How do you respond? Also, does it seem like online militant

God warned the Egyptians to free his people, they could have listened and refused. God didn't kill them, their ignorance did

>>140108172
>God warned the Egyptians to free his people, they could have listened and refused. God didn't kill them, their ignorance did
Therefore god killed them.

>>140108172
He also destroyed the wicked sodomites.
He flooded the world to rid it of the half-breeds that were spawned by the fallen ones.

>>140107855
>Citation needed

>>140107855
>god made people
>god can't kill people

>>140108333
Good they deserve it we should hang sodomites, fags and lesbians, and anyone who lays with a beast (niggers)

File: reddit.jpg (42KB, 674x501px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 674x501px

>>140107855
Atheism creates weak men.
Atheism is the product of "good times create weak men".
Pic related, the cancer creator of internet atheism.

>>140107855
Holding God to the same ethical standard as men, wew lad.

This is where it gets tricky though because if you believe in God you believe he is sovereign and can do no wrong as he's the source of right and wrong. It's not wrong for him to tell us we can't kill babies, while he goes and kills a million babies.

>>140108516
>woman made baby
>woman can't kill baby

Same logic, isn't it?

>>140108318
Are we really sad about God proving once again that it's alright to kill the sandniggers?

>>140109082
A woman doesn't make a baby. She gets drunk and lays on her back for a while until some guy dumps a load in her. The physical act of creating something is much different.

>>140109082
like mothers say
>i brought you into this world - i can take you out of it!
but women don't create anything they just spread their legs and hope shit works out

>>140108534
He literally was cleansing the world of the worst elements.

File: 3.jpg (58KB, 650x488px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 650x488px

>>140107855

Yes, new atheism is dead.

https://themetamodernist.com/2017/08/29/new-atheism-is-dead/

>>140107855
>How do you respond?

The ground of reality (God) doing something and an individual doing something are two very different things.

Militant atheism got incredibly cringy and the kids in the discourse got older so they don't act like fools as much anymore.

>>140108961
Good goy, worship the jew

>>140109076
God never made any Biblical injunctions about foetuses so he can do whatever he likes with them.

>>140108318
not taking action is the same as pulling the trigger. that sandnigger pharaoh killed his own people

>>140107855
>online militant atheism

Did someone punch you in the face through your computer screen?

>>140109208
God watches as humanity is blighted by disease, violence, etc and he masturbates to our pain. If we were to die and complain about how cruel our deaths were whether its because of famine or murder, all he would do basically is shrug his shoulders and take us to his paradise as an "apology".

>>140107855
because they won the battle against the christ cucks

now the new war is the commies vs nationalists

some of those atheist edge lords joined your side,im one of them

they see that though the bible is bs it was an anti body to islam and regret bashing the church

the other half joined the sjws

>>140109353
It was "so edgy" to be atheist when you had Christian parents.
Once we all grew up a bit and saw the world for what it really is we finally came back home to the faith but with a new perspective on WHY we believe.

So they are admitting it's murder?

>>140107855
God alone has the right to take innocent life, man doesn't. This is why in Christian societies taking a life without just cause is punished severely, but taking a life justly is not. Therefore there is a massive difference between God taking life and humans annihilating innocent children before the children even have a chance to defend themselves.

File: 1492801071481.jpg (33KB, 448x252px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 448x252px

>>140107855
during the time of polytheism by the Romans the christcucks were called atheists because they only believed in one god.

checkmate atheists, you unwittingly believe in god.

>>140109554
Read "I have no mouth amd I must Scream" By Harlan Ellison, and A.M is technically god

>>140107855
I'd say militant atheism has died down only because Christianity just isn't relevant anymore.

>>140107855
I don't believe in any religion and I am Pro-Life. What now cunt?

>>140109599
>being cringy and repeating stale strawmen while interpreting the bible poorly and out of context
>winning

>>140107855
I don't that's why I'm not a Christian, Muslim, Jew, or Communist.

>>140109554
>take us to his paradise as an "apology".
No, you must earn your place there. Why do you people think God is supposed to be some hippie faggot that intervenes everytime something goes wrong?

>>140107855
God tests us because this life is a job application for New Jerusalem. It must be real cool there because a lot of angels got jealous about our situation and well you know the rest of our story...

File: plebbit.png (277KB, 634x466px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 634x466px

>because babies die naturally you can't say anything about me choosing to kill my own baby in the womb.

There really is no argument for abortion that doesn't end with people acknowledging they are committing murder.

>>140107855
God hasn't killed babies, it's either man slaughtering in the name of whatever satanic entity that claims to be god, or the agreement to die was made before the soul entered the body.
It could be as a lesson to the family or the soul itself, but nothing is done against anyone's free will.
We are all just here to experience different things.

File: Deadly Snakes.jpg (73KB, 400x519px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 400x519px

>>140109599
>because they won the battle against the christ cucks
Protip: They aren't winning a battle against Christians, they won a war against Evangelical Protestants and are still losing it against Christianity generally, Islam, and most every other religion. But Evangelical Protestants were the original target in the first place so its no surprise.

>>140107855
We're not the ancient Egyptians.

>>140110000
I didn't mean that. Sinful people are obviously in the wrong, but good people who go through shit no matter how much they followed and worshipped their god and who get killed off in terrible ways shouldn't have to go through the bullshit.

>>140109862
science doesnt back up the bible mate,i wish it did desu but it doesnt

but id rather live under the bible as an atheist than islam hence my support,for now.

>>140110000
Btw, nice quads

File: bulwark.jpg (47KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 480x480px

>>140110218
bruh

churches are standing empty on sunday

bible bashers are sneered at

the pope promotes degeneracy just to get more asses on church seats

you lost m8 i would rejoice but desu im not happy,i think we done goofed now we have destroyed a crucial part of the moral fabric of society

we simply did not know.

>>140109349
god if only

>>140110268
it does actually, and science isn't infallible, its just the best guess with the evidence given

>>140110550
many of us didnt know,some did

we was used as useful idiots to pave the way for this degenerate stuff,i think its why im so hostile to the SJWs

they used us

>>140110695
>we was used
Nigger detected

>>140110550
We didn't lose, we will have eternity in the Kingdom of Heaven, the losers are the atheists, talmudists, and Muhammedans who will suffer the Hellfire, their disgusting sinful lifestyle will lead to an eternity of suffering.

>>140107855
Being anti-Christian stopped being cool when most of the people who were against religion supposedly didn't do anything against the Muslims that were 10x worse than the Christians could ever hope to be. Seriously, once you point the hypocrisy of not being against Islamic values, they suddenly try to be more tolerant. It's pathetic.

>>140110595
>noahs flood
>soil samples from that period show no flood
>there is trees in cali that pre date the flood
>unless that tree survived underwater for a year the flood never occured.
>2 of every animal on the ark? 2 mouse from america? 2 pandas from china? how did a desert man in the bronze age manage this? how the fuck did they get around imbreeding?

thinking like this eventually leads to the conclusion of its false....shame im too smart desu i miss the simple roman catholic life.

>>140110243
Life isn't supposed to be easy, or fair. But what comes at the end of life for those who remained faithful is a reward so grand. Just as we must work hard during the week to do what we like at the weekend, or how we must work hard in the gym to get the fitness we want. We must also struggle through the often unfair tribulations of life to win the grand prize.

Holding on to this idea that somehow fairness is a good thing is foolish I think, fairness only ever created weakness.

>>140107855
They're his to do with what he wants, since he's literally their Creator.

>>140110933
>be god
>tells you he loves you
>makes you imperfect
>doesnt provide proof of his existance
>he gets mad when you dont love him back
>burns you in hell for infinity for a finite crime

File: Art of Christendom.jpg (3MB, 4742x2581px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4742x2581px

>>140110550
>churches are standing empty on sunday

The newest generation has higher church attendance than baby boomers.
"Bible Bashers" are the Evangelical Protestants I spoke about.
You trying to guess the pope's motives for his political values is just that: A guess.

Christianity has been dying out in Europe for some time. However, worldwide, Christianity and Islam are growing. Likewise, while religious "nones" are growing in Europe the number is still lowering worldwide.

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/

Between denominations, moderate Protestantism is dying out but Evangelical Christianity and Catholicism are growing.

http://www.worldreligionnews.com/issues/is-the-catholic-church-experiencing-exponential-growth-or-declining

However, with the growing popularity of nationalism in the west also comes a generation swinging towards honest religiousness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Z#cite_ref-48

Don't worry, Atheist. We got you.

>>140111215
>You trying to guess the pope's motives for his political values is just that: A guess
he's a fag and you know it

>>140111215
i have started to think of going back to church and just go through the motions

i dont believe the bible is true but i know its a good tool to keep degeneracy at bay and keep the plebs in line and im ok with that

and desu i prefer the company of religious people than atheists mostly,atheism turns people into hedonistic nihilists

>>140111413
the pope is a marxist,a south american one also he needs a helicopter ride for being a heretic

>>140111413
He could be. But being a fag is not the same as pretending to be a fag to garner support, which the poster is saying.

>>140107855
Old testament god had no chill. If he was still in that phase there would be a lot less people bitching about him, because he would have killed them.

>>140110994
I do like to work for the things I want or need, but if some fucking beaner comes up slaughters my grandfather even though we have been faithful and always repented for each and every sin and ask for forgiveness, then why should I believe in such a deity that screws us over all the time. Considering the fact that he is omniscient and loving?

>>140110972
>im too smart
>doesn't know what an allegory is
I'll give you that you're too smart for the small group of believers that believe that the earth is 4,000 years old and pick up rattlesnakes while slapping them around but ...

>>140111531

agree

>>140110994
Imagine coming up to god after you died a painful death such as getting tortured, and asked why you had that fate, what the fuck do you think he would say about that shit?

