Sup Forums is redpilled

>Sup Forums is redpilled
>/pol is unironically a Christian board which believes in 2,000 year old """miracles""" from a book written by man.
Choose one.

>tips fedora

That girl wants Christian men.

degenerate

iska lawrence so cute 10/10

>Sup Forums is one person

What is the point of threads like this?

>Hurr I posted it again, guys!
>Look at all these totally pissed off user's who surely aren't role-playing

This board was a mistake.

too bad iskra seems to be a feminist and a liberal baka

...

>falls for le may mays

Christians don't want to build, they don't want to explore, they don't want to conquer or destroy. They don't want to create music or great works of art. They don't want to understand the world and how it works.

All Christians want to do, their literal heaven on earth. Is a garden, in which they sit for all eternity. Millennia after millennia.

>Christians don't want to build, they don't want to explore, they don't want to conquer or destroy. They don't want to create music or great works of art. They don't want to understand the world and how it works.

Hmm really makes me think about all those Christian empires, explorers and artist

Let's be honest here.
Most of us are not Christians. Most of us are atheists and agnostics. But we SAY we are because we want to fit in with the hive mind and then control them, its Jew tactic 101 we learned it from them.

@87599655
(You)

>All Christians want to do, their literal heaven on earth. Is a garden, in which they sit for all eternity. Millennia after millennia.

Nice job leaving out the most important part.

I'm not here to argue though. It's really not worth my time

Go suck the Pope's dick peon.

Because it's literally been proven. Just as the predominant ideology here is natsoc followed by libertarian.

Ad hom aka not an argument.

Atheists don't have morality and the atheist superstition is based on no evidence at all and nearly all atheist dogmas break simple logical laws AND is also not based on any evidence.

Agnosticsim is also not a position based on evidence and is literally the only position that is guaranteed to be wrong. No scenario exist where agnostics are correct, it is impossible to even imagine such a situation.

>not an argument.
there's nothing to discuss, I'm making fun of you

There's nothing to discuss because you literally cannot rationalize the belief in God or a god.

Yeah, well, so are 90% of American men and 85% of American women.

Degenerate girls are girls who didn't have Christian fathers.

>Sup Forums is Christian
nice meme faggot :DDD we are all atheists here

Without religion we fall to degeneracy and get whiped out.Look at sweden and western europe.

There are a hundred thousands different logical proofs for Gods existance available in the field of philosophy. Proofs for God's non-existence on the other hand? zero.

I bet you have not even read 3 of those hundred thousand, people never become atheists due to logic or evidence. It has never once happened.

>Sup Forums is influenced by the input of a fucking kike shill.

Pick Zero.

>cannot rationalize the belief in God or a god.
and why should I do that?, I choose to believe, I thought about the posibility of not having god, and it didn't satisfy me.
while no one can prove that there is no god, I will keep believing on him

i've met a lot of slutty girls with christian parents senpai

No, theyre just ironically Christian exceot for a select few given that most of you are hateful and sinful

It's the rational position. Not believing in God has a bad result both if it's true or false, it is a unreasonable position to have for anyone.

So, due to your own selfishness (and inability to think) you choose to believe in God because "muh feels".

God speed then, user.

>There are a hundred thousands different logical proofs for Gods existance
Just stop, user. You're embarrassing yourself kek.

>unironically a Christian board
Topkek!

The fedora count is a little low in this thread, it looks like my christian brethren need some reinforcement. Have at thee, sinister pagans!

... other than almost everything in all of those fields coming from Christians working in the name of Christianity. Were you being sarcastic online?

>Just stop, user. You're embarrassing yourself kek.

Great logical fallacy, it's not an argument. But I guess since logical fallacies is what atheists relies on in all their thinking so it should be expected.

What I said is still true and my argument still is valid.

>Sup Forums is all one person who is a Christian.
>Sup Forums is one person who is a Muslim.
>Sup Forums is one person with (insert arbitrary belief I will assign to Sup Forums here)
Fuck off.

And Muslims and feminists aren't? Stereotypes exist for a reason. Don't deny Sup Forums is predominantly Christian or Catholic.

Kek is christian, deal with it

>christian
Sup Forums is and always has been a kekist board

>Degenerate girls are girls who didn't have Christian fathers.

>degenerate girls are girls who either had a shitty father or had no father at all
>father complex aka daddy issues
FTFY

God need not exist. It is immaterial.

Religion provably does need to exist. Read your Durkheim. We need the social controls and moral regulations of a church, because a society needs standardised rules. And the only way to have those, it by shaming people into it. Most of the time.
Seriously, have none of you read Durkheim?

