How did one meme destroy an entire religion?

How did one meme destroy an entire religion?

Other urls found in this thread:

amazon.com/How-Dawkins-Pwned-Mencius-Moldbug-ebook/dp/B01DWM802C#nav-subnav
wdef.com/2016/08/11/bradley-county-settles-american-atheists-group/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

you mean this one?
yours is too long, a good meme needs to be short and concise.

Like this?

that one's got the right length, but it sort of just makes your side look retarded for not understanding something so basic and fundamental to the worldview you're obsessed with defeating, the atonement of Christ.

maybe just do one without words, show what the typical christian looks like, sort of like how the fedora one works.

here i'll help you out.

Or this?

>the atonement of Christ

Ah yes, we all need forgiveness for being born

Why are people so assblasted to attack Christianity when its teachings are harmless compared to islam where it preaches hate/intolerance/pedophilia/polygamy/murder

i know leddit is kill

but you are not welcomed here

okay, this one made me laugh.

i don't really understand what this one's trying to communicate. i get that's it's drawing a parallel to when people ask 'will my pet go to heaven?'
is the implication you're supposed to draw from it that parents sometimes make up comforting lies in order to pacify their children?

Oh you know why...

Its funny because almost every nation that picked up Christianity ultimately turned into wealthy nations and islam still live in sand dunes. The only exception is china/japan that rose to power without it but christian nations helped them by trading with them.

>i don't really understand what this one's trying to communicate

That humans think themselves too important. They assume all of existence was made for them, yet there could easily be some alien race with the exact same beliefs (and humans would be seen as important as livestock in their religion)

You want the real reason? Language barrier, folks. They don't know what Islam really preaches, so they project their image of it being like them.

Leftists fill in the blanks using their ideal of the noble savage.

i think i recognize you from a thread a few days ago.

>yet there could easily be some alien race
i think that's unlikely given the fermi paradox.
we're all alone, we're special.

There's a quote about prayer that I really like, where prayer is just practice for proper thinking.

Really, most prayer should be in the form of gratitude, and organizing our desires. People really need to learn how to appreciate everything in their lives more, and praying in thanks for their health, family, and sometimes even just their life is important. Also, when people pray to God, they tend to not pray for things like hookers and cocaine, but for the happiness of their friends and family and for hope when all else has failed.

Even if there was no God, I would still advocate that prayer is a good thing, and I'd even encourage it among atheists.

You should read Moldbug. Atheism is simply a modern sect of Christianity, just as insane, irrational and stupid as the other variants but it has adapted to modern society by no longer advertising itself as a "religion" (which is out of fashion) but instead cloaking itself behind science and reason.

When you see a Christian and an Atheist debating what you are actually witnessing is two Christian fanatics of competing sects debating irrelevant details about their faith that concern nobody outside of it. It is like watching a Protestant and Catholic debate whether the Eucharist is really God or just symbolic. Who cares? Whether Yahweh and Rabbi Yeshua are literal physical beings or not is 100% irrelevant to those of us outside the faith.

amazon.com/How-Dawkins-Pwned-Mencius-Moldbug-ebook/dp/B01DWM802C#nav-subnav

>i think that's unlikely

Yet here we are.

>image

I'm so glad made me pray in his divine plan, he sure likes it. I wonder why he didn't make everyone pray....

>Really, most prayer should be in the form of gratitude

Ah yes, good ol Christianity without Christ.

Seek help.

>the only way I know prayer is made is the petitory one

Religion is literally ape-tier dogma

There is Evil in heaven the devil and other angels were kicked out. But the thing is why would you ever want to leave a perfect place?

>Christianity without Christ

Good way to describe it actually. Moldbug uses "nontheistic Christian".

...

This is a pretty good point. Really the problem isnt the particular religion or atheism. The problem is evangelism. The second you try to force a belief on others, you are the problem. This goes as much for catholic conquistadors, mormon missionaries who force starving people to convert for food and the religious purges of soviet russia alike.

The key lesson: let others believe in their crazy illogical shit. That is what faith is.

>christian nations helped china/japan
LOL

>I'm so glad made me pray in his divine plan
i could explain what i mean, and how it's logically coherent if you'd like.
though that would sort of derail the thread's topic, up to you.

Moldbug doesn't say atheism is religion, he makes a distinction between the neoatheists, like Sam Harris and other faggots, ans simply atheists. Atheists don't belive in god, neoatheists don't belive in god, think the world would be better without religion, belive that secularism is a good idea, belive that religion is one of the worst things in the universe,... you got the idea. Moldbug is atheist, he is not a neoatheist.

