-the-historical-jesus-the-evidence-for-jesus
pastebin.com/eaEGgUa3
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Christianity will not return as a cultural force until the secular systems that displaced it are completely cleared away.

WW3 is probably coming, so we may not have long to wait. When the death toll rises to the tens of millions, we'll all be turning to Christianity again.

Christianity is a random religion. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are not needed for this world.

Everything Western civilization has become is thanks to christianity

Nah c op? A Christian society would not be better or more moral because it's a random religion. You stand refuted.

It's not a random religion at all. If you combine all the Abrahamic ones like that, they are by far the largest, strongest, and highest quality religions. No other religion can realistically compare. So if you're going to be religious, you might as well pick the good one.

You mean the Romans.

Indeed; no reason for Christianity to be in society.


Which is why the best solution is no religion!

>Indeed; no reason for Christianity to be in society.
As evidenced by history. Christianity has made no contributions whatsoever.
Except that modern science owes its very existence to Christianity and you don't know what you're implying. Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, William Thomson Kelvin, Max Planck, and Albert Einstein all believed in a god.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_Christianity_in_civilization
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_Nobel_laureates
The scientific method owes its existence to Christianity.
Kill yourself, you predictably-ignorant atheist.

That's a good solution if you're willing to forgo literally all the society structuring and morality increasing benefits of organized religion.

Also, if it turns out that the afterlife is real, which it is, you're going to be bumped all the way back to the heavenly bread line after billions of starving Christian African children.

Notice how you gave zero reasons to believe in Christianity?

Just as we can forgo all the chaos and immorality of organized religion.

There is no reason for your sentience to exist after your die. Of what use would this be for the cells in your toes?

Refutation of your position is irrelevant to providing reasons to believe in Christianity, idiot. The refutation is of the position that Christianity shouldn't be in society.

But if you want an otherwise irrelevant argument for Christianity:
Jesus' ressurrection was witnessed by more than 500 people. The bible is 66 different narratives, letters, and writings written by 40 different people, five of whom witnessed Jesus after His resurrection, over about 1,500 years that are all theologically synchronous, with minimal, irrelevant "contradictions" that are expected of any such collection of historical documents and only add to its historicity. This is as opposed to having been written by one person like some guy in a cave who says he had a revelation.

Evidence of Jesus and of His resurrection:

reddit.com/r/ReasonableFaith/comments/1nawwc/claim_a_galilean_preacher_who_fits_the_general/
ntwrightpage.com/2016/07/12/christian-origins-and-the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-resurrection-of-jesus-as-a-historical-problem/
leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html
answering-islam.org/Shamoun/documents.htm
pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/why-should-i-believe-in-the-resurrection/
reasonablefaith.org/rediscovering-the-historical-jesus-the-evidence-for-jesus

But you will not comprehend any rational arguments for Christianity, and fallaciously infer there is thus no such thing, because your cognitive bias causes you to assume incorrectly that your "knowledge" is a priori and somehow negates knowledge not founded in the same principles. You have your hands over your ears and either don't know it, or won't admit it.
---
pastebin.com/eaEGgUa3

You shouldn't make a habit of confusing your butthurt for holding a strong position, faggot.

I was an atheist for most of my life, so I understand your perspective, but this is the reality I see now - in the absence of intervention by an intelligent organized religious entity, all life on earth inevitably descends into hell at the drop of a hat. Anywhere religion is not, extreme pain and suffering already is. You don't even have to wait for the afterlife, it's right here all around you, all the time. It's the Matrix if the Matrix were run by starving, suffering, terrified animals.

Yeah thank that fucking faggot Nietzsche. Good God you Germans just love fucking over the white race any way you can

That was a wonderful pastebin about people claiming they saw a resurrection. We no know that is biologically impossible to be raised from the dead like that and did not take place. That fact that you believe in necromancy is deeply troubling for ones mental stability.

Intelligence is something that arises out of multi-cellular life. I do not understand why you need to 'put the cart before the horse' in order to feel better.

how do we get rid of the soyim that control everything now?

Do you seriously think that's an illuminating reply? Your idiotic contention presupposes God must follow the rules of biology, which implies He isn't omnipotent, which implies He doesn't exist -- an implicit premise that is supposed to be your conclusion -- therefore your contention begs the question and can't possibly be sound.