SJWs and Lefties are the direct result of dissappearing social control and religion.

No, you see, the burden of proof is on you. You have made a claim (that there is a God) and you fail to provide evidence... you know, because you cannot. There is no point in trying to disprove something that already doesn't exist and consistently is never provided tangible evidence for.

If you can even prove that there is a God, which we all know there isn't in reality, then you have a whole set of new questions such as why should I follow him, is it even possible to "know" God through the Bible, etc. But, of course, there is no point in speculating on such bullshit because the base of the claim is, indeed, bullshit.

It's a fallacy to argue for a claim that has no basis in reality. No, in fact, it's not a fallacy, it's just utter stupidity.

everyone has the right to chose either believe or not, what is annoying is that the ones who don't do it tend to judge as if they had the absolute truth, when it's more an excuse to avoid morality and conscience

kek, what makes you believe that you're right and others are wrong?

pic related, (You)

Who gives a shit.If you don't like it just shut your fucking computer off,faggot.

>Kek is christian
Even if that were true, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

...

To be honest if it weren't for the possibility that I could burn for eternity for not believing in God and repenting for sins, I would honestly choose not to believe in God. But the risk is too damn high, plus most christians already live a life like atheists except they choose to believe in God and most repent their sins at some point in their lives.

>>No, you see, the burden of proof is on you.
No it is not, anyone who makes a claim about non-existence also has the burden of proof. If anyone says "Pandas don't exist" do you accept that without proof like you do with God? no, because you have a illogical position regarding God that you otherwise would not take.

>You have made a claim (that there is a God) and you fail to provide evidence

There is a ton of evidence, every atheist make a claim that there is no God yet fail to provide evidence.

>you know, because you cannot.

There are thousands available, you can't even mention 3 because you have not really looked for them or listened when people mention them. Atheists have their position due to lack of reflection on the big question.

>If you can even prove that there is a God, which we all know there isn't in reality, then you have a whole set of new questions such as why should I follow him, is it even possible to "know" God through the Bible, etc.

Yes, if you had read any philosophy you often find atheist philosophers that agree that the arguments for God's existence is sound and valid, but they often stay atheist because logic and reason never made them atheist so logic and reason can not get them out of it. They will always make excuses like this.

>It's a fallacy to argue for a claim that has no basis in reality.

You don't even know what a fallacy is, do you.

no pol believes in the eternal miracles of Kek

>You have made a claim (that there is a God) and you fail to provide evidence... you know, because you cannot.
You want like a creepshot of him walking around at the metro, what the fuck do you want, christianity is solely based on the belief of FAITH, you should probably search what that word means...

We don't actually believe it but this Jesus dude was pretty damn chill

Well that's how I see it anyway, I read all the sacred texts and Christianity seems go be the most forward thinking and loving with a bit of crusading so I'm down

>when it's more an excuse to avoid morality and conscience

Religious people are the only ones with morality. It is logically impossible to have morality while at the same time being atheist or agnostic. There has never been a moral statement said by an atheist that the atheist can claim to be true because atheists have no basis for moral statements.

Thousands of other religions have the same Damned mythos too.

What makes Christanity right?

So what exactly about religion suddenly gives a basis for moral statements?

>let their daughter be a slut
>Christian

pick one.

>No it is not, anyone who makes a claim about non-existence also has the burden of proof.
Way to skip over the evidence part, sperglord. If I claimed pandas didn't exist after clearly seeing tangible evidence (the panda), then I am denying reality. This is not equivocal to what we are talking about. Nice attempt at sophistry though.

>There is a ton of evidence
Yet post after post never links any or provides a YouTube link to his favorite theologian, etc. Come on m8, are you even trying?

>There are thousands available
Here we go again, philosophical "logical" proofs don't trump empiricism and the scientific method. This might come as a shock to you.

>Yes, if you had read any philosophy you often find atheist philosophers that agree that the arguments for God's existence is sound and valid, but they often stay atheist because logic and reason never made them atheist so logic and reason can not get them out of it. They will always make excuses like this.
Retardation at its finest. Atheists agree, for example, that if there is an objective morality for example, there must be a God. For He laid out His ways man should live in the Bible, for example. But, there is no God, so logically you can come to the aforementioned conclusion, but to do that you must accept the base, and as I stated in a different post, the base is bullshit.

>You don't even know what a fallacy is, do you.
Pic related, just for you because you clearly lack even the most basic understanding of words.

That crusading bit wouldnt've happened if not for a certain sandnigger pedophile, remember.

