I'm an atheist conservative

>I'm an atheist conservative

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=vqQdc0mX1_c
atheismplus.com/faq.php
youtube.com/watch?v=Anq6SAo1ue4
youtube.com/watch?v=IkVC1gZInxQ
youtube.com/watch?v=j0LhabQJ_-w
youtube.com/watch?v=4NQOnjswuFI
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheism
haaretz.com/jewish/the-jewish-thinker/.premium-1.669381
shj.org/
myjewishlearning.com/article/secular-humanistic-judaism-rejecting-god/
myjewishlearning.com/article/must-a-jew-believe-in-god/
huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/23/atheist-jews-judaism-without-god_n_978418.html
thehumanist.com/magazine/september-october-2014/humanist-living/jewish-atheists-and-koufax-jews
secularpolicyinstitute.net/numbers-the-rise-of-jewish-atheists/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

youtube.com/watch?v=vqQdc0mX1_c
of course

I'm a Christian, I

>often bring refugees over through my church program
>helped birth the neo liberal, sjw, and other such movements. Who for the most part are non practising Christians
>openly deny the fact that the ancient Greeks/Roman made western culture. Nope, I say Christians did that
>think calling someone a pagan is the greatest insult possible. Even if they are in fact not a pagan
>say I worship one God but actually have many
>say I'm a man but blindly follows and believes
>am a sinner no matter what
>believe all are equal who follow God
>worship a Jew
>belong to the only religion who worships a person of different race

You are confusing Christians with protestants.

Correction. I'm a Neo-Pagan Pan-Theist Traditionalist.

...

>I'm an atheist

not an argument

>not an argument

not an argument

not an argument

not an argument

Not an argument.

Not an argument

>Triggered: the post

atheismplus.com/faq.php

this is the real redpill right here. god and morality are the only truths we need to make this world make flourish.

...

So atheists are sociopathic by definition?

In what circlejerk forum do you guys find this?

>morality
>truths

Stef is very uneducated about traditional Christianity. When he says they are for smaller government it is because they want less SECULAR government. In other words they don't want the state having control over schools if they are just going to indoctrinate their children. Traditionally however Christians are monarchists, as throughout their history kings have gotten their power from the pope and in the east the Orthodox are still attached to the idea of the Byzantine emperor and the Russian Tzar.

In the west, protestants tend to me more capitalistic and pro-free market because they are much less spiritual and more materialistic than their Catholic and Orthodox betters.

It would be hard to convince me that anything less than a traditional Christian monarchy with a very spiritual and pious society as being compatible with Christianity. I would accuse modern Christians in support of libertarianism or anarchy as being guilty of nihilism and materialism. All worldly governments however are flawed and inferior to the Kingdom of Heaven.

Figuring out that Christianity is a myth is the entry level red-pill.

I am. Religion and religion are separate, unless you live in the ME.

if their being consistent with their own worldview, then yes, they're sociopathic, as history clearly demonstrates:
youtube.com/watch?v=Anq6SAo1ue4

>i'm a polcuck

religion and politics*

>if their being consistent with their own worldview

What worldview? Why do you think i am sociopathic for not believing in desert folk tales?

I also don't believe in the boogeyman

>I am a cultural Christian

Hitler was christian

You know people don't just want to murder or let people die when they don't believe in adult santa right?

...

...

>he thinks morality comes from ancient peasant mythology

>What worldview?
darwinian evolution, materialism, etc.
>Why do you think i am sociopathic for not believing in desert folk tales?
because they're nihilistic philosophies. you can justify literally anything by them. but again, only if you're being consistent.

haha this is so true

>These fanatics need to be destroyed
>Deus Vult!

Being a part of the right-wing or the third way means believing in God and country, having a strict moral code, respecting tradition, discipline, authority, hierarchy, law and order, and social conservatism.

To be an atheist, pro-gay, individualistic, secular, pro-abortion, modernist is to belong to the other side.

Not all atheists are amoral, but that has more to do with the intellectual cowardice, hypocrisy and inconsistent logic of atheists than it does with the moral strength of atheism. Morality is impossible without a foundation of transcendental truth. Atheism denies that such a concept is even possible. Logically then there is no reason for an individual to respect the concept of collective morality.

And before you bring up the "It's in our biology, muh empathy" argument, know that the problem with this argument is that it begets the question: Whose "biology" are we talking about? People seem to have different concepts of what is wrong and what isn't. Who is right? What society? Not to mention that it's irrational and quite frankly intellectually dishonest to assume that there is an ultimate standard of right and wrong that supersedes mere fanciful "ideas" about what is right and wrong at a given time in our ethical evolution.

Atheism is incompatible with moral universalism and that's the philosophical truth.

>Proof that God doesn't exist

No. Take religion out and you are left with the policies of the right and left. Anyone can support those things. I am as you described in the first part, but not religious. I personally have stronger morals than the vast majority of religious people I have met. I don't even drink.

Stalin and Mao were atheist

all Christian morals were taken directly from the Greek philosophy of stoicism. your hebrew carpenter didn't say anything new or profound at all

>materialism

What makes you think atheism is equal to materialism?

>darwinian evolution

Social animals are much more likely to survive longer and to reproduce, because they have a larger group of suporters. Also they generate way more social conections to help himself should necessity arise.

Sociopathism is a genetic defect. Individualism is a genetic defect. According to darwinian principles, Individualist people have way less changes to reproduce and live longer.

When you help a person in need they are usually in debt to them, and if you need him one day, it's more likely that he helps you.