Your atheism is based only on butthurt, as evidence by the fact that "WAAA Christianity doesn't right!" is completely irrelevant to the thread topic. You are whining more than arguing.

>"implying my imaginery friend must obey the laws of physics!"
Yes, you actually sound this stupid.

I like how you literally make up all these character traits like 'omnipotent' as if that was not your first sign of an obvious con.

Life existing outside a physical body has never been proven to exist and there is no reason for there to be such an entity is possible.

My atheism is based off the fact that there is no credible evidence for the existence of a deity. You seem to be upset that your claims are rejected ever increasingly by society.

No religion doesn't protect from Islam. Atheists are nothing but side effects in a society. They only adapt the society they live in, they never shape it.
Your entire moral compass is based on Christianity and you don't even realize it.

It's not about feeling better, it's about reality. Intelligence may arise from multi-cellular life, but multi-cellular life that does not have intelligence or is not organized in an intelligent way cannot run a society without subjecting it to extreme suffering.

It's the difference between Hobbes' state of nature and a situation in which somehow, as if by magic, an actually functional organizational system arises that doesn't fall into tyranny (at least not as much as you would expect from a religion with billions of adherents)

Luckily my moral compass has nothing to do with Christianity. We generally know that slaves should not obey their earthly masters.

That has nothing to do with a deity. At that point you are saying 'man needs laws for civilization' which is an okay argument.

It is. All Western morality is based on Christian values. Just because you don't recognise it, doesn't mean they aren't based on it. If you were born in a different country you'd just adopt their moral compass and call it your own, but the reality is you always only fit in.

...

Morals have to deal with the ethical being of sentient creatures. It is not subjective or based off of culture.

Islam is an example of what you propose. There is no good going down this path, it blocks any scientific progression.

>hasn't actually read Nietzsche
Nietzsche hated degeneracy and nihilism. Even though he was an atheist, he believed that man would need to create their own higher forms of morality and become the Ubermensch.

Well I'm glad you've caught on that nothing I said presupposes or requires the existence of any actual deity, only the Christian church itself.

It happens that there is also an actual deity involved, but that's neither here nor there for the purposes of discussing how western society might benefit from a strong Christian church.

Our achievement are our own. A people is beholden to no foreign god. Their gods are their own, and their principles are just that. When will you break age old conditioning and lies and pull yourself out of the muck of a semitic religion forced on our European ancestors and join the ranks of true white nationalists? Worship your own gods and people.

And we can replace the Christian church with better secular means as we are already doing.

this, i havent heard any good arguments to why the church should be kept and the only bad ones i've heard are "we need it to fight against islam" and "I need it".
of course nobody admits THEY need it, but mask it with the word "we".

The US secular left only wishes it could be as big, organized, and powerful as the secular former Soviet Union. I don't think it's a coincidence that the secular approach seems to lead to human rights abominations and eventual total collapse.

>God is an imaginary friend and imaginary friends don't exist therefore God doesn't exist
>what is a rhetorical tautology
>what is circular reasoning
I'm not the one here who is objectively stupid.
>I like how you literally make up all these character traits like 'omnipotent' as if that was not your first sign of an obvious con.
It is a defined property of what is meant by "God" by Christians, idiot. If you don't mean a being with the same properties, then you aren't referring to God and your whining is irrelevant.
>Life existing outside a physical body has never been proven to exist and there is no reason for there to be such an entity is possible.
Irrelevant; this can only imply an argument from ignorance. Also false. If you believe there is reason to believe the converse, you can only be basing that on the faulty induction: "What we observe is what happens, therefore what we observe is all that can happen." Further fisting of this stupid position: pastebin.com/eaEGgUa3
>My atheism is based off the fact that there is no credible evidence for the existence of a deity.
That's because you're stupid. Even if there weren't evidence for God's existence, the only rational position to take would be agnosticism, not atheism. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That is an argument from ignorance fallacy.
And those links are evidence of the resurrection, not just some anecdotes of supposed individual events. Neither is 500 people witnessing the same thing just an anecdote.

If you stay on Sup Forums long enough, you will eventually see just how stupid atheism is. For now, pls go. You're obviously too young to be here, and I don't mean that as a petty insult -- your reasoning skills, considering what you've shown thus far, are that of a child's. But you'll rebut this with a non-argument anyway because it seems you're too stupid to understand anything I've said here.