"An evil, faithless age is eager for a sign, but no sign will be given except that of Jonah." With that he left them abruptly.

Matthew 16:4

>no TRUE Christian would X

because all forms of historical law, down to the hammurabic code, were religious law.

You've got a point there, but it just ends up being faith. Honestly don't try reasoning God or religions it's just faith, you either belief or not.

It's lack of required action. Both Judiasm and Islam require actions to be weighed for inclusion. Buddhism and Hinduism require a process to achieve nirvana. The whole point of Christianity is that the process is already complete.

Christians don't have to 'do' anything, and for this reason, anyone can be, with no separation of race, sex, nationality, whatever.

That doesn't prove that only Religious people can be Morally correct at all.

It proves Religious people in the past were the ones in power to be creating laws.

Or are you arguing only those who are religious in ANY religion are Morally sound? Like say; Muslims.

43 "I was away from home and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing. I was ill and in prison but you did not come to comfort me." 44 Then they will in turn ask: "Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or away from home or naked or ill or in prison and not attend to your needs?" 45 He will answer them: "I assure you, as often as you neglected to do it to one of these least ones, you neglected to do it to me." 46 These will go off to eternal punishment and the just to eternal life.

Matthew 25 43-46

For a moral statement to be true you need two things.

1. The moral statement need to be valid regardless of your desires.
(nobody [except maybe atheists I have spoken to] would say that it is only morally wrong to murder innocent people except if you desire to murder them)

2. The moral statements needs a reason to be valid.
(nobody would accept "homosexuality is morally wrong" for no reason other than "it just is")

All religions (except atheism) have a reason for why any moral statement they come up with is valid regardless of peoples desire. And the reason is based on their world view. Atheists on the other hand have no access to any such reason.

> If I claimed pandas didn't exist after clearly seeing tangible evidence (the panda), then I am denying reality.

Exactly the same with God. Except there are better evidnce that God exists available.

>Here we go again, philosophical "logical" proofs don't trump empiricism and the scientific method.

Actually it does, empiricism and the scientific method is only based on anecdotal evidence. Anectdotal evidence is the only kind of evidence available to science and empiricism is the idea that if you have enough of them then you have truth. There are some serious epistemological problems with empiricism that does not exist with logic that is necessecarily ALWAYS true.

Nobody used epiricism and the scientific method to become atheist either. Empiricism and the scientific method can only tell about a small part of reality. It can not explain why murdering a child is wrong or why alturism have anything to do with moral behaviour.

Because /pol is one person

It proves that there is no historical precedent of athiest law, and law is the way humans document morality.

And no, both islam and organized athiesm (communism and statism) are historically insignificant. You can't compare the 10,000 year old Judiasm and the 2000 year old Christianity with Islam, created 600 years after Christ's death. Organized Athiesm (communism) wasn't envisioned until the eighteenth century.

Even prehistoric Asian society was religious society.

>the scientific method is only based on anecdotal evidence
an·ec·do·tal
ˌanəkˈdōdl/
adjective
adjective: anecdotal
(of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.

Christians need to Accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior though.

Otherwise they burn in hell. You need to accept patronage just like every other religion.

So basically, As an athiest, I have no moral stances on say; Chemotherapy, because I don't worship a god.

But a Rastafarian who believes in god has a moral stance on Chemotherapy, because he has faith?

Actually, I have used Emperical and Scientific methods to become an Athiest.

Because all Religions are fundamentally based on cultural traditions that are social mechanisms.

There is no Divine but one Humanity makes.

So We must base all our Law upon historical precedent?

You're basically saying "Because people in the past were X, we need to be X"

But can Christians improve their grammar while they are sitting waiting for death?

Yes. Human science is based on human observation, and human observation is unreliable.

>pol is one person

>It proves that there is no historical precedent of athiest law
it doesn't follow from this that atheists are incapable of being moral, even if your conflation of morality with law wasn't completely retarded

Christfags on this board need to leave

Isn't all Divine interpretation also based upon human observation then?

By your own logic is Religion not also unreliable?

That dude isn't a Christian. You'd be more apt to ask if atheists could improve their grammar.

2016 taking the pill
>still using pills, not using the red shot.
kek

I'm Christian atheist. I celebrate christian holidays,go to church, and believe in Christian values. I just don't believe in afterlife.

>hundred thousands different logical proofs
>doesn't list any of them, site any sources, provide anything other than to claim weasel words
>field of philosophy
>logical proofs
>he doesn't realize that logic is only a single section in a variety that constitute the origin of knowledge

>hey man, how much does this steak weigh?
>that's unknowable, human observation is unreliable
>what if we got a scale or something
>nope, impossible, you'll never know

All of our knowledge was written down by men. If you think that information recorded by man has any indication that it could be flawed, because it is written by men, and since it is potentially flawed, thus useless because it cannot be trusted; you should throw away just about everything there is to know.