Yes becuase japan and china would be as powerful today if it wasn't for japan getting full support from the US after ww2 and china majority of income coming from the US

I can't figure this out either. I'm an atheist, but I consider attacks on Christianity to be friendly fire given the fucking cancer that is Islam.

wdef.com/2016/08/11/bradley-county-settles-american-atheists-group/

You're learning.

You're not using any common definition of Christianity.

Humor me.

>The second you try to force a belief on others, you are the problem.
irony.

>"nontheistic Christian"
Do you mean cultural Christian?

Also with praying, you aren't supposed to ask god for things like he is a genie. Praying is supposed to be a direct link to God thank him for everything and the strength to power through trials. Its more of knowledge that he's always there and never leaves.

Yeah but throwing out terms Moldbug made up like neoatheism is not particularly useful when nobody here understands it.

In casual speak atheist = neoatheist. Most people understand that I am not talking about people who just happen to not believe in God.

If he destroyed satan what punishment would there be, just emptiness? that's not really a punishment its like you never existed. Satan is the ultimate symbol of free will.

Nice.

i was going to lay out something else, regarding omniscience + free will, but i'd rather tackle this chart instead.
>then why is there evil
>it is necessary for the universe to exist
>then god is not all powerful

if it is necessary for the universe to exist, then the ability to create the universe without evil existing is a logical impossibility. a deities 'inability' to do actions that can't logically be done doesn't take away from its claim to omnipotence, the power to do all things, because logically impossible actions are not things that can be done.

or, if you want to say that an omnipotent God could do the logically impossible, then the problem of evil disolves, because there would be no logical incompatibility between God's existence and the existence of evil and suffering.

you should try actually reading the new testament before you try to criticize it, retard

>Praying is supposed to be a direct link to God thank him for everything and the strength to power through trials.
See Why does god make people just to punish them? What's his end game? Why is he do vacant from our lives if he cares so much about what we do and when and with which body parts?

You misunderstood the chart. It's saying the universe the current way it is requires evil. But a different universe wouldn't. So he could have just made a different universe

i quoted it word for word.
>It's saying the universe the current way it is requires evil. But a different universe wouldn't.
where does it say that?

also:

>Does God want to prevent Evil?
>no
>Then God is not good
doesn't follow, here's why:

>What's his end game?
no one knows for sure, we're not in the position to.
that's why the logical formulation of the problem of evil is silly, since God could have morally sufficient reason for permitting evil.

i personally like to think it's about telling the greatest possible story, and you can't have a story without conflict. strife build character.

You can either blame god or you can thank him everyday you have whether you struggle or not.

People ultimately decide in the final ending if they are to be punished or not. How is it free will to believe in him if he is there at all times, if we know he exists how can we choose to believe?

I did

Minimal words works best.

>the universe is big
>therefore, God wouldn't care about what we do
>Christianity says God cares about what we do
>therefore, Christianity is false
terrible argument.

>God could have morally sufficient reason for permitting evil.

Then why punish evil if it is so important to making a great story (a story to be enjoyed by no one BTW, once again, godfags assign human attributes to God, like the desire to tell stories)

I actually envy people who believe in god, atleast if their family and pets die they'll think they'll see them again as their last dying thought.

And here I am having an existential crisis

there is no high teleology anywhere in the organization of the universe. By that I mean the sort of intention or goal one can only expect from a conscious being like us, as opposed to the sort of goals exhibited by, say, a flat worm or a computer game or an ant colony. The most teleological force we observe in nature, apart from the goals and intentions of animals—whose cause we already understand to be evolution by natural selection—is that of natural selection itself, which shows no more intelligence than an ant hill or, more to the point, a desktop computer, which we know even today can model the entire process, and from a simple set of rules can spontaneously produce organisms just as surprising and complex as humans, especially given the same ridiculous lengths of time nature has clearly needed to get so far. Any dumb process can exhibit a blind teleology, winnowing behaviors or outcomes away, leaving only those few that satisfy the particular criteria of survival.

In contrast, even a cold-hearted superintelligence would not be so stupid as to take billions of years of meandering and disastrously catastrophic trial and error to figure out how to make a human. It would just make humans. But the evidence does not pan out that way—that is not what happened. Instead, a moronic teleological process did the work, sloppy and slow. That is incredible if God exists. But it makes perfect sense if he doesn’t.