The secular means that allow Western civilization to be overrun by Islam? Religion is what keeps a society together. It's it's defense mechanism against foreign ideologies so to speak.
The rise of communism, fascism and Islam are a direct result of Christianity's weakening

>It is a defined property of what is meant by "God" by Christians, idiot.

Then why are you a Christian if fraud is so obvious? Anyone who tells you that are 'omnipotent' is trying to scam you.

>Irrelevant; this can only imply an argument from ignorance. Also false. If you believe there is reason to believe the converse, you can only be basing that on the faulty induction: "What we observe is what happens, therefore what we observe is all that can happen

So then if you have no reason to believe in a deity why do you? You do get to actually get to claim things exist until they have been proven.

>That's because you're stupid. Even if there weren't evidence for God's existence, the only rational position to take would be agnosticism, not atheism. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That is an argument from ignorance fallacy.

I am an agnostic atheist; there is no evidence in either direction and I do have a belief in a God.

> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Yes, it is when you except evidence to be there.

>And those links are evidence of the resurrection, not just some anecdotes of supposed individual events. Neither is 500 people witnessing the same thing just an anecdote.

Oh wow a book claiming 500 people saw something they have no evidence for. The court declares Yahweh not guilty of existence.

2 out 3 of the main religions out for the count. Now all we need to do is start weakening Islam.

>modern science owes itself to Christianity because there were Christian scientists
Does science also owe itself to hair because those men had hair? Christianity is incompatible with scientific principles of empiricism.

And Einstein was agnostic

just like with christianity, the key is education.

yep

1. If God doesn't exist, nothing actually, objectively matters.
2. Things actually, objectively matter.
3. Therefore, God exists. (modus tollens from 1)

How did you get one and two? One mistake Christians enjoy making is assuming no other religions exist. If the existence of the universe means God exists, why not the hindu gods or the shinto gods? You have to prove the Christian god exists, not in God's in general.

You are the reason why Western society is crumbling.
You are the reason for increasing degeneracy.
You are the reason why the people suffer.

do you like know this guy or what?

You've achieved euphoric levels that were never thought possible

Fuck I should have left the thread.
>Then why are you a Christian if fraud is so obvious? Anyone who tells you that are 'omnipotent' is trying to scam you.
This isn't an argument. This is the same thing as saying "It's obvious God doesn't exist" -- an appeal to common sense fallacy. Also, atheism only seems obvious to you because 1) you're butthurt about the very idea of God, as evidenced by your being an atheist in the first place when agnosticism is the only rational position of ignorance, and 2) because you don't know what God is; you define Him as a non-existent being in your head for no reason other than faulty inductions and arguments from ignorance, which, again, this seemingly purposeful ignorance seems indicative of butthurt.
>So then if you have no reason to believe in a deity why do you?
I think I do.
>You do get to actually get to claim things exist until they have been proven.
Neither do you get to claim things don't exist until they have been proven not. logic 101, spastic. So don't enter these threads whining about how God doesn't exist until you have some (un-fallacious) proof. Also, read the fucking pastebin.
>I am an agnostic atheist
This is redundant. "Agnostic" implies "atheist," not to be equivocated with classical atheist, which is the only purpose of your redundancy. An agnostic is also an aclassical-atheist, but you don't follow with that, do you?
What you are is apparently an ignorant pleb who guzzles the semen of your favorite anti-God idols.
>Yes, it is when you except evidence to be there.
Being too retarded or butthurt to recognize evidence is not evidence it isn't there. Read the fucking pastebin so you can reject it offhand and whine about it mr. rational.
>Oh wow a book claiming 500 people saw something they have no evidence for.
Testimony is a type of evidence, idiot. And you've clearly chosen only to misrepresent the evidence as something easy to dismiss without even looking at it, again, indicative of butthurt.

fixed
False equivalence. Hair is not a part of a man's being; Christianity is. And it is Christian principles that science owes itself to.
>Christianity is incompatible with scientific principles of empiricism.
Source? You have no idea what you're talking about. And you've misrepresented what science is: a method of discovering truth via empirical observation, not a method that holds to empiricism. Empiricism is self-refuting; it holds that empirical observation is the only way to know truth, but it can't even show this very statement to be true.
>And Einstein was agnostic
Only about a specific god, which is irrelevant, idiot.

would you look at that, another idiot who doesnt understand atheism, just like atleast 90% of all non atheists.

theist = believes in a god
atheist = doesnt believe in a god (the a stand for the lack of, or not).
gnostic = claims knowledge
agnostic = doesnt claim knowledge (again the a stands there for a reason).

you are by definition an atheist or a theist AND gnostic or agnostic.
what frustrated me is that basically everyone is agnostic, every sane person atleast, so its highly irrelevant in these conversations.