I took the red tab. Still have it under my tongue

You just proved my point. You don't have to give anything in Christianity. Only accept a gift from others. Giving to the poor, baptism, even tithing isn't mandatory. We're told to do it because it's the right thing to do.

In Judiasm, following Talmudic law is mandatory. In Islam, the five pillars are mandatory. Christians don't even have to follow the Ten Commandments.

Try again. Christians have done more for this world, especially in science than any other group in history.

Yes, which is why we scientist have the concept of "noise". Other scientists also have to rely on the numbers i put down being what I really experienced. All observations are theory laden and depended upon the person observing even if they are scientists themselves. You can always try to make things as objective as possible, but you always rely on someones personal accounts in some way or other.

>So basically, As an athiest, I have no moral stances on say; Chemotherapy, because I don't worship a god.

You might have a moral stance, but it has no logical reason behind it. It is purely randomly based on what you feel at the moment or copied from the local religion.

>Actually, I have used Emperical and Scientific methods to become an Athiest.

No you have not, there are no empirical evidence that God does not exist and how did you use the scientific method to answer this question? Something tells me that you don't know what either of those concepts mean.

>human knowledge is flawed
>faith is perfect

F- in epistemology hmm friend?

...

...Good. Because that wasn't the answer you were given. The answer is that without documentation, there is no proof of athiest morality in prehistoric time. If you have a written prehistoric athiest legal code, please post it. I'd like to read it myself.

>he unironically believes this
>muh we cant know anything

The entirety of mathematics is based not on observation but of logical deduction from a set of unshakable axioms.

>inb4 mathematics is wrong

...

Bitch needs to wash her feet before getting into a bed with white sheets. What a fucking pig.

>he thinks that being disingenuous of his own faith in front of an omniscient god will save him from eternal damnation

topkek. when will people stop posting pascal's wager. its a joke that has already been ridiculed by atheists and religious people alike.

your response to "how does religion give a basis for morality" was "hurr i've never seen an atheistic legal code." it's a complete non-sequitur

...

>doesn't list any of them, site any sources, provide anything other than to claim weasel words

The cosmologial argument, the teleological argument and so on and so forth hundred thousand times. Anyone who is interested can easily find an argument described in a way that is convincing to them if they tried. Listing hundred thousand arguments would be a waste of time for me, they are easily found.

>he doesn't realize that logic is only a single section in a variety that constitute the origin of knowledge

Logic is the main basis for any kind of knowledge. You can not claim to have knowledge if you approach it from a illogical manner. For example if you reject evidence that pandas exist and therefore come to the conclusion that pandas does not exist. That would be illogical, they might still exist.

The Kilogram, that is, the object in a vault in Paris, has to be maintained because it's mass, therefore it's reliability as a unit of measure, changes on a constant basis.

What's your point?

>math isn't based on observation

Hmm I wonder how we noticed it then?

>should throw away just about everything
This obviously implies not everything. Learn to read. Mathematics and things we discover about the natural world are the exceptions. That is because they are perfect and cannot be broken. That is because a perfect being created them.

>No you have not, there are no empirical evidence that God does not exist and how did you use the scientific method to answer this question? Something tells me that you don't know what either of those concepts mean.

Oh it's quite simple really. See; I am an archaeologist, specifically, I have worked with texts about the Ancient Middle east and Indo-European culture groups.

The Judo-Christain god isn't special, and just the result of a fanatical cult who chose him specifically as a figurehead to catapult their ruling of the ancient Isrealite Kingdom.

I have a question, at what point does God, AKA YHWH aka Tetragramaton aka El Shaddai Stop being the Mountain god of the Isrealites and starts being the Supreme Being?

If we consider the History of the Judo-Christain God, then do we have to accept that ALL Indo-European gods exist as the same offshoots as he?

What makes him real and the other gods not?

The Kilogram, that is, the object in a vault in Paris, has to be maintained because it's mass, therefore it's reliability as a unit of measure, changes on a constant basis.

What's your point?

>posts a woman
Yep. Predictable down to its essence. For every successful religious post but especially any Christian ones this pig stye will have at least 8 threads saying blasphemies. And the ones who do it? Probably fake themselves

show me one successful civilization that was godless, and I'll show you my asshole dumb faggot

that there's a difference between imperfect and unreliable.