>>140108172
based leaf

>>140107855
>people think they can judge like God
GO KILL THEm AND GET FUCKED IN HELL
>hell doesnt exist
HAHAHAHA YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A BAD TIME

>>140107855
I kill millions a babies a few times a week. Not a big deal desu.

>>140108172
wait this makes more sense lol

>>140111457
And a utilitarian view such as your own is a foolish one that will never succeed and be a waste of your time and hold you from greater religious discourse. Stick with what you think is true. If you are a naturalist (the ideology most western atheists have) then promote naturalism.

Seeking useful lies for your own gain is not a far shot away from that nihilism, though you are trying to escape it. There is virtue in the search for truth. Do not fool yourself because it will not play out in your life and you will not fool others.

Religious 'nones' have an incredibly low retention rate.

>>140111137
This is all false

>>140111700
>>140112033
God gave us life, and the fragility of life is what makes it so beautiful. If God intervened constantly it's obliterate the beauty of life. Along with the life He gave us comes our intelligence which we can use to make medicine and laws that help to stop the unnecessary death an suffering of people. We can fix so many of our own problems so why must God do it for us? He already gave us such a fantastic gift - life - and he's not even judged us yet, so why do you think He owes us anything more?

File: 1 Redpill The Shills.png (231KB, 851x721px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 851x721px

>>140107855
How about all the birth defects from said god ?

How about all the babies born from rape that are infected with HIV ?

Here is your god

https://www.HOOKTUBE.com/watch?v=BPXNjUabd_M

>>140108961
>Atheism creates weak men.
Atheism prevents men from killing others based on irrational beliefs in phony gods.

>>140109353
>he ground of reality (God) doing something and an individual doing something are two very different things.
When an individual does something it's real, and when they claim the gods did something it isn't real? That makes a lot of sense.

>>140113977
Then why do so many atheists arm themselves with swords if not to slay to religious?

>>140109440
>God never made any Biblical injunctions about foetuses
He literally said some foetuses were evil in the womb.

File: Christina doesn't like her new toy.png (206KB, 580x606px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 580x606px

>>140114173
>can't even read correctly
>trying to circumvent random lines to express your atheism

>>140109712
>God alone has the right to take innocent life,
If he existed, he wouldn't. Only a monster or a demon takes innocent life. That kind of senseless killing would violate our biological imperative to survive, and our deontological duty to preserve our self-determination.

>>140107855

that_contempt_for_your_beliefs_smuggie.jpg

>Also, does it seem like online militant atheism has died down in recent years, or is that just me?

It's died down because the left became the mainstream position. It has no one to oppose of any power anymore so the militant portion is not needed.

I'm atheist but these days we can afford to be charitable and recognize the value religion brings to society, especially in the face of the degeneracy and spiritually bereft communism the left wants as the ruling class.

Even as an atheist I can recognize a spiritual need in people to believe in something greater than themselves, and the left have nothing constructive to offer in that regard.

File: all_ningens_must_die.png (161KB, 499x708px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 499x708px

>oy vey, your great-great-great^69 ancestors adam and eve have personally holocausted me by eating the forbidden fruit, so now you must suffer the consequences and pay reparations for their crimes
>if not, i'm gonna call you an anti-se... i mean you will go to hell
if god exists, he is a fucking kike

File: comfy pol thread.gif (327KB, 834x870px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 834x870px

>>140107855

God didn't kill your baby. You did.

>>140110113
>There really is no argument for abortion that doesn't end with people acknowledging they are committing murder.
The opposite is ironically true. All the non-arguments for abortion ultimately end with idiots making the false claim that abortion is murder.

Right-grabbing anti-choicers only care about punishing and torturing women, they couldn't care less about babies or gestation.

That's why all their non-arguments are reduced to irrational, emotional pleas rather than evidenced based reasoning.

>>140114572
>If he existed, he wouldn't
Well I sure am glad you feel superior enough to speak on behalf of God. As for the rest of your reply - stop talking bollocks.

>>140114924
>Right-grabbing anti-choicers only care about punishing and torturing women
You seem to enjoy speaking on behalf of others. You might find you learn more if you spent more time listening instead of talking.

>>140110550
>bulwark.jpg
This is kind of retarded. the only cure for the deadly cancers that are the Abrahamic religions is rejecting their festering existence.

>>140109082
>God made baby
>woman can't kill baby
FTFY

File: Max Patrician13.jpg (682KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

682KB, 1024x768px

>>140114924
That's a good joke.
Abortion as a right came from the rejection of the unborn as having rights. By arguing the unborn as having rights, the point is defeated. And by any judgement on either side the place in which they would gain personhood (gain rights) is before birth occurs. The issue then is one will base it off of performance and one will base it off of the type of thing they are and its ability.

Honestly, "humans have human rights" is much easier and effective to argue for than "humans who can do ____ have human rights".

also
>pro-choice
>evidence based reasoning
>ever

>>140107855
>How do you respond?
He also killed plenty of adults too...

>>140107855
When did God kill babies? Are these people fucking mental?

>>140112616
>(the ideology most western atheists have)
Naturalism is not an ideology. If you ever go to high school, you might learn about things like that. Besides, atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in made-up gods.

>Seeking useful lies for your own gain is not a far shot away from that nihilism,
The theists are the real nihilists. They eschew our real world for an imaginary one, plus the shifting-sand morality they claim is "absolute" is far more relative than that of non-believers.

>>140107855
>killed millions of babies
exactly what is being referenced here?

>>140108172
>implying the Egyptian population numbered in the millions

>>140114248
>Then why do so many atheists arm themselves with swords if not to slay to religious?
Have any atheists ever slain any religious people with swords only because of their religion? Obviously not.

Once again religious people - their ability to reason severely damaged - are incapable of understanding the memes their ubermensch masters produce.

>>140115599
>Are these people fucking mental?
Yes. They think killing children is a good thing, so of course they're fucking mental.

>>140115673
>atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in made-up gods
People don't spend hours of their time arguing against the existence of something that objectively doesn't exist. Please tell me why you're in here arguing against something that objectively doesn't exist. Seems a bit retarded to me.

>>140115908
>he can't spot a meme
Fucking state of you.

>>140110000
>serieal killer on death row
"Oh by the way god i apologize and everything and all the silly stuff that happened, haha"
>gets into heaven
>"earn your place"
Lol

>>140114953
>you feel superior enough to speak on behalf of God.
I know good from evil and I'm not afraid of your evil gods.

>>140109691
This

>>140116030
>"Oh by the way god i apologize and everything and all the silly stuff that happened, haha"
Not how it works. Saying you're sorry doesn't mean you're sorry, and you must be truly sorry to be forgiven.

>>140116063
>gods
You don't understand Christianity do you anon?

>>140115090
>You seem to enjoy speaking on behalf of others.
It's based on a mountain of evidence and solid reasoning. Just like Godwin's Law, as the abortion discussion continues, the likelihood of an rights-grabbing anti-choicers calling women sluts and whores approaches 1.

>>140116341
So you can be foegiven lmao omg

>>140116341
>"HEY GOD I AM TOTALLY, GENUINELY SORRY AND UR TOTALLY THE TRUE GOD AND EVERYTHING AND I REALLY BELIEVED THIS ALL ALONG"
*gets into heaven*

File: How it is.jpg (599KB, 1386x1388px) Image search: [Google]

599KB, 1386x1388px

>>140115673
>Naturalism is not an ideology.
It's an ideology by definition. For reference, here is ideology:

"A system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy."

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ideology

>Besides, atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in made-up gods.

You have said nothing against my comment by defining obvious terms and referencing your atheism. I know the definition of atheism and how it has changed throughout recent history.

>The theists are the real nihilists.

The theists would believe in purpose in nature, which is the polar opposite of nihilism. As such, you are factually wrong.
Your understanding of Christianity is an Evangelical Protestant's one. That's nothing new. Mainstream atheists are often reactions to Evangelicalism and think of Christianity as a whole in Evangelical or Protestant terms.

atheism didn't die out, you can see them hang around in /pagan/

>>140113444
Actually that has given me some insight I do admit.

>>140116357
>rights-grabbing
What you call "rights grabbing" we call ensuring the rights of the child. The woman has every right to not get pregnant, maybe they should stop shagging if they don't want a baby.
>buh what about if woman is raped
Because a man did a bad deed we now have the right to murder and innocent child? I can understand that the mother may find it too hard to raise that child but that is why adoption exists in our modern countries.

>>140116587
18+ only please.

>>140116607
Saying you're genuinely sorry doesn't mean you're genuinely sorry. What's so hard to grasp about the difference between what you say and what you do?

>>140116726
And in here.

>>140113977
Yeah! Like communis-

>>140107855
I'm agnostic and pro-life. So fuck you and your baby murdering depravity.

>>140107855
Anyone with a brain in the militant atheism movement evolved into part of us, the remainder is a pathetic shadow

>>140107855
Only God gets to kill babies, faggot. He's the player, you're the sim. And He doesn't care what you think about him.

Who did you think Lovecraft was talking about?

File: 1463262714918.jpg (521KB, 1362x779px) Image search: [Google]

521KB, 1362x779px

>>140115599
>>140115715
>what is the great flood
>what are natural disasters
>what are all the rules in leviticus, which jesus himself followed and did not condemn

Abortion is the equivalent to running away from military duty after you have sworn in.

>>140115443
>Abortion as a right came from the rejection of the unborn as having rights.
False. A Woman has the natural and inalienable right to decide for herself (self determination) whether she will bear children nor not.

It is not up to fuckwitted /pol/tards to make that decision for her.

>the unborn as having rights
The unborn what? Unborn teenagers? Unborn senior citizens? The unborn is a made-up euphemism, not a term with any real meaning.