>truth
Prove it. Look outside, there is your truth, plain and simple. Erase all knowledge of science, and people will discover the exact same things again. Erase all knowledge of religion, and any new religion that is formed will not be the same as those we have now.

>Jews are promoting atheism

youtube.com/watch?v=IkVC1gZInxQ
youtube.com/watch?v=j0LhabQJ_-w
youtube.com/watch?v=4NQOnjswuFI

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheism
haaretz.com/jewish/the-jewish-thinker/.premium-1.669381
shj.org/
myjewishlearning.com/article/secular-humanistic-judaism-rejecting-god/
myjewishlearning.com/article/must-a-jew-believe-in-god/
huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/23/atheist-jews-judaism-without-god_n_978418.html
thehumanist.com/magazine/september-october-2014/humanist-living/jewish-atheists-and-koufax-jews
secularpolicyinstitute.net/numbers-the-rise-of-jewish-atheists/

>all Christian morals were taken directly from the Greek philosophy of stoicism.
What's your point? Theism can support moral universalism. Atheism can't.

...

>Prove it. Look outside, there is your truth, plain and simple.
There's a reason I said philosophical truth and not absolute truth.

As a vaguely religious* right-winger, conservative atheists are the only atheists I can respect, because it shows they can extend their skepticism past the socially acceptable. There's nothing I respect less than an atheist who flips out and calls you a bigot if you mention the correlation between IQ and race.

* as in: I see organized religion as an important precipice for culture, art, identity, interesting mythology, etc. but don't literally believe in any of it, but I do believe in something eternal and beyond the material

...

>but I do believe in something eternal and beyond the material
That's not atheist then, maybe pantheist.

>Not all atheists are amoral, but that has more to do with the intellectual cowardice, hypocrisy and inconsistent logic of atheists than it does with the moral strength of atheism

lol, ok.

>Morality is impossible without a foundation of transcendental truth.

It's not. It's not like morality apeared with christianity. Christianity is a mix of Zoroastrianism with ancient greek. It's not revolutionary

>Who is right

might

>that there is an ultimate standard of right and wrong

I'm not a christian. i don't claim to posses the ultimate moral standards

I don't have to prove something that does not exist. Burden of proof bro. If you present anyting without proof, i can dismiss it without proof

So?

>muh null hypothesis

Why so defensive?

Max Stirner called this out on other atheist

Consider the claim moral realists are making. They generally claim there are invisible properties in the world not detectable by our usual tools of science, properties of an entirely different sort than the usual “is” facts of science.
These are mysterious “ought” facts, and there is great disagreement about what they are or how we know them.
Now that is a strong claim.
An extraordinary claim, we might say. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, right?

So what is the atheist’s extraordinary evidence for this claim? Usually, it’s something like this:
“I experience a world of moral facts. I feel very strongly that rape is objectively wrong, and charity is objectively right.”
“Almost everybody believes in moral facts. It’s just obvious. Until you can prove there aren’t any, I’m justified in believing what people have always believed: that some things are really right or wrong.”

Do those arguments look familiar? They should.

Atheists are skeptical of these arguments when given for the existence of God, but they are credulous and gullible toward these arguments when you replace the word ‘God’ with another mysterious thing called ‘moral facts.’

This was brought up by Max Stirner during a debate with Marx and other atheist

If you take religion out the only thing that separates the right and the left are modern arguments on trade. So you might say Rand Paul is farther right than Bernie Sanders based on how they view the economy. But really this is a very modern idea, a huge shift of the Overton window. The free-market capitalist is just a classical liberal, a liberal capitalist. The more right wing view on the economy would be mercantilism, or Mussolini's corporatism.

>What makes you think atheism is equal to materialism?
i don't but one necessarily supports the other for most western modernists.

>Sociopathism is a genetic defect. Individualism is a genetic defect.
by darwinian principles *everything* is a result of genetic defects. evolution therefore allows no basis for normative concepts since "undirected natural laws" by definition have no end towards which they develop.

What about
>country, having a strict moral code, respecting tradition, discipline, authority, hierarchy, law and order, and social conservatism
These are not economic and do not come from religion, although religion is a part of tradition.

>morality apeared with christianity. Christianity is a mix of Zoroastrianism with ancient greek

What does Christianity have in common with Zoroastrianism, ancient Greece, and every other civilization? A belief in God(s).

There is no tradition without religion. There are no reasons to be socially conservative without religion, no reason to believe and traditional marriage and other such things. You can be an atheist and still believe and hierarchy but it will always be materialistic, with no sense of divine right or divine justice, no higher spirituality to the order. It ends up being an empty, cold hearted institution like in Soviet Russia.

"If there is no immortality, the Liberal believes, one can still lead a civilized life; "if there is no immortality"-is the far profounder logic of Ivan Karamazov in Dostoyevsky's novel-"all things are lawful." Humanist stoicism is possible for certain individuals for a certain time: until, that is, the full implications of the denial of immortality strike home. The Liberal lives in a fool's paradise which must collapse before the truth of things. If death is, as the Liberal and Nihilist both believe, the extinction of the individual, then this world and everything in it-love, goodness, sanctity, everything-are as nothing, nothing man may do is of any ultimate consequence and the full horror of life is hidden from man only by the strength of their will to deceive themselves; and "all things are lawful," no otherworldly hope or fear restrains men from monstrous experiments and suicidal dreams."

Religion is necessary to control the masses and I respect Christianity because it's an important part of my heritage.

Neckbeards and fedoras can burn in hell.

please fuck off

severely underrated post

based leaf