Secularization wasn't the mistake. The mistake was giving women rights without commensurate responsibilities. Almost every single negative societal development stems from that, including secularization.

We have to prove nothing. God doesnt even want him to be proven and he doesnt give 2 shits about how we call him or name our devotion to him.

>Western civilization believed in the same principles of good.
This is the crux of your problems.

I don't give a fuck about Christianity, could be any other religion or non-religion, just a moral code. The point is, we have lost our sense of objective right and wrong, everything is subjective now so we have no real basis to condemn anything.

In its place we have crappy ideologies twisting into pseudo-religions like the SJW left where "diversity good, racism evil" is their moral code, or simply the vacuum being filled by outside religions like Islam.

The west needs a true moral identity. If that means a theistic religion (mono or poly) for the simpletons out there, so be it.

Giving them rights isn't the issue, it was making voting a right.

Being able to vote shouldn't come without responsibility, duty and having a stake in the nation.
ie: men can only vote if they pay taxes and are fostered for the draft, woman can only vote if they have had children.

I simply think 1 and 2 are more plausible than not. And whining about this not being proof of specifically the Christian God is irrelevant. You can feel free to argue that 1 or 2 are more implausible than not if you want.
>would you look at that, another idiot who doesnt understand atheism, just like atleast 90% of all non atheists.
>REEEEE YOU'VE CONTRADICTED WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD ATHEISM IS THEREFORE YOU MISUNDERSTAND IT
What I've done, idiot, is show the modern notion of "agnostic atheism" to be deceptively and logically redundant. Without knowledge implies without belief. I'm sorry your idols are either too stupid to understand that, or they lied to you.
>gnostic = claims knowledge
No, "with knowledge"
>agnostic = doesnt claim knowledge (again the a stands there for a reason).
No, "without knowledge." What is claimed is irrelevant to epistemology.
>you are by definition an atheist or a theist AND gnostic or agnostic.
If you mean "atheist" to mean "without belief in a god," (you've equivocated both definitions) then "agnostic atheist" is purposely redundant, as such a person is also an agnostic classical atheist, i.e. an agnostic a-atheist (old definition). Therefore, "agnostic atheist" is redundant. The fact that I'm disagreeing with you've been taught doesn't mean I don't understand. It means those who taught you are stupid.
Also, your apparent notion that belief and knowledge are different is vague and arbitrary. You can't even prove knowledge exists.

>What I've done, idiot, is show the modern notion of "agnostic atheism" to be deceptively and logically redundant.
under your definitions, which are NOT the definitions atheists use, i told you how they use them, by not using it not atheists do you are misrepresenting them, strawmanning, put words in our mouths.
>Without knowledge implies without belief.
wrong, without belief implies without knowledge, because you see knowledge is a subset of belief.
>No, "with knowledge"
i said claims knowledge because as you might know, absolute knowledge of something is impossible.

and btw, i have not been taught anything, this is what i learned myself by listening to atheists like Matt Dillahunty.

>You can't even prove knowledge exists.
as you can see, i whole heartedly believe absolute knowledge to be impossible.

and i would agree, saying im agnostic atheist is a little reduntant, but i put the agnostic there to make sure we are talking the same languange, because many MANY people think atheists believe there is no god, hate god, just want to sin or are 100% certain there is no god when it doesnt necessitate ANY of these.

saying you are agnostic IS reduntant, but you still find people who when asked the question "do you believe in a god" they answer "im agnostic" as if it was a legit answer, its not.

the first part started making little sense after i read the rest of it, ignore it.
we seem to atleast somewhat agree on these definitions.

Imagine a world were we never protected religion from politics. Imagine a world were all of the bullshit components of politics were shoved directly into the church 24/7.