>"humans have human rights"
Human beings have rights. Inhuman rights-grabbers want to strip women of their rights.

>>140116985
> He wanted the babies to be raped by half-breeds instead of be with God in heaven.

Okay Rabbi.

>>140116773
Whats the point of doing anything religeous when i can just save some genuine sorrow for the last seconds of life to get in heaven

>>140115919
>People don't spend hours of their time arguing against the existence of something that objectively doesn't exist
True, we actually spend our time mocking and poking fun at the theists who pretend their gods exist. Then they really let loose with the sharia/talmud.

>Please tell me why you're in here arguing against something
I'm arguing against someone. Unless you're actually no one.

If you never prove your gods exist, then I have nothing to disprove.

>>140117031
>A Woman has the natural and inalienable right to decide for herself (self determination) whether she will bear children nor not.
She should decide that before she decides to spread her legs.

For all the talk of science from the baby murderers, they ignore the simple scientific fact that life begins at conception.

All you cowards are afraid to say it.

Their god is the Demiurge.

Come the fuck on /pol/ get with the program

>>140115092
what do you think Christianity does you imbecile?
anyone who calls themself a Christian and yet claims to love muslims is lying
and there are very few that even say that
because we're constantly informed of Christians being killed by muslims in the middle east

>>140117168

>implying you can save feelings for later.

That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works.

>>140108378
>the Flood
>Sodom and Gomorrah
>Countless genocides that God told the Jews to kill

>>140117168
God wants you to be "religious" in the sense of treating your wife with respect, be a productive member of society, use fair and righteous judgement, and love concepts like mercy and forgiveness, while also not forgetting about truth, righteousness, and holiness. Recognizing the difference between good and evil, punishing evil and rewarding good.

>>140117168
Humans can't be truly sorry on demand, that's not how it works. If you're going to argue you need to learn about not only God but also humans, because you lack an understanding of both. Considering you're a fedora-tier atheist I would've thought that you'd be very knowledgeable about humans, seems not.

>>140117366
If you have nothing to disprove then my must you keep trying. Do you find joy in attacking what others hold dear? Religion aside, that is some nigger-tier behaviour.

>>140116341
>You don't understand Christianity do you anon?
I understand it from a non-believer's perspective. Your bible starts out, "In the beginning, the pantheon of gods created the universe" or something like that. Elohim, right?

>>140117031
fetuses are human
this is an undeniable scientific fact
killing humans is not a right it's a crime
and all women who get an abortion deserve the death penalty

File: Its love.jpg (50KB, 566x581px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 566x581px

>>140117031
>False. A Woman has the natural and inalienable right to decide for herself (self determination) whether she will bear children nor not.

No, the judgement of Roe v. Wade came about BECAUSE they found the unborn had no rights and so the state had no vested interest in the privacy of the woman. That's how Roe v. Wade occurred.

Under no system of establishing objective rights does abortion end up being a right. Women have the right to decide if she will have children but that isn't a decision handled after pregnant. There are justifying legalizing killing other humans.

>The unborn what?

The unborn humans. Humans in the earliest stages of their life. The development of human life from conception onward is well-documented in the sciences.

>Human beings have rights. Inhuman rights-grabbers want to strip women of their rights.

Women have no rights to kill other humans.

>>140117629
>or something like that
kek. Atleast read the first handful of words before setting about arguing, you fucking idiot.

>>140117423
> Believing a Jew after the first century

anon..

File: IMG_1652.jpg (51KB, 640x444px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 640x444px

I don't their not engaging in honest debate

File: 1473364546246.png (1MB, 602x941px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 602x941px

>>140117485
>the bible tells you to love your enemies and turn the other cheek on multiple ocassions
>anyone who properly follows biblical rules is not a christian,
>only if you do the exact opposite of what jesus said can you be a real christian

the absolute state of christcucks

>>140117629
Nope, it says God. You got it completely backwards, good try though.

Before you try the elohim means many gods, try to understand that both the authors of the scripture and everyone else who has ever followed it understands that there is only one God.... just like Elohim said "I am the Lord, there is no other".

I'm not a big fan of Jewish fairy tales, sorry Christfags.

>>140107855
>How do you respond?
well
>If you worship a god who's killed millions of babies
Nothing wrong with that you weak fuck
>shut about abortion
Abortion is when humans kill babies not God.
God is excusable, humans aren't.

>>140117945
>turn the other cheek on multiple ocassions
Learn what that means before speaking of it.

>>140117619
Most people dont need god for those simple concepts.
>>140117620
So if i kill a bunch of people and actually feel super bad about it its ok?

>>140117945
>the bible tells you to love your enemies and turn the other cheek on multiple ocassions

how the fuck have you not seen that image?

>>140118079
>actually feel super bad
It's not about feeling guilty, it's about being sorry. There's a difference.

>>140107855
no

>>140116642
>It's an ideology by definition.
No, by definition it's a philosophy. You merely took the definition of ideology and tried to stretch it to make it fit your poor interpretation.

> I know the definition of atheism and how it has changed throughout recent history.
The definition hasn't changed at all. The people trying to distort the definition have failed miserably and repeatedly, but the definition is still the same as it always was.

>>140116642
>The theists would believe in purpose in nature,
Wow, that sounds like naturalism. Weren't you falsely accusing atheists of being naturalists a few posts ago?

>>140118079
>simple concepts
Oh, that's why it came so easy to the worshipers of Moloch that still rule over us to this day? Or the Pagans of Rome who embraced homosexuality?

And God was the one who allowed you to grasp these "concepts" without him, these concepts hold no weight or meaning, as there truly would be no punishment or reward. You are contradicting yourself

>>140116642
>The theists would believe in purpose in nature, which is the polar opposite of nihilism.
You apparently don't understand the concept of nihilism.

People who don't understand what atheism is, nor can they grasp what nihilism is, tend to believe the two might be related

Nihilism generally is considered in two forms:

(1) Existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value, or
(2) Moral nihilists, who assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived.

(1) Existential nihilism - Write this down. Nihilism does not say that life has NO meaning, it says says that life has no "objective" meaning.

Life has relative and subjective meaning. An atheist's life has far more meaning to him because it is the only life he has. He knows it is up to him to make purpose for himself, not wait for some deity to hand it to him or decide his "destiny". On the other hand, a theist cares nothing for this life and couldn't care less if the world is destroyed as long as he gets his imaginary "afterlife".

So the evidence completely contradicts the hsyteria of theists who claim nilhilism #1.

(2) Moral nihilism - Theists will tell you that their morals are "objective" but they're lying. They will admit that ordinary men wrote down their morals in their books, but then they will claim - without any proof - that those men were "inspired" by some supernatural being. That part you just have to take on "faith", and then they run off to drown witches, whip slaves or torture and perscute atheists.
continued

>>140116642 continued

But it's OK that all morals are relative. The Bible has rules about selling your daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7). Abraham married his sister and had sex with her slaves - not a problem. Christians used to own slaves and mistreat them, not a problem - they were slaves, after all. That probably was an important thing for the Semitic peoples who sold even their family members for money, but it's abhorent now. If there was really one god, the simplest explanation is that there would be one religion. But since there have been thousands of gods and religions and hundreds of different morals, the spread is yet another kind of moral relativity.
Morality is a man-made concept. Men invent rules, then men fabricate "gods" to enforce the rules. That's been the unwavering constant of all made-up gods in history. This also reinforces the idea of nihilism #2. Ask any theist if he believes in Zeus and the Ancient Greek morals. When he says no, then he proves that the theists are the #2 nihilists. What relative religious moral system you adhere to is far more closely related to where you are born and what gods you were forced to serve at the time.

>>140107855
He's God, he can do whatever he wants
Human however is subject to God and should obey his laws

>>140117976
satan is quite literally a diety of his own, which god himself can't even control- which is shown multiple times in both the old and new testaments
that mean yhw is not omnipotent, but rather he is the most powerful of all the existing gods

who do you think controls the earth to begin with?
protip; not yhw

>>140118544
>Christians used to own slaves and mistreat them, not a problem

false, Christ said Slavery was okay as long as everybody involved was trying to be a dick. Everything you pointed out was under the old testament which was a different time under the law of Moses, which a Christian is no longer shackled to, you really have no idea how Christianity works do you?

What version of the bible has not been tainted by (((them))) in order to change the message?

>>140117382
>She should decide that before she decides to spread her legs.
Bingo! We have a winner!

>>140116357
>as the abortion discussion continues, the likelihood of an rights-grabbing anti-choicers calling women sluts and whores approaches 1.
Thanks for proving my point

>>140118853
> satan is quite literally a diety of his own
He's not

> which god himself can't even control

nice fanfiction, Satan is God's bitch, he has to ask his permission even when he engages his peoples.

> which is shown multiple times in both the old and new testaments

The opposite is true. Satan has to ask God's permission to do anything, he has access to the heavenly realm so he can be hurl accusations at the saints. God sets the rules of engagement, what happens, and how it happens.

> yhw is not omnipotent

wrong

>>140118486
My father showed me those concepts, concepts i probably would have developed regardless because i grew up white in the suburbs

>>140119161
King James.

>>140119230
>>140116357
>Thanks for proving my point
Erm.

>>140116773
>What you call "rights grabbing" we call ensuring the rights of the child.
Except its not a child, is it? The only rights a fetus has are given to it artificially by arbitrary laws. You're reduced to misusing the word child to mislead because using the proper term would expose your non-argument for what it is.

>>140119161

the more new the more jew , king james bible or if you are really dutch de statenvertaling

File: 1493018948772.png (114KB, 644x598px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 644x598px

>>140116811

>>140119354
> My father
who was taught by his father, who was taught by his father, who was taught by his father, who was taught by his father, who was taught by his father, who were all taught by Christ.

All of these men got their existing concepts of right and wrong from the bible, Christ.

>>140116773
>maybe they should stop shagging if they don't want a baby.
Bingo! We have a winner!

>>140116357 (You)
>as the abortion discussion continues, the likelihood of an rights-grabbing anti-choicers calling women sluts and whores approaches 1.
Thanks for proving my point.

>>140116773
>the right to murder and innocent child?
First, the fetus is not a child.
Second, it is not its own living being yet, so it is not being killed.
Third, the bible says clearly that some are wicked in the womb, so even your gods say not all are innocent.

>>140119536
>Except its not a child, is it?
Yes it is. By definition it is.
Also
>>140119230
>>140119667
Erm.

The Globalists want to institute Atheism because Atheism has turned most people into moral relativists, leftards, narcissists, degenerates and amoral idiots. It is very easy to manipulate Atheists because they reject absolute morals and only believe what the modern day jew propaganda machine hurls at them, Atheists are so deluded that they believe they are smarter than everyone around them but at the same time all the ideologies that are destroying society such as feminism, political correctness, moral relativism, sexual immorality, materialism were all instituted by God hating Atheists.

Atheists only harp about science only in their attempts to disprove God, Atheists do not have an innate love for science, they only want to seem cool and edgy whenever they proselytize science.

Science is simply a process of understanding the intricacies of nature and it is the main tool in increasing our knowledge and understanding the universe around us, but when you turn it into a religion and use it to replace God then it becomes an issue.

Atheists love to take the moral high ground against God but they rely on their delusional understanding and their vacuous narcissism to promulgate their accusations against God. Since most of them don't understand the Bible their arguments are nothing.

Atheists don't believe in personal responsibility which is why they blame the evils of mankind on God, its akin to children blaming their parents whenever they pee on their mattress.

to answer your stupid question the Lord warned the people to repent of their sins and to turn from their wickedness but they chose not to listen, I'm assuming your picture is referencing the great flood, if you read the Bible which I know for a fact you haven't the world was full of wickedness, God sent out prophets to warn the people to stop being so wicked but they wouldn't listen, so that is why he destroyed the world, its that simple, the people chose not to listen so they had to suffer the consequences.

File: The Transition.jpg (80KB, 470x960px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 470x960px

>>140118423
>No, by definition it's a philosophy. You merely took the definition of ideology and tried to stretch it to make it fit your poor interpretation.

Naturalism fits the definition I provided by Oxford Dictionary. If you want to parse philosophy and ideology in the "one you study, one you learn" that still doesn't help your case as naturalism IS a belief with justification and is taught so people can learn. In no sense is it not an ideology. But ideologies aren't bad either so I have no idea why you're fighting about semantics.

>The definition hasn't changed at all. The people trying to distort the definition have failed miserably and repeatedly, but the definition is still the same as it always was.


Throughout all of western history until the 18th century, atheism was a derogatory term for the immoral. This is why 'atheist' and 'pagan' were terms thrown at theists to other theists. The term stems from 'atheos' which referred to 'godlessness' or immorality. In the 18th century in western Europe is became a term for people who reject deities existing. In the 20th century the term became an absence of belief in deities. Likewise, agnosticism began as a philosophical point that we are incapable to know either way about God, then became an "I don't know" answer to deities, and then eventually a sub-category within atheism and theism to denote attachment via knowledge.

You have no idea what you're talking about to say "it is the same as it always was".

>Wow, that sounds like naturalism.

Naturalism expressly rejects innate purpose and intelligence in nature. No, Anon, what I said does not sound like Naturalism at all.

>>140119609
No, because its simple shit.
You dont need to pass down to your great great great great granchild that theres something off about rape. You are a weak person if you can't think of these concepts for yourself. Do you need to be told everything you believe?

>>140116811
>Yeah! Like communis-
Stalin was an orthodox seminary student who knew the church would plot to coronate a new Tzar to overthrow the Soviet government. Stalin didn't kill because of his non-belief, he used atheism as a tool to stamp out sedition.

>>140117714
>fetuses are human
>this is an undeniable scientific fact
Except for the part where science doesn't really come down on one side or the other. Fetuses are potential humans. They have limited form and function. There is a gray area between fertilized egg and baby.

>>140112923
No its really not

>>140120094
>>140118423
Naturalism
Isn't that the one where you are naked outdoors?

File: 1475284727424.jpg (637KB, 1071x1068px) Image search: [Google]

637KB, 1071x1068px

>>140119286
>And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.
>the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient yhw has to ASK satan where he was, because he doesn't know

>Finally, the devil took Jesus to a very high mountain. He showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. “If You bow down and worship me,” he said, “I will give You all of this.”
>satan offers jesus complete control over earth, meaning satan, not god, is the one who has dominion over it

>Put on the full armor of God, so that you can make your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this world’s darkness, and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
>spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms

its almost as if majority of christcucks didn't even read the bible themselves

>>140117945
>retard who never read or tried to understand the Bible claims to understand the Bible
idk why you low IQ atheists (see: all atheists) take ONE SINGLE sentence in the Bible and then decide it applies to all Christians at all times and if we disagree we're hypocrites
really pathetic arguing technique first of all
and second of all maybe actually educate yourself on the subject matter you're talking about before you start going around making easily defeated stupid arguments

>>140117485
>what do you think Christianity does you imbecile?
It drowns witches. Well, sometimes it bursn them at the stake. And it hangs atheists, all the way up until the 1650s in England. Sometimes you have christians killing christians like in Northern Ireland, and you can't tell which side your gods are on since they're both losing.

>anyone who calls themself a Christian
Ah, the old, "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Seriously, does that actually work?

>>140119667
>>140119230
Would you kindly explain to me why you replied to yourself.

>>140117620
>Do you find joy in attacking what others hold dear?
If what they "hold dear" is quite literally a sandnigger-tier fabrication and they are abusing it to mislead others, yes.

>>140120341
>Except for the part where science doesn't really come down on one side or the other
you being uneducated and ignorant does not mean science doesn't "come down"
you realize that fetuses have individual human DNA right?
this is irrefutable
it's also irrefutable that fetuses are alive

denying that human fetuses are not human is denying reality you imbecile

>>140120176
> you dont need to pass down to your great great great great granchild that theres something off about rape

the fact you say that but still go to this site amazes me.

>>140120901
>they are abusing it to mislead others
Oh, so you think the average Christian is out to mislead people?

>>140120196
oh that explains all the other times it worked then.

>>140120591
>Waaah my holy book is just a guiding text and doesn't influence who I am.
This, coming from the same people who cite muslim scripture to prove how they are violent pedophiles.
If you can use this defense so can they. Thanks for joining the #notallmuslims cause.

Easiest response ever...

The author of life has the authority to take life as well, it was never yours to begin with.

You are not God.

>>140117714
>fetuses are human (tissue)
>killing human (being)s is not a right it's a crime
Abortion is a recognized right
Killing human being is a crime
There's no overlap. Blurring the lines between these important concepts means you're either a blithering idiot or you really didn't aren't clear on the concept.

>>140120979
Why? Also my point still stands that if you need a book to shape your life and morals than you are a weak person. Start to think for yourself

>>140108318
If someone jumps off a building despite knowing the fall will kill them, did they kill themselves or did the pavement murder them?

>>140121170
>blurring the lines between killing a young human and killing a slightly older human
BLURRY
L
U
R
R
Y

>>140120615
>no true Scotsman fallacy
nice try retard
Christians follow the Bible and the Bible says that people like muslims are our enemy and must be destroyed
there's also historical precedent
not to mention that your "fallacy" doesn't even make sense to apply it here
maybe stick to using terms you actually understand

>>140121344
Neither, the building pushed them. Checkmate Drumpftards.

>>140121049
>can't tell the difference between commandments and advice
>never read the bible but still pretends he has the right to argue about a subject which he knows nothing about

>>140121080
I'd like to add we can't not preceive time, space and matter as God does, so how could we question/judge God's plan?

File: The Truth.jpg (45KB, 532x559px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 532x559px

>>140118508
>(1) Existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value, or

Ancient theists believed in teleological systems. Innate goal-directedness in nature. This is the basis of meaning and purpose. This tradition is still shown in the traditional denominations' theology at times. Modern theists understand it in a theistic personalist sense where despite lacking goal-directedness, the creator of it all created it and guides actions with intent.

Theism - especially in the west - explicitly is opposed to existential nihilism. In your argument you make the claim that the atheist life has far more meaning but this is subjective meaning and not objective like the theist's and so the atheist is EXPLICITLY not having objective meaning, purpose, and value but having subjective.

By your view, the atheist is the nihilist. The theist is not. But you characterize atheism poorly by assuming views besides lacking theism. An atheist can belief in a teleological system or an afterlife or whatever else. Just not deities.

(2) Moral nihilists, who assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived.

All Christian churches of all denominations teach that God's Moral Law is innate to people. This is objective, innate, morality.

In no way are theists ever nihilists. Atheists can be, but aren't necessarily. However you ARE a nihilist.

>>140107855
So they admit abortion is the killing of babies? We're making progress.

>>140107855
When God kills someone, I can trust Him to know it was the right thing to do.

I think most atheists realized that atheism was becoming more of a batshit insane religion than Islam. (Burning churches beating priests for practicing Christianity) and as a result, many atheists have become agnostic or just straight up muslims in denial.

File: 1495379560318.jpg (2MB, 1500x2250px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1500x2250px

>>140107855
If you think God is evil for killing millions of babies, why do you think it's ok if you do it?

File: IMG-20170827-WA0006.jpg (54KB, 800x804px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 800x804px

>>140121170
>>fetuses are tissue
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
how do you retards even graduate without passing biology?
fetuses have organs you Mongrel
organs are made of tissue
idk how low of an IQ it takes to Make such a stupid statement

by every definition fetuses are living organisms you ignoramus
hahaha man are you a woman perhaps?
I havent seen this kind of stupidity and ignorance in a while
surely only a woman can be this hilariously retarded

>>140120931
>have individual human DNA
Sure.
>it's also irrefutable that fetuses are alive
Not so fast.
Being human and being alive are different, there are dead humans everywhere. You are first not alive then you become alive then you become dead. Some people get to die and come back if they are unlucky/lucky enough to have a heart attack.
Is a just fertilized egg alive?
How many splits before it's alive?
Heartbeat? Brain function? Where does the living part start?

>>140119374
>>140119546

The newer the translation, the more chance of Jewish influence. However, what translation (in what language) and in what year would be still readable? I can speak / read English, Dutch and German.

File: Idiots say this is a human being.jpg (95KB, 530x437px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 530x437px

>>140117717
>Under no system of establishing objective rights does abortion end up being a right.
False again. The woman has a self-evident, objective, self-determination right to decide if she will bear children or not. That fact that it is a natural and inalienable right supersedes your specious opinions otherwise.

> Women have the right to decide if she will have children
Wait, what? OK well I'm glad you've come to your senses at least.

> but that isn't a decision handled after pregnant.
Moving the goalposts was a nice touch, but even when pregnant, the decision and rights remain with the living person, not the fetus.

>Humans in the earliest stages of their life.
The earliest stages of its rights doesn't begin until the fetus is viable, i.e. can live on its own outside the womb

>Women have no rights to kill other human (being)s.
If you think that leaving out assumed words makes your non-arguments any less babble, then you're mistaken in addition to being wrong.

>>140117809
>read the first handful of words before setting about arguing,
Can you tell us what Elohim means? Is that the name of your monotheistic god?

>>140117976
>elohim means many gods, try to understand that both the authors of the scripture
If they didn't mean it, why did they write it?

>>140122030
>idk how low of an IQ it takes to Make such a stupid statement
Roughly the same IQ it takes to spend hours arguing over something which (according to oneself) objectively does not exist.

>>140122129
King James Bible doesn't change, ever. It's not like it's some Adidas trainer that needs updating every few years to stay relevant. The King James Bible is the Anglo Bible, just fyi.

>>140122330
It's a Jewy word for "gods".

Why would a white man worship a non-white deity?

>>140122566
>implying god isn't an englishman
Sort yourself out you idiot.

>>140120026
>The Globalists want to institute Atheism
The {{{ Globalists }}}
Oh look, someone kicked over a rock.

>>140122717
>{{{ Globalists }}}
I wonder [[[who]]] would use those brackets.

>>140120094
>Naturalism fits the definition I provided by Oxford Dictionary.
So why didn't you use the actual definition of naturalism in the Oxford Dictionary? Because it doesn't say anything about ideology? Your kind of intellectual dishonesty is a waste of time.

File: 1481399621888.gif (31KB, 261x261px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 261x261px

>>140120591
>and second of all maybe actually educate yourself on the subject matter you're talking about before you start going around making easily defeated stupid arguments

thanks, but i have read the bible probably more times than any number of christucks in this thread combined
i'm speaking from experience because i used to be a christcuck myself

i have began to read the read and study the scriptures ever since i was 7, i have served as an acolyte for over 5 years attending church over 3 times a week
i even did 2 years in a theological seminary because when i was young and stupid i wanted to become a priest
since then i have studied the torah and related judaistic scriptures as well as elder canaanite cults and religions, just to get more background on christianity

i don't understand why someone like you would even call himself a christian, considering you are clearly not interested in the actual biblical teachings and don't follow its rules
ironically you have more in common with muslim whom you so vehemently hate, than bible obiding christians

religion doesn't work like that, you can't just cherry pick the rules you like and follow them while ignoring a million others

>>140121344
The pavement isn't sentient you fucktard.

>>140122957
neither is god

We are not at war with our offspring

>>140120094
>atheism was a derogatory term
So "additional" cultural meaning was added to its thousand year old definition? We call that adulteration. It's a sure sign of corrupt theism.

>>140122673
My statement still stands if Yahweh is in fact an Englishman.

File: How will he ever recover.....jpg (88KB, 807x362px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 807x362px

>>140122189

>Scientists looking for life in space
>Scientists found microbes on mars! LIFE!!!!!
>Microbes on mars! LIFE
>Microbes == LIFE

SEEMS TO BE A DOUBLE STANDARD PREDICATED ON CONVIENCE.

fucking science nigger.

File: Cute Killer.jpg (53KB, 634x777px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 634x777px

>>140122189
>state I'm wrong
>repeats your claims without argument

Tell me when you can cite on what grounds you assert your claim.

>Moving the goalposts was a nice touch, but even when pregnant, the decision and rights remain with the living person, not the fetus.

No one has the rights to take away the right of others. This is not a moving of goalposts, this is a clarification. Your original claim "women have the right to decide if she will have children"is vague, given that she already has offspring in her womb by the time of abortion and you're trying to make this about abortion. Your claim makes no reference to them being born or unborn and so your claim would allow women to kill their infant children years down the line if they wish.

Surely you don't mean this so I clarify terms.

>The earliest stages of its rights doesn't begin until the fetus is viable, i.e. can live on its own outside the womb

Why are you only providing humans rights then? On what grounds is that the reasoning we should use to decide what humans get human rights?

>If you think that leaving out assumed words

No, I'm speaking scientifically and using philosophy in reference to rights. When I speak of biological entities I use scientific terms. "Being" is not a scientific term.

>>140121366
>Bible says that people like muslims are our enemy and must be destroyed
are you sure you haven't actually read the quran instead of the bible by accident?

>>140122121
I'm gonna not take this opportunity to call to you an idiot despite how much you really deserve it

you realize that single celled organisms are alive right?

I didn't say that being alive was the requirement that made killing it wrong
or else you would be committing murder every time you jack off
but it being a human organism AND alive makes it a human being which the termination of is called murder

>>140120474
>Isn't that the one where you are naked outdoors?
The way the gods made us? The way that is wrong? Apparently. Just don't type it in Google Images is what I recently learned

>>140122121
I think the pro choice have the political upperhand but logically they are in the wrong. Because the absolute potential for maturation to living human is there, they should have to prove that a fetus has no worth at life.
We shouldn't have to prove that a fetus does have worth as life. It seems like that'd be the given that needs to be disproven. The only reason it's rejected is because of politics.

>>140120591
>take ONE SINGLE sentence in the Bible and then decide it applies to all Christians at all times and if we disagree we're hypocrites
Why are you hypocrites? Don't you always 100% agree with the inerrant bible?

Listen, you idiots painted yourselves into that corner, don't blame atheists for pointing it out.

>>140122189
>False again. The woman has a self-evident, objective, self-determination right to decide if she will bear children or not. That fact that it is a natural and inalienable right supersedes your specious opinions otherwise.
and what establishes this as a right?
by what precedent labels this as a right?

and I like the part where you ignored it when I btfo you and exposed your excruciating ignorance of science

>>140108318

God's killings are just him distributing justice upon the world and are all apart of his greater plan. Abortion is pure hedonism used to fulfill people's own selfish desires.

>>140122500
>Roughly the same IQ it takes to spend hours arguing over something which (according to oneself) objectively does not exist.
Care to elaborate on this nonsense?
what are you referencing exactly?

>>140123006
Can you then say that God is good?

File: This is a person1.jpg (38KB, 540x424px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 540x424px

>>140120931
>you realize that fetuses have individual human DNA right?
Sure. Not a big deal. Apparently there are several situations where microchimerism occurs in the woman's body.
>it's also irrefutable that fetuses are alive
Living tissue maybe. The product of two other living organisms. A continuation of life, as biologists often say.

But not a person.

>>140123195
>double standard
Microbes can live outside your mother's womb.

Well every time I drink a beer I feel terrible for all the microbes that died making it.

File: EDFA3707-4A1F-4E6A-9113-063D56ADB41D.gif (1MB, 328x217px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 328x217px

>>140107855
>millitant atheist
Yeah they were making us look bad...

>>140123815
These edgelord level atheists are confident that God doesn't exist yet they spend hours arguing about Him. It surely takes an absolute retard to argue about something that doesn't exist.

File: Mr BunBun.jpg (46KB, 400x433px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 400x433px

>>140123164
>>140123164
>So "additional" cultural meaning was added to its thousand year old definition?

No, that's the original definition. Atheism as an absence of belief in deities or a rejection of deities or a specific one from existing are later definitions. Language changes.

>>140122912
>So why didn't you use the actual definition of naturalism in the Oxford Dictionary?

I didn't find it necessary, but I can if you want.

"The philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted."

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/naturalism

and to remind:

"A system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy."

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ideology

Naturalism is a position about the nature the world. This isn't simply stated but influences how all the world is seen. It is a system. It is within the definition.

>>140123866
It's subjective. God was a ruler, he owned the world, he owned people and controlled their lives, and how they would expand their nature in the future.

Just like any ruler, or leader, or prophet, there'll be those that do not support him, and those that do.
He's good in my opinion. but ask someone else and he could be evil.

>>140122931
assuming anything you said is true then why don't you understand that turning the other cheek is advice from Jesus (not a law or command) and does not apply to enemies of Christianity and does not even rule out self defense or defense of your loved ones?

there are no Christians that believe if someone is trying to kill their family that they should just "turn the other cheek"

>>140107855
So they admit that fetuses are babies then. Good.

>>140123996
I'm sure there is a joke here where I can redirect you to a board obsessed with arguing about fictional characters but such a place can't exist on 4chan can it?

>>140123996
ah thought you were talking about something I said
didn't make sense

>>140123931

I could literally fucking argue on the basis of parasitical stature, but the fact that you faggots know you can create an incubator for a fetus in this day and age is a violation of progression ethics and you know it. The fact that you guys keep aborting despite the technological advancements we have now is a clear indicator that you're fucking mental.

>>140121044
>oh that explains all the other times it worked then.
What other times? No one kills because they are atheist. If you could deep dive into Russian history, you'd find that Peter the Great, Alexander I, Nicholas I and II all tried to free the serfs and give them education only to be blocked by the Orthodox church that wanted them dumb and sitting in a church pew on Sundays. The days of institutionalized mind control are over.

Islam is a lethal ideology masquerading as a religion and cannot be defeated by some Abrahamic substitute, or that would have happened already in the last 1500 years. Atheism is truly the only way to save the world from religious domination.

>>140124113
>Controlled their lives
So he basically killed the Egyptians. He either made them do it or atleast knew that they wouldn't do what he wanted them to do.

>>140121366
>the Bible says that people like muslims are our enemy and must be destroyed
It really says that? What verse?

>>140123882
>still claiming fetuses are tissue
please educate yourself on what an
organism is
it's a pretty simple concept
so maybe try to understand that before googling up far more complex concepts like "microchimerism" that are far beyond your comprehension

also tissue cannot be made up of several different types of tissue you moron
you realize that fetuses have organs right???

>>140124560
look in the Old Testament where God commands His followers to destroy entire peoples

File: Positively think about the following.jpg (44KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 400x300px

>>140124222
>my face when I just now realized this

>>140107855
I respond that it's good to see them finally accepting the fact that it involves millions of babies.

>>140124156
>assuming anything you said is true then why don't you understand that turning the other cheek is advice from Jesus (not a law or command) and does not apply to enemies of Christianity and does not even rule out self defense or defense of your loved ones?

because nowhere in the bible is self-defence mentioned or even hinted at apart from the old-testament
everything and everyone in the new testament states that christians should be pacifists
so if the only thing jesus says and advises is that you should love everyone and not harm others, the only logical conclusion is that you shouldn't harm others even if they are trying to hurt you

>there are no Christians that believe if someone is trying to kill their family that they should just "turn the other cheek"
what people who call themselves christians think and what bible teaches people to do, are 2 completly different things

>>140121705
>Theism - especially in the west - explicitly is opposed to existential nihilism.
Theist oppose it by creating their own existential nihilism. As long as they get their afterlife, they actually want the world to end. The "rapture" is direct proof of this.

>By your view, the atheist is the nihilist.
No the atheist realizes the value of existence is subjective and all morality is man-made, i.e. subjective. So there is no "objective" morality, and any idiots claiming there is are petty liars.

> God's Moral Law is innate to people. This is objective, innate, morality.
False and false. Here's why. If there were one god, there's be one religion and one moral system. There's not. There are thousands of gods, hundreds of religions, and even more hundreds of moral systems. All relative, all written by men, all claiming divine inspiration.

Truly objective morals would never change, only relative morals do that. But your "objective" morals have changed dramatically over time.

The Christian virtue presumably comes from the bible, which has an interesting verse in Exodus 21:7 about the proper way for ancient Jews to sell their daughters into slavery for shekels.

"And if a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do."

So what do we make of that? Doesn't this sound - to the casual reader - that this is an arbitrary moral system?

I understand that some Christians no longer have to follow the old testament, but what about the ones that do? What about the ones who sell their daughters into slavery and let them go as the men slaves? Are they going to hell?

And can anyone make sense of the Parable of the Talents? Who does the "master" represent?

"Morality" in the bible is too obviously contrived and convoluted to make any sense by reasonable moral and ethical standards.

>>140115092
>if I use a blanket term I can magically make things wholly similar and thus reject them out of hand
It's like you don't actually know anything about "abrahamic" religions.

>>140125675
Jesus whipping people in anger for Jewing up His Father's temple isn't pacifism
If I don't respond anymore it's because I'm taking a nap

>>140123280
>No one has the rights to take away the right of others.
No already born person has the rights to take away the right of other already born persons. Yep. That's clarity right right there.

>she already has offspring in her womb
Offspring that hasn't sprung off yet? Why do you feel you to fabricate crutches out of post-partum terminology to describe a pre-natal condition? Emotional arguments again.

See, you keep proving how the language actually supports the woman in the exercise of her rights.

>When I speak of biological entities I use scientific terms.
>>140115443
>the unborn
>>140117717
>the unborn
>>140123280
>or unborn
Yes, you do have a way with those "scientific terms".

>>140123996
>atheists are confident that God doesn't exist yet they spend hours arguing about Him
Didn't you already get your ass handed to you once?
>>140117366
>we actually spend our time mocking and poking fun at the theists who pretend their gods exist.
>>140120901
>If what they "hold dear" is quite literally a sandnigger-tier fabrication and they are abusing it to mislead others, yes.

>>140109082
>made baby
>made
Come on christcuck at least put effort on it

>>140123006
If God is not sentient, then neither are we. His mind is like a super advanced, perfected version of ours. Think of a super computer with infinite power and also the capacity for feeling.

>>140123622
>and what establishes this as a right?
The woman bears children. This is natural. Natural rights come directly from our Aristotelian nature. John Locke confirms.

>by what precedent labels this as a right?
No need for labels. This is not theism.

> I like the part where you ignored it when I btfo you
That really got your goat, didn't it? Right before you fucked it.

Dues Vult. God wills it. We are mere human, and cannot just kill babies since we feel like having sex with out any form of consequences to our aktions

>>140127274

We'd still be sentient, the idea of him being a man is nothing short of what we theorize his image is, and what he created us after. No real definite proof he looks like that or is even a man. He could be just an idea that many people believe in.

The militant atheists have calmed down because they've already won. All Christcucks have left are their hat meme and a few select sects that basically believe in nothing from the Bible outside of Jesus maybe existing.

Everyone who dies even of natural causes technically dies because of God, if you believe in a god; God gives everyone an amount of time here on earth, it's just shorter for some than others. As supreme creator of all things in everywhere forever and always, he would reserve the right to choose when anyone dies

>>140124084
>It is within the definition.
No it isn't. You're just desperately trying to seem that way with a poorly thought-out solipsism.

For example. communism is an economic system. There are many uneducated people who mistakenly call it an ideology, but it is just their sheer ignorance of economics that allows them fall for their own lies. You can't just brand every philosophy you don't like an "ideology" because that's what your dimwitted brain came up with. Naturalism has nothing to do with forming political or economic policy. It is not a system of ideas, but rather the rejection of your irrational beings. Anyone who has studied philosophy understands instantly that you're just flinging made-up shit to see if it sticks. You're an intellectually dishonest fraud desperately trying to rationalize your irrational beliefs.

>>140124805
>please educate yourself
Unique DNA is not the only qualification for a person.

File: Getting a little too all powerful for this.png (9KB, 510x546px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 510x546px

>>140125687
>Theist oppose it by creating their own existential nihilism.

This is you literally making new definitions for terms you have already defined so you can still make your point.

You ignore that the big promise of Christianity isn't the arrival at a new place or existence in a nice disembodied state but literally a resurrection of the dead. They aren't rejecting this world is what they seek is a return to it.

>No the atheist realizes the value of existence is subjective and all morality is man-made, i.e. subjective. So there is no "objective" morality, and any idiots claiming there is are petty liars.

Yes, and existential nihilists say there is no objective meaning or purpose and moral nihilists state there is no objective morality. And atheists as you define them fit that exactly. So atheists are nihilists by your view.

>False and false. Here's why...

I'm arguing what those individual theistic systems believe, not the factual reality of it. We are discussing the views of theistic systems. Your view that Christianity is nihilistic or Christians are nihilistic fail to meet your own requirements.

>>140126702
>No already born person has the rights to take away the right of other already born persons. Yep. That's clarity right right there.

What? You're contradicting yourself. You already saidmultiple times that rights are unalienable.

>Offspring that hasn't sprung off yet?

Sure, if you wish to be poetic. It is factually true. You can't deny science away.

>unborn as scientific term

In what other sense does it exist? It's literally a term about the biological relation of the subject.

>>140127793
Depends on your belief then.
According to Christianity, God made us in His image, and we are perfectly relatable with Him. If Christ was His true human avatar, then this is absolutely proven.

On the night Christ foresaw his death on the cross, he was sweating and shaking and prayed to the Father if there was another way they could accomplish their goals, but if there was no other way, he would commit to this fate.

A lot of people overlook this part and think of Him as this inhuman cattle that just came here and willingly led himself to being slaughtered. It's not true. He did not want to be tortured and killed in a gruesome way, but He "manned" up and did it because He had to.

If you don't believe in it, then yes, none of it matters to you. But for Christians, God is a relatable God. Why would he even create us if he was indifferent to us? Why give us the capacity for love if it is conceptually foreign to Him?

>>140127076
>drug dealer can't read
Not surprising.

File: 3P2tRcv.jpg (29KB, 500x587px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x587px

>>140128180
The hat meme works (and still works) because it's true though. Everyone remembers that 1 guy in high school that wore fedoras and hated Christianity. Sometimes there was a gang of them too. The fedora lords that hated religion.

For the rest of us, it was like "dang, so that's what God does to you when you reject Him. He turns you into an autistic sperglord."

>>140125008
>look in the Old Testament where God commands His followers to destroy entire peoples
The 100,000 people of Canaan Valley the gods supposedly commanded the ancient Israelites to slaughter were other Semitic tribes. Look at their DNA, they were male-line genetically related to everyone they presumably killed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Jews

They weren't muslims or even African arabs, they were fellow jews.

File: Jack3.jpg (61KB, 784x522px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 784x522px

>>140128385
>Naturalism has nothing to do with forming political or economic policy.

No shit.

>It is not a system of ideas, but rather the rejection of your irrational beings.

No, it is an actual substantial belief. Everything arising from natural properties and causes is a very big claim to which naturalists put much work into and have done for centuries. To say their work was to just reject "irrational beings" does them no justice and no justice to the claim. This is more apparent when naturalism doesn't speak about just "beings" but rejects the supernatural in other instances as well. For instance, substance dualism. And it is a system as it itself breaks into parts encompassing different fields. Metaphysical Naturalism, Biological Naturalism, and the like.

>Anyone who has studied philosophy understands instantly that you're just flinging made-up shit to see if it sticks. You're an intellectually dishonest fraud desperately trying to rationalize your irrational beliefs.

I honestly don't understand why you give so much of a damn about semantics. "It's not an ideology, it's a philosophy". Why is that so important to focus on for you? Are ideologies bad in your opinion and philosophies good or something? Do you think I'm talking shit of naturalism or something? You're really freaking out for no good reason.

>>140128583
>the big promise of Christianity ... literally a resurrection of the dead.
Oh, like the dead who rose from their graves and walked the streets in the book of Matthew? And you think being a nihilist is a poor choice?

>So atheists are nihilists by your view.
Atheists are non-believers in made up gods. Nothing more.

Our brains and skulls have evolved in ways that strongly promote the ability to reason, however we can "suspend disbelief" to engage in brief flights of fantasy. We needed our imaginations to be able to hypothesize and plan ahead. We needed to be able to speculate on the movements of herds, etc. Irrational thinking has some utility for very short periods and our brains are well suited for it. However, we are not meant to suspend our disbelief for long periods of time. Living in delusions and daydreams would have been the fastest path to Darwinian death.

Your irrational beliefs for extended periods are having a profound and deleterious effect on your brain's chemistry. Holding mutually exclusive concepts without question or scrutiny creates a harmful cognitive dissonance. The long term strain of this deliberate dissonance damages your ability to think rationally. It even causes insane beliebers to spout patently ridiculous nonsense like, "The universe was created by a magic sky daddy" and "Atheism is a religion", etc. Atheism is only the non-belief in made-up gods. Any other definition is falsified and a clear symptom of severe brain damage.

You're desperately trying to associate atheism with something that atheism is not. Anyone with critical thinking skills and a rational mind can see that.

>>140129476
They are also probably the predecessors of secular Jews. Reminder that's it's secular Jews that push for liberalism, feminism, gender-bending, etc. The OT is filled with God punishing the Jews when they started getting degenerate. I hope the trend continues (I hope even more-so that we've reached the end, and these truly are the final days where God dumps those satanists into hellfire for good).

>>140130547
There are people that have had religious experiences to the point they can no longer rationally deny God's existence (not unless they are liars to others and themselves). If religion is purely Darwinian, then it wouldn't be so common place all over the world among humanity, not unless it has promoted survivability to have been continually selected like it has, so perhaps you are the devolved one.

File: Smirkin.png (38KB, 274x273px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 274x273px

>>140130547
>And you think being a nihilist is a poor choice?

The topic was if Christianity was nihilist. You made the claim that Christians are "the real nihilists" and that atheists were not nihilists. Now you're arguing nihilism is not a bad choice?

Reddit, you're being fucking stupid.

>Atheists are non-believers in made up gods. Nothing more.


No shit. I stated that here >>140121705 in response to you attributing views to atheists besides lacking belief in deities. This is why I give the qualifier in the quote you say that atheists are nihilists "by your view" because you keep attributing views to atheists. You're not consistent, and now you're literally arguing against yourself but attributing your previous views to me.

>all this random conjecture about how theism comes about

You're obviously very uneducated of what you speak of but please do not get off track. The topic if nihilism in relation to theists and atheists, not how you think theists are stupid. Given as I'm a staunch theist and you are a staunch atheist you're not making a good case in practice, anyway.

>>140129593
>I honestly don't understand why you give so much of a damn about semantics.
Words have meanings. You desperately try to change the meanings of well-established words to make your irrational beliefs appear rational. I'm rightly pointing out that this is the major flaw in your feeble attempts to argue.

Abortion has 10,000 years of law, language, religion science, culture and tradition that support it. You have conjecture, misrepresentation and misogyny to oppose it.

>Everything arising from natural properties and causes is a very big claim to which naturalists put much work into and have done for centuries.
Yet you seem to sum it all up as simply an "ideology" when it clearly is not, any more than a mathematician who cannot solve an equation simply puts gods as a factor and poof, it's solved.
i.e. 2 + 2 = 5(god) [This is not a valid equation]

> Are ideologies bad in your opinion and philosophies good or something?
No, but if you can't point to naturalism policies or economics, then you're doing yourself an injustice by imagining naturalism is an ideology. I'm being terse because the whole idea is so utterly preposterous.

>>140116985
>all babies that died in human history are God's fault
you don't realize how stupid that is?

>>140132533
>all
when did i say that?
i only said those killed by natural disasters and also those aborted because lecviticus ordered people to do so

>>140107855
Militant atheism has died down because it's cringe tier and it was founded upon being against something. A movement can not survive on negativity (being only opposition) alone.
It also went against low hanging fruit. Just look at Jordan Peterson's "debate" with those Canadian atheists. He blows them out of the water because he doesn't accept the box they put him in. The redpill is inherently spiritual as well as political. Nu-atheism, aka Marxist materialism, can not stand against real spirituality and questions of meaning.

>>140107855
>if you accept a state/ideology which has led to any death ever then you can not stand for human rights
It's a nice post hoc fallacy.

>>140132973
Not to mention Passover. Literally "Smear lambs blood on the door or I kill your kid lmao". Christian God is a piece of shit.

File: A man is drowning 2.jpg (356KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 1366x768px

>>140131124
>There are people that have had religious experiences to the point they can no longer rationally deny God's existence
You say "rationally", but you know that all beliefs are irrational. Experiences are anecdotal evidence, making them a kind of fallacy. Fallacies are not proof for anyone else and meaningless as a rule.

>If religion is purely Darwinian
It is the opposite of Darwinian. Natural selection is the observation of nature. Religion forces us to go against our nature. For example, we are born naked. The Abrahamic gods say that people should go against our nature and wear clothes, but not clothes of two different types of thread because that is evil.


>then it wouldn't be so common place all over the world among humanity
Using imaginary gods to control the minds of the people was successful because people were ignorant and easily fooled. In fact it still works on those who still are.

>not unless it has promoted survivability to have been continually selected like it has,
Never underestimate the power of large groups of stupid people.

>so perhaps you are the devolved one.
I have considered that, but it in retrospect, I seem to make good decisions without including the advice of fairies, ghosts and other supernatural beings. I don't merely accept the world the way it is, I'm working diligently to make it better for everyone I can.

File: Maid of Orleans.jpg (165KB, 960x495px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 960x495px

>>140131597
>Words have meanings. You desperately try to change the meanings of well-established words to make your irrational beliefs appear rational. I'm rightly pointing out that this is the major flaw in your feeble attempts to argue.

I used the definitions of the words we speak about. How does calling naturalism an ideology make it appear irrational or its opposition rational? Where the fuck are you getting any of this?

>Abortion has 10,000 years of law, language, religion science, culture and tradition that support it.

What the fuck is this stupid statement. We have no records of cultures 10,000 years ago. We know 8,500 years ago that mesopotamian cultures at least existed and know the Indus Valley Civilization existed about 6000 years ago. We have no idea what they held until much earlier. The earliest coherent writing is about 4500 years ago.

The oldest known teachings involving abortion is the Vedas and Assyrian Law that rejected it. Regardless, there are methods from that era that show they knew of methods to kill the child. Abortion was accepted in ancient Greece and Rome and rejected in every other instance in western history until the early 20th century when eugenics became popular. Likewise, it was rejected in most other places in the world.

You have no idea what the fuck you talk about. You're making shit up. And, hell, I summarized the contrary view right here for you >>140115443 Reddit. Where is the conjecture, misrepresentation, and misogyny? All you say in defense is the polar opposite point without argument.
>Yet you seem to sum it all up as simply an "ideology" when it clearly is not, any more than a mathematician who cannot solve an equation simply puts gods as a factor and poof, it's solved.


No one but you is saying that "systems of ideas and ideals" must work like this.


Actually come at me with an argument, Reddit. Stop hiding behind rhetoric.

>>140108318
God doesn't kill people. People kill people.

>>140131413
>The topic was if Christianity was nihilist.
Yes, we decided that all eschatological religions (including Christianity) are existentially nihilist.

>You made the claim that Christians are "the real nihilists"
They really are, but they're too dumb to see it. So I spelled it out for you.

>and that atheists were not nihilists.
I never said that. I said it's OK for atheists to be nihilist in the existential sense that this world is all they have and that their relative morality is far superior to the ones that arbitrarily kill to please their gods.

>Now you're arguing nihilism is not a bad choice?
It seems to be the one you're desperately avoiding. I'd rather have my real nihilism than the one you're pretending is "objective morality".

>>140131413
>I keep attributing non-atheist views to atheists
You keep attributing non-atheist views to atheists. And I keep pointing it out. And you keep getting butthurt. And then you whine about it again in yet another brain-dead post.

>you think theists are stupid
Well, if your irrational posts are any indication, yes they are quite retarded. IRL I've met much smarter theists who do a much better job presenting their cases, but most of them are educated and intelligent.

>>140117168
God will know you're not genuine before you get hit by that car. :)

>>140133364
>You say "rationally", but you know that all beliefs are irrational. Experiences are anecdotal evidence, making them a kind of fallacy. Fallacies are not proof for anyone else and meaningless as a rule.

The "fallacies" are a fallacy in themselves. The slippery slope, for example, can and does exist and can be a valid point of argument. "Anecdotal evidence" doesn't matter to the one receiving it. If God has designed the world, then it's rational to consider He's hidden Himself from those He deems unworthy, and He is only "personally" provable, because that is how God prefers it to be.

Not all belief is irrational. You believe the floor underneath you won't suddenly disappear, that is a rational belief.

>It is the opposite of Darwinian. Natural selection is the observation of nature. Religion forces us to go against our nature. For example, we are born naked. The Abrahamic gods say that people should go against our nature and wear clothes, but not clothes of two different types of thread because that is evil.

Why do you believe it is unnatural to wear clothing? Just because you are born naked doesn't mean you must remain naked.

>Using imaginary gods to control the minds of the people was successful because people were ignorant and easily fooled. In fact it still works on those who still are.

Yes, there are people that use humanity's susceptibility towards religion to mind control them. That doesn't rule out all religion though.

>Never underestimate the power of large groups of stupid people.

You said religion was "the fastest path to Darwinian death." Why then is it mostly religious people that find marriage and have children?

>I have considered that, but it in retrospect, I seem to make good decisions without including the advice of fairies, ghosts and other supernatural beings. I don't merely accept the world the way it is, I'm working diligently to make it better for everyone I can.

I... respect that.

File: Its Always True.jpg (316KB, 612x792px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 612x792px

>>140134336
>Yes, we decided that all eschatological religions (including Christianity) are existentially nihilist.

Please don't lie. That is not how our conversation went on.

>They really are, but they're too dumb to see it. So I spelled it out for you.

And I had refuted it. And you had yet to come up with an effective counterresponse.

>I never said that. I said it's OK for atheists to be nihilist in the existential sense that this world is all they have and that their relative morality is far superior to the ones that arbitrarily kill to please their gods.

You said: "The theists are the real nihilists. They eschew our real world for an imaginary one". This would imply that the atheists are not. Further, you attest to atheists as having the opposite view of that you attribute to "real nihilism", effectively making them not the nihilists.

Stop lying to me.

>It seems to be the one you're desperately avoiding.

I try not to focus on what I want to be true but rather what I know is true. That's why I'm a theist. And nihilism would lead to a lot of confusing view. Primarily the Problem of Intentionality.

>You keep attributing non-atheist views to atheists

I said the exact opposite statement and gave evidence to express it. Stop lying to me.

Stop being so disingenuous.

>>140134108
>How does calling naturalism an ideology make it appear irrational
It's not an ideology. Why would you call it something it is not unless you really don't know any better, or you really like using "idelology" as a weird smear.

>We have no records of cultures 10,000 years ago. We know 8,500 years ago that mesopotamian cultures at least existed
So, any laws against abortion? Any public executions for women taking care of their own business? No? I was off by 1500 years and that's your big argument?

>The oldest known teachings involving abortion is the Vedas and Assyrian Law that rejected it
Some cultures rejected it. Mao Tse-tung banned abortion in China. Look at their populations today.

> rejected in every other instance in western history
The Catholic and Protestant churches knew that the best congregant was the child of congregant parents. The most reliable way to expand the congregation and the size of the tithing dish was to make contraception a sin and promote unlimited childbirth. Look at the Mormons, can't have your own planet until you have seven kids.

The problem is that banning contraception has led to STD pandemics in Africa and India. India now has the 3rd largest AIDS epidemic in the world. Hey, weren't those the guys who banned abortion?

>Where is the conjecture, misrepresentation, and misogyny?
All the posts with [OTToJ4mi] as the ID

>>140107855
>God kills babies
>Therefore so must I
Ever heard of "don't play God"?

>>140135391
>If God has designed the world, then it's rational to consider
You have to prove this supernatural being exists before anything you say about it can be "rational".

>Not all belief is irrational. You believe the floor underneath you won't suddenly disappear, that is a rational belief.
It's not a "belief". It's based on knowledge. You know if the floor is solid, built on a slab, etc. But I live in Florida, where the floor underneath us does occasionally and suddenly disappears

God made humans, so he is able to destroy them.

>>140136850
There are people that believe in God just like they believe in the floor underneath them. Invite God into your life and try to find out.

God is a fictional character.
Religion is a man-made creation designed to manipulate and control human behavior.

I am an atheist, militant atheist still exist, only that muslims are a bigger threat worldwide.

Catholics do run some shit, but muslims WILL shatter little secularism we have. And they do it by actually socializing secular laws we have.

Between civic nationalism, comunism or a theocracy, we will side with civic nationalism all the way.

BTW, there's a lot of jewing in atheism (because jews can claim cultural/racial atheism while siding with us atheists, and they have a big place in academia).

Don't forget there's a lot of atheists disfranchised with a lot of the things we are fighting (and kekistan is some of that bullshit).

At it seems, we will be used to have the "rational side" sponsor, and then left out.

finally someone who gets it

File: Anime St Teresa of Avila.jpg (142KB, 719x800px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 719x800px

>>140136059
>It's not an ideology. Why would you call it something it is not unless you really don't know any better, or you really like using "idelology" as a weird smear.

Because I understand it as a system of ideas and ideals. I could have used "view" or something else and it wouldn't change. You're literally imagining a smear. I mean absolutely nothing by calling it an ideology. There is nothing wrong with ideologies. You're acting ridiculous.

>So, any laws against abortion?

We don't know what they had as a legal system, if they had a state at all. That's the point. You said there was 10k years of support for a view when there wasn't any idea what people's culture were in ANY regard until 6k years ago and our earliest known recognition of abortion is the penalizing of it with the Vedas AS I JUST TOLD YOU. Can you read? You're looking for pockets of western history that support your view to make a claim for it having widespread historical support.

>Some cultures rejected it. Mao Tse-tung banned abortion in China. Look at their populations today.

No abortions were banned and large families and the motherly duty to raise many was heavily shown and promoted. Banning abortion without seeking large families but sustainable families can be seen in the Christian west and was much more successful naturally.

>The Catholic and Protestant churches knew that the best congregant was the child of congregant parents. The most reliable way to expand the congregation and the size of the tithing dish was to make contraception a sin and promote unlimited childbirth. Look at the Mormons, can't have your own planet until you have seven kids.

So this conspiracy theory is why Christianity banned abortion in the 1st century when they were still a small marginalized group? You're just making shit up now.

part 1/2

File: Based Sarah.jpg (31KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 500x500px

>>140137851
part 2/2

>The problem is that banning contraception has led to STD pandemics in Africa and India. India now has the 3rd largest AIDS epidemic in the world. Hey, weren't those the guys who banned abortion?


Nope! India allows abortion up to 21 weeks of pregnancy.

In regards to Africa and AIDS:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html

In many parts of Africa, having lots of children is a sign of social status. Condoms don't help when they SEEK lots of children. Further, condoms have had made the situation with aids worse due to a rise in risk compensation and the implicit support of open relationships that come with it. Monogamy, shutting down sex networks, and promotion NFP methods is the most effective means of controlling the population and promoting good social health and has worked. Unlike the ABC Strategy in Africa.

File: m1_2012[1].jpg (792KB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

792KB, 2000x2000px

>>140135391
>Why do you believe it is unnatural to wear clothing?
No other mammals wear them.

>Just because you are born naked doesn't mean you must remain naked.
Perhaps, but I find it odd that the supposed creator of the Crab Nebula would micromanage my wardrobe.

>religion to mind control them. That doesn't rule out all religion though.
We are mistakenly told ITT religion is supposed to be the source of all objective morality. Morality is the set of the rules by which people live. If the religion has a god that enforces the morality, then mind control is the goal.

>Why then is it mostly religious people that find marriage and have children?
For thousands of year no one lived in a non-religious world where they had any choice. We don't really know that a non-religious world would be like except episodes of Star Trek.

File: Paper_Stalin.png (144KB, 300x513px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 300x513px

I'm an atheist who opposes abortion.

Stalin, another atheist, outlawed abortion in the USSR.

>>140107855
>Also, does it seem like online militant atheism has died down in recent years, or is that just me?
It has, because atheist community started getting infested with what ended up becoming the SJW shit.

BTW, remember that a lot of commies will side with atheists because they have to destroy "gods" and affiliations that are not state regulated.

Do not equate the belief of communism with the lack of belief in gods. Some of us are trying our best to keep these guys out, but they're just using atheism as a shelter.

>>140107855

>does it seem like online militant atheism has died down in recent years

The online atheist movement was born out of the fear that fringe groups like young earthers would be able to use the internet as a platform to peddle their wares to unsuspecting people if it weren't for a vanguard of rationalists calling them out. Once it became pretty clear that internet people aren't that credulous, they moved onto greener pastures, namely SJWs. Only the most euphoric people give a shit what personal beliefs people hold so long as they're not manifesting on the civic level. The only issues that are strongly related are gay marriage and abortion, the former now being a dead issue, and the latter being to easy to secularize to attack through an atheist lens.

>>140138294
>i'm an atheist
No you are not. You are a communist.

File: 1499034920709.jpg (48KB, 487x500px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 487x500px

God being real may not be a scientific truth but it is in a metaphysical scene, you can not believe in god and still follow the teachings of Jesus. The bible is more of a way for you to know how to morally conduct yourself.

>>140138074
>For thousands of year no one lived in a non-religious world where they had any choice. We don't really know that a non-religious world would be like except episodes of Star Trek.

Religion didn't form out of thin air, anon. People were spiritual before there was organized religion. So for thousands of years, it was the capacity for spirituality that was being selected. Otherwise, it would have been phased out.

>>140108172

If only their argument were that coherent. What they're actually saying is 'how could a God who allows so many babies to die in infancy every year be against abortion?'