Yeah, if there's a god, why would he create niggers?

Fuck that guy!

where is this from??

nigga you retarded?

Post the edited version of that meme faggot.

>godfags assign human attributes to God
we're made in his image.

>In contrast, even a cold-hearted superintelligence would not be so stupid as to take billions of years of meandering and disastrously catastrophic trial and error to figure out how to make a human.
what did Richard Carrier mean by this?
how would he know what a superintelligence would or would not do?

>a desktop computer, which we know even today can model the entire process, and from a simple set of rules can spontaneously produce organisms just as surprising and complex as humans
something programmed by a mind, interesting.

Several assumptions are wrong.
And then there's the obvious argument (the one that gets by God being able/unable to create a stone he can't move), theres no need to believe that an omnipotent being has to abide by any logic.

A cold-hearted superintelligence doesn't think on the same level as we do. It may not make sense to us to spend billions of years but it could make sense to them. How can we even say that we were the intended product of the universe?

now you're just promoting Calvinism. Not ending religion.

>there is no high teleology anywhere in the organization of the universe.
false, intentionality is a form of teleology, and then so are thoughts and consciousness. all of these betray "directedness" and are goal-oriented.

>Calvinism
There is objectively nothing wrong is Calvinism.
I believe it drew a lot of the same conclusions Islam did.

I like.
Is there any evidence for Dark matter? Yet nobody properly scienced up goes around gayly declaring they don't believe it exists. Even though clearly it doesn't! Full disclosure, im a retard faggot who hates science but loves Hillary.

the bible is an astrotheological allegory. stop taking it literally you roman julian mind controlled fucking plebian.

Triple dubs!

tfw gods a shitposter

Dark matter is just a placeholder name for "the thing that keeps galaxies together that we don't understand yet"

Some fat youtube fuck who bitches about being a fat shit while suffering from obesity related illnesses and simultaneously doing nothing to change his life.

He has several characters, all of which are even more annoying than he is.

He's also married to a relatively attractive, thin woman who is undoubtedly cuckolding him. They even had a "roommate" named Chad now.

>implying God doesn't do it for the lulz

Try reading the whole thing next time, those are a result of evolution.

See >theres no need to believe that an omnipotent being has to abide by any logic.

Then why are you here having a logical discussion about him? God exists because 1=2

>wants to do X
>has power to do X
>nah, let's make stars instead

Your vision of god looks like a stoner with ADHD

Its not really a placeholder name though. Its catchy so we'll probably keep it around even after we discover that in fact two or more forces at work. Maybe something that will explain how Anti-matter didn't annihilate the universe.

Christianity, as with all religions, started in one tiny place, when the rest of the earth was populated by a wildly marvelous diversity of religious beliefs—and yet, curiously enough, the concept of warfare over religious differences was virtually nonexistent. Most people in ancient times believed it was proper to respect the gods of other peoples. This changed on a global scale when Christianity was spread, quite literally, by the sword. Those who attempted to assert their religious differences were harassed, tortured, robbed of their land and belongings, even killed. Before it achieved political power, Christianity was a small sect, a heresy against the Jewish faith, that had to accept equality among all the other religions of the Roman Empire. Yet it was the first religion to openly attack the religions of other people as false (the Jews, at least, were a little more tactful). Needless to say, Christianity only truly flourished when it had the ability to eliminate the competition—when it had the full support of Rome’s Emperors after 313 A.D., and when, in 395 A.D., every religion other than Christianity was actually outlawed. Through force and decree Christianity was immersed in the cultural surroundings of lands near and far, and in an environment where it was widely accepted, if not the only thing accepted, it spread and planted itself among subjugated peoples. As kids grew up taking Christian ideas for granted, they often did not realize that only a few generations ago those ideas were entirely alien.

Colonization of the world, more often than not by robbery and warfare, spread Christianity into the Americas and other corners of the earth, just as Islam was spread throughout Asia and Africa. It is not a coincidence that the two most widespread religions in the world today are the most warlike and intolerant religions in history.

GOD is just a catchy name for
>"the thing that keeps galaxies together that we don't understand yet"

This was the conclusion I had when I was eleven. It hasn't changed much.
To test my own logic. Having everyone disagree with you on a public forum is helpful in finding errors in your own thinking ability.
If you account for our own universe's composition there's a good chance that our entire existence is a simulation being ran by a more intelligent life form. For lack of a better dictionary this would be "God".
>God exists because 1=2
I never said definitively that God existed. Its just that when you lack proper evidence either for or against God you put yourself at a disadvantage by denying that possibility. Saying that God doesn't exist because X, Y or Z is incredibly close minded.

>when you lack proper evidence either for or against God you put yourself at a disadvantage by denying that possibility

See image here

Then if I told you that there were intelligent Aliens on some planet in a far away galaxy you would scoff right?
"You can't prove it, so its not worth even entertaining."
If you outright deny it you WILL be at a disadvantage in the event it turns out to be right.

I miss when all people had to worry about were Westbapt church people being mean.

Define evil

>In casual speak atheist = neoatheist. Most people understand that I am not talking about people who just happen to not believe in God.

Are we classing people who don't believe in a God due to reason and evidence differently from people who casually think it's a pile of shite now?

Who is this Molburg, is he the genius who made the distinction. I shall open my wallet $4 for a 103 page pamphlet that spawns nuggets of information like:

>85010479

>When you see a Christian and an Atheist debating what you are actually witnessing is two Christian fanatics of competing sects debating irrelevant details about their faith that concern nobody outside of it.

The conversation is over, done with, it's been over decades. Just because atheist numpties argue with christian zealots over voice chat doesn't change a thing.

I had some Christians from the church of zoomba zoomba televangelism Africa at my door telling me that their priest can heal aids last year... I live opposite a hospital, I just pointed and said you should go tell them about that. They'd be real interested in a cure for aids.

>and you can't have a story without conflict. strife build character.
Then he's not omnipotent.

That's the general problem with permissible evil, is that if any amount of evil is displeasing to a deity, and the deity is constrained in some way that the deity msut allow it to achieve some greater good, then there is by definition something the deity cannot do.

You are saying it is impossible for god to tell the greatest possible story without conflict. Your god is not omnipotent.

if x requires y to exist, then having x exist without y is a logical impossibility
logically impossible actions are not actions that can be done
omnipotence means the ability to do all things that can be done
not being able to do logically impossible actions doesn't take away from omnipotence
[or]
if the rules of logic are not applicable to an omnipotent being, then showing some logical contradiction doesn't prove anything. (i usually don't appeal to this, but it's a logical consequence of pretending that omnipotence would mean allowing for logical impossibilities)

that greatest story thing is just a fun personal view of mine anyway, it's not really an argument.

you don't really need an argument to shoot down the logical formulation of the problem of evil, you just need to point out there is no reason to assume that God could not have morally sufficient reason for allowing evil and suffering.
we're not in a place to know whether or not that's the case since we don't know the endgame.

>logically impossible actions are not actions that can be done. Omnipotence means the ability to do all things that can be done.
That is an arguable point, but I will accept the premise for now.
>if the rules of logic are not applicable to an omnipotent being, then showing some logical contradiction doesn't prove anything.
Correct, but at that point you've thrown your own evidence away and are left with nothing.
>you just need to point out there is no reason to assume that God could not have morally sufficient reason for allowing evil and suffering.
A more honest way of stating that is:

"You just need to assume that God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil and suffering."

You have presented no reason to make that assumption.

>That is an arguable point
i know, that's why i included why its negation would lead you to still being wrong.

>Correct, but at that point you've thrown your own evidence away and are left with nothing
evidence for what? the problem of evil is an argument AGAINST theism/christianity.

>"You just need to assume that God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil and suffering."
i'm only talking about the logical formulation of the problem of evil:
>i.e. It's impossible that God and evil co-exist
by stating this, the burden of proof is actually on the presenter of the argument to make the contradiction explicit.

i know the emotional formulation of it is still daunting.
>i don't like a god who would permit pain and suffering wahh

>Mencius Moldbug, aka (((Curtis Yarvin)))
>(((Curtis Yarvin))) says that any breakaway from one Jewish movement is simply another flavor of Jewish movement
Curtis Yarvin is a charlatan.

>conflating omnipotence with being able to violate logic

nope. You're using semantics traps to describe the bounds of an infinite being.

This is like edgy 14 year old Youtube atheist 101. Eventually, if you take critical thinking seriously, you'll understand why this argument is retarded.

t. atheist who isn't underaged

Sup Forums never used to be full of "Christians."

It only started happening when being Christian became cool and rebellious.

The short version:
God was, he always was. There was nothing except for Him. No space, no time, nothing except for God.
Because He felt like it, He made the universe and all that is in it, as well as humanity, this includes you.
He wanted to be worshiped, because He felt like it.
Because He felt like it, He did not desire to be worshiped by machines, hence He gave the creation designed in his own image (Because he felt like it making it that way.) free will.
This does not change the fact that God makes the rules, including the rules for getting into Heaven or being thrown into Hell, it merely means you get to choose.
Your choice or wanting else does not negate the requirements for or existence of either place. Hell requires an absence of God in your heart; Heaven, the opposite.
God wants those who want to worship Him, because that's what He wants.
You exist because He felt like making you.
You can choose to fulfill the requirements for Heaven, or choose Hell.

What an insane, unhistorical fantasy you have there.

Christianity did spread to China, but some emperor destroyed it when trying to curb Buddhist influence. He thought Christianity was the same thing as Buddhism,

You mean when people realized Western faith, regardless of its form, is necessary as a bulwark against the barbarity of Islam and destruction of the community.

> Confusing based Judaism with shit tier Xtianity

its 2016 famalam, step it up

Whether God exists or not aside, is it the biggest form of mental retardation to assume that people know who God is, what he wants, how he thinks, what he does, etc.? I think believing in God and living a moral life should be enough but then these retards come along and they're like "yo, you need to do this and that so that you can please God and go to heaven!"
like who the fuck are these people to tell anyone they know jack shit about god? who are they even to convince themselves that they know anything about god?

A lot of arguments I am hearing are related to God and his infinite infinity making many of His decisions redundant (why not just do things whatever if you can).
What use is there in creating pointless nothingness if you know the result. What use is there is never doing anything. Why didn't Dr. Manhattan just kill Ozymandias the second he found out he was behind the ruse? Or why didn't he tell the Owl dude about the point behind it? (I know there are some pitfalls because he could not see the future clearly).

>Why didn't he?
Because He felt like it. It's what he wanted. You might not like that he wanted it, but he did, because it is our reality.
Your graph leaves out the fact that God is an intelligent entity, not a computer. He has thoughts and desires; we are made in his image.

>is it the biggest form of mental retardation to assume that people know who God is, what he wants, how he thinks, what he does, etc.?
not if He revealed it to us.

>living a moral life
>moral
according to whom? if you're not getting your morality from God, then you're just making it up.
you can appeal to pro-social tendencies we've evolved, but that's not the same thing at all.

>who the fuck are these people to tell anyone they know jack shit about god?
the people He revealed Himself to. (referring to the apostles in the case of Christianity)

>according to whom? if you're not getting your morality from God, then you're just making it up
Morality is an evolutionary trait. I don't want to get stabbed. Therefore i can assume that others don't want to be stabbed either. So we collectively decide that stabbing people is immoral so that people don't go around stabbing people with no consequence. Pretty simple. Didn't even need to read some 6 million year old nonsense to tell me that its wrong.

but what if i myself would like to stab someone? then you have no way to make your objection to it binding upon me since by your own reasoning morality is simply some kind of contractual agreement, with no real force beyond such an arrangement, hence it isn't morality.

You don't want to believe.
You want to know.

If it was verifiable knowledge, it would be a science, not a religion. Precisely because it is NOT a science, is that your belief has value.

God is testing you and asking that you take a leap of faith.

You are not the first nor the last to ask these questions. Many philosophers have already answered them before your shitty internet memes were even a thing.

See:
St. Augustine
Kierkegaard
CS Lewis

Then there would probably be consequences. What's so hard to understand? Of course there will always be crazy people who want to go on a stabbing spree. It doesn't mean you've debunked practical morality.

>Morality is an evolutionary trait.
not in this context.
you specifically mentioned "what He wants"

>So we collectively decide that stabbing people is immoral
i don't remember doing this, who is this 'we?'
the sort of morality you're speaking of changes all the time.
>I don't want to get stabbed
what if you were a suicidal masochist?

>the bible is 6 million years old
that's an interesting theory, i don't think it holds much water though.

also evolution as usually defined is absent of purpose and goals, so any conception of morality would be meaningless, since evolution isn't actually directed at anything in particular.

I think it's self-serving and intellectually dishonest to take a "leap of faith" to believe something, instead of trying to "know". I think "knowing" is more valuable than "believing".

but what if there are no consequences? the answer is, i can do what i like, and no one can stop me.

Evolving species do have goals, even without a higher power interfering. At the most basic level, the goal of life is to not die, and reproduce while you aren't dead. So it is beneficial to setup morality and not being killed because if more people agree with you and don't kill each other you yourself would have less of a chance of death, and therefore have a bigger timeframe to reproduce.