>and btw, i have not been taught anything, this is what i learned myself by listening to atheists like Matt Dillahunty.
lolwut You do realize those are the same thing?
>they answer "im agnostic" as if it was a legit answer, its not.
It is, though, as that's what you are if you're agnostic. You seem to be equivocating "atheism" with its original (proper) meaning. You claim by "atheism" you only mean "without belief in a god," but the only reason claiming agnosticism wouldn't be sufficient for you is if you -want- the meaning of "atheism" to be taken as "disbelief in God," hence it is dishonest.
You also seem to believe that what people claim is relevant at all to what their epistemological framework objectively is. It isn't.
You also seem to believe belief is a proper subset of knowledge, yet contradictorily believe (despite what you said) that absolute knowledge, i.e. knowledge (these are equivalent; remember claiming to "know" doesn't mean I do) doesn't exist. An existent thing simply can't be a proper subset of a non-existent thing.

Despite this, your notion that knowledge and belief are different is vague and arbitrary, as is the notion that the difference can be decided by the person claiming either. However, if one were to accept these axioms (1. belief or knowledge is decided by the claimer, and 2. belief is a proper subset of knowledge) then all that "gnostic atheist, agnostic theist, etc." gibberish makes sense, other than that in order to claim gnostic atheism one can't seriously mean "knowledge of non-belief in god"? For agnostic atheism, you use the new definition of atheism, i.e. without belief, and for gnostic atheism you imply the old definition, i.e. knowing God doesn't exist. This is further fallacious equivocation and logical inconsistency in the concept.

tl;dr if you got this shit from Matt Dillahunty, you need to drop him and start thinking for yourself.

teaching is a verb, nobody did that.

>It is, though,
no, agnosticism is about knowledge, when i ask you do you BELIEVE in a god im not asking if there is a god or do you know if there is a god, its a simple yes or no question.
yes means you are a theist and no means you are an atheist.

>hence it is dishonest.
lack of belief in a god is the definition of atheism as used by every single atheist i know, aka you are an atheist when you are not a theist, you could say an atheist is someone who is not a theist, which the a in atheist stands for.

>tl;dr if you got this shit from Matt Dillahunty
thats where i first heard it and it has been reinforced by every atheist i've heard of.

also yes, there are people who claim they know god doesnt exist, aka gnostic atheists, but just like with gnostic theists, i think these people can be ignored as they are not interested in an honest conversation.

>teaching is a verb, nobody did that.
So I guess his intention wasn't to teach anyone? lol
>when i ask you do you BELIEVE in a god
Again, you believe belief is different from knowledge despite not being able to define exactly how, and you just leave it up to what people "claim" to be, as if words can't be used wrongly here. Of course they can.
>lack of belief in a god is the definition of atheism as used by every single atheist i know, aka you are an atheist when you are not a theist, you could say an atheist is someone who is not a theist, which the a in atheist stands for.
Then why are you afraid of "agnostic" not being clear enough for the average person to clarify "atheist"? What could you possibly be trying to convey by "atheist" here? It is indeed dishonest.
>thats where i first heard it and it has been reinforced by every atheist i've heard of.
m8 don't get me wrong -- all atheists are idiots.
>also yes, there are people who claim they know god doesnt exist, aka gnostic atheists
Wouldn't gnostic atheist mean "knowledge of non-belief in a god"?

he might have been trying to teach the caller, it was so long ago i cant remember, it also might now have been him, but he is who i remember talking about it the most.

>Again, you believe belief is different from knowledge despite not being able to define exactly how
sigh, you can believe things just by me telling you something, but you cant know what i tell you is true or not, some say knowledge is a justified true belief, but it confuses absolute knowledge a little i think, knowledge is a tricky subject, but im not trying to talk about it, im trying to talk about belief.

>Then why are you afraid of "agnostic" not being clear enough for the average person to clarify "atheist"?
my experience on the internet has led to it, out of the hundreds of people i've met here who dont call themselves an atheist misrepresent atheism, which i thought you were doing aswell.
these people often either call themselves "a pure agnostic" or are theists and define agnostic as thats the position i hold, when i define myself as an agnostic atheist, or just atheist for short.
>m8 don't get me wrong -- all atheists are idiots.
i did get you wrong, i thought you were a normal human being looking for an honest discussion, instead you are bitter and biased.
>Wouldn't gnostic atheist mean "knowledge of non-belief in a god"?
well usually these people call themselves gnostic anti-theists, or strong atheists, gnosti atheist indeed doenst make much sense with the definitions we are talking about, but like i've said before, many people get the definitions wrong and think atheists believe there is no god.

it's okay, you're gonna see gram gram wen you die and go to heaven lol